Draft Richmond Valley Flood Risk Management Study & Plan 2026
and
Draft Richmond Valley Development Control Plan 2021 (Transitional Flood Provision) Amendment
Richmond Valley Council is seeking community feedback on the-
- Draft Richmond Valley Flood Risk Management Study & Plan (Draft Risk Plan), and
- Draft Richmond Valley Development Control Plan 2021 (Transitional Flood Provision) Amendment (Draft DCP Amendment).
The Draft Risk Plan has been prepared in line with the NSW Flood Policy and NSW Flood Risk Management Manual and examines current & future flood risk while providing information and understanding of flood behaviour to mitigate, manage and/or adapt to the impacts of flooding.
A number of options to manage flood risk were investigated by the study with recommendations on their implementation. These are broadly grouped into:
- Flood Modification Options—physical engineered solutions designed to alter flood behaviour
- Property Modification Options—modifications to existing buildings and the imposition of planning controls
- Response Modification Options—aimed at increasing the ability for people and emergency services to respond appropriately in times of flood through education & awareness and having enhanced flood warning & evacuation procedures.
The Draft Risk Plan will be exhibited with a Draft DCP Amendment which aims to retain the existing Flood Planning Controls as a transitional arrangement until new controls can be developed under the Flood Planning Constraint Category (FPCC) framework.
The Draft Risk Plan and Draft DCP Amendment will be open for community feedback from Tuesday, 5 May 2026 until Monday, 8 June 2026. Documentation associated with these drafts will be available for inspection via the “On Exhibition” page of Council’s Website – www.richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au .
Any person may make written submissions during the exhibition period. Submissions should be addressing to the General Manager and sent by:
- post to—Richmond Valley Council, Locked Bag 10, CASINO NSW 2470, or
- email to—council@richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au , or
- on-line—completing an on-line submission form, or
- hand to—Council’s Customer Service Centres at Casino or Evans Head.
Community Drop-in Information Sessions
Council will be joined by representatives from BMT consulting, who prepared the Draft Risk Plan, for four (4) community drop-in information sessions to be held at-
- Evans Head Library Meeting Room, Woodburn Street Evans Head—Wednesday, 20 May 2026 from 10am to 1pm.
- Coraki CWA Rooms Richmond Terrace Coraki—Wednesday, 20 May 2026 from 3pm to 6pm.
- Casino Community and Cultural Centre, Walker Street Casino—Thursday, 21 May 2026 from 9am to 11am, and
- Woodburn Community Building, River Street Woodburn—Thursday, 21 May 2026 from 1pm to 3pm.
For all enquiries, please contact Council on (02) 66600300.
Summary of the Draft Flood Risk Management Plan
The Draft Plan will be publicly exhibited from Tuesday, 5 May 2026 until Monday, 8 June 2026.
Submissions – Any person may make a written submission during the exhibition period by sending it to Richmond Valley Council by:
* Post to: – Locked Bag 10 Casino NSW 2470
* Email: – council@richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au
* Hand delivery: – at either of Council’s Customer Service Centres in Casino and Evans Head.
* Online: – Through the submission page on our website
What the Draft Plan is about
The Draft Plan examines flooding across the Richmond Valley Local Government Area (LGA) and sets out how flood risk should be understood, managed, and reduced over time. It is based on the latest flood modelling contained within the Richmond Valley Flood Study 2023, climate change guidance, and Flood Risk Management policy. It aims to support better land-use planning, improve emergency response, and prioritise practical flood risk management actions to better manage, mitigate and adapt to flooding.
The Richmond Valley and its flood problem
The Richmond Valley LGA is located within one of the largest coastal river systems in NSW. Towns such as Casino, Coraki, Woodburn, Broadwater, Rappville, and Evans Head are located on a broad, low-lying floodplain. Flooding in the Valley is typically slow-moving but long-lasting. Water spreads across a very wide floodplain and drains slowly due to natural constraints near Broadwater and the coast. This leads to long periods of inundation, early road closures, and significant isolation of communities during large floods.
How flood risk was studied
An advanced computer flood model was used to simulate ten different flood events, ranging from frequent floods to the largest possible flood. The modelling incorporates updated LiDAR ground height data, bathymetric river surveys, rainfall estimates, dam and levee failure scenarios, and climate change allowances.
This provides a detailed picture of where floodwaters go, how deep they become, how fast and in what direction they are flowing, and how dangerous conditions are across the Richmond Valley.
What the study found
Flooding presents a significant and ongoing risk throughout the Richmond Valley. In the worst possible flood (the Probable Maximum Flood or PMF) more than 5,700 buildings would be flooded above floor level. In a 1%AEP (or 1 in 100 year ARI) flood event around 1,350 buildings would experience above-floor flooding.
Average annual flood damage is estimated at about $20.6 million. Damage increases sharply in larger floods, particularly in Coraki, Woodburn and Broadwater, where flood depths and hazards increase substantially.
The Defined Flood Event for planning
The study confirmed the continued use of the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event, plus climate change allowances and a 500mm freeboard, as the basis for land-use planning. This is known as the Defined Flood Event (DFE) and aligns with NSW planning policy.
The study also recognised that much larger floods occur and must be addressed through emergency planning and community preparedness.
Assessment of Climate Change
Although there is considerable uncertainty associated with impacts from climate change, it is important to have an understanding of the potential impacts climate change may have on flood risk. Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 recommends focusing on potential changes in rainfall intensity and sea level rise for the assessment of likely impacts from climate change. The study has adopted a climate change allowance of 10% increase in rainfall and a 900mm allowance for sea level rise (which closely aligns with the SSP2-4.5 climate change scenario).
FPCC Framework
The Draft Plan recommends adoption of the Flood Planning Constraint Category (FPCC) framework to guide safe development decisions. The purpose of this framework is to distinguish areas suitable for more intensive development from those where constraints are significant. Compared to the Floodplain Hazard Categories currently used, the FPCC framework enables clearer differentiation of risk levels and more targeted development regulation.
This framework consists of a map which classifies land into four (4) categories (FPCC1 having extreme flood risk, FPCC2 having high flood risk, FPCC3 having medium flood risk, and FPCC4 having low flood risk). These categories are defined (see Table 1) according to flood extent, hazard, frequency, evacuation risk, flood function, flood planning areas and emergency response considerations across a range of flood frequencies to derive a single map – see figure 1. This draft FPCC mapping is available to view on Council’s Intramaps Spatial Viewer.
An amendment will ultimately be made to the Development Control Plan to incorporate an FPCC Flood Planning Control matrix which will guide what development types are suitable within each of the FPCC categories (and sub-categories) and to define the appropriate development standards for example the minimum floor level. A sample FPCC Flood Planning Control matrix is provided at Figure 2.
Table 1 – FPCC criteria
| FPCC | Constraint Subcategory |
| 1 | a) Floodway or key storage areas in the DFE * #
b) Flood hazard H6 in the DFE |
| 2 | a) Floodway in events larger than the DFE
b) Flood hazard H5 in the DFE c) Emergency response (isolated and submerged areas) d) Emergency response (isolated but elevated areas) e) Flood hazard H6 in floods larger than the DFE |
| 3 | Remaining area below the DFE plus freeboard |
| 4 | Remaining area below the PMF or Extreme Flood |
| * Defined Flood Event (DFE)
# The FPCC1a was further examined for the influence of flood storage on this classification. This resulted in the exclusion of the flood storage criterion and is presented in Figure 1. |
|
Figure 1 – FPCC Mapping with a relaxed flood storage criteria (this map is available to view in Council’s Intramaps Spatial Viewer –https://rvc.spatial.t1cloud.com/spatial/IntraMaps/?configId=85ce1c15-9edc-4f0a-8f3e-9b071cfc473f&project=RVCPublic
tick the Draft Flood Planning Constraint Category tab to view)
Figure 2 – Sample FPCC Flood Planning Control Matrix
The Draft Plan’s Recommended actions
Highest priority actions include revising the Development Control Plan flood chapter (H-1) with flood planning levels that clearly incorporate climate change and an FPCC matrix; improved flood education & warning systems; and strengthening emergency response arrangements. A full list of recommended actions is provided in Table 2.
Large engineering options such as new levees and dredging were investigated but generally found to be expensive and of limited benefit (see Table 3). Further investigation of a levee at Coraki may be warranted, but the overall focus of the draft plan is on planning, preparedness, and resilience.
Table 2 – Recommended Actions from the Draft Plan
| Flood Modification Options | Supported by the Plan + Comments |
| FM01B – Coraki Levees: Seele’s Creek (20% AEP level) and Richmond River (5% AEP level) | Yes – reasonable reduction in 1% AEP flood damages although may result in flood impacts elsewhere – further investigation needed. |
| FM02B – Dredging along the Richmond River (Coraki to Broadwater)
FM02E – Dredging along the Richmond River (Coraki to Ballina) |
No – due to the extensive excavation required, high capital and ongoing maintenance costs, and the significant water quality and ecological impacts. |
| FM05B – Automatic Flood Gate at Tuckombil Canal (1% AEP level) | No – The installation of a floodgate at Tuckombil Canal is not considered to be an effective flood mitigation measure for rarer flood events, including the 1% AEP event. However, further assessment under more frequent flood events may be warranted to better understand whether any benefits to the duration of inundation and peak levels could be achieved under those conditions. |
| FM07A – Boundary Gully Opening; Wide channel, non-tidal
FM07B – Boundary Gully Opening; Wide channel, tidal FM07C – Boundary Gully Opening; Narrow channel, non-tidal FM07D – Boundary Gully Opening; Narrow channel, tidal |
No – The non tidal channel options FM07A and FM07C are not recommended for further consideration, as they demonstrate minimal measurable benefit.
While the tidal channel options FM07B and FM07D show comparatively greater benefits, they are unlikely to be environmentally feasible. In addition, the substantial costs associated with land acquisition, construction, and ongoing maintenance may render these options economically prohibitive. |
| Property Modification Options | Supported by the Plan + Comments |
| PM01 – Voluntary House Purchase (VP)
PM02 – Voluntary House Raising (VHR) |
Yes – but not while the RA Resilient Homes Program is operable. |
| PM03 – Voluntary Flood Proofing | Yes – inform and encourage flood proofing. Incorporate a DCP requirement for the flood proofing of buildings for new development on the floodplain. |
| PM04 – Flood Planning Levels (FPL) | Yes – noting the FPL (1% AEP + climate change and a 500mm freeboard (for residential premises) has not been changed from those levels adopted by the 2023 Flood Study. |
| PM05 – Update Section 10.7 Certificate Information | Yes – update certificate templates to reference updated design flood information. |
| PM06 – DCP Updates | Yes – review and update the DCP based on the findings and recommendations of the Plan. Includes adoption of the FPCC framework. |
| Response Modification Options | Supported by the Plan + Comments |
| RM01A – Installation of Flood Warning Signs | Yes – consider installation of flood warning signs where suitable. |
| RM01B – Improved Council Disaster Dashboard | Yes – ensure the dashboard provides necessary information that is clear and readily accessible. |
| RM01C – Standardised Stream Gauges to Common Datum | Yes – standardise gauges to the common vertical AHD datum. |
| RM02 – Local Flood Plan Updates | Yes – Update the Local Flood Plan to incorporate new flood intelligence from the Plan. |
| RM03 – Flood Intelligence Card Updates | Yes – Update all Flood Intelligence Cards for key gauges within the study area to align with results from this FRMSP.
Prepare new flood intelligence cards for any water level gauges proposed to be used as triggers for communities/users (NSW SES). |
| RM04 – Evacuation Route Upgrades | Yes – Investigate targeted upgrades to key road corridors to increase flood immunity and support safer, more reliable evacuation and access during flood events. |
| RM05 – Enhancement of Community Education and Awareness | Yes – Develop flood awareness messages, undertake LGA-wide and/or more localised and tailored flood education and awareness campaigns for high flood risk areas.
|
| RM06 – Aged Care Facility Flood Emergency Response Plans | Yes – Assist aged care facilities to prepare or update their own site-specific flood emergency response plans. |
| RM07 – Council Flood Mapping Online System | Yes – Council to develop an online flood mapping system to allow residents to better understand flood risk across the Richmond Valley LGA. |
Additional mitigation options identified by the Study, but not supported due to cost, potential environmental impacts, and of limited benefit are listed below-
A broad range of levees, new channels, watercourse widening, dredging of the Richmond River, strategic channel realignments and the installation or upgrade of flood gates were initially considered by the Study. The above measures were found to have merit in a 1% AEP event and were therefore advanced to further assessment and consideration against a Multi-criteria Assessment (MCA) process.
The other options considered were-
- FM04 – Widening of the Iron Gates
- FM05A – Widening of the Tuckombil Canal
- FM06 – Levees at Casino
- FM08 – Widening of the Ballina ocean outlet
- FM09 – Drainage channel between Wilsons River and Tuckean
- FM10 – Realignment of the Richmond River
- FM11 – Ocean channel opening at Montis Creek Broadwater (plus a number other ocean opening options were considered at Empire Vale and Keith Hall)
What this means for the community
Flooding in the Richmond Valley is inevitable and cannot be completely prevented. The greatest risks come from rare but very large flood events. This plan focuses on reducing damage, improving public safety, and ensuring that today’s planning decisions do not increase future flood risk.
Better information, reliable flood warnings, strong emergency planning, and ongoing community education are essential to building long-term resilience across the Valley.