Bluff Point Coastal Adaptation Planning FAQs
The following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been compiled to provide important background information on the project. Any new questions arising during the project will be added. Should you have any questions that are not answered below, please submit them by completing the Question/Feedback Form
QUESTIONS
What is the project about?
Who's involved in the project?
Why are coastal adaptation options being explored for Bluff Point?
What are coastal hazards?
What is the main coastal hazard at Bluff Point?
Why do we need to adapt to coastal erosion when the Bluff Point shoreline hasn't changed in years and doesn’t appear to be eroding?
Why isn’t the Bluff Point coastline that comprises sand, reef and rock viewed as a ‘mixed sandy and rocky coast’ that would erode slower than the CHRMAP coastal hazard lines indicate?
Who has been engaged with?
How have the stakeholders been engaged?
How has their input been used?
What is multi-criteria analysis?
What were the four prioritised stakeholder social sub criteria used in the MCA?
What were the six concept adaptation options?
Why is 'managed retreat' being considered?
Why aren’t the surfing opportunities artificial reefs create mentioned as a benefit in this adaptation option?
Who is assessing the adaptation options?
What is a Cost Benefit Analysis?
What is a Benefit Distribution Analysis?
Will area residents be required to help fund the coastal adaptation in the form of rates?
How will we know when it’s time to take action to adapt to coastal erosion?
Has the Beresford Foreshore Project set a precedent?
Who paid for the Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection works?
How long will the project take?
Who makes the final decision on which coastal adaptation measure will be implemented?
Who is funding the project?
Who do I contact about the project?
Questions
What is the project about?
This project is focussing on coastal adaptation planning for the Bluff Point locality. Its aim is to identify a long-term adaptation pathway to manage the impacts of coastal hazards at Bluff Point. The long-term adaptation pathway will allow timely decision making for planning an on-ground actions to manage the coastal hazard.
Who's involved in the project?
City officers are leading the project together with coastal engineering specialist (M P Rogers), Community Engagement specialists (361 Degrees) and environment economic specialist (Aither). A Project Steering Committee comprising representatives from the City, Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH), Department of Transport (DOT), and two local community members has also been established to oversee the project. (back)
Why are coastal adaptation options being explored for Bluff Point?
The City completed its Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning (CHRMAP) report in 2018. Whilst this report provided a general managed retreat pathway for the Bluff Point locality, the report recommended that the City should investigate whether there is a preferred adaptation pathway from the following approaches: managed retreat, do nothing or protect. On completion of this project the CHRMAP report recommends that the preferred adaptation pathway is presented to Council for formal endorsement.
What are coastal hazards?
The coastline is a dynamic zone where the atmosphere, ocean and land interact. Waves, tides, ocean currents and wind all contribute energy to form and shape the coast over short, medium and long-term time scales. Coastal hazards are coastal processes that have the potential to impact social and environmental values and damage infrastructure assets. (back)
What is the main coastal hazard at Bluff Point?
The City’s CHRMAP report identified erosion as the main coastal hazard impacting Bluff Point. This report identified that a number of City, State and community assets are at risk between now and 2030. This means important adaptation decisions are likely to be made at Bluff Point sooner rather than later.
Why do we need to adapt to coastal erosion when the Bluff Point shoreline hasn't changed in years and doesn’t appear to be eroding?
The coastal erosion hazard lines were determined based on the methodology required by the WA State Planning Policy SPP2.6 which is generally conservative. This methodology mandatorily requires significant allowances, of up to 110 m for example, for sea level rise and uncertainty to be included. As a result these hazard lines project a significant distance inland. These lines are considered a representation of the potential erosion risk for planning purposes, not a prediction of erosion. In this regard, it is expected that the coastal adaptation would involve an adaptive management approach whereby the shoreline is monitored and management actions are implemented based on actual experienced changes rather than required allowances. (back)
Why isn’t the Bluff Point coastline that comprises sand, reef and rock viewed as a ‘mixed sandy and rocky coast’ that would erode slower than the CHRMAP coastal hazard lines indicate?
The State Planning Policy SPP2.6 requires 'mixed sandy and rocky coasts' to be treated as ‘sandy coasts’ when calculating the coastal hazard lines. The City completed geophysical investigations in 2019 to identified locations of rock on the Bluff Point coastline. The investigation found that rock was not extensive enough to be able to provide a reduction in the coastal hazard lines.(back)
Who has been engaged with?
The project team has been engaging with key stakeholders who have been identified as those who would be directly impacted by coastal erosion and include private and government agencies whose property and/or infrastructure is located on the ocean side of the 2110 coastal erosion hazard line. Local community and environmental groups, area schools and sporting groups who frequently use the foreshore were also identified as stakeholders. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here
How have stakeholders been engaged?
Four activities have been undertaken:
- Webinar
- Coastal values survey
- Drop-in sessions
- Online feedback
The webinar took place in October 2024 and provided an overview of the coastal adaptation process and some initial considerations for shaping the design and development of coastal adaptation options for Bluff Point. It also gave stakeholders the opportunity to confirm if community and environmental values for the coast identified during the City’s CHRMAP process had changed or if more needed to be added.
A coastal assets survey was conducted in October/November 2024 to test and validate community values regarding the Bluff Point coast identified in previous consultations as well as capturing any additional values missing from the existing list.
In December 2024, six concept adaptation options developed by the coastal engineers were presented to project stakeholders at drop-in sessions. Feedback on the concepts was sought and input gathered on the social sub criteria to be utilised in the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) of these options. To ensure equity and enable those who couldn’t attend the sessions to provide their feedback all relevant information on the concept options was published on the project webpage and an online feedback form provided. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here (back)
How has their input been used?
The results of the coastal assets survey informed the development of nine social sub criteria that were prioritised by stakeholders during the drop-in sessions and in the online feedback form. The top four sub criteria were used in the MCA of the six concept adaptation options. Feedback gathered on the concept options will help inform the design of the preferred adaptation option. Read the Stakeholder Engagement Report here
What is multi-criteria analysis?
For this project the MCA involves assessing different coastal adaptation options against a wide range of factors including community, social, and environmental values, effectiveness, feasibility and cost. These factors are weighted by importance and each adaptation option is scored against these factors to identify a preferred (most beneficial) option across all criteria. (back)
What were the four prioritised stakeholder social sub criteria used in the MCA?
- Protecting homes and infrastructure
- Protecting sand dunes/coastal vegetation
- Retaining foreshore areas for active recreation
- Ensuring easy access to the beach
What were the six concept adaptation options?
The six options were:
- Option 1A – Seawall (protect)
- Option 1B – Seawall (retreat and protect)
- Option 2 – Groynes, headlands and seawall (protect)
- Option 3 – Managed retreat
- Option 4 – Artificial reefs
- Option 5 – Do nothing (reactive retreat)
Why is ‘managed retreat’ being considered?
While managed retreat, an option that involves progressively removing assets and infrastructure that are subject to intolerable risk of damage from coastal hazards, is something the project is required to consider, it is not necessarily required to implement it. (back)
Why aren’t the surfing opportunities artificial reefs create mentioned as a benefit for this adaptation option?
Surfing and coastal protection are fundamentally different functions for submerged artificial reefs. For example artificial reefs for coastal protection aim to reduce incoming wave energy as much as possible (i.e. maximum wave breaking) to maximise coastal protection and tombolo/salient formation on the shoreline, whereas surfing reefs aim to induce a wave to break for surfability. Public safety is also relevant (i.e. the top of the artificial reefs for protection should sit as close to the water surface as possible - which may be a concern in regard to injuries).
Who is assessing the adaptation options?
The Project Steering Committee utilised the MCA to score the six concept options. Environment economic specialist (Aither) will be undertaking a cost benefit analysis and a benefit distribution analysis of the two preferred coastal adaptation options. The BDA is a State Government requirement.
What is a Cost Benefit Analysis?
For this project, a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) process helps determine if the potential benefits of the two preferred adaptation options outweigh the associated costs. It does so by first determining all relevant costs (direct, indirect, tangible and ongoing) and the benefits (direct, indirect, tangible and ongoing). Monetary values are then assigned to both costs and benefits, even if they are not directly monetary (i.e. quality of life). The total costs are then compared with the total benefits and based on the comparison; a determination can be made on the worthiness of the adaptation option. (back)
What is a Benefit Distribution Analysis?
For this project, a Benefit Distribution Analysis (BDA) involves assessing how the benefits of the adaptation option is distributed among local community, businesses, City and state government entities, and other key stakeholders. It can also be used to financially model the costs of chosen adaptation responses based on the beneficiary pays principle, meaning those that benefit from adaptation responses, in particular protection works, will need to help fund their construction and ongoing maintenance. This is a requirement of the DPLH to ensure that the long term adaptation pathway not only addresses the coastal hazards but also delivers value to the community as a whole.
Will area residents be required to help fund the coastal adaptation in the form of rates?
The final decision on how the costs of the coastal adaptation works will be distributed amongst the beneficiaries will ultimately be determined by Council. The results of this planning process will play a critical role in helping secure grant funding to undertake future Bluff Point coastal adaptation projects. Across Australia, some local governments have adopted the BDA financial modelling and others have not. (back)
How will we know when it’s time to take action to adapt to coastal erosion?
The adaptive coastal management approach includes coastal monitoring and trigger points which would identify when adaptation actions need to be made. These triggers will vary depending on the nature and intent of the selected adaptation option. For example, a trigger for when to retreat elements of a park may differ from a trigger for when to construct a seawall or offshore headland. Triggers take into account the adaptive capacity of assets to tolerate or withstand a hazard. For example, the impact to a foreshore dune from coastal erosion has a lower risk than the impact to a wastewater pump station due to the greater adaptive capacity of the foredune.
Has the Beresford Foreshore Project set a precedent?
Each coastal adaptation project is assessed on its individual merits, and the requirements of any grant funding opportunities. Support tools like the BDA and MCA are increasingly being used to guide the decision-making process. (back)
Who paid for the Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection works?
The $23.1 million Beresford Foreshore Coastal Protection Works and Enhancement Project completed in 2018, was jointly funded by the State Government through the Royalties for Regions Grants Scheme, the Mid West Development Commission and the Mid West Ports Authority with the City contributing $1.8 million in funding towards amenities. The business case for the grant submission did not require a Benefit Distribution Analysis to be completed. Back
How long will the project take?
The project is scheduled for completion in 2025.
Who makes the final decision on which coastal adaptation measure will be implemented?
The Bluff Point Coastal Adaptation Options Report which will contain the results of the stakeholder and community engagement and recommendations regarding the preferred coastal adaptation option will be presented to Council for decision-making. (back)
Who is funding the project?
This project is funded by the Western Australian Planning Commission through the Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program.
Who do I contact about the project?
If you can’t find the answer you’re looking for, complete a Questions/Feedback Form or contact the City’s Customer Contact Centre at (08) 9956 6600 or by email at council@cgg.wa.gov.au. (back)