Great Lakes Local Government Area

Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety watersafety.nsw.gov.au Black Spots Fund A NSW Government water safety initiative

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment Great Lakes Local Government Area

June 2016 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety Blacks Spots Fund

Disclaimer This work is copyright. However, material from this publication may be copied or published by State Government agencies without the permission of Surf Life Saving NSW (SLSNSW) on the condition that the meaning of the material is not altered and SLSNSW is acknowledged as the source of the material. Any other persons or bodies wishing to use the material must seek permission. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.

Page ii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... VIII SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...... X 1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE ...... 3 1.3 LIMITATIONS ...... 4 1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...... 5 1.5 PROJECT TEAM / AUTHORS ...... 7 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 8 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ...... 8 2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 13 2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ...... 15 2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS ...... 16 2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS ...... 19 2.6.1 Rhythmic Bar and Beach ...... 19 2.6.2 Transverse Bar and Rip ...... 19 2.6.3 Low Tide Terrace ...... 20 2.6.4 Reflective...... 21 2.6.5 Rock Platforms and Rocky Coasts ...... 22 2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ...... 23 2.7.1 Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables ...... 23 2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT ...... 28 2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM...... 29 2.9.1 Population Statistics ...... 29 2.9.2 Development Plans in Great Lakes...... 30 2.9.3 Tourism Information ...... 32 2.9.4 Beach Usage Statistics ...... 35 2.9.5 Drowning Incidents ...... 40 2.9.6 Emergency Callouts ...... 43 2.10 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ...... 46 3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ...... 49 3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ...... 49 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ...... 49 3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program ...... 49 3.1.3 Local Population Rating ...... 51 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ...... 52 3.1.5 Access Rating ...... 54 3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ...... 55 3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ...... 63

Page iii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.1 Introduction ...... 63 3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) ...... 63 3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programs ...... 64 3.2.4 Safety Signage ...... 72 3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ...... 84 3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs ...... 85 3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment ...... 91 3.2.8 System of Supervision ...... 94 4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE ...... 99 4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING ...... 99 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ...... 101 4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ...... 102 4.4 COMMUNICATIONS ...... 104 4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) ...... 106 5 MONITOR AND REVIEW ...... 107 6 REFERENCES ...... 108

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Access and Signage Schedule APPENDIX B - Risk Register and Treatment Plan APPENDIX C - Public Rescue Equipment APPENDIX D - Facilities Audit APPENDIX E - Coverage Maps APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Engagement APPENDIX G - Life Saving Service Level Calculator

Page iv Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1.1 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN...... 2 FIGURE 2.2.1: GREAT LAKES LGA – ASSESSED LOCATIONS SITE INSPECTION (MAP 1 & 2)...... 9 FIGURE 2.2.2: GREAT LAKES LGA – ASSESSED LOCATIONS SITE INSPECTION (MAP 3)...... 10 FIGURE 2.3.1: RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS (STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, 2009)...... 14 FIGURE 2.6.1 ILLUSTRATION OF A RHYTHMIC BAR & BEACH...... 19 FIGURE 2.6.2: ILLUSTRATION OF A TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP...... 19 FIGURE 2.6.3: ILLUSTRATION OF A LOW TIDE TERRACE...... 20 FIGURE 2.6.4: ILLUSTRATION OF A REFLECTIVE BEACH...... 21 FIGURE 2.9.1: ILLUSTRATION OF THE TUNCURRY NORTH MASTER PLAN (NORTH TUNCURRY, 2014)...... 30 FIGURE 2.9.2: ILLUSTRATION OF THE SEVEN MILE BEACH DEVELOPMENT...... 31 FIGURE 2.9.3 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN...... 32 FIGURE 2.9.4 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 35 FIGURE 2.9.5 RESCUE STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 36 FIGURE 2.9.6 FIRST AID STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 37 FIGURE 2.9.7 PREVENTION STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 37 FIGURE 2.9.8 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 38 FIGURE 2.9.9 RESCUE STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 38 FIGURE 2.9.10 FIRST AID STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015)...... 39 FIGURE 2.9.11 PREVENTION STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015).... 39 FIGURE 2.9.12 GREAT LAKES LGA – DROWNING AND VICTIM POSTCODE...... 42 FIGURE 2.10.1: PROJECT BLUEPRINT FLYER...... 47 FIGURE 3.2.1: DON’T PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE™ ...... 65 FIGURE 3.2.2: SURVIVE A RIP...... 65 FIGURE 3.2.3: OLD 4 NEW ...... 65 FIGURE 3.2.4: SWIM BETWEEN THE FLAGS...... 65 FIGURE 3.2.5 RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE ROCK FISHING SCHOOL...... 66 FIGURE 3.2.6 GREAT LAKES ADVOCATE...... 67 FIGURE 3.2.7 SURF SAFETY PRESENTATION AT NEWPORT BEACH (PITTWATER LGA)...... 69 FIGURE 3.2.8: AN EXAMPLE OF RIP CURRENT SIGN ON PUBLIC AMENITY BLOCKS...... 69 FIGURE 3.2.9: EXAMPLE OF A NATIONAL PARKS VISITOR INFORMATION ...... 69 FIGURE 3.2.10: LARGE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER AT FORSTER MAIN BEACH...... 70 FIGURE 3.2.11: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN...... 72 FIGURE 3.2.12: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN...... 72 FIGURE 3.2.13: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN...... 72 FIGURE 3.2.14: CAUTION – SAND EROSION...... 72 FIGURE 3.2.15: NATIONAL PARKS ACCESS SIGN...... 73 FIGURE 3.2.16: NATIONAL PARKS SAFETY SIGN – UNSTABLE GROUNDS...... 73 FIGURE 3.2.17: CROWN LANDS SAFETY SIGN ON THE TUNCURRY BREAK WALL...... 73 FIGURE 3.2.18: ALCOHOL SIGN THAT COULD BE PROHIBITED...... 75 FIGURE 3.2.19: SIGNAGE THAT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REMOVED...... 75

Page v Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

FIGURE 3.2.20: SIGNAGE AT BURGESS BEACH...... 76 FIGURE 3.2.21: AN EXAMPLE OF RIP EDUCATION SIGNAGE...... 76 FIGURE 3.2.22: EXAMPLE OF ROCK FISHING SIGNAGE...... 77 FIGURE 3.2.23: PROPOSED LOCATION SIGN...... 77 FIGURE 3.2.24 BOATING SAFETY INFORMATION...... 78 FIGURE 3.2.25 BAR CROSSING AT WALLIS LAKE ON A CALM DAY...... 78 FIGURE 3.2.26: AN EXAMPLE OF A SET OF LIGHTS USED BY THE ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUATION FOR SAFETY REASONS IN REGARDS TO TIDAL CHANGES...... 79 FIGURE 3.2.27: EXAMPLE OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE DIRECTING PATRONS TO THE PATROLLED LOCATION...... 79 FIGURE 3.2.28: EXAMPLE OF EMERGENCY MARKER SIGN...... 84 FIGURE 3.2.29: FORMAL ACCESS AT BOOMERANG BEACH...... 85 FIGURE 3.2.30: INFORMAL ACCESS AT BENNETTS HEAD...... 85 FIGURE 3.2.31: AN EXAMPLE OF ACCESS REDIRECTION AT ONE MILE BEACH...... 86 FIGURE 3.2.32: EVIDENCE OF TYRE MARKS ON A NON PERMITTED 4WD BEACH...... 87 FIGURE 3.2.33: TUNCURRY ROCK POOL...... 88 FIGURE 3.2.34: THE LITTLE RIPPER LIFESAVER UAV CURRENTLY BEING TRIALLED IN NSW...... 93 FIGURE 4.1.1: SUGGESTED EMERGENCY 'TRIPLE ZERO' INFORMATION FOR SIGNAGE...... 99 FIGURE 4.1.2: ‘EMERGENCY +’ APPLICATION ...... 100 FIGURE 4.2.1: EXAMPLE OF A MOBILE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACON ON A BEACH...... 101 FIGURE 4.3.1: EMERGENCY SERVICES LOCATED EAST OF THE PRINCES HIGHWAY IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 103 FIGURE 4.4.1: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE FORSTER REPEATER...... 104 FIGURE 4.4.2: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE PACIFIC PALMS REPEATER...... 104 FIGURE 4.4.3: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE SEAL ROCKS REPEATER...... 105 FIGURE 4.4.4: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE HAWKS NEST REPEATER...... 105

Page vi Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.4.1: DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS...... 5 TABLE 2.2.1: ASSESSED LOCATIONS AND ASSESSMENT DATES...... 11 TABLE 2.4.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS...... 15 TABLE 2.4.2: BEACH HAZARD RATING CALCULATION MATRICES FOR WAVE DOMINATE BEACHES...... 15 TABLE 2.5.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS – GREAT LAKES LGA...... 16 TABLE 2.7.1: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL HAZARDS RATING FOR RESERVES – NON BEACH ENVIRONMENTS...... 23 TABLE 2.7.2: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT RATINGS FOR BEACHES...... 24 TABLE 2.7.3: TYPICAL POPULATION USE RATING FOR A FACILITY...... 24 TABLE 2.7.4: SUGGESTED FREQUENCY USE RATING FOR A FACILITY...... 24 TABLE 2.7.5: FACILITY VISITATION RATES – FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 24 TABLE 2.8.1: TOP 10 MOST COMMON COASTAL FACILITIES...... 28 TABLE 2.8.2: TOP 10 LOCATIONS FOR FACILITIES...... 28 TABLE 2.9.1 GREAT LAKES POPULATION DATA (ABS, 2011)...... 29 TABLE 2.9.2 POPULATION COUNT OF COASTAL STATE SUBURBS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (ABS, 2011)...... 29 TABLE 2.9.3 TOURISM DATA AND VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA...... 32 TABLE 2.9.4 DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA...... 32 TABLE 2.9.5 DOMESTIC DAY TRIP VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA...... 33 TABLE 2.9.6 INTERNATIONAL VISITORS INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA...... 33 TABLE 2.9.7 ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS WITH DIRECT COASTAL ACCESS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 34 TABLE 2.9.8 VOLUNTEER SURF LIFE SAVING TOTAL PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS AND RESCUES FOR BEACHES IN GREAT LAKES LGA ..... 39 TABLE 2.9.9 LIFEGUARD SERVICES TOTAL PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS AND RESCUES FOR BEACHES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 40 TABLE 2.9.10 DROWNING INCIDENTS FROM 01/07/04 TO 30/06/15 IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 40 TABLE 2.9.11 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS THROUGH THE SRES FROM 01/01/08 TO 30/06/15 IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 43 TABLE 3.1.1 ABSAMP MODAL RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 49 TABLE 3.1.2 LOCAL POPULATION RATING DESCRIPTORS...... 51 TABLE 3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 51 TABLE 3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION DESCRIPTORS...... 52 TABLE 3.1.5 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 52 TABLE 3.1.6 ACCESS RATING DESCRIPTORS...... 54 TABLE 3.1.7 ACCESS RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 54 TABLE 3.1.8 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY CALCULATIONS FOR EACH ASSESSED LOCATION...... 55 TABLE 3.1.9: KEY TO LAND MANAGEMENT OF LOCATIONS...... 57 TABLE 3.1.10 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORES FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS...... 57 TABLE 3.2.1: EXAMPLES OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS...... 64 TABLE 3.2.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GREAT LAKES COUNCIL...... 80 TABLE 3.2.3: SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE...... 81 TABLE 3.2.4: ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN LANDS MANAGED BY GREAT LAKES COUNCIL...... 88 TABLE 3.2.5: ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN LANDS MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE...... 89 TABLE 3.2.6 AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT (PRE) (BRADSTREET, ET AL., 2012)...... 91 TABLE 3.2.7 PRIORITY ORDER FOR LIFE RINGS...... 92 TABLE 3.2.8 VOLUNTEER LIFESAVING SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 95 TABLE 3.2.9 PAID LIFEGUARD SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA...... 96 TABLE 4.3.1 COASTAL EMERGENCY SERVICE LOCATIONS FOR GREAT LAKES LGA (<10KM FROM THE COAST)...... 102 TABLE 4.4.1: KEY TO RADIO COVERAGE STRENGTH...... 104

Page vii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains findings and treatment options which align with current International and Australian standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific to locations under the authority of Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Crown Lands.

These locations include (north to south):

1. Nine Mile Beach 26. Blueys Beach 2. Tuncurry Beach 27. Blueys Head 3. Tuncurry Rock Pool 28. Danger Point 4. Forster Main Beach 29. Bald Head 5. Second Head 30. Sandbar / Cellito Beach 6. Pebbly Beach 31. Number Six Beach 7. The Tanks 32. Number Five Beach 8. Bennett’s Head 33. Number Four Beach 9. One Mile Beach 34. Number Three Beach 10. Burgess Beach 35. Number Two Beach 11. Cape Hawke Headland 36. Number One Beach 12. McBrides Beach 37. Seal Rocks Point 13. Cape Hawke North Beach 38. Boat Beach 14. Cape Hawke South Beach 39. Sugarloaf Point 15. Janies Corner 40. Lighthouse Beach 16. Seven Mile Beach 41. Treachery Head 17. Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 42. Treachery Beach 18. Lindeman Cove 43. Yagon Head 19. Yes I Know Rock 44. Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach 20. Elizabeth Beach 45. Big Gibber Headland 21. Shelly Beach 46. Mungo Beach 22. Seagull Point 47. Dark Point North Beach 23. Charlotte Head 48. Dark Point / Little Gibber 24. Boomerang Beach 49. Bennett’s Beach 25. Boomerang Point 50. Yacaaba Headland

Page viii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Activities/Facilities The Great Lakes Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public usage and recreational activity, including swimming, surfing (including all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving, boating, and walking.

A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and beach access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, coastal walks, a number of public amenity blocks, BBQs, and picnic tables.

Hazards/Risks The Great Lakes LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. These are outlined in detail in ‘Appendix B’.

Based on the risk assessment in ‘Appendix B’, the following hazards have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Great Lakes LGA:

Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type Waves/waves overwashing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic/collision: As a result of human interaction

It has been identified that the hazards listed above pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Boating traffic/collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters

Existing Risk Treatments Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the following risk treatment initiatives within the Great Lakes LGA: o System of supervision o Education and awareness programs o Public rescue equipment o Safety signage

Page ix Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Please note: o The below recommendations are provided as options for guidance only and will not be binding to the Land Manager. o The below recommendations are in no particular order in regards to prioritisation. o Further explanation to the recommendations should also be referenced and can be found on the corresponding pages. o Some treatment options may be relevant for two or more agencies.

Recommendation 1 Great Lakes Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Strategic Coordination:

1.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area e.g. Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision. (p.31)

1.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.45)

1.3 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)

1.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.62)

Education:

1.5 Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not have the expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety organisations to assist in delivery. (p.71)

1.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p.71)

1.7 Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted through any websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages. (p.71)

1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. Great Lakes Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote these programs and encourage enhanced participation at a local and regional level. (p.71)

Page x Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1.9 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations. Specific examples can be referenced in the report. (p.71)

1.10 Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers. Collateral could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries. (p.71)

1.11 Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational programs encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.71)

Safety Signage:

1.12 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.82)

1.13 Existing access signage that does not meet a consistent adopted style should be replaced through natural attrition. (p.82)

1.14 As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational signage should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should inform beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current. (p.82)

1.15 Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at popular rock platforms / headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined in the main report. (p.82)

1.16 Great Lakes Council should approach the Roads and Maritime Service to implement specific boat safety signage (outlined in the report) at all boat ramp locations. (p.83)

Access:

1.17 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.90)

1.18 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.90)

1.19 Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well known to emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be provided with keys. (p.90)

Page xi Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1.20 In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access. (p.91)

1.21 Following the completion of studies in relation to the Tuncurry Rock Pool area, Great Lakes Council should review and implement the findings to ensure that inexperienced swimmers and / or children aren’t swept out beyond the enclosure during periods of hazardous conditions e.g. strong outgoing tidal currents. (p.91)

Supervision/Surveillance:

1.22 Great Lakes Council should explore the means to fund the expansion of the lifeguard service at Forster Main Beach to provide supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in addition to the autumn and spring services already provided. (p.98)

1.23 A lifeguard service at Tuncurry should be strongly considered when the proposed large development at North Tuncurry has been finalised. (p.98)

1.24 The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and locations) should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided. (p.98)

Emergency Response:

1.25 In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an opportunity to promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community. (p.100)

1.26 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)

1.27 When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be aware that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons could also be encouraged. (p.105)

1.28 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.106)

Monitor & Review:

1.29 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed. (p.107)

Page xii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1.30 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.107)

Recommendation 2 The National Parks and Wildlife Service should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Strategic Coordination:

2.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area e.g. Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision. (p.31)

2.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.45)

2.3 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)

2.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.62)

Education:

2.5 Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not have the expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety organisations to assist in delivery. (p.71)

2.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p.71)

2.7 Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted through any websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages. (p.71)

2.8 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations. Specific examples can be referenced in the report. (p.71)

2.9 Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational programs encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.71)

Page xiii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Safety Signage:

2.10 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.82)

2.11 As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational signage should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should inform beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current. (p.82)

2.12 Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at popular rock platforms / headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined in the main report. (p.82)

Access:

2.13 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.90)

2.14 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.90)

2.15 Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well known to emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be provided with keys. (p.90)

2.16 The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold discussions with the operators of Treachery Camp in regards to providing them with keys to be able to gain entry to the emergency vehicle access at the middle of Treachery Beach for emergency purposes.(p.90)

2.17 In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access. (p.91)

Public Rescue Equipment

2.18 Land Managers should consider implementing life rings at the proposed locations identified in ‘Appendix C’. The Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW will be able to provide guidance on costings, suppliers and ongoing maintenance. (p.93)

Page xiv Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Emergency Response:

2.19 In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an opportunity to promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community. (p. 100)

2.20 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)

2.21 When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be aware that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons could also be encouraged. (p.105)

Monitor & Review:

2.22 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed. (p.107)

2.23 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.107)

Recommendation 3 The Water Safety Advisory Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Education:

3.1 Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers. Collateral could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries. (p.71)

Emergency Marker Signage:

3.2 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information, a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered. (p.84)

Public Rescue Equipment:

3.3 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations. (p.93)

Page xv Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Recommendation 4 Surf Life Saving (State, Branch and Club) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Strategic Coordination:

4.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed. (p.18)

4.2 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)

Education:

4.3 The Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should participate in the annual Rip Current Awareness Day. (p.71)

Safety Signage:

4.4 Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the coastal tourist parks to inform guests of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to alert park operators when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory process. (p.83)

4.5 Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as strong currents, creek openings and pollution. (p.83)

Public Rescue Equipment:

4.6 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to investigate effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches. (p.93)

Supervision/Surveillance:

4.7 Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club to discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost patrol at Tuncurry Beach during the summer school holiday period. (p.98)

4.8 Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular basis to cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled. (p.98)

Page xvi Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Emergency Response:

4.9 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)

4.10 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and Hunter Branch to raise any current issues and opportunities which could see further radio infrastructure installed to improve communication. (p.105)

4.11 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.106)

4.12 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Forster Marine Rescue Unit. (p.106)

Recommendation 5 Marine Rescue NSW and the Roads and Maritime Service NSW should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

5.1 Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options to warn boat uses when crossing river bars. (p.83)

Page xvii Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Project Background: Surf Life Saving New South Wales (SLSNSW) is undertaking a significant state-wide drowning prevention project, known as Project Blueprint. As a core component of the project, every accessible coastal beach and rock platform in New South Wales (NSW) are being assessed using industry leading systems and processes. The outcomes will include evidence based drowning prevention treatment options to stakeholders and government, both at a local, regional and state level.

Project Blueprint is being delivered by Australian CoastSafe, as the leading coastal public safety risk management authority in Australia. Australian CoastSafe is the strategic and intelligence beach safety unit of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) – visit www.coastsafe.org.au for more information.

This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related issues identified at every beach and rock platform located on the coast of the Great Lakes LGA. The Land Managers of this area include Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Crown Lands.

The Drowning Issue: Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 30 June 2015, there have been 403 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 20041. The vast majority of these can be attributed to swimming/rip-currents, rock-fishing and boating, with a high majority occurring at unpatrolled locations/times, where no expert assistance is immediately available.

Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of factors known as the ‘drowning chain’ and these are: o Lack of knowledge, disregard or misunderstanding of the hazard o Uninformed or unrestricted access to the hazard o Lack of supervision or surveillance o An inability to cope once in difficulty

The strategies that have been identified to address the drowning chain are: o Education and information o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings o Provision of supervision o Acquisition of survival skills

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database

Page 1 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 1.1.1 The international Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain. Source: International Life Saving Federation

Treatment Options: This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with clear supporting evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders, and the application of effective risk mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required.

It is acknowledged that Land Managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land Managers should balance water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide services and facilities to meet the current future needs of their local communities as a whole, all within a limited budget.

This report recognises that there are many inherent risks associated with the NSW coastline and that in most instances these risks associated with the NSW coastline cannot be eliminated and can only be managed within the operations contexts of the Land Manager, taking into account all of their responsibilities and available resources. This report also recognises that visitors to these areas also have a personal responsibility for their own safety and those they are responsible for.

The treatment options found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to risk management at the locations assessed and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.

Page 2 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE

Project Context: SLSNSW received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water Safety Black Spots Fund to deliver coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches and rock platforms). The program will be staged over several years with phase four (the final phase) to include the Kempsey, Port Macquarie Hastings, Greater Taree, Great Lakes, Port Stephens, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs.

The report provides risk treatment options about how to improve risk and safety management in line with current industry standards: o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines, o AS/NZS2416.1:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols – Public information symbols, o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic Signs, and o ISO9001:2008 Quality Management Systems – Requirements.

Project Scope: This coastal risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Great Lakes LGA which commenced on Thursday 25th June and concluded on Tuesday 30th June, 2015.

The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment, including but not limited to; signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people to visit the location.

The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of the Great Lakes LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report.

Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities with then areas falls outside the scope of this report. Information on boating safety can be found at http://maritimemanagement.transport.nsw.gov.au/

The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment.

Page 3 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail: o Access locations, classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment options. Signage that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current signage Appendix A. o Hazards, their potential risks, risk groups, risk scores and treatment options Appendix B. o Public rescue equipment that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current public rescue equipment Appendix C. o Facilities and points of interest that may attract members of the public to coastal locations Appendix D.

Other appendices include: o Coverage maps of assessed locations Appendix E. o Stakeholder Engagement Appendix F. o Life Saving Service Level Calculator Appendix G.

At no time during the inspection was the water entered. The assessments were performed from the land, along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.

1.3 LIMITATIONS

The following are acknowledged as limitations of this coastal public safety risk assessment. o The absence of an agreed and recognised methodology for rating the hazardousness of rock platforms. o Difficulty in gaining feedback from all identified stakeholders. o Limited timeframes allowed for stakeholders to provide feedback on consultative draft versions of the main report and appendices as a result of the project timeframes.

Page 4 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Definitions of the key terms used within this report are provided below.

Table 1.4.1: Definitions of key terms.

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety and Management Program.

A snapshot of the on-beach and in-water attendance taken every two hours on a Attendance daily basis.

ATV All-terrain vehicle.

CALD Culturally And Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities.

The foreshore, seabed, coastal water, and airspace above a large body of water (harbour/bay/inlet), including areas up to 2NM offshore and of which the landward boundary is the line of mean high water, except that where that line Coastal crosses a river/inlet, the landward boundary at that point shall be the point upstream that is calculated by multiplying the width of the river/inlet mouth by 5 (Adapted from the Resource Management Amendment Act 1991 – New Zealand).

Coastal Waterway A coastal body of water e.g. river/creek opening.

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event.

An existing process, policy, device, practice or other action that acts to minimise Control negative risk or enhance positive opportunities.

Emergency Action Plan A plan that outlines the procedures to be used in the event of an emergency.

A lifesaver/lifeguard treating either a minor or major first aid incident, which may First Aid require further assistance from NSW Ambulance e.g. broken bones or stings/bites.

Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer ‘track’, effectively exposing people to the relevant Formal Access safety signage/information, reducing the quality of signage required and enhancing emergency reporting/location identification.

Frequency A measure of the number of occurrences per unit of time.

Geomorphology Is the scientific study of landforms and the processes that shape them.

Hazard A source of potential harm.

A graphical symbol used together with a safety colour and safety shape to form a Hazard Symbols safety sign.

A location that is not able to be accessed from land by standard reasoning and/or Inaccessible entry is prohibited by private access.

Page 5 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/sink-holes), Informal Access may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting difficult (location awareness).

The risk that an activity would pose if no controls or other mitigating factors were Inherent Risk in place.

IRB Inflatable Rescue Boat.

Local Government Area – for the purposes of this report this area is used to determine the scope of the assessment (i.e. the coastal boundary of the Local LGA Government Area). This may include lands managed by Councils, Crown and National Parks and Wildlife Service.

An organised and structured service comprised of paid lifeguards and/or Lifesaving Service volunteer lifesavers and appropriate rescue and first aid equipment supported by a coordinated backup team.

Likelihood Used as a general description of probability or frequency.

Modal The conditions that occur most frequently, or more often than other conditions.

To check, supervise, observe critically or measure the progress of an activity, Monitor action or system on a regular basis in order to identify change from the performance level required or expected.

A peak body is defined as a state, territory or national non-profit organisation established to cater for the needs, interests and aspirations of its members. Members may include individuals or organisations, but they will all have a Peak Water Safety common interest. Peak bodies in the water safety sector may include agencies Agencies such as Surf Life Saving, Royal Life Saving, Surf Educators Australia, Austswim, Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguard Association, Surfing NSW and the Office of Boating Safety who represent the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council as a committee member.

Prevailing The conditions existing in a particular place or at a particular time.

A lifesaver/lifeguard simply providing proactive direction or advice to beachgoers Preventative Action / in a ‘preventative action’ for the beachgoer to avoid finding themselves in a Prevention position beyond their capability.

Probability A measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number.

A lifesaver/lifeguard rendering direct assistance to a beachgoer in difficulty in the Rescue water.

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments.

Page 6 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Channelled currents of water flowing away from shore, typically extending from Rip Current the shoreline, through the surf zone, and past the line of breaking waves.

Standards Australia defines risk as the effect of uncertainty on objects (AS/NZS Risk 31000:2009).

Risk Analysis Systematic process to understand the nature of and to the level of risk.

Standards Australia defines a risk assessment as the overall process of risk Risk Assessment identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation (AS/NZS 31000:2009).

Risk Evaluation Process of comparing the level of risk against criteria.

The process of determining what, where, when, why and how something should Risk Identification happen.

Standards Australia defines risk management as coordinated activities to direct Risk Management and control an organisation with regard to risk (AS/NZS 31000:2009).

A table summarising the identified risks, the location, why it has been identified as Risk Register a risk, and what current treatments are in place to lessen the risk and an overall hazard rating.

Risk Treatment Process of selection and implementation of measures to modify risk.

A table summarising how to deal with the identified risks, including a list of Risk Treatment Plan potential risk treatments, the risk treatments currently and any residual risk.

RWC Rescue water craft (jet ski).

Surf Life Saving Branch, a regional body of Surf Life Saving formed to further the SLS Branch objects of surf lifesaving in a particular geographic area.

Those people and organisations who may affect, be affected, or perceive Stakeholders themselves to be affected by a decision, activity or risk.

1.5 PROJECT TEAM / AUTHORS

Project Team: Adam Weir, Operations Manager, [email protected] Luke Stigter, Coastal Risk Co-ordinator, [email protected] Chris Twine, Coastal Risk Officer, [email protected]

Australian CoastSafe Surf Life Saving New South Wales Ph: 02-9471 8000| F: 02-9471 8001 W: www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint

Page 7 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The methodology included site identification, site inspection, hazard identification, data analysis, beach hazard ratings, beach identification, facility visitation ratings, facilities, beach usage, tourism data, incident data, communication and consultation.

2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION

The map on the following page provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the Great Lakes LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in ‘Appendix E’. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed approximately 152km of coastline in the Great Lakes LGA.

The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Great Lakes Council o National Parks and Wildlife Service  Darawank Nature Reserve  Booti Booti National Park  Myall Lakes National Park o Crown Lands

The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment and is not limited to signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people to visit the location.

Page 8 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.2.1: Great Lakes LGA – Assessed Locations Site Inspection (Map 1 & 2).

Page 9 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.2.2: Great Lakes LGA – Assessed Locations Site Inspection (Map 3).

Page 10 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Table 2.2.1: Assessed locations and assessment dates. Location Land Management Authority Date Great Lakes Council / Nine Mile Beach Thursday 25 June, 2015 National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuncurry Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Tuncurry Rock Pool Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Forster Main Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Second Head Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Pebbly Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 The Tanks Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Bennett’s Head Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015 Thursday 25 June and One Mile Beach Great Lakes Council Friday 26 June, 2015 Burgess Beach Great Lakes Council Friday 26 June, 2015 Cape Hawke Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 McBrides Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Cape Hawke North Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Cape Hawke South Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Janies Corner National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Seven Mile Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Lindeman Cove National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Yes I Know Rock National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015 Elizabeth Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015 Shelly Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015 Seagull Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015 Charlotte Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015 Boomerang Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Boomerang Point Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Blueys Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Blueys Head Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Danger Point Crown Lands Not Accessible Bald Head Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Great Lakes Council / Sandbar / Cellito Beach Saturday 27 June, 2015 National Parks and Wildlife Service Number Six Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible Number Five Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible Number Four Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible Number Three Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible Number Two Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible Great Lakes Council / Number One Beach Saturday 27 June, 2015 National Parks and Wildlife Service Seal Rocks Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015 Boat Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015 Sugarloaf Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015 Lighthouse Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015 Treachery Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015

Page 11 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Location Land Management Authority Date Treachery Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015 Yagon Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015 Sunday 28 June and Submarine / Yagon Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015 Big Gibber Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015 Mungo Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015 Dark Point North Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29 June, 2015 Dark Point / Little Gibber National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29 June, 2015 Great Lakes Council / Monday 29 June and Bennett’s Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015 Yacaaba Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015

Page 12 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

During the site inspection hazards were identified within the area inspected and assessed in terms of their individual risk to public safety (extreme, high, medium, low) using a risk assessment matrix ‘Appendix B’.

The risk assessment matrix considers both the type of harm that could be sustained as a result of an individual hazard and the likelihood of this harm actually occurring.

Hazards/Risks: The Great Lakes LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the beaches in the area.

Based on the risk assessment in ‘Appendix B’, the following hazards have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Great Lakes LGA:

Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type Waves/waves over washing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic/collision: As a result of human interaction

It has been identified that the above listed hazards pose risk to the following types of recreational users:

Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves over washing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Boating traffic/collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters

This coastal public safety risk assessment aligns with the international standard of risk management ‘AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’ (Standards Australia, 2009).

Page 13 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.3.1: Risk management process (Standards Australia, 2009).

Page 14 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW

The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Program) was developed by Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The program has identified coastal hazards that affect bathers and rates the safety of the beach on a scale of one to ten, where one (1) is the least hazardous and ten (10) is the most hazardous. The beach hazard ratings and definitions are provided below.

Table 2.4.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings. Hazard Rating Details

Least Hazardous: Low danger posed by water depth and/or weak currents; however, 1 – 3 supervision still required, in particular for children and poor swimmers.

Moderately Hazardous: The level of hazard depends on wave and weather conditions, 4 – 6 with the possibility of strong rips and currents posing a moderate risk.

Highly Hazardous: Experience in strong surf, rips and currents required, with beaches 7 – 8 in this category considered dangerous.

Extremely Hazardous: Identifies beaches that are considered extremely dangerous 9 – 10 due to strong rips and currents, and large breakers.

The beach hazard rating is calculated by determining the beach type and wave height. This can be done under either modal (average) or prevailing (current) conditions. The beach hazard rating is then calculated by using the following table.

Table 2.4.2: Beach hazard rating calculation matrices for wave dominate beaches. Wave Height < 0.5 > 3.0 0.5 (m) 1.0 (m) 1.5 (m) 2.0 (m) 2.5 (m) 3.0 (m) (m) (m) Beach Type

Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 Long Shore Bar 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 Trough Rhythmic Bar 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 Beach Transverse Bar 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rip Low Tide Terrace 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Reflective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

The beach hazard ratings used in risk based calculation throughout the report relate to modal beach conditions and as such the hazard rating of a beach may increase when conditions alter e.g. with increasing wave height, winds, strong tides and high tide. Furthermore, a hazard rating is also applied to an average person and therefore the hazard may in fact be greater or less, depending upon an individual’s own skill, and understanding and competence in relation to a certain area. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected areas of the Great Lakes LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.

Page 15 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS

The ABSAMP Hazard Rating for the assessed locations listed in Table 2.5.1 below. The table provides both a modal and a prevailing ABSAMP rating. The modal ABSAMP rating represents the average conditions for each location, which has been extracted from the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. The prevailing ABSAMP rating represents the conditions observed by Australian CoastSafe on the day each audit took place.

Table 2.5.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Great Lakes LGA. ABSAMP ABSAMP ABSAMP Type ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type Location Name Rating No. (Modal) (Prevailing) (Prevailing) (Modal) Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Nine Mile Beach nsw195 7 7 and Rip and Rip Transverse Bar Tuncurry Beach nsw195s 7 4 Low Tide Terrace and Rip Tuncurry Rock Pool nsw195a 2 Reflective 3 Reflective Low Tide Forster Main Beach nsw196 4 4 Low Tide Terrace Terrace Second Head nsw196RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms Reflective + Pebbly Beach nsw197 4 3 Reflective + Rocks Rocks The Tanks nsw197RPa 5* Boulders 4* Boulders Bennett’s Head nsw197RPb 5* Rock Headland 4* Rock Headland Transverse Bar Transverse Bar One Mile Beach nsw198 6 5 and Rip and Rip Low Tide Low Tide Terrace + Burgess Beach nsw199 4 4 Terrace + Rocks Rocks Cape Hawke nsw199RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms Headland McBrides Beach nsw200 4 Reflective 3 Reflective Transverse Bar Cape Hawke North nsw201 7 and Rip + Not assessed – inaccessible Beach Rocks Rhythmic Bar Cape Hawke South nsw202 7 and Beach + Not assessed – inaccessible Beach Rocks Transverse Bar Rhythmic Bar and Janies Corner nsw203 7 7 and Rip Beach Rhythmic Bar and Rhythmic Bar Seven Mile Beach nsw204 6 7 Beach - Transverse and Beach Bar and Rip Booti Hill / Flat nsw204RPa 7* Rock Platforms 6* Rock Platforms Rock Point Low Tide Lindeman Cove nsw205 7 4 Low Tide Terrace Terrace Yes I Know Rock nsw205RPa 6* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms

Page 16 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

ABSAMP ABSAMP ABSAMP Type ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type Location Name Rating No. (Modal) (Prevailing) (Prevailing) (Modal) Low Tide Elizabeth Beach nsw206 4 4 Low Tide Terrace Terrace Shelly Beach nsw207 3 Reflective 3 Reflective Seagull Point nsw207RPa 5* Rock Platforms 5* Rock Platforms Charlotte Head nsw207RPb 5* Rock Platforms Not assessed – inaccessible Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Boomerang Beach nsw208 6 7 and Rip and Rip Boomerang Point nsw208RPa 6* Rock Headland 7* Rock Headland Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Blueys Beach nsw209 6 6 and Rip and Rip Blueys Head nsw209RPa 6* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland Danger Point nsw209RPb 6* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland Bald Head nsw209RPc 6* Rock Platforms 6* Rock Platforms Sandbar / Cellito Transverse Bar Transverse Bar nsw210 6 6 Beach and Rip and Rip Transverse Bar Number Six Beach nsw211 5 Not assessed – inaccessible and Rip Transverse Bar Number Five Beach nsw212 5 Not assessed – inaccessible and Rip Number Four Transverse Bar nsw213 5 Not assessed – inaccessible Beach and Rip Number Three Transverse Bar nsw214 4 Not assessed – inaccessible Beach and Rip Reflective + Number Two Beach nsw215 4 Not assessed – inaccessible Rocks Low Tide Number One Beach nsw216 4 4 Low Tide Terrace Terrace Seal Rocks Point nsw216RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms Boat Beach nsw217 3 Reflective 3 Reflective Sugarloaf Point nsw217RPa 5* Rock Headland 5* Rock Headland Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Lighthouse Beach nsw218 7 6 and Rip and Rip Treachery Head nsw218RPa 7* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Treachery Beach nsw219 7 6 and Rip and Rip Yagon Head nsw219RPa 7* Rock Headland 7* Rock Headland Submarine / Fiona Rhythmic Bar Rhythmic Bar and nsw220 7 7 / Yagon Beach and Beach Beach Big Gibber nsw220RPa 7* Rock Headland 8* Rock Headland Headland Rhythmic Bar Rhythmic Bar and Mungo Beach nsw221 7 8 and Beach Beach

Page 17 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

ABSAMP ABSAMP ABSAMP Type ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type Location Name Rating No. (Modal) (Prevailing) (Prevailing) (Modal) Dark Point North Transverse Bar Transverse Bar nsw222 7 7 Beach and Rip and Rip Dark Point / Little nsw222RPa 7* Rock Platforms 7* Rock Platforms Gibber Transverse Bar Transverse Bar Bennett’s Beach nsw223 7 and Rip – Low 7 - 4 and Rip – Low Tide Tide Terrace Terrace Yacaaba Headland nsw223RPa 7* Rock Headland 4* Rock Headland * Great Lakes LGA Rock Platform Ratings

Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification study on rocky coasts (Kennedy, et al., 2013). This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. Professor Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). An update of this research was provided by Dr. David Kennedy at the NSW Coastal Conference in Ulladulla (November, 2014).

As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform.

It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a rock platform. In order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed the interim solution, which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology detailed above, has been applied. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.

Treatment Option 4.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed.

Page 18 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS

The modal beach characteristics and associated hazards for each location are as follows:

2.6.1 RHYTHMIC BAR AND BEACH

Rhythmic bar and beach type commonly occurs around the southern Australian coast. They usually consist of relatively fine-medium (0.3 mm) sand and exposure to waves averaging more than 1.5 m. They are characterised by an outer bar which is separated from the beach by a deep trough, however unlike the longshore bar and trough type, the bar varies in width and elevation alongshore, and it is rhythmic.

Waves break more heavily on the shoreward- Figure 2.6.1 Illustration of a Rhythmic Bar & Beach. protruding rhythmic bar sections with the broken wave and white water flowing shoreward as a wave bore. The bore then flows off the bar into the deeper tough, where it moves shoreward and longshore as a rip feeder current. Part of the wave reforms in the trough and breaks again on the shore.

The water from both the wave bore and the swash piles up in the rip feeder channel and moves sideways toward the adjacent rip embayment. The converging feeder currents turn and flow seaward as a rip current through the trough and across the deeper seaward-protruding sections of the rhythmic bar.

The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as rhythmic bar and beach: o Cape Hawke South Beach o Seven Mile Beach o Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach o Mungo Beach

2.6.2 TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP

Transverse bar and rip (TBR) type is the most common and extensive of Australia’s wave- dominated beach types. They occur primarily on beaches composed of fine to medium sand (0.3 mm) and exposed to waves averaging 1.5 m. This beach type received its name from the fact that the bars are transverse or perpendicular to and attached to the beach, separated by deeper rip channels.

The bars and rips are usually regularly spaced Figure 2.6.2: Illustration of a Transverse Bar and Rip. and range from 150 m on the lower energy sea- dominated northern Australian beaches to 250 m along the higher energy southeast coast and 350 m along the exposed southern coast. Waves break heavily on the shallower bars and less in the deeper rip channels

Page 19 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

resulting in lower energy swash in lee of the bars and higher energy swash/shore break in lee of the rips. The shoreline is rhythmic building a few metres seaward behind the attached bars as deposition occurs forming the mega cusp horns and being scoured out and often scarped in lee of the rips forming the embayments. The surf zone has a cellular circulation pattern. Waves tend to break more on the bars and move shoreward as wave bores. This water flows both directly into the adjacent rip channel and, closer to the beach, into the rip feeder channels located at the base of the beach. The water in the rip feeders converge and return seaward as a strong rip current.

The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as transverse bar and rip: o Nine Mile Beach o Tuncurry Beach o One Mile Beach o Cape Hawke North Beach o Janies Corner o Boomerang Beach o Blueys Beach o Sandbar / Cellito Beach o Number Six Beach o Number Five Beach o Number Four Beach o Number Three Beach o Lighthouse Beach o Treachery Beach o Dark Point North Beach o Bennetts Beach

2.6.3 LOW TIDE TERRACE

Low tide terrace beaches tend to occur when waves average about 1m and sand is fine to medium. They are characterised by a moderately steep beach face, which is joined at the low tide level to an attached bar or terrace, hence the name – low tide terrace. The bar usually extends between 20-50m seaward and continues alongshore, attached to the beach. It may be flat and featureless, have a slight central crest, called a ridge, and may be cut every several tens of metres by small shallow rip channels, called mini Figure 2.6.3: Illustration of a Low Tide Terrace. rips.

At high tide when waves are less than 1m, they may pass right over the bar and not break until the beach face, which behaves much like a reflective beach. At spring low tide, however, the entire bar is usually exposed as a ridge or terrace running parallel to the beach and waves break by plunging heavily on the outer edge of the bar.

At mid tide, waves usually break right across the shallow bar, when they are most likely to generate rip currents. The water is returned seaward, both by reflection off the beach face, especially at high tide, and via

Page 20 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

the mini rips, even if no rip channels are present. The rips, however, are usually shallow, ephemeral or transient meaning they will flow strongly for a few minutes then dissipate.

The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as low tide terrace: o Forster Main Beach o Burgess Beach o Lindeman Cove o Elizabeth Beach o Number One Beach o Bennetts Beach

2.6.4 REFLECTIVE

Reflective sandy beaches lie at the lower energy end of the wave-dominated beach spectrum. They are characterised by relatively steep, narrow beaches usually composed of coarser sand (0.4 mm). On the open Australian coast, sandy beaches require waves to be less than 0.5 m to be reflective. For this reason they are also found inside the entrance to bays, at the lower energy end of some ocean beaches and in lee of the reefs and islets that front many beaches.

Figure 2.6.4: Illustration of a Reflective beach. Reflective beaches are Australia's most common beach type occurring in every state though they are more common around the southern half of the continent. Reflective beach morphology consists of the steeper, narrow beach and swash zone, with beach cusps commonly present in the upper high tide swash zone. They have no bar or surf zone as waves move unbroken to the shore, where they collapse or surge up the beach face.

The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as reflective: o Tuncurry Rock Pool o Pebbly Beach o McBrides Beach o Shelly Beach o Number Two Beach o Boat Beach

Page 21 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.6.5 ROCK PLATFORMS AND ROCKY COASTS

Rock platforms and rocky coasts are wave eroded regions that exist at the base of rocky cliffs and headlands. They are typically influenced by tides and waves. For coastal hazards, rocky coasts can therefore be considered static features unable to adjust their morphology during storms unlike sandy beaches (Kennedy, et al., 2013).

The following regions within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as Rock Platforms or Rocky Coast:

o Second Head o The Tanks o Bennetts Head o Cape Hawke Headland o Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point o Yes I Know Rock o Seagull Point o Charlotte Head o Boomerang Point o Blueys Head o Danger Point o Bald Head o Seal Rocks Point o Sugarloaf Point o Treachery Head o Yagon Head o Big Gibber Headland o Dark Point / Little Gibber o Yacaaba Headland

Page 22 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR)

The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a quantitative assessment system developed by State-wide Mutual as ‘Best Practice’ for Signage As Remote Supervision (2007). The FVR can be used by NSW Local Government to determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location).

The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes site population use and frequency of use. Since the FVR calculation is used to determine aquatic recreational warning signage requirements, the figures used are those of the peak period of beach usage.

The following information is used to calculate the FVR:

1. Observational data collected during the site assessment; (only during peak summer periods do we rely on observational data) 2. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback; and, 3. Historical statistical data

The Facility Visitation Rate is calculated using the following formula:

FVR = (Development x Population) + Frequency

Where: Development* = the level of facilities and infrastructure that exist within or about the facility. Population = the average number of people that use the facility at any point in time. Frequency = the number of times that the facility is used by patrons.

* Note: Development ratings were calculated with reference to 2.7.2

2.7.1 FACILITY VISITATION RATING (FVR) REFERENCE TABLES

Table 2.7.1: Typical Development and Natural Hazards Rating for Reserves – non beach environments. Rating Development Natural Hazards 1 Virginal bush, cleared land, no infrastructure No hazardous features Cleared land, static infrastructure e.g. grass area with Sloping ground; no natural water; 2 tables and chairs, toilet block, lookout walking track around reserve Cleared land with mobile infrastructure e.g. grassed area Reserve contains natural waterway that 3 with play equipment, cycle way, market, leash free dog runs during wet weather, drops less areas than 1 meter Land manager owned infrastructure with no artificial Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 4 lighting e.g. golf course, football field, recreational meter and 3 meters ground, caravan park Extensively developed infrastructure with artificial Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater 5 lighting e.g. sporting complex, artificially lit courts than 3 meters

Page 23 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Table 2.7.2: Typical development ratings for beaches. Rating ABSAMP Beach Rating 1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2 2 Beach hazard rating 3 and 4 3 Beach hazard rating 5 and 6 4 Beach hazard rating 7 and 8 5 Beach hazard rating 9 and 10

Table 2.7.3: Typical population use rating for a facility. Rating Population Use 1 Less than 5 people at a time 2 5 to 50 people at a time 3 50 to 100 people at a time 4 100 to 500 people at a time 5 Greater than 500 people at a time

Table 2.7.4: Suggested Frequency use rating for a Facility. Rating Frequency of Use 1 An annual activity or event is held at the facility 2 An activity event takes place in the facility on a monthly basis 3 An activity event takes place in the facility on a weekly basis 4 An activity event takes place in the facility on a daily basis 5 The facility is in continuous use for the majority of the day

The FVR values for assessed locations in the Great Lakes LGA are provided in Table 2.7.5.

Table 2.7.5: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations. DEVELOPMENT LOCATION NAME X POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR RATING Nine Mile Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15 Tuncurry Beach 4 x 4 + 4 = 20 Tuncurry Rock Pool 1 x 4 + 4 = 8 Forster Main Beach 2 x 5 + 5 = 15 Second Head 2 x 2 + 3 = 7 Pebbly Beach 2 x 2 + 4 = 8 The Tanks 3 x 2 + 4 = 10 Bennett’s Head 3 x 1 + 3 = 6 One Mile Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16 Burgess Beach 2 x 2 + 3 = 7 Cape Hawke Headland 2 x 1 + 3 = 5 McBrides Beach 2 x 1 + 3 = 5 Cape Hawke North Beach 4 x 1 + 1 = 5 Cape Hawke South Beach 4 x 1 + 1 = 5 Janies Corner 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Seven Mile Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Lindeman Cove 4 x 1 + 2 = 6

Page 24 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION NAME X POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR RATING Yes I Know Rock 3 x 2 + 3 = 9 Elizabeth Beach 2 x 5 + 5 = 15 Shelly Beach 2 x 3 + 4 = 10 Seagull Point 3 x 1 + 3 = 6 Charlotte Head 3 x 1 + 2 = 5 Boomerang Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16 Boomerang Point 3 x 1 + 2 = 5 Blueys Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16 Blueys Head 3 x 1 + 2 = 5 Danger Point 3 x 1 + 1 = 4 Bald Head 3 x 2 + 2 = 8 Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16 Number Six Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4 Number Five Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4 Number Four Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4 Number Three Beach 2 x 1 + 1 = 3 Number Two Beach 2 x 1 + 1 = 3 Number One Beach 2 x 4 + 4 = 12 Seal Rocks Point 2 x 2 + 4 = 8 Boat Beach 2 x 3 + 4 = 10 Sugarloaf Point 3 x 2 + 3 = 9 Lighthouse Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15 Treachery Head 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Treachery Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15 Yagon Head 4 x 1 + 1 = 5 Submarine / Yagon Beach 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Big Gibber Headland 4 x 1 + 2 = 6 Mungo Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15 Dark Point North Beach 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Dark Point / Little Gibber 4 x 2 + 3 = 11 Bennett’s Beach 4 x 5 + 5 = 25 Yacaaba Headland 4 x 2 + 3 = 11

Given the FVR scores listed in Table 2.7.5, the most appropriate signage characteristics for each location are listed below.

FVR Score between 4 and 6 o Bennett’s Head o Cape Hawke Headland o McBrides Beach o Cape Hawke North Beach o Cape Hawke South Beach o Lindeman Cove o Charlotte Head o Boomerang Point

Page 25 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

o Blueys Head o Danger Point o Number Six Beach o Number Five Beach o Number Four Beach o Number Three Beach o Number Two Beach o Yagon Head

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Manager have signage and spaced no greater than 1000 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o Any information symbols relevant to the facility NB: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols.

FVR Score between 7 and 10 o Tuncurry Rock Pool o Second Head o Pebbly Beach o The Tanks o Burgess Beach o Yes I Know Rock o Shelly Beach o Bald Head o Seal Rocks Point o Boat Beach o Sugarloaf Point

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign as warning symbols. If no highs then the top hazard should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility

FVR Score between 11 and 15 o Nine Mile Beach o Forster Main Beach o Janies Corner o Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point o Elizabeth Beach o Number One Beach

Page 26 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

o Lighthouse Beach o Treachery Head o Treachery Beach o Submarine / Yagon Beach o Mungo Beach o Dark Point North Beach o Dark Point / Little Gibber o Yacaaba Headland

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign as warning symbols. If no highs then the top two hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility

FVR Score between 16 and 20 o Tuncurry Beach o One Mile Beach o Seven Mile Beach o Boomerang Beach o Blueys Beach o Sandbar / Cellito Beach This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter. o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign as warning symbols. If no highs then the top three hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility

FVR Score between 21 and 26 o Bennett’s Beach

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 100 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign as warning symbols. If no highs then the top four hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility

Page 27 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT

Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the beach/access. The 10 most common coastal facilities along the Great Lakes LGA coastline are shown in the table below.

Table 2.8.1: Top 10 most common coastal facilities. Rank Facility Type Count 1 Bench 108 2 Car Park 89 3 Rubbish Bins 44 4 Picnic Table 27 5 Sheltered Picnic Table 25 6 Accommodation 23 7 Amenities 21 8 Shower 20 9 Viewing Platform 18 10 Barbecue Area 12

Why do we record facilities? Facilities are recorded because it is important for the Land Manager to recognise that by providing the above facilities it is expected that there will be an increase in people visiting these areas. This increase can correlate to the likelihood of a risk occurring in a coastal environment. Treatment plans identified in the report should be implemented in these areas to reduce the risk of a particular event occurring.

Below is a list of the top ten locations for facilities within the Great Lakes LGA:

Table 2.8.2: Top 10 locations for facilities. Rank Location Count 1 One Mile Beach 56 2 Forster Main Beach 51 3 Bennetts Beach 41 4 Tuncurry Beach 31 5 Seven Mile Beach 28 6 Boomerang Beach 26 7 Tuncurry Rockpool 23 8 The Tanks 21 9 Elizabeth Beach 19 10 Pebbly Beach 18

Refer to Appendix D for a further breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Great Lakes LGA.

Page 28 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM

Population growth is an important consideration when evaluating and predicting beach usage trends. Increasing beach usage due to population growth relates to an increase in the probability of an event occurring. Tourism operations and development proposals are also associated with population growth, and these should also be considered when determining suitable risk treatment options.

2.9.1 POPULATION STATISTICS

The 2011 census recorded a population count of 34,430 in the Great Lakes LGA. Over the last 10 years, the population has increased by 3,164 people (10.12% growth). The first table lists the male, female and total population in the Great Lakes LGA for the last three Census counts. The second table lists the 2011 population of the suburbs that are situated along the coast of the Great Lakes LGA.

Table 2.9.1 Great Lakes population data (ABS, 2011). Great Lakes Local Government Area – Population Year Males Females Total 2011 16,860 17,570 34,430 2006 16,091 16,675 32,766 2001 15,339 15,867 31,266

Table 2.9.2 Population count of coastal state suburbs in the Great Lakes LGA (ABS, 2011). State Suburb Males Females Total Tuncurry 2,756 3,044 5,800 Forster 6,251 6,865 13,116 Green Point 295 292 587 Elizabeth Beach 112 118 230 Boomerang Beach 217 217 434 Smith’s Lake 551 525 1,076 Bangawahl 142 112 254 (Inc. Seal Rocks) Hawks Nest 575 548 1,123

Page 29 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.9.2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN GREAT LAKES

Existing and future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Great Lakes LGA should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision.

One particular example includes the development behind Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry North). The North Tuncurry Development Project involves a proposal to re-zone a 615 hectare parcel of Crown Lands – illustration figure below (North Tuncurry, 2014).

Figure 2.9.1: Illustration of the Tuncurry North Master Plan (North Tuncurry, 2014).

There are also plans for development to be undertaken at the northern end of Seven Mile Beach behind the Booti Booti National Park. This development includes 199 houses and 118 apartments built on 70 hectares of land (Wellings, 2008). The below figure is an artist’s impression of what the site may look like and the YouTube link – ‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mb6FHfzH1Q’ provides potential buyers with the benefits of living in the area.

Page 30 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.9.2: Illustration of the Seven Mile Beach Development.

The project has currently stalled because of financial pressures of the current developers.

Beach Usage: It is expected that attendance to Nine Mile Beach - Tuncurry and Seven Mile Beach will increase rapidly once these developments have been finalised.

These developments will: 1. Improve access to the coast. 2. See an increase in facilities such as car parks, foreshore BBQ’s and picnic tables etc. 3. See an increase with interaction activities such as swimming, surfcraft use and fishing.

There is also mention and preliminary discussions of a possible new Surf Life Saving Club at North Tuncurry.

Treatment Options 1.1 & 2.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area e.g. Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision.

Page 31 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.9.3 TOURISM INFORMATION

The following table shows the number of domestic overnight visitors, domestic day trippers and international visitors over a four year annual average to the year ending September 2014 (Destination NSW, 2015).

Table 2.9.3 Tourism data and visitor information for Great Lakes LGA. Overall Tourist Figures (‘000) Domestic Overnight 585 Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 401 International Visitors 12

Domestic overnight visitors are the most common visitor type followed by domestic day tripper, while international visitors only make up around 1% of total visitors.

Figure 2.9.3 The international Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain. Source: International Visitor Survey and National Visitor Survey, Tourism Research Australia (TRA).

Since December 2008 the number of total visitors has risen by approximately 100,000 people (11% increase).

Table 2.9.4 Domestic Overnight visitor information for Great Lakes LGA. Top 5 Activities (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Go to the beach 315 54 23 Eat out at restaurants 288 49 58 Visiting friends/relatives 229 39 49 General sight seeing 179 31 25 Go shopping (pleasure) 145 25 26 Origin (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Sydney 245 42 28 Regional NSW 284 49 41 Victoria 19 3 11 Queensland 24 4 11 Top 5 Accommodation (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Caravan park/camping 645 28 13 Rented house/apartment 608 26 10

Page 32 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Friends or relatives 515 22 39 Hotel, resort or motel 212 9 25 Own property 159 7 4 Age Group (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % 15 - 24 years 82 14 15 25 - 34 years 89 15 17 35 - 44 years 99 17 18 45 - 54 years 104 18 19 55 - 64 years 109 19 16 65 years or over 103 18 15 Travel Party (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Travelling with Children 223 38 26 Adult couple 200 34 27 Friends or relatives 90 15 15 (no children) Travelling alone 53 9 26 Purpose of Visit (Visitors) (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Holiday 394 67 42 Visiting friends/relatives 156 27 37 Other 15 3 6

In summary, beaches in the Great Lakes LGA are the number one attraction for domestic overnight travellers and this is considerably higher than the NSW average of 23%. 49% of these people live in Regional NSW while 42% come from Sydney. 28% stay at caravan parks and commercial camping grounds which also exceeds the NSW average of 13%. The number of visitors from each demographic is fairly even with only slightly more visitors within the 55 to 64 age bracket. The majority of visitors travel with children and overall visitors come to the Great Lakes LGA for a holiday.

Table 2.9.5 Domestic Day Trip visitor information for Great Lakes LGA. Top 5 Activities (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % Eat out at restaurants 155 39 44 Visiting friends/relatives 118 29 36 Go to the beach 95 24 10 Go shopping (pleasure) 78 20 21

In summary, the most popular activity for domestic day trippers is to eat out at restaurants. Around 24% of domestic day trippers will visit the beach and this exceeds the NSW average of 10%.

Table 2.9.6 International visitors information for Great Lakes LGA. Top 4 Origin Markets (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average % UK 3 26 11 New Zealand 2 13 13 Germany 1 10 4 USA 1 10 10

In Summary, visitors from the UK make up the highest proportion of international visitors to the region with 26%. This exceeds the NSW average of 11%, while German visitors also exceed the NSW average of 4%.

Page 33 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Local Accommodation Providers Local accommodation providers also attract beach users to the coast especially during school holiday periods. The beachside suburbs of the Great Lakes LGA have many holiday apartments/houses, caravan parks/camping grounds and hotels/motels. The accommodation providers that have direct access to coastal waters are listed below:

Table 2.9.7 Accommodation providers with direct coastal access in the Great Lakes LGA. Approx. Venue Type Location Park Owner Max Capacity Camping, cabins North Coast Tuncurry Beach Holiday Park Tuncurry Beach 1,500 and caravans Holiday Parks Camping, cabins North Coast Forster Beach Holiday Park Forster Beach 1,100 and caravans Holiday Parks Self-contained Ocean Front Motor Lodge Forster Beach Private 32 apartments The Dorsal Hotel Hotel Forster Beach Private 60 Camp Elim Cabins Seven Mile Beach Private 300 Camping, cabins Sundowner Tiona Holiday Park Seven Mile Beach Private 650 and caravans National Parks and The Ruins Campground Camping Seven Mile Beach 500 Wildlife Service Camping, cabins Pacific Palms Holiday Park Elizabeth Beach Private 500 and caravans Self-contained Moby’s Beachside Retreat Boomerang Beach Private 1,300 apartments Camping, cabins Sandbar Caravan Park Sandbar/Cellito Private 920 and caravans Camping, cabins Number One/ North Coast Seal Rocks Holiday Park 600 and caravans Seal Rocks Holiday Parks Camping, cabins Treachery Camp Treachery Private 500 and caravans Submarine / National Parks and Yagon Head Campground Camping 148 Fiona / Yagon Wildlife Service National Parks and Boomeri Campground Camping Mungo Beach 80 Wildlife Service National Parks and Wells Campground Camping Mungo Beach 48 Wildlife Service National Parks and White Tree Bay Campground Camping Mungo Beach 60 Wildlife Service National Parks and Dees Corner Campground Camping Mungo Beach 64 Wildlife Service

National Parks and Banksia Green Campground Camping Mungo Beach 60 Wildlife Service

Stewart and Lloyds National Parks and Camping Mungo Beach 48 Campground Wildlife Service

Page 34 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Approx. Venue Type Location Park Owner Max Capacity Self-contained Oceanside Hawks Nest Bennett’s Beach Private 200 apartments Hawks Nest Beach Holiday Camping, cabins North Coast Bennett’s Beach 2,000 Park and caravans Holiday Parks

Note: There are also numerous inland caravan parks, motels and holiday rentals.

The Great Lakes LGA has a transient population meaning that some coastal locations may see limited activity for the majority of the year until peak holiday times where the population dramatically increases.

Caravan parks/camping grounds that have direct access to coastal waters are of significance when determining the level of risk at a certain location. As most guests are domestic or international visitors their knowledge of the beach conditions will be less than local residents and therefore there is a higher chance of visitors getting into difficulty.

Many access points from caravan parks and camping grounds also lead to unpatrolled beaches or sections of a beach which may also increase the level of risk.

Some treatment options regarding accommodation providers that have direct access to coastal waters can be found in Sections 3.2.3 – Education and Awareness Programs and 3.2.4 – Safety Signage.

2.9.4 BEACH USAGE STATISTICS

Volunteer Lifesaving Statistics: The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving (volunteers) operating within the Great Lakes LGA. Figures for are over five patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15). Statistics for lifesavers have been sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’.

Attendances: The graph below provides the average daily attendances as recorded by lifesavers (weekends and public holidays) for the services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.

Figure 2.9.4 Average daily attendance statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Page 35 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Notes to graph: o Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) recorded the highest average daily attendance compared with other Surf Club beaches for each patrolling season. o The highest average daily attendance was recorded by Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) and this occurred in season 2011/12. o Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) recorded the lowest average daily attendance compared with other Surf Club beaches for each patrolling season. o The lowest average daily attendance was recorded by Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) and this occurred in season 2012/13.

Rescues: The graph below provides the rescues as recorded by lifesavers (weekends and public holidays) for the services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.

Figure 2.9.5 Rescue statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o Hawks Nest SLSC (Bennetts Beach) recorded the highest number of rescues in season 2010/11 and 2011/12. o Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) recorded the second highest number of rescues. o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) and Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) recorded the least amount of rescues and this is reflected by these two beaches being more protected from prominent south east swells than Bennetts Beach and One Mile Beach.

First Aid and Preventative Actions: The graphs below display the first aid and prevention statistics for lifesavers (weekends and public holidays).

Preventative Actions may include: First Aid cases may include: o Swimmers advised/warned o Minor injuries/first aid o Craft users advised/warned o Major injures/hospitalisation o Beach users advised/warned o Marine stings o Warning signs erected o Spinal injuries o Shark alarm o Shock o Searches/lost children

Page 36 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.9.6 First Aid statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) recorded the highest total number of first aids. o The highest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2010/2011 at Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach). o The lowest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2013/14 at Forster SLSC (Forster Beach).

Figure 2.9.7 Prevention statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o The graph shows that overall Hawks Nest SLSC (Bennetts Beach) recorded more preventative actions compared with other Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes LGA. o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) recorded the least amount of preventative actions.

Paid Lifeguard Statistics: The following statistics have been recorded by the paid lifeguards operating within the Great Lakes LGA. Figures are over 5 patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15).

Attendances: The graph below provides the average daily attendances as recorded by paid lifeguards (weekdays) for the services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.

Page 37 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.9.8 Average daily attendance statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o Elizabeth Beach lifeguards recorded the highest average daily attendance figures compared with other lifeguard locations. o The highest average daily attendance was recorded by Elizabeth Beach and this occurred in season 2011/12. o One Mile Beach lifeguards recorded the lowest average daily attendance figures compared with other lifeguard locations. o The lowest average daily attendance was recorded by One Mile Beach lifeguards and this occurred in season 2011/12.

Rescues: The graph below provides the rescues as recorded by lifeguards (weekdays) for the services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.

Figure 2.9.9 Rescue statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o One Mile Beach lifeguards recorded the highest number of rescues in all seasons except 2014/15. o Elizabeth Beach lifeguards recorded the least number of rescues for all combined seasons.

First Aid and Preventative Actions: The graphs below display the first aid and prevention statistics for lifeguards (weekdays).

Page 38 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.9.10 First Aid statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o The highest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2010/2011 at Forster Beach. o The lowest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2011/2012 at One Mile Beach.

Figure 2.9.11 Prevention statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).

Notes to graph: o The graph shows that overall Bennetts Beach recorded more preventative actions than any other lifeguard service in the Great Lakes LGA. o One Mile Beach recorded the least amount of preventative actions.

Rescues/Preventative Actions: The following tables show the cumulative statistics for both Preventative Actions and rescues which are then used to determine the Preventative Actions: rescues ratio. In theory, the more Preventative Actions a club/service makes, the number of rescues that are required to be conducted will decrease e.g. Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC makes 54 Preventative Actions before having to conduct a single rescue. These statistics may highlight which clubs/services have the opportunity to be more proactive in making Preventative Actions with the aim of reducing the amount of rescues that need to be performed.

Table 2.9.8 Volunteer Surf Life Saving total Preventative Actions and rescues for beaches in Great Lakes LGA (June 2010 – July 2015). Tea Gardens Cape Hawke Pacific Palms Forster SLSC Hawks Nest SLSC SLSC SLSC Total Preventative Actions 2,037 1,953 1,692 6,092 Total Rescues 29 64 42 111 Ratio Preventative Actions: Rescues 70:1 31:1 40:1 54:1

Page 39 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Notes to table: o The most effective ratio was recorded by Forster SLSC and the least effective was recorded by Cape Hawke SLSC.

Table 2.9.9 Lifeguard services total Preventative Actions and rescues for beaches in the Great Lakes LGA (June 2010 – July 2015). Bennetts Forster Beach One Mile Beach Elizabeth Beach Beach Total Preventative Actions 7,051 4,583 10,671 23,381 Total Rescues 19 68 13 40 Ratio Preventative Actions: Rescues 371:1 67:1 820:1 584:1

Notes to table: o The most effective ratio was recorded by Elizabeth Beach lifeguards and the least effective was recorded by One Mile Beach lifeguards.

2.9.5 DROWNING INCIDENTS

The drowning incidents that have occurred in the Great Lakes LGA from the 1st of July 2004 are provided below. The table excludes any inland drowning incidents.

Table 2.9.10 Drowning Incidents from 01/07/04 to 30/06/15 in the Great Lakes LGA. Age & Residential Victim Date Location Time Nationality Activity Gender Status Postcode Bennett's Australian 19/11/2006 13:00 30 / M Australian Swimming 2017 Beach Resident Australian 7/02/2009 Jimmy's Beach 19:15 31 / F Chinese Surfcraft 2600 Resident Australian 25/01/2010 Blueys Beach 18:45 61 / M Australian Swimming 2042 Resident Wallis Lake Australian 8/02/2010 7:00 76 / M Australian Boating 2428 Entrance Resident Seven Mile Australian 31/08/2012 n/a 82 / F Australian Self Harm 3689 Beach Resident McBrides Australian 6/04/2014 13:30 54 / M Australian Self Harm 2428 Beach Resident Sugarloaf Australian 7/05/2014 12:30 45 / M Australian Rock Fishing 2580 Point Resident Australian 09/06/2015 Tuncurry * 11:30 75 / M Australian Rock Fishing 2423 Resident Broughton 40’s / Australian 27/06/2015 10:00 Australian Boating 2322 Island M Resident

*The Coroner is still yet to determine if drowning was a contributing factor to this fatality.

Notes to table: o The average age of drowning victims was 55. o 77% of victims were male. o 66% of people who drowned reside outside of the Great Lakes LGA. o Three of the most recent drowning incidents occurred from fishing from rocks or a boat o 55% of incidents occurred after 12:00hrs. o It is acknowledged that the incidents at Seven Mile Beach and McBrides Beach were a result of Self-harm.

Page 40 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

While data surrounding incident location/time has been referenced, specific environmental conditions at the time of incidents have not been adequately assessed to identify causal factors and specific trends. This information exists and is held in raw format by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), including wave height/direction, tides, wind speed/direction, temperature, and visibility.

The Bureau of Meteorology and Surf Life Saving Australia are currently undertaking a retrospective analysis of meteorological and oceanographic conditions prevalent at the time of drowning cases between 2003 and 2013 to identify trends and inform the refinement of the hazardous surf warning system.

Review and assessment of this data may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions for types of localities, and specific ‘Blacks spot’ locations. Dangerous surf warnings and education/awareness programs may be improved as a result.

Page 41 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 2.9.12 Great Lakes LGA – Drowning and Victim Postcode.

Page 42 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.9.6 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS

There have been 76 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from 1st January 2008 to 30th June 2015 in the Great Lakes LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams (lifesavers/lifeguards) including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police. As a result of the 76 callouts, 24 persons were rescued and 53 callouts resulted in ‘no further action’ or ‘stood down before response’ meaning resources were ultimately not required. Such cases include self rescue, rescue by another member of the public, rescue by another emergency response organisation, and false alarms. Unfortunately, 5 of these callouts were a result of coastal drowning.

Note: The data below does not incorporate incidents from other emergency services where the SRERS may not have been tasked e.g. Water Police, Ambulance and Marine Rescue data.

Table 2.9.11 Emergency Callouts through the SRES from 01/01/08 to 30/06/15 in the Great Lakes LGA. Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome 23/04/2008 Lighthouse Beach Autumn Wed 8:00 Rock Related 1 Person Rescued 24/04/2008 Elizabeth Beach Autumn Thu 14:51 Rockfishing Stood Down 30/12/2008 Bennetts Beach Summer Tue 14:56 Shark Sighting No Further Action 23/12/2008 One Mile Beach Summer Tue 14:05 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued 7/02/2009 Sandbar/Cellito Summer Sat 14:26 Shark Sighting No Further Action Diving/ 10/04/2009 Pebbly Beach Autumn Fri 11:23 No Further Action Snorkelling Wallis Lake 23/04/2009 Autumn Thu 10:28 SurfCraft 1 Person Rescued Entrance 31/10/2009 Bennetts Beach Spring Sat 11:09 Shark Sighting No Further Action 1/01/2010 Jimmys Beach Summer Fri 13:01 Self Harm 1 Person Found Wallis Lake 8/02/2010 Summer Mon 7:19 Rockfishing 1 Coastal Drowning Entrance Wallis Lake 1/03/2010 Autumn Mon 11:23 Environmental No Further Action Entrance 23/03/2010 Blueys Beach Autumn Tue 16:14 Swimming 1 Person Rescued Wallis Lake 2/05/2010 Autumn Sun 14:47 Vessel 1 Person Rescued Entrance 16/01/2011 Pebbly Beach Summer Sun 16:42 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued Wallis Lake 25/01/2011 Summer Tue 8:23 Vessel No Further Action Entrance 30/01/2011 Nine Mile Beach Summer Sun 9:45 Shark Sighting No Further Action 13/02/2011 Bennetts Beach Summer Sun 14:05 Shark Sighting No Further Action 1/03/2011 Boomerang Beach Autumn Tue 17:35 Vessel No Further Action 17/06/2011 Seal Rocks Point Winter Fri 13:29 Rockfishing 1 Person Rescued 19/11/2011 Bennetts Beach Spring Sat 10:00 Shark Sighting No Further Action Wallis Lake 26/11/2011 Spring Sat 16:40 Vessel 1 Person Rescued Entrance 31/12/2011 Blueys Beach Summer Sat 11:43 Swimming 3 Persons Rescued 18/01/2012 One Mile Beach Summer Wed 14:35 Swimming No Further Action 18/01/2012 Forster Main Beach Summer Wed 9:49 Swimming No Further Action

Page 43 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome 10/05/2012 Elizabeth Beach Autumn Thu 15:12 Swimming No Further Action 29/06/2012 Elizabeth Beach Winter Fri 8:44 Swimming No Further Action 16/07/2012 Bennetts Beach Winter Mon 10:46 Shark Sighting No Further Action 5/10/2012 Seal Rocks Spring Fri 14:52 Shark Sighting No Further Action 28/10/2012 Boat Beach Spring Sun 9:05 SurfCraft No Further Action 11/12/2012 Forster Summer Tue 10:33 Swimming No Further Action 22/12/2012 Boomerang Beach Summer Sat 15:45 Swimming No Further Action 29/12/2012 Bennetts Beach Summer Sat 10:36 Shark Sighting No Further Action 4/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Fri 9:28 Shark Sighting No Further Action 5/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Sat 10:28 Shark Sighting No Further Action 7/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Mon 8:35 Shark Sighting No Further Action 7/01/2013 Forster Summer Mon 10:06 Other No Further Action 8/01/2013 Nine Mile Beach Summer Tue 9:45 SurfCraft No Further Action 11/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Fri 14:23 Other No Further Action 23/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Wed 9:05 Shark Sighting No Further Action 24/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Thu 8:38 Shark Sighting No Further Action Wallis Lake 24/01/2013 Summer Thu 17:24 Vessel 1 Person Rescued Entrance 2/02/2013 Tea Gardens Summer Sat 17:13 Vessel 1 Person Rescued Wallis Lake 14/03/2013 Autumn Thu 9:22 Swimming No Further Action Entrance 17/03/2013 Forster Autumn Sun 13:07 Swimming 1 Person Rescued Wallis Lake 2/10/2013 Spring Wed 10:16 SurfCraft No Further Action Entrance 12/10/2013 Seven Mile Beach Spring Sat 16:10 SurfCraft No Further Action 22/10/2013 Seven Mile Beach Spring Tue 15:32 Swimming 1 Person Rescued 7/12/2013 One Mile Beach Summer Sat 16:56 Swimming No Further Action 17/12/2013 Seven Mile Beach Summer Tue 11:32 Swimming No Further Action 26/12/2013 Jimmy’s Beach Summer Thu 16:14 Vessel No Further Action 2/01/2014 Bennetts Beach Summer Thu 16:13 Shark Sighting No Further Action 21/01/2014 Seven Mile Beach Summer Tue 17:20 Swimming No Further Action Booti Hill / 11/03/2014 Autumn Tue 17:15 Vessel 1 Person Rescued Flat Rock Point 17/03/2014 Forster Autumn Mon 13:54 SurfCraft No Further Action 6/04/2014 McBrides Beach Autumn Sun 13:30 Rockfishing 1 Coastal Drowning 14/04/2014 Boomerang Beach Autumn Mon 12:57 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued 21/04/2014 Sandbar / Cellito Autumn Mon 13:58 Other No Further Action 2 Persons Rescued, 7/05/2014 Sugarloaf Point Autumn Wed 12:31 Rockfishing 1 Coastal Drowning 9/06/2014 Elizabeth Beach Winter Mon 10:26 SurfCraft No Further Action 22/07/2014 Boat Beach Winter Tue 9:48 Rock Related No Further Action Wallis Lake 25/08/2014 Winter Mon 9:56 Swimming No Further Action Entrance

Page 44 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome 23/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Tue 13:47 Swimming No Further Action 23/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Tue 15:01 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued 29/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Mon 11:44 Shark Sighting No Further Action 15/10/2014 Forster Spring Wed 13:58 Other 1 Inland Drowning 21/10/2014 Boat Beach Spring Tue 14:40 SurfCraft No Further Action 1/11/2014 Seal Rocks Spring Sat 15:36 Swimming No Further Action 9/11/2014 Forster Spring Sun 11:56 Swimming No Further Action 23/11/2014 Forster Spring Sun 15:15 Swimming No Further Action Wallis Lake 23/11/2014 Spring Sun 19:26 Swimming No Further Action Entrance 4/01/2015 Forster Summer Sun 8:06 Shark Sighting No Further Action 21/01/2015 Nine Mile Beach Summer Wed 17:11 Swimming No Further Action 31/01/2015 Nine Mile Beach Summer Sat 15:25 Swimming No Further Action Wallis Lake 5/02/2015 Summer Thu 15:49 SurfCraft No Further Action Entrance 2/03/2015 Bennett’s Head Autumn Mon 8:47 Rock Related No Further Action 1 coastal drowning / 09/06/2015 Tuncurry Winter Tue 11:30 Rock Fishing death

Notes to table: o 16% of all emergency incidents occurred at Wallis Lake Entrance. o 89% of emergency incidents were located in lands managed by Great Lakes Council and 11% were located in lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. o 46% of emergency incidents occurred within the Tuncurry to Cape Hawke area, 23% within the Seven Mile Beach to Sandbar / Cellito area and 31% within the Seal Rocks to Hawks Nest area. o 35% of emergency incidents were a result of swimming, 22% from shark sightings, 12% from rock fishing / rock related incidents, 12% from surf craft, 10% from vessels and 9% from other unique means. o 45% of emergency incidents occurred during summer, 24% during autumn, 8% during winter and 23% during spring.

Treatment Options 1.2 & 2.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety.

Page 45 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2.10 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is a core component of the risk assessment and management process.

Stakeholder Consultation Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in place, risk management issues and opportunities that may exist.

Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Andrew Staniland, Manager – Parks and Recreation, Great Lakes Council o Rachel Kempers, Area Manager – Great Lakes, National Parks and Wildlife Service o Brett Cann, Senior Ranger, National Parks and Wildlife Service

The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops, o Print and radio media announcements of workshops and consultation, o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops, o Use of social media – Twitter, o Web based surveys, o Web based information submissions, o On-site communication and distribution of flyers, o On-site one-to-one surveying, and o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.

Consultation Workshop Two separate community forums were held in the Great Lakes LGA to engage with the local community. These were advertised in local media and pre-identified stakeholders were notified via email and follow up phone calls. The community forums were open to any member of the public including surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups, surfing associations, emergency services personnel, boaters, residents, etc.

The first community forum was held at Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club on Wednesday 24th June, 2015 and was attended by: o Simon Lee, Forster Surf Life Saving Club and the Australian Lifeguard Service Coordinator – Great Lakes / Taree o Grahame Burns, Local resident o Nathan De Rooy, Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club and Professional Lifeguard o Julie Wilcox, Director of Lifesaving Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club o Brian Wilcox, President Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club

The second community forum was held at Hawks Nest Golf Club on Monday 29th June, 2015 and was attended by: o Rhonda Scruton, CEO Hunter Surf Life Saving o Henry Scruton, President Hunter Surf Life Saving o Brad Love, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o Dan Chester, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club and Fire and Rescue NSW o Kate Maddison, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club

Page 46 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

o Debbie Booth, Director of Education Hunter Surf Life Saving and Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o Peter Weir, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o John Esters, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o Phillip Everett, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o Tony Logue, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club o Trevor Jennings, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Progress Association

Figure 2.10.1: Project Blueprint Flyer.

Consultation Survey The consultation process also involved the introduction of two online surveys which has been useful to capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders (total of 128 stakeholders). Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. The second survey was sent to internal stakeholders only e.g. lifesavers and lifeguards (total of 101 stakeholders). Questions focused on visitation numbers and incidents. Specific questions and answers can be referenced in ‘Appendix F’ (to be included with final report).

Stakeholder communication The process of communicating risk estimates from the assessment process to decision-makers and ultimately to the public, sometimes referred to as risk education, is only one part of the communication process. In getting those affected by risk to accept risk mitigation measures, and in providing decision-makers and communities with the information they need to tolerate and deal with risks, there needs to be two-way communications that includes those affected by risk, the public, into the decision-making process.

Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other relevant coastal safety agencies should hold regular liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Great Lakes LGA. It is acknowledged that this concept would need the establishment of a ‘terms of reference’ with clear structural and governance arrangements. It is recommended that the committee could have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can then be addressed

Page 47 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

in this agenda item. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year (before and after) the surf life saving season.

The Local Emergency Management Committee is an effective group in the Great Lakes LGA which discuss emergency management processes, opportunities and issues (including coastal). The group is made up of representatives from NSW Police, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Ambulance Service, State Emergency Service, Marine Rescue, Great Lakes Council, Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast, Local Government Departments (Education, Communication Services) and the Roads and Maritime Services.

Treatment Options 1.3, 2.3 & 4.2 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season.

Page 48 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK)

3.1.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY INDEX

The Action Planning Priority Index can be viewed as the gross risk score for a beach. The index seeks to identify the risks associated with the broader coastal environment under assessment, rather than specific hazards and risks present at a particular location or site. The majority of information detailed in this section of the report will be identified through pre-existing data (where available), with new data sourced where gaps are present or the data is not reliable.

The total score for the Action Planning Priority Index is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in Table 3.1.8.

The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s).

The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information: 1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP) Rating 2. Local Population Rating (LPR) 3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) 4. Access Rating (AR)

3.1.2 AUSTRALIAN BEACH SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Table 3.1.1 ABSAMP modal ratings applied to assessed locations. Location Name ABSAMP Rating Nine Mile Beach 7 Tuncurry Beach 7 Tuncurry Rock Pool 2 Forster Main Beach 4 Second Head 4* Pebbly Beach 4 The Tanks 5* Bennett’s Head 5* One Mile Beach 6 Burgess Beach 4 Cape Hawke Headland 4* McBrides Beach 4 Cape Hawke North Beach 7 Cape Hawke South Beach 7 Janies Corner 7

Page 49 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Location Name ABSAMP Rating Seven Mile Beach 6 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 7* Lindeman Cove 7 Yes I Know Rock 6* Elizabeth Beach 4 Shelly Beach 3 Seagull Point 5* Boomerang Beach 6 Boomerang Point 6* Blueys Beach 6 Blueys Head 6* Danger Point 6* Bald Head 6* Sandbar / Cellito Beach 6 Number Six Beach 5 Number Five Beach 5 Number Four Beach 5 Number Three Beach 4 Number Two Beach 4 Number One Beach 4 Seal Rocks Point 4* Boat Beach 3 Sugarloaf Point 5* Lighthouse Beach 7 Treachery Head 7* Treachery Beach 7 Yagon Head 7* Submarine / Yagon Beach 7 Big Gibber Headland 7* Mungo Beach 7 Dark Point North Beach 7 Dark Point / Little Gibber 7* Bennett’s Beach 7 Yacaaba Headland 7*

* Great Lakes LGA Rock Platform Ratings

Page 50 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATING

The Local Population Rating (LPR) expands on the information obtained from the Facility Visitation Rating. This additional population rating identifies the population of residents and/or non-residents located within 2km’s of a coastal location under assessment. The highest figure (resident or non-resident) will be recorded.

Table 3.1.2 Local population rating descriptors. Population Rating Qualifying Description (all staying/living within 2km of beach) 1 < 50 residents and/or < 20 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists) 2 50 – 250 residents and/or 21 – 100 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists) 3 250 – 1000 residents and/or 100 – 500 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists) 4 1000 – 2500 residents and/or 500 – 1000 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists) 5 2500 + residents and/or 1000 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)

Table 3.1.3 Local population ratings applied to assessed locations. Location LPR Total Nine Mile Beach 5 Tuncurry Beach 5 Tuncurry Rock Pool 5 Forster Main Beach 5 Second Head 5 Pebbly Beach 5 The Tanks 5 Bennett’s Head 5 One Mile Beach 5 Burgess Beach 5 Cape Hawke Headland 2 McBrides Beach 2 Cape Hawke North Beach 1 Cape Hawke South Beach 1 Janies Corner 1 Seven Mile Beach 4 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 3 Lindeman Cove 3 Yes I Know Rock 5 Elizabeth Beach 5 Shelly Beach 4 Seagull Point 4 Boomerang Beach 5 Boomerang Point 4 Blueys Beach 4 Blueys Head 4 Danger Point 4 Bald Head 4 Sandbar / Cellito Beach 4 Number Six Beach 1

Page 51 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Location LPR Total Number Five Beach 1 Number Four Beach 1 Number Three Beach 1 Number Two Beach 4 Number One Beach 4 Seal Rocks Point 4 Boat Beach 4 Sugarloaf Point 4 Lighthouse Beach 4 Treachery Head 3 Treachery Beach 3 Yagon Head 2 Submarine / Yagon Beach 2 Big Gibber Headland 1 Mungo Beach 3 Dark Point North Beach 1 Dark Point / Little Gibber 1 Bennett’s Beach 5 Yacaaba Headland 1

3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATING

The Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) identifies any conflicts present at the coastal environment between the number of people and activities taking place. Activities include both those in the water and those on the beach.

Table 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction descriptors. Population Population Conflicting activities Conflicting activities (in-water) (on beach) 100+ 5 Persistent and dangerous 5 1000+ 5 Persistent and dangerous 5 75-100 4 Persistent 4 750-1000 4 Persistent 4 50-75 3 Regular 3 500-750 3 Regular 3 25-50 2 Isolated conflicts 2 250-500 2 Isolated conflicts 2 1-25 1 No conflicts reported 1 1-250 1 No conflicts reported 1

Table 3.1.5 Human/Activity Interaction ratings applied to assessed locations. Population Population Location Conflict Conflict HAI Total (in water) (on beach) Nine Mile Beach 2 2 1 3 8 Tuncurry Beach 5 2 1 2 10 Tuncurry Rock Pool 3 2 1 2 8 Forster Main Beach 5 2 3 2 12 Second Head 1 1 1 1 4 Pebbly Beach 1 2 1 2 6 The Tanks 1 2 1 2 6 Bennett’s Head 1 1 1 1 4

Page 52 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Population Population Location Conflict Conflict HAI Total (in water) (on beach) One Mile Beach 5 2 2 2 11 Burgess Beach 1 2 1 2 6 Cape Hawke Headland 1 1 1 1 4 McBrides Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Cape Hawke North Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Cape Hawke South Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Janies Corner 1 1 1 1 4 Seven Mile Beach 4 2 1 2 9 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 1 1 1 1 4 Lindeman Cove 1 1 1 1 4 Yes I Know Rock 1 1 1 1 4 Elizabeth Beach 5 3 4 3 15 Shelly Beach 2 2 1 2 7 Seagull Point 1 1 1 1 4 Boomerang Beach 4 2 1 2 9 Boomerang Point 1 1 1 1 4 Blueys Beach 3 2 1 2 8 Blueys Head 1 1 1 1 4 Danger Point 1 1 1 1 4 Bald Head 1 1 1 1 4 Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3 2 1 3 9 Number Six Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Number Five Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Number Four Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Number Three Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Number Two Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Number One Beach 4 2 1 2 9 Seal Rocks Point 2 2 1 2 7 Boat Beach 3 2 1 3 9 Sugarloaf Point 1 1 1 1 4 Lighthouse Beach 3 2 1 3 9 Treachery Head 1 1 1 1 4 Treachery Beach 3 2 1 2 8 Yagon Head 1 1 1 1 4 Submarine / Yagon Beach 2 2 1 1 6 Big Gibber Headland 1 1 1 1 4 Mungo Beach 2 2 1 2 7 Dark Point North Beach 1 1 1 1 4 Dark Point / Little Gibber 1 1 1 1 4 Bennett’s Beach 5 2 3 3 13 Yacaaba Headland 2 1 1 2 6

Page 53 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.1.5 ACCESS RATING

Beaches or coastal environments that have increased accessibility (i.e. near major roads, cities, public transport, car parks, boat ramps, maintained access paths etc.) increase the likelihood of users at that beach. This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury.

Table 3.1.6 Access rating descriptors. Access Rating Qualifying Description No identifiable access via road or track, no facilities, car parking or obvious access 1 points 2 Access via un-maintained track with no facilities and/or via water access Access via any form of track or walkway (either maintained or un-maintained) AND any 3 provision of facilities or services including (but not limited to) public transport, shower, public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking Access via maintained tracks with clearly identified parking area AND/OR provision of 4 basic facilities (i.e. public toilets, public shower/ wash down area) AND/OR within 10km of moderate sized town or city (population greater than 5,000) Clearly evident, marked or signposted and maintained access points AND/OR within 10km of major town or city (population greater than 25,000) AND/OR car parking for 50 5 or more vehicles/boat trailers. Public transport provided within 250m of a beach access point

Table 3.1.7 Access ratings applied to assessed locations. Location Access Rating Nine Mile Beach 3 Tuncurry Beach 4 Tuncurry Rock Pool 5 Forster Main Beach 5 Second Head 2 Pebbly Beach 3 The Tanks 3 Bennett’s Head 2 One Mile Beach 4 Burgess Beach 3 Cape Hawke Headland 2 McBrides Beach 2 Cape Hawke North Beach 1 Cape Hawke South Beach 1 Janies Corner 2 Seven Mile Beach 4 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 2 Lindeman Cove 2 Yes I Know Rock 2 Elizabeth Beach 4 Shelly Beach 3 Seagull Point 2 Boomerang Beach 4

Page 54 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Location Access Rating Boomerang Point 2 Blueys Beach 3 Blueys Head 2 Danger Point 1 Bald Head 2 Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3 Number Six Beach 1 Number Five Beach 1 Number Four Beach 1 Number Three Beach 1 Number Two Beach 1 Number One Beach 3 Seal Rocks Point 2 Boat Beach 3 Sugarloaf Point 2 Lighthouse Beach 3 Treachery Head 3 Treachery Beach 3 Yagon Head 2 Submarine / Yagon Beach 3 Big Gibber Headland 2 Mungo Beach 3 Dark Point North Beach 2 Dark Point / Little Gibber 2 Bennett’s Beach 4 Yacaaba Headland 2

3.1.6 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORE

The action planning priority score provides an indicator for the overall level of risk of the location. The scores range from 0 to 60. These scores can be used to prioritise the order in which risk treatments described in the next section of this report are implemented.

Table 3.1.8 Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location. Population Human AMSAMP Access Total Score Location Support Activity/ X 2 X 2 X 2 Interaction (Out of 20) (Out of 10) (Out of 60) (Out of 10) (Out of 20) Nine Mile Beach 14 10 8 6 38 Tuncurry Beach 14 10 10 8 42 Tuncurry Rock Pool 4 10 8 10 32 Forster Main Beach 8 10 12 10 40 Second Head 8 10 4 4 26 Pebbly Beach 8 10 6 6 30 The Tanks 10 10 6 6 32 Bennett’s Head 10 10 4 4 28

Page 55 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Population Human AMSAMP Access Total Score Location Support Activity/ X 2 X 2 X 2 Interaction (Out of 20) (Out of 10) (Out of 60) (Out of 10) (Out of 20) One Mile Beach 12 10 11 8 41 Burgess Beach 8 10 6 6 30 Cape Hawke Headland 8 4 4 4 20 McBrides Beach 8 4 4 4 20 Cape Hawke North Beach 14 2 4 2 22 Cape Hawke South Beach 14 2 4 2 22 Janies Corner 14 2 4 4 24 Seven Mile Beach 12 8 9 8 37 Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 14 6 4 4 28 Lindeman Cove 14 6 4 4 28 Yes I Know Rock 12 10 4 4 30 Elizabeth Beach 8 10 15 8 41 Shelly Beach 6 8 7 6 27 Seagull Point 10 8 4 4 26 Boomerang Beach 12 10 9 8 39 Boomerang Point 12 8 4 4 28 Blueys Beach 12 8 8 6 34 Blueys Head 12 8 4 4 28 Danger Point 12 8 4 2 26 Bald Head 12 8 4 4 28 Sandbar / Cellito Beach 12 8 9 6 35 Number Six Beach 10 2 4 2 18 Number Five Beach 10 2 4 2 18 Number Four Beach 10 2 4 2 18 Number Three Beach 8 2 4 2 16 Number Two Beach 8 8 4 2 22 Number One Beach 8 8 9 6 31 Seal Rocks Point 8 8 7 4 27 Boat Beach 6 8 9 6 29 Sugarloaf Point 10 8 4 4 26 Lighthouse Beach 14 8 9 6 37 Treachery Head 14 6 4 6 30 Treachery Beach 14 6 8 6 34 Yagon Head 14 4 4 4 26 Submarine / Yagon Beach 14 4 6 6 30 Big Gibber Headland 14 2 4 4 24 Mungo Beach 14 6 7 6 33 Dark Point North Beach 14 2 4 4 24 Dark Point / Little Gibber 14 2 4 4 24 Bennett’s Beach 14 10 13 8 45 Yacaaba Headland 14 2 6 4 26

Page 56 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Where limited resources prohibit the implementation of all risk treatments recommended in this report, those beaches that have received a high action planning priority score should be treated first, then beaches with a medium, low and very low score.

Table 3.1.9: Key to land management of locations. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Council Managed Mixed Land Managers Managed

Table 3.1.10 Action Planning Priority scores for assessed locations.

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

High – this location should be considered as a priority for 1 Bennett’s Beach 45 implementation of identified risk treatment options High – this location should be considered as a priority for 2 Tuncurry Beach 42 implementation of identified risk treatment options High – this location should be considered as a priority for 3 One Mile Beach 41 implementation of identified risk treatment options High – this location should be considered as a priority for 3 Elizabeth Beach 41 implementation of identified risk treatment options Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 5 Forster Main Beach 40 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 6 Boomerang Beach 39 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 7 Nine Mile Beach 38 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 8 Seven Mile Beach 37 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available

Page 57 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 8 Lighthouse Beach 37 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of Sandbar / Cellito 10 35 identified risk treatment options after Beach locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 11 Blueys Beach 34 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 11 Treachery Beach 34 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 13 Mungo Beach 33 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 14 Tuncurry Rock Pool 32 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 14 The Tanks 32 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of 16 Number One Beach 31 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 17 Pebbly Beach 30 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available

Page 58 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 17 Burgess Beach 30 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 17 Yes I Know Rock 30 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 17 Treachery Head 30 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Submarine / Yagon 17 30 identified risk treatment options after Beach locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 22 Boat Beach 29 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 23 Bennett’s Head 28 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Booti Hill / Flat Rock 23 28 identified risk treatment options after Point locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 23 Lindeman Cove 28 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 23 Boomerang Point 28 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available

Page 59 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 23 Blueys Head 28 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 23 Bald Head 28 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 29 Shelly Beach 27 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 29 Seal Rocks Point 27 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Second Head 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Seagull Point 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Danger Point 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Sugarloaf Point 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Yagon Head 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available

Page 60 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 31 Yacaaba Headland 26 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 37 Janies Corner 24 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 37 Big Gibber Headland 24 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Dark Point North 37 24 identified risk treatment options after Beach locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Dark Point / Little 37 24 identified risk treatment options after Gibber locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Cape Hawke North 41 22 identified risk treatment options after Beach locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of Cape Hawke South 41 22 identified risk treatment options after Beach locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 41 Number Two Beach 22 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding becomes available Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 44 Cape Hawke Headland 20 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available

Page 61 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Priority Priority location Total Score Comments

Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 44 McBrides Beach 20 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 46 Number Six Beach 18 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 46 Number Five Beach 18 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 46 Number Four Beach 18 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available Very Low – this location should be considered for implementation of 49 Number Three Beach 16 identified risk treatment options after locations rated as low or as funding becomes available

Key High 41+ Medium 31-40 Low 21-30 Very Low 0-20

Treatment Options 1.4 & 2.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.

Page 62 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

There are a range of risk treatment options that can be considered in the context of coastal risk management. The selection of the most appropriate option involves balancing the financial, social and environmental impacts of implementing each against the benefits derived from each. These may include any combination of the following: o Spread (share) risk – insurance, o Engineer (structural and technological) risk treatment – include modified practices, o Regulatory and institutional – change through revised regulations and planning, o Avoid – isolate the risk, move people away, o Research to better understand, and o Educate and inform stakeholders.

3.2.2 HIERARCHY OF RISK TREATMENTS (CONTROLS)

In determining the most appropriate and cost effective option, it is important to consider the hierarchy of risk treatments (controls). The hierarchy is a sequence of options which offer a number of ways to approach the hazard control process. o Hard controls deal with the tangible such as:  Eliminate the hazard which in a coastal context is often difficult to achieve.  Isolate the hazard which in a coastal context can be difficult due to the dynamic nature of environmental and weather conditions.  Use engineering controls such as design of access paths, installation of appropriate signage, and revegetation.  Use administrative controls such as supervision, emergency action plans, other documented policies, practices and procedures.  Use of personal protective equipment such as lifejackets and public rescue equipment. o Soft controls deal with human behaviour such as:  Use of effective leadership, management, trust, ethics, integrity, and building relationships  Education

Outlined below are principal risk treatment solutions that expand upon those listed within the Risk Register and Treatment Plan in ‘Appendix B’. The solutions outlined endeavour to provide specific and detailed information relative to the beach locations; however due to the diverse nature of location characteristics, recommendations are at times mainly generic in nature.

Land Managers should plan to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are outlined on the following pages.

Page 63 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.3 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS

Public education and awareness programs are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (prior to hazard exposure).

Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programs include: o Consistency in safety messaging (elimination of confusing/unclear or dissipative information). o Consistency in the method of provision (ongoing information provided at regular locations/times). o Longevity in the provision of information (ongoing, not a one-off).

Education Summary: The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programs that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Great Lakes LGA. Table 3.2.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education and awareness programs available to Land Managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of programs that are available and delivered within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land Managers are not limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider engaged to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified, regularly audited and insured.

Table 3.2.1: Examples of Education and Awareness programs. Organisation Program Focus Area Australian Professional Backpack Beach Survival Guide Swimming / Rip Currents Lifeguard Association AustSwim Learn to Swim Swimming Marine Rescue NSW Log on and off Boating Marine Rescue NSW Using your marine radio Boating NSW Department of Primary Get hooked – It’s fun to fish Fishing Industries (Fisheries) Paddle NSW Paddle Safe Watercraft Surf Educate Australia Kids Academy of Surf Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Educate Australia Corp Surf Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Life Saving NSW Nippers Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Life Saving NSW Surf Ed. Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Life Saving NSW Beach to Bush Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Life Saving NSW Western Sydney Blackspot Project Swimming / Rip Currents Surf Life Saving NSW BeachSafe Swimming / Rip Currents Coastal Accommodation Safety Surf Life Saving NSW Swimming / Rip Currents Network Surfing NSW Vegemite Surf Groms Surfing / Rip Currents Surfing NSW Surfers Rescue 24/7 Surfing / Conducting Rescues Recreational Fishing Rock Fishing Safety Awareness Rock Fishing Alliance NSW Royal Life Saving Society Swim and Survive Swimming Transport NSW (Maritime) Old 4 new lifejacket upgrade Boating & Fishing Transport NSW (Maritime) Wear a Lifejacket Boating & Fishing Transport NSW (Maritime) Boating Education Officers Boating

Page 64 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

The figures below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral available to Land Managers, rather to provide examples of a range of collateral that are available and can be provided to Land Managers upon request. Land Managers are not limited to the education collateral shown in the figures below, however they should ensure that any education collateral distributed or displayed is aligned to the key water safety messages promoted by the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.

Figure 3.2.1: Don’t put your life Figure 3.2.2: Survive a rip Figure 3.2.3: Old 4 New Figure 3.2.4: Swim between on the line™2 current. Lifejacket Upgrade. the flags.

3.2.3.1 EXISTING CONTROLS:

During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe were made aware of various beach safety information sources and education programs that are currently in place to educate and inform the public at a local level in the Great Lakes LGA. These programs as well as any other initiatives within and around the Great Lakes LGA should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported by Land Managers and key stakeholder groups.

It is acknowledged that Land Managers or key stakeholder groups may not have the capacity or expertise to implement surf education programs, and where this is the case they should work with peak water safety organisations to enhance the delivery of education programs within these areas.

Swimming Safety: Nippers: The nippers program is a junior activities program that introduces children aged 5 to 13 to surf lifesaving. It is a fun outdoors activity that develops a child’s confidence, teaches valuable life skills and safety knowledge. Nippers are held every Sunday between October to March at Forster SLSC, Cape Hawke SLSC, Pacific Palms SLSC and Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC (Surf Life Saving NSW, 2015).

Surf Awareness School: Volunteers from the Forster Surf Life Saving Club organise a surf awareness school that is staged over a three weekly period during the summer holiday period. The programme is aimed at holiday makers and in three years has reached 360 people. The majority of participants involved come from country NSW and Sydney. The programme has gained a positive reputation with the Forster community as a fun and worthwhile Christmas School holiday activity.

2 Don’t put your life on the line is a registered trade mark of the NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance NSW.

Page 65 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

The club also runs an educational programme for local indigenous teenagers as well as running programs for local schools upon request.

These programs in particular should continue to be supported by Great Lakes Council and could be expanded to other areas outside of Forster such as Bennetts Beach.

Surfing Safety: Surf Schools/Surf Groms: The Great Lakes Surf School operates around the Forster area. This school provides surfing lessons, surfing tours and most importantly provides beginner surfers with key surf safety knowledge and awareness.

Surfers Rescue 24/7: Surfing NSW, with support of the NSW Government are giving surfers in NSW the opportunity to do a free CPR and Board Rescue Course (Surfers Rescue 24/7, 2015). Any competent surfer from a recreational grass roots boardrider to professional surfers can participate in this course.

Rock Fishing Safety: The Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW has produced the Safe Fishing website, which also provides multilingual information and resources to promote safer recreational rock fishing (Recreational Fishing Alliance, 2011). Part of this initiative has been the provision of multilingual flyers and DVDs to promote rock fishing safety.

Education days are also organised for rock fishers to provide educational learning and fishing techniques that will provide rock fishers with more information to make an informed decision about where they decide to fish as well as communicating key safety messages. One of these education days has also been filmed and is available through the YouTube channel ‘ACFishing’.

Figure 3.2.5 Recreational Fishing Alliance rock fishing school.

Boating Safety: Lifejackets: Nine out of ten people who drowned when boating in NSW were not wearing a lifejacket (Roads and Maritime Services 2014). On 1 November 2010, the rules governing the use of lifejackets on recreational vessels were strengthened to prevent loss of life on waterways. Lifejackets must be worn in the following circumstances:

1. By children less than 12 years old at all times when aboard a vessel less than 4.8 metres long and when aboard a vessel less than 8 metres long which is underway.

Page 66 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

2. By anyone being towed, including waterskiing, wakeboarding or parasailing and those being towed on tubes, sea biscuits or similar towable devices. 3. Boating at night and boating alone when aboard a vessel less than 4.8 metres long. 4. By a person on a PWC (Jet Ski) at all times. 5. By anyone aboard a canoe or kayak when more than 100 metres from shore. 6. By a person kitesurfing alone more than 400 metres from shore. 7. In certain situations of heightened risk including, but not limited to bad weather and crossing bars. 8. By anyone at any time when directed by the skipper.

Boating Education Officers: Boating Education Officers support Boating Safety Officers to help raise boating safety awareness and provide public safety information. Boating Education Officers visit boat ramps and retailers to directly engage recreational boaters to deliver information about the latest safety gear. They can also visit schools to deliver interactive boating safety presentations.

Smart Phone App: The Marine Rescue smartphone app provides boaters with a range of valuable safety tools and information. The app enables boaters to log on directly with Marine Rescue and there is also a safety tracking option, updating a boats position every 30 minutes (Marine Rescue NSW 2015).

General Water Safety: Smart Phone App: The Beachsafe smartphone app provides beach goers with detailed information about Australia’s beaches, including full weather and forecast information, tide, swell and water temperature. Most importantly the app shows which locations are patrolled by either paid lifeguards or volunteer lifesavers and the dates / times the beach is supervised (Beachsafe 2015).

Media: Throughout the year, local radio and print media play a key role in delivering key safety messages as well as informing the public when dangerous surf warnings are in place.

Figure 3.2.6 Great Lakes Advocate.

Page 67 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.3.2 RECOMMENDED CONTROLS:

Educational Messages: Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programs which include standardised key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agency websites such as: NSW Water Safety Advisory Council: http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/

Together with the following referenced websites of the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council for beach safety: o BeachSafe: www.BeachSafe.org.au o Safe Fishing: http://www.safefishing.com.au o Boating: http://maritimemanagement.transport.nsw.gov.au

Online Education: The Great Lakes Council (2015) website provides a list of beaches which are patrolled and unpatrolled. This webpage could be further enhanced by providing a detailed list of the patrol dates and times. The webpage could also provide surf safety tips and refer back to the BeachSafe website - www.BeachSafe.org.au.

The Great Lakes Tourism website provides a short description and the facilities available at main beaches within the LGA (Great Lakes, 2015). These webpages could also be further enhanced by providing a detailed list of the patrol dates and times together with surf safety tips.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (2015) website provides a list of safety advice for all water related activities and provides a link to the NSW Water Safety website.

Land Managers may also be able to utilise social media through its Facebook account to communicate safety messages or advise when dangerous surf warnings are in place.

Community Education: School Programs: Providing surf education is a key component in addressing the drowning chain and has the opportunity to reach a key target group. Surf education is not a core responsibility for Land Managers however they are still encouraged to assist with school participation levels. This type of promotion could include joint media releases, website promotion or written communication from council to target groups in local/regional areas.

Surf education (theory and application) can be very beneficial for primary and high school students. This type of education can include but is not limited to: o Class room based surf safety presentations o Swim and survive o Surf education programs at the beach

Apart from education within schools the Great Aussie Bush Camp (located outside of Tea Gardens) is another example of where surf education could take place.

Page 68 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.7 Surf Safety Presentation at Newport Beach (Pittwater LGA). (Photo Courtesy of Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches)

Water Safety Information: Displaying posters which promote water safety at locations such as public amenity blocks, Surf Life Saving Clubs and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access is a great opportunity for the exposure of messages.

Figure 3.2.8: An example of rip Figure 3.2.9: Example of a National Parks visitor information current sign on public amenity blocks. board where water safety information could be displayed.

Educational posters/signage should not be placed in positions where they would compete with formal aquatic and recreational safety signage which is usually placed around formal access points and high traffic areas (see Section 3.2.4 Safety Signage).

Quick Response (QR) codes may also be able to be utilised on any posters and visitor information noticeboards. QR codes involve the use of smart phone technology to provide location based safety messaging. They also allow for the embedding of additional detailed information for beach users that are interested in knowing more, without competing with other relevant information in visitor information boards. The system works by scanning a smart phone over the QR Code. These codes can be linked to specific water related safety information about a specific location, with the potential for multilingual messages. Information may also be able to include when dangerous surf warnings occur.

Tourists and Visitors: The Great Lakes LGA is a popular destination for domestic travellers, especially through the school holiday periods. A number of caravan and tourist parks within the Great Lakes LGA provide direct access to the coast, often to unpatrolled sections of a beach. A recent study has found that “visitors to coastal tourist parks are at a greater risk when swimming and bathing due to a high percentage of parks being close to unpatrolled beaches

Page 69 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

with hazardous swimming conditions” (McKay, et al., 2014). It is therefore important to ensure that the guests of these accommodation providers have some understanding of beach safety.

Education Collateral: The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers (including holiday rental real estate organisations) in the Great Lakes LGA could be implemented on an ongoing basis to ensure the collateral is part of the welcome information package for guests. Brochures and flyers about surf safety could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries.

Figure 3.2.10: Large accommodation provider at Forster Main Beach.

Rip Current Awareness Day: Over the past few years, Surf Life Saving Clubs have participated in an annual day to raise awareness about rip currents through an educational and visual demonstration. As part of these scheduled events, coloured dye is released by club members at various beaches around Australia to show the speed and distance of which a rip current can flow. Surf clubs can organise to participate in these educational demonstrations. Surf Life Saving Australia can provide the necessary resources to branches and clubs upon request.

Personal Protective Equipment: Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman and recreational boaters. Educational and awareness programs in the Great Lakes LGA should also promote and encourage these user groups to wear lifejackets. These messages could be included in community based education programs or the use of educational signage at well-known rock fishing locations.

The NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services has prepared a report on behalf of the Water Safety Advisory Committee on the outcome of consultation undertaken in 2013 on the wearing of lifejackets by rock fishers. The report, which includes a number of options to increase the wearing of lifejackets by rock fishers, will be submitted to the NSW Government for consideration.

A coronial inquest was also held in June 2015 focusing on the deaths of nine rock fishermen. Magistrate C Forbes, Deputy State Coroner made the following recommendation to the Minister for Justice and Police.

“To the Minister for Justice and Police I recommend the introduction of legislation required the mandatory use of life jackets by those engaged in rock fishing including:

Page 70 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

a) A requirement that the life jackets comply with the Australian Standards, b) The consideration of a twelve month grace period, c) The legislation be introduced with a dedicated education campaign, and d) The consideration of accompanying the introduction of mandatory life jackets with initiatives to facilitate the wearing of appropriate life jackets such as coupons or gift vouchers for free or subsided life jackets or life jacket borrowing schemes for those engaged in rock fishing.”3

Treatment Options 1.5 & 2.5 Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not have the expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety organisations to assist in delivery.

Treatment Options 1.6 & 2.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/).

Treatment Options 1.7 & 2.7 Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted through any websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages.

Treatment Option 1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. Great Lakes Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote these programs and encourage enhanced participation at a local and regional level.

Treatment Options 1.9 & 2.8 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations. Specific examples can be referenced in the report.

Treatment Options 1.10 & 3.1 Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers. Collateral could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries.

Treatment Options 1.11 & 2.9 Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational programs encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.

Treatment Option 4.3 The Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should participate in the annual Rip Current Awareness Day.

3 Coroners Court New South Wales 2015

Page 71 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.4 SAFETY SIGNAGE

Safety signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy and targets the in-transit and on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location.

Key factors relating to effective safety signage include: o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display, o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (AS/NZS2416:2010), o consistency in signage layout/display (Australian Water Safety Council, 2013), o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to maximise exposure to the public prior to arriving in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs, and o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the Land Managers annual planning.

3.2.4.1 EXISTING CONTROLS:

Existing safety signage within the Great Lakes LGA in regards to coastal safety is below and includes: o warning signage at coastal access points, o warning signage at popular cliff edge locations, o warning signage due to sand erosion, o warning signage at breakwater locations, and o temporary signage in place when lifesavers and lifeguards are on duty.

Great Lakes Council

Figure 3.2.11: Council Access Sign. Figure 3.2.12: Council Access Sign.

Figure 3.2.13: Council Access Sign. Figure 3.2.14: Caution – Sand Erosion.

Page 72 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Figure 3.2.15: National Parks Access Sign. Figure 3.2.16: National Parks Safety Sign – unstable grounds.

Crown Lands

Figure 3.2.17: Crown Lands Safety Sign on the Tuncurry break wall.

3.2.4.2 RECOMMENDED CONTROLS:

Proposed Signage: As funding becomes available, Appendix A outlines where access signage has the opportunity of being implemented. The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to assist in prioritisation: Land Managers should implement signage at high and medium ranked locations before lower ranked locations.

Signage Types (National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual)

Level 1 Road Signs: Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the closest intersection location for directional purposes.

Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign): Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the main entrance/car park to an aquatic environment. The recommended content includes location name, emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.

Level 3 Access Signs (Secondary access sign): Land Managers can place this type of sign at access points or pathways that lead to the aquatic environment (beach, rock pool or rock platform). Level 3 access signs follow the same principles as those of Level 2 car park signs and typically display the location name, emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.

Page 73 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Level 4 Individual Hazard and Regulation sign: Land Managers have the option to us this sign where a hazard is localised and has been identified at a level of risk that warrants sign posting.

Examples of these signs can be referenced in ‘Appendix A’.

When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended:

1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags’, and align signage style/layout with the ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’ or the State-wide Mutual guide. It is the recommendation of this report that style is aligned to the former.

2. Signage layout (top-down order) consists of the following: a) Location name and emergency marker (if/when applicable) or street address b) Hazards and warnings within the designated area c) Safety information or general location/area details d) Regulations e) Facility / Land Manager

3. Safety signs should meet the size/height/placement specifications outlined in ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags’.

4. ‘Diamond’ hazard symbols should be utilised (not triangle). Context: AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 provides for the use of either ‘diamond’ or ‘triangle’ hazard symbols. For consistency with existing signage and across local government areas the more effective diamond symbols should be utilised.

5. Effective placement of aquatic and recreational safety signage in a public reserve cannot be underestimated. Location, height and existing visual distractions are major factors which contribute to the effectiveness of a sign when installed.

6. Signs positioned in car parks should be placed central to the parking area and where parked vehicles will not obscure the sign.

7. Signs that are positioned in relation to open access areas should be spaced at regular intervals, with the distance between individual signs dependent upon the calculated Facility Visitation Rate (FVR).

8. Signs that are positioned in relation to defined access points should be sited as close as practical to the access point, or other appropriate location, and need to be consistently applied where possible e.g. on the left of the track entrance.

To effectively capture the attention of visitors, improve overall visual amenity and avoid confusion as a result of too many signs. Repetitive and/or unnecessary information and signs should be removed. Further, any non- essential signage (not related to location, safety, hazard, prohibition information) that is present at a location should be considered for removal or re-located as appropriate so as not to impact on the recognition of the safety orientated priority signage

Page 74 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Consistent Signage: It is the view of Australian CoastSafe that a consistent strategy of signage should be implemented within an LGA. Consistent signs are encouraged to avoid confusion and give a clear and consistent message. Below is an excerpt from AS 2416:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, Part 3, Guidance for Use (p.iv).

The standard states that “a standardized method of signing with the use of appropriate supplementary text throughout the working and public environment assists the process of education and instruction on the meaning of water safety signs and beach safety flags, and the appropriate actions to take.” The intention of AS2416:2010 Part 3 is “to ensure a uniformity of application of water safety signs and beach safety flags which leads to increased familiarity, and therefore improved safety, for the users including visitors and for the general public.”

As seen in the signage example above, Great Lakes Council currently have a few access signs that are inconsistent which can be updated.

Signage Consolidation/Removal: It is important to note that at most locations, an improved safety signage system usually results in an overall reduction in the quantity of signage due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the consolidation of key information into other signs. Excessive signage at coastal access points can cause people to become desensitised to the information presented to them and have the opposite effect of their intended purpose. Signage consolidation may see a reduction in the implementation and maintenance costs related to signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site. ‘Appendix A’ references those few signs that have the opportunity to be consolidated/removed.

Figure 3.2.18: Alcohol sign that could be prohibited. Figure 3.2.19: Signage that has the opportunity to be removed.

Safety Symbols: As outlined in the Facilitation Visitation Rating – Section 2.7, all potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. There are some instances in the Great Lakes LGA where existing signs have an insufficient number of hazard symbols when compared to the Risk Register and Treatment Plan – Appendix B. It is recommended that the required hazard symbols are updated on these signs through the use of stickers or natural attrition. Below is an example of an access sign at Burgess Beach where the hazard of submerged rocks / shallow sandbanks could be included as a symbol.

Page 75 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.20: Signage at Burgess Beach.

Education Signage: Rip currents are the number one cause of drowning along the coastline of NSW (SLSNSW, 2015). 90% of the 25,000 surf rescues each year are also rip related (Science of the Surf, 2015).

As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches where rip currents can occur educational signage could be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. An example of this sign can be viewed below, however it is suggested that proposed educational signage should be larger than this example. The sign informs beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current.

If implemented, this type of signage should not be placed in positions where they would compete with already existing access signage.

Figure 3.2.21: An example of rip education signage.

Rock Fishing Signage: Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting this key safety message. Below is an example of a specific sign related to rock fishing that could be implemented at popular rock platforms / headlands. The sign notifies rock fishermen of hazards such as dangerous waves and slippery rocks and provides this warning in different key languages. Some options for the implementation of this sign could include Cape Hawke Headland, Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point, Seagull Point / Charlotte Head and Sugarloaf Point.

Page 76 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.22: Example of Rock Fishing Signage.

Proposed Location Signs:

Figure 3.2.23: Proposed Location Sign.

The sign shown above has been recommended at locations which score between a 4 and 6 as per the Facility Visitation Ratings (p.23). This signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility, o A general warning message, o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms, and o Any information symbols relevant to the facility.

Note: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols. Appendix A outlines where these signs can be implemented.

Boat Ramp Locations: As boating is a significant activity within Great Lakes, boat ramp locations are of significance to the people who use them. Adequate signage situated at boat ramps will be a beneficial method in promoting boating safety practices. The below example is of a sign located at a boat ramp in Batemans Bay. This signage has relevant warning symbols and provides general safety advice and information fit for the activity of boating. As such, this signage would be a good benchmark template for implementation at other boat launching locations identified in Appendix A.

Page 77 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.24 Boating Safety Information.

It should be noted that the hazard symbols may change depending on the specific location (see Appendix A) and that the general safety advice can also be interchangeable with relevant boating safety campaigns.

Bar Crossing Signage: As highlighted in section 2.9.6, 16% (11) of all emergency incidents within the Great Lakes LGA occur at the river entrance to Wallis Lake. This is a result of vessels that are in need of assistance.

Figure 3.2.25 Bar crossing at Wallis Lake on a calm day.

A similar sign to the example below could be implemented at boat ramps or break wall locations to determine the safety level of river bar crossings e.g. during calm conditions a green light may be displayed, an orange light during moderate conditions, and during high conditions a red light may be displayed.

An advantage of the below example is that the sign can be controlled from a central location i.e. an operations centre or headquarters, meaning that specific personnel would not have to manually change the safety rating on a daily basis.

NSW Marine Rescue in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options to warn boat uses when crossing river bars.

Page 78 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.26: An example of a set of lights used by the Royal National Lifeboat Instituation for safety reasons in regards to tidal changes.

Temporary Signage: Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature.

Temporary hazards signs can be utilised in the following ways: 1. Where there is a higher risk of injury from temporary hazards 2. Where a hazard may exist at a patrolled beach either side of the flags 3. To direct patrons to a flagged area

Figure 3.2.27: Example of temporary signage directing patrons to the patrolled location.

Tourist Parks: Accommodation providers that have direct coastal access at unpatrolled locations are well positioned to implement temporary signage to inform people park guests of when beach conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to inform park managers of when dangerous swell events are occurring through a media release. A temporary sign could be positioned in front of the main access paths that lead to the beach.

Page 79 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Signage Summary Table: Great Lakes Council

Table 3.2.2 Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for Great Lakes Council. Possible Consolidate/ Proposed Proposed Proposed Boating Total Existing Maintenance Net Locations Remove/ Level 3 Level 4 Location Information Proposed Signs Required Signage Relocate/ Access Hazards Sign Sign Signs Replace Nine Mile 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Tuncurry Beach 29 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 -1 Tuncurry Rock 25 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 -3 Pool Forster Main 38 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 -3 Beach Second Head 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Pebbly Beach 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Tanks 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Bennett’s Head 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 One Mile Beach 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3 Burgess Beach 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 Boomerang 28 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 -1 Beach Boomerang 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point Blueys Beach 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Blueys Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Danger Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bald Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sandbar / 15 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 Cellito Beach Number One 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Boat Beach 8 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 Bennett’s Beach 31 2 7 5 0 0 0 5 -2 Totals 273 3 24 14 3 0 1 18 -6

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated/removed/replaced signage. So, 18 signs have been proposed and 24 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated/removed/relocated, leaving a net sum of negative 6 signs.

Page 80 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Table 3.2.3: Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for National Parks and Wildlife Service. Possible Consolidate/ Proposed Proposed Proposed Boating Total Existing Maintenance Net Locations Remove/ Level 3 Level 4 Location Information Proposed Signs Required Signage Relocate/ Access Hazards Sign Sign Signs Replace Nine Mile 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Cape Hawke 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Headland McBrides 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Beach Cape Hawke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Beach Cape Hawke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Beach Janies Corner 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Seven Mile 42 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 2 Beach Booti Hill / Flat 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Point Lindeman Cove 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes I Know 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Elizabeth Beach 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shelly Beach 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -2 Seagull Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charlotte Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number Six 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Number Five 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Number Four 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Number Three 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Number Two 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Number One 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Seal Rocks 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 Point Sugarloaf Point 25 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 Lighthouse 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Beach Treachery Head 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Page 81 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Possible Consolidate/ Proposed Proposed Proposed Boating Total Existing Maintenance Net Locations Remove/ Level 3 Level 4 Location Information Proposed Signs Required Signage Relocate/ Access Hazards Sign Sign Signs Replace Treachery 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 Beach Yagon Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Submarine / Fiona / Yagon 20 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3 Beach Big Gibber 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Headland Mungo Beach 45 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Dark Point 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Beach Dark Point / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Little Gibber Bennett’s 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Yacaaba 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Headland Totals 253 7 10 7 1 1 0 9 -1

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated/removed/replaced signage. So, 9 signs have been proposed and 10 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated/removed/relocated, leaving a net sum of -1 signs.

Treatment Options 1.12 & 2.10 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage.

Treatment Option 1.13 Existing access signage that does not meet a consistent adopted style should be replaced through natural attrition.

Treatment Options 1.14 & 2.11 As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational signage should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should inform beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current.

Treatment Options 1.15 & 2.12 Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at popular rock platforms / headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined in the main report.

Page 82 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Treatment Option 1.16 Great Lakes Council should approach the Roads and Maritime Service to implement specific boat safety signage (outlined in the report) at all boat ramp locations.

Treatment Options 4.4 Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the coastal tourist parks to inform guests of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to alert park operators when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory process.

Treatment Option 4.5 Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as strong currents, creek openings and pollution.

Treatment Option 5.1 Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options to warn boat uses when crossing river bars.

Page 83 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.5 EMERGENCY MARKER SYSTEM

When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space parkland, walking trails, beaches or rock platforms (where no cross-street or other reference point is available) it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response.

Emergency location markers enable triple zero call takers to immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero call.

Figure 3.2.28: Example of emergency marker sign.

Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage.

For an emergency marker system to be effective, a standardised state-wide program is required, that engages Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current program exists in NSW.

Australian CoastSafe is currently working with key government departments and emergency services to develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near future.

Treatment Option 3.2 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information, a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered.

Page 84 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.6 ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONGOING CAPITAL WORKS/MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

The way the coast is accessed is a significant factor in the management of coastal risk. While preventing public access/use to the coastal environment is not desired, a number of options exist to minimise the risks associated with the access way itself and the hazards that may be encountered on the coast (via that access way).

In reference to the assessment process, access points have been broken down into formal (defined), and informal (undefined) access.

Access issues are interrelated to other risk management initiatives/options such as water safety signage, emergency access numbering/reporting, supervision (lifeguard) information and public rescue equipment. An effective access plan for an area may optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of other initiatives.

Figure 3.2.29: Formal access at Boomerang Beach. Figure 3.2.30: Informal access at Bennetts Head.

Formal Access: The majority of formal access tracks in the Great Lakes LGA are well maintained. Land managers conduct inspections due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts when required.

Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer ‘track’, exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quantity of signage required and enhancing emergency access, reporting and location identification.

Informal Access: A number of informal access tracks also exist. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/unstable and uneven surfaces), may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting difficult (location awareness).

Options for formalising, redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers, vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations and situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or restrict the use of informal access.

Page 85 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.31: An example of access redirection at One Mile Beach.

Restricted Access: During the course of the assessment Australian CoastSafe endeavoured to reach every beach and rock platform within the Great Lakes LGA. However a few identified locations were unable to be assessed as they were either restricted by private road/property, or there was no identifiable or safe way of reaching these locations from land. Although some determined people may be able to get to these locations on foot by walking around rocky headlands, CoastSafe assessors were of the opinion that these locations would be inaccessible to a reasonable person and were unsafe.

These locations included: o Cape Hawke North Beach o Cape Hawke South Beach o Charlotte Head o Danger Point o Number Six Beach o Number Five Beach o Number Four Beach o Number Three Beach o Number Two Beach

Four Wheel Drive Access: There are a number of vehicle entry points for four wheel driving (4WD), see ‘Appendix A’ for specific locations. Great Lakes Council have developed a fact sheet on 4WD that has information relating to driving permits, a detailed list of locations that are permitted and a list of do’s and don’ts (Great Lakes Council, 2015). Some of the main regulations include: o A speed limit is a maximum of 40km/h o Drivers are required to slow to a speed of not more than 15 km/h when within 50 metres of people on beaches and when accessing the beach o Pedestrian beach users have right of way over motor vehicles at all times o Motor vehicles must be kept at least 15 metres from other beach users o Current tide charts should be in all vehicles

In some instances CoastSafe assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place to deter access to non 4WD beaches.

Page 86 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 3.2.32: Evidence of tyre marks on a non permitted 4WD beach.

Open Access: Open access occurs where there are no channels of barriers restricting where visitors can access the aquatic environment.

Emergency Vehicle Access: Access for emergency and lifeguarding/lifesaving services should be well known to key personnel. These access paths are regularly monitored to ensure that emergency vehicles are able to access a coastal location. All emergency vehicle access locations are recorded in ‘Appendix A’.

One particular emergency vehicle access at Treachery Beach was raised by the owners of Treachery Camp. As this location is remote and the response time for emergency services can be extensive it was requested by the camp owners that they have keys to be able to access the 4WD vehicle track at the middle of Treachery Beach as they are often the first responders to incidents. The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold discussions with Treachery Camp to discuss further.

Boat Ramp Access: There were 3 coastal boat ramp locations within the assessed area of the Great Lakes LGA and specific locations can be found in ‘Appendix A’. It is necessary for these boat ramps to have appropriate warning signage (see section – 3.2.4).

Marine Parks Authority: Marine parks conserve the marine biodiversity along the coastline. This may impact on the access to specific locations of the coast for recreational fishing activities. The Port Stephens–Great Lakes Marine Park extends from Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club south to Birubi Beach Surf Life Saving Club at the northern end of Stockton Beach (NSW Marine Estate, 2015).

The zoning map outlines the sanctuary zones within the Great Lakes LGA: o Cape Hawke North Beach o Cape Hawke South Beach o The eastern tip of Yacaaba Headland

Recently the NSW Government proposed to rezone the shoreline at the following from sanctuary zones to habitat protection zone to permanently allow shore-based recreational line fishing: o South end of Sandbar / Cellito Beach o Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach

Page 87 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Infrastructure Zoning: Tuncurry Rock Pool has a beach hazard rating of 2 which falls into the least hazardous category. Under modal conditions there is low danger posed by water depths and weak currents. However during larger swells and strong outgoing tidal currents this location can become more hazardous particular with children and poor swimmers.

As reported in the Great Lakes Advocate on April 30, 2014 an experienced off duty volunteer surf life saver on holiday from Sydney was required to rescue 12 Indian tourists who were struggling against the strong tidal surge and being swept out into deeper water. If it wasn’t for the quick reaction from the rescuer the outcome may have been devastating.

An external company specialising in coastal hydrology is undertaking a study of the Tuncurry Rock Pool area. This will determine the best way to minimise the risk to swimmers by the strong tidal currents in the enclosure. As seen in the below figure there is currently a gap in the enclosure where people may be swept out during hazardous conditions. There is safety signage already present at this location and the results of the hydrology study should be examined and implemented.

Figure 3.2.33: Tuncurry Rock Pool.

Access Summary Table:

Great Lakes Council

Table 3.2.4: Access provision within lands managed by Great Lakes Council. 4WD Vehicle Private / Open Formal Informal / Total Possible Net Location Access/ Restricted Access Pedestrian Old Access Access Redirection Access Boat Access Ramp Nine Mile Beach 0 1 6 5 0 12 2 10 Tuncurry Beach 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 Tuncurry Rock Pool 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Forster Main Beach 0 9 0 2 0 11 1 10 Second Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Pebbly Beach 0 3 0 2 0 5 1 4 The Tanks 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 Bennett’s Head 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 One Mile Beach 0 13 0 3 0 16 3 13 Burgess Beach 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 Boomerang Beach 0 8 0 1 1 10 1 9 Boomerang Point 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1

Page 88 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4WD Vehicle Private / Open Formal Informal / Total Possible Net Location Access/ Restricted Access Pedestrian Old Access Access Redirection Access Boat Access Ramp Blueys Beach 0 4 0 1 3 8 1 7 Blueys Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Danger Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bald Head 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 Sandbar / Cellito 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 4 Beach Number One Beach 1 2 0 2 0 5 2 3 Boat Beach 0 1 2 14 0 17 7 10 Bennett’s Beach 1 8 7 3 1 20 2 18 Totals 5 62 16 42 5 130 22 108

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. In other words, 130 access points have been located, however 22 of these access points have the opportunity to be redirected, leaving a net access of 108.

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Table 3.2.5: Access provision within lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. 4WD Vehicle Private / Open Formal Informal / Total Possible Net Location Access/ Restricted Access Pedestrian Old Access Access Redirection Access Boat Access Ramp Nine Mile Beach 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 2 Cape Hawke 0 2 0 5 1 8 1 7 Headland McBrides Beach 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Cape Hawke North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Cape Hawke South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Janies Corner 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Seven Mile Beach 1 11 0 5 1 18 4 14 Booti Hill / 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 4 Flat Rock Point Lindeman Cove 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Yes I Know Rock 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 Elizabeth Beach 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 6 Shelly Beach 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 Seagull Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charlotte Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number Six Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number Five Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number Four Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number Three 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach

Page 89 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4WD Vehicle Private / Open Formal Informal / Total Possible Net Location Access/ Restricted Access Pedestrian Old Access Access Redirection Access Boat Access Ramp Number Two Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number One Beach 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Seal Rocks Point 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 Sugarloaf Point 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 4 Lighthouse Beach 0 4 1 3 0 8 0 8 Treachery Head 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 Treachery Beach 0 5 1 1 0 7 1 6 Yagon Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Submarine / Fiona / 0 3 0 4 0 7 4 3 Yagon Beach Big Gibber Headland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mungo Beach 0 9 2 3 0 14 3 11 Dark Point North 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Beach Dark Point / 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Little Gibber Bennett’s Beach 1 1 1 2 0 5 1 4 Yacaaba Headland 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3 Totals 2 51 10 42 2 107 19 88

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. In other words, 107 access points have been located, however 19 of these access points have the opportunity to be redirected, leaving a net access of 88.

Treatment Options 1.17 & 2.13 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.

Treatment Options 1.18 & 2.14 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.

Treatment Options 1.19 & 2.15 Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well known to emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be provided with keys.

Treatment Option 2.16 The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold discussions with the operators of Treachery Camp in regards to providing them with keys to be able to gain entry to the emergency vehicle access at the middle of Treachery Beach for emergency purposes.

Page 90 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Treatment Option 1.20 & 2.17 In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access.

Treatment Option 1.21 Following the completion of studies in relation to the Tuncurry Rock Pool area, Great Lakes Council should review and implement the findings to ensure that inexperienced swimmers and / or children aren’t swept out beyond the enclosure during periods of hazardous conditions e.g. strong outgoing tidal currents.

3.2.7 PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT

The table below provides an overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) currently in or available for use in Australia.

Table 3.2.6 An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Bradstreet, et al., 2012). Morphology Extensive Recommended PRE Type of current Advantages Disadvantages Training uses in NSW installations Required Sandy Requires the rescuer Can be thrown Rescue Tube beaches and to enter the water Yes None short distances rock pools themselves Risk of theft, risk of May be used on a using the line to case by case basis. return the patient

towards the rocks, Distance of Further Throw Bag Not in use not strong/tough No deployment effectiveness enough to be investigation resilient from required. environmental

conditions Mobility – easily Yes. Relevant deployed to Throw Sticks Personal Requires 2 to off-set personnel /staff incident locations (Stormy device ‘miss-throw’ of the No (emergency

grenades) (mobile) first services/SLS Effective mid-range /rangers) (thrown) Single use device. Ease of use. Distance of Steep Rugged design. deployment. Steep (>1:1) Life Ring rampart rock Awareness Requires rescuer to No rampart rock (Angel ring) platforms campaign approach the platforms established. platform edge. Weight.

Page 91 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

EPIRB unit Sloping (<1:1) immediately alerts rampart rock emergency EPIRB units were platforms. services. Multiple Sloping vulnerable to Silent Sentry balls can be rolled No platforms vandalism and Recommended down slopes to the disabled redesign to patient keeping the remove EPIRB rescuer at a safer housing. distance

Life Rings (Angel Rings™4): Life rings are an instantly recognised lifesaving mechanism and their functionality is easily understood by both a rescuer and the casualty. The national ‘Angel Ring ™ Project’ has seen the installation of 131 rings in NSW with 62 confirmed rescues involving their use (ANSA, 2014).

On 4 February 2014, The Australian National Sports Fishing Association received additional funding for the expansion and maintenance of the Angel Ring Project through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust.

There are currently 3 life rings situated in the Great Lakes LGA, however 4 life rings have been proposed. These locations are below and are in priority order for implementation. Further information can be found in Appendix C.

Table 3.2.7 Priority order for Life Rings. Priority Order Location 1 Tuncurry Break Wall 2 Forster Break Wall 3 Sugarloaf Point 4 Yes I Know Rock

In regards to any maintenance issues that may arise, ANSA NSW has stated the following:

“ANSA NSW will maintain contact with the local clubs, NSW Government agencies and individuals who have installed or agreed to manage the angel rings and continue communication to ensure that management targets are met.

As a minimum ANSA NSW or its nominated management team must complete a visual check at least every 2 months to determine the rings status.” (ANSA, 2013)

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS): GPS technology is available to be used within public rescue equipment such as life rings. Recreational fishing bodies have already trialled certain tracking devices in some areas and should be consulted with in relation to this matter. This technology may be beneficial by the way of a daily audit that can record when a life ring has been washed away or stolen as part of an asset management system.

4Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.

Page 92 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Shark Surveillance/Protection: The use of drones was discussed as an option at the Hawks Nest community forum to monitor shark activity during patrols. UAVs for surveillance are currently being trialled at some coastal locations, however a report prepared for the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Bryson and Williams 2015) suggests that there are still many limitations about the practicality and effectiveness of drones.

A separate report (Cardno 2015) lists a range of other shark mitigation strategies including electrical deterrent barriers, physical and visual barriers, detection methods and personal deterrents.

Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to investigate effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches.

Figure 3.2.34: The Little Ripper Lifesaver UAV currently being trialled in NSW.

Treatment Options 2.18 Land Managers should consider implementing life rings at the proposed locations identified in ‘Appendix C’. The Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW will be able to provide guidance on costings, suppliers and ongoing maintenance.

Treatment Option 3.3 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations.

Treatment Option 4.6 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to investigate effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches.

Page 93 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

3.2.8 SYSTEM OF SUPERVISION

The supervision of aquatic coastal locations is often required to manage the risk of the location, whether due to prevailing weather and beach conditions, the proximity to large population bases, or the attendance of the beach/coastal area due to its location or attractiveness.

The primary decision to be made by Land Managers before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location.

Uncertainties may exist when deciding whether supervision at a given location is appropriate, since: o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non-suitable location, such as when the beach topography and morphology create a highly hazardous location. This factor would be reflected in the ABSAMP beach hazard rating; o Such services may be deemed too expensive and therefore not provided by the responsible land manager; o The patronage of the location is low and the assessed risk level is minimal.

There are a range of aquatic supervisory services that should be considered, as it is not “one size fits all”. They include: o Full time comprehensive lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, fixed and portable facilities, equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services. o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, portable facilities, equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services. o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with trained personnel, portable facilities, some equipment and craft, and links to a command centre. o A flexible demand based service with trained personnel provision which allocates resources to where they are most needed. o Surveillance cameras. o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access.

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator: The lifesaving service level calculator takes into consideration the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings, visitation levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history and remoteness of location to determine best practice lifesaving service levels.

The first decision that needs to be made by a Land Manager is whether or not a location should be patrolled. The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to guide decision making on which locations are of greater inherent risk and therefore a higher priority for a lifesaving service. The lifesaving service level calculations should not be used in isolation to determine whether or not a lifesaving service should be provided, however once a decision has been made to provide a service the calculations should be referred to for guidance on the minimum service level required. Calculations for all beaches can be found in ‘Appendix G’.

International Best Practice: The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations internationally.

Page 94 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Lifeguard/Lifesaving Uniforms: The ILSF recommends the colours for uniforms be red & yellow5. Lifeguards/lifesavers throughout the world are called upon to provide safety services at a range of water environments that include swimming pools, beaches, lakes, river front and other waterfronts. In providing these aquatic safety services, it is important that the people using these environments for aquatic activity can readily identify the lifeguards/lifesavers for: o Guidance on safety issues, and o Assistance in times of need

As such the lifeguards should be readily distinguishable against the many people and colours they may be wearing while in, on or around these aquatic environments.

The red and yellow colours have been used by a number of International Lifesaving Member Federations for many years to such an extent and with much success that red and yellow has become synonymous with lifesavers and lifeguards in these countries.

Lifeguard uniforms within the Great Lakes LGA are consistent with the with ISLF position statement.

Volunteer Lifesaving Service - Existing: Below are the patrol dates and hours for the 2015/2016 season over weekends and public holidays.

Table 3.2.8 Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Great Lakes LGA. Saturdays, Sundays & Public Holidays Club Patrol Dates Start Time Finish Time 1pm (Sat) 19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 9am 4pm (Sun + PH) Forster SLSC 19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm 1pm (Sat) 30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 9am 4pm (Sun + PH)

19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 9am 1pm Cape Hawke SLSC 19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm 30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 9am 1pm

19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 10am 2pm Pacific Palms SLSC 19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm 30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 10am 2pm

10am (Sat) 3pm (Sat) 19/09/2015 - 05/10/2015 9am (Sun + PH) 4pm (Sun + PH) 10am (Sat) 2pm (Sat) 10/10/2015 - 13/12/2015 9am (Sun + PH) 4pm (Sun + PH) Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC 19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm 10am (Sat) 2pm (Sat) 30/01/2016 - 19/03/2016 9am (Sun + PH) 4pm (Sun + PH) 10am (Sat) 3pm (Sat) 25/03/2016 - 25/04/2016 9am (Sun + PH) 4pm (Sun + PH)

5 ILSF Lifesaving Position Statement - LPS 05 - Lifesaver And Lifeguard Uniforms

Page 95 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Regular roving patrols are also encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are incorporated into a Clubs Patrol Operation Manual. Roving patrols can be conducted by ATV, IRB/RWC or walking and should continue to be conducted at the following locations throughout a patrol. o Forster SLSC: Break wall (north) to ocean pool (south) o Cape Hawke SLSC: North Headland (north) to Konda Place (south) o Pacific Palms SLSC: North end of Elizabeth Beach (north) to Shelly Beach (south) o Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC: Sanderling Ave (north) to Deadmans car park (south)

Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter: The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter (Hunter Area) is also a vital service that operates around the Great Lakes LGA. This service is activated through the triple zero ambulance service and can respond to coastal incidents that may be remote for emergency services attending by road. At times, the service can also conduct roving patrols, looking out for swimmers, surfcraft users, rock fishermen and boaters who may be in need of assistance as well as scanning for dangerous marine life around patrolled locations.

RWC Patrols: It is also acknowledged that the Lower North Coast Branch through its support services conducts three roving patrols through an RWC on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays through the school holiday periods (9am – 1pm during autumn and spring) and (9am – 5pm during summer). The first area falls within the Greater Taree LGA, the second are covers from Nine Mile Beach to Cape Hawke and the third area covers from Seven Mile Beach to Seal Rocks. These services are also available for callouts that occur through the surf rescue emergency response system.

Paid Lifeguard Service – Existing: The Great Lakes lifeguard patrol dates and hours from the 2014/2015 season are provided below.

Table 3.2.9 Paid Lifeguard Services in the Great Lakes LGA. Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times 22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm Forster Beach 22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm 07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm

22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm One Mile Beach 22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm 07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm

22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm Elizabeth Beach 22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm 07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm

22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm Bennett’s Beach 22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm 07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm

Lifeguards also provide supervision at Tea Gardens Pool from the start of the spring school holidays through to the end autumn school holidays.

Page 96 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Marine Rescue: Marine Rescue plays a key role in boating safety and response within the Great Lakes LGA and is stationed at Wallis Lake entrance. These units are able to respond to incidents via a number of vessels.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS): The RMS website lists coastal bars at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/using-waterways/navigation- communication/coastal-bars.html. Some have web cam vision which can be accessed http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/using-waterways/web-cameras/index.html

System of Supervision – Proposed:

Paid Lifeguards Australian CoastSafe acknowledges the challenges that arise for regional coastal councils in regards to funding lifeguard services.

Some options to assist in funding lifeguard services may include: 1. Slight levy applied to rates at Tourist Parks. 2. Paid parking at the main car parks for non-residents. 3. Joint funding arrangements with tourism organisations and local businesses. 4. Future grant funding.

The lifeguard treatment options listed below are based upon the research and data contained within this Project Blueprint coastal public safety risk assessment: o Lifesaving service level calculator ‘Appendix G’, o Anecdotal evidence and feedback obtained through the various methods of consultation, o Historical drowning and emergency response incidents, o Historical beach visitation data (where available), and o Tourism NSW and ABS population data.

Forster Main Beach: The main beach in Forster is currently patrolled during the school holiday periods. As a highly popular tourism destination, Forster still experiences high beach usage outside of the school holiday periods as many couples, young families, university students and retirees choose to travel at these times. The beach is surrounded by numerous accommodation providers e.g. caravan park, resorts/hotels/motels and apartments. Peak visitation occurs during summer and it’s important for the people staying near Forster to have the option to swim at a patrolled beach throughout this period. The suburb of Forster has the highest population count as shown in section 2.9.1 and as the most centrally located beach within the immediate Forster area Great Lakes Council should consider the provision of supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in addition to the autumn and spring services.

Tuncurry Beach: In reference to section 2.9.2, beach visitation at Tuncurry Beach will continue to increase when the large development at North Tuncurry has been finalised and therefore a lifeguard service at this location should be strongly considered. This future increase in visitation is also supported by current high beach visitation during school holiday periods as the beach is backed by a large coastal accommodation provider that can accommodate up to 1,500 people and the large car park and attractive facilities at the very southern end of the beach. As the beach is more exposed to swells and rip currents, incidents at this beach may see an increase if no means of supervision is provided.

Page 97 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Volunteer Lifesavers: Tuncurry Beach: As outlined earlier the southern end of Tuncurry Beach can experience high visitation during the school holiday periods and especially during the summer holidays. Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club to discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost patrol at Tuncurry Beach during the summer school holiday period.

With reference to the Standard Operating Procedures – Lifesaving Services, an outpost patrol is defined as a sub patrol that has no patrol flags, and operates as an extension of the base patrol to provide surveillance at an area of high risk.

Treatment Option 1.22 Great Lakes Council should explore the means to fund the expansion of the lifeguard service at Forster Main Beach to provide supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in addition to the autumn and spring services already provided.

Treatment Option 1.23 A lifeguard service at Tuncurry should be strongly considered when the proposed large development at North Tuncurry has been finalised.

Treatment Option 1.24 The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and locations) should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.

Treatment Option 4.7 Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club to discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost patrol at Tuncurry Beach during the summer school holiday period.

Treatment Option 4.8 Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular basis to cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled.

Page 98 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Consideration of issues in relation to emergency response is extremely relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the Great Lakes LGA.

Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to: o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000), o Emergency phones/alarms, o Emergency response beacons, o Emergency service response, o Radio coverage, and o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service).

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING

The ability of members of the public to request assistance in an emergency is an important component of a drowning prevention strategy.

The Australian Government, through the Attorney-General’s Department are currently running a national Triple Zero (000) campaign which aims to build awareness of the Triple Zero (000) number and educate the community about when to use the number. The campaign serves to reinforce to members of the public their responsibilities when calling the Triple Zero (000) emergency number both in nominating the required emergency service and identifying the location they are calling from. The campaign uses the internet, newspapers, radio and television to promote messages of Triple Zero (000). In addition, elements of the campaign have been translated to reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities throughout Australia.

In addition, “Triple Zero (000) should not be referred to as 'Triple Oh', as this can cause confusion and could result in people incorrectly dialling 666 on some alpha-numeric keypads. If dialled within Australia, emergency calls to 666 will not be re-routed to Triple Zero (000)” (Australian Government, Attorney's-General Department, 2012).

Figure 4.1.1: Suggested emergency 'Triple Zero' information for signage.

Page 99 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Emergency Services Smart Phone Application ‘Emergency +’ is an application developed by emergency services, the federal government and industry partners. The application uses a mobile phone's GPS functionality so callers can provide emergency call-takers with their exact location information. ‘Emergency+’ also includes SES and Police Assistance Line numbers as options, so non-emergency calls are made to the most appropriate number (Apple 2014).

One disadvantage of the application is that you are required to have phone coverage for it to work. Dependent on phone providers, many Black spot locations exist in remote areas.

Figure 4.1.2: ‘Emergency +’ Application for smart phones.

In reference to coastal environments, while the application provides the latitude/longitude and a nearest street reference, it does not inform emergency services of what is the most effective and efficient way to access the person who is need of assistance. This is where the Emergency Marker System (section 3.2.5) will be a beneficial ‘value-add’ as all access locations to the coastline will be mapped, potentially including all the routing information, outlining to responding emergency services of how to best enhance responsiveness to a particular point of interest.

Treatment Options 1.25 & 2.19 In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an opportunity to promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community.

Page 100 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS

Emergency Response Beacons (ERB) can be positioned in high use/risk areas. They are highly visible and once activated, link via radio to lifesaving/lifeguard services.

The two main types of ERB are:

Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach lifesaving/lifeguard service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non-lifesaving).

Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system, whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those monitoring the ERB.

Fixed ERBs are generally only considered for use in high risk locations, where: o Limited or no mobile phone coverage exists, o A service can consistently monitor the beacon, and o A daily process of equipment checking/testing is in place.

More information about ERB can be provided by Surf Life Saving New South Wales.

Figure 4.2.1: Example of a mobile emergency response beacon on a beach.

Possible locations for emergency response beacons or radio technology in the Great Lakes LGA could be used at Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach.

Treatment Options 1.26, 2.20 & 4.9 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach.

Page 101 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE

Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the Great Lakes LGA (see table and figure below). Resources that may respond include: o NSW Police (including Water Police), o NSW Ambulance, o NSW Fire and Rescue, o State Emergency Service (SES), o Marine Rescue NSW, o Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter – Hunter Region o Great Lakes Council Lifeguards, o Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast (Branch and Club Callout Teams), and o Surf Life Saving Hunter (Branch and Club Callout Teams).

Table 4.3.1 Coastal Emergency Service locations for Great Lakes LGA (<10km from the coast). Emergency Services – Great Lakes Local Government Area Emergency Service Street Address Suburb NSW Police 83 Albert Street Forster NSW Police 51 – 53 Marine Drive Tea Gardens NSW Ambulance Service Manning Street Tuncurry NSW Ambulance Service 103 Myall Street Tea Gardens NSW Fire and Rescue 22 Lake Street Forster NSW Fire and Rescue 135 Marine Drive Tea Gardens Marine Rescue NSW Oyster Parade (nearest cross street) Forster Marine Rescue NSW Lighthouse Road Nelson Bay State Emergency Service 200 Charlotte Bay Street Pacific Palms Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Beach Street Forster Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Underwood Road (nearest cross street) Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Lakeside Crescent Pacific Palms Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Corner Booner Street and Beach Road Hawks Nest

Page 102 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 4.3.1: Emergency services located east of the Princes Highway in the Great Lakes LGA.

Page 103 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4.4 COMMUNICATIONS

Radio Coverage The State Operations Centre in Belrose (SLSNSW) assist lifeguards and lifesavers during normal operations and emergency incidents via UHF radio communication. The UHF radio signal strength on the Great Lakes coastline uses the repeaters at Forster, Pacific Palms, Seal Rocks and Hawks Nest. Below are the coverage maps for each of these repeaters.

Table 4.4.1: Key to radio coverage strength. No coverage Signal strength Signal strength Signal strength (Blacks spot) (limited) (average) (strong)

Figure 4.4.1: Signal strength of the Forster Repeater. Figure 4.4.2: Signal strength of the Pacific Palms Repeater.

As seen in the above figures signal strength around the Tuncurry and Forster areas is strong. The Cape Hawke area has average to limited coverage. The majority of Seven Mile Beach and Pacific Palms have strong coverage. The very southern end of Seven Mile Beach has average to limited coverage.

Page 104 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Figure 4.4.3: Signal strength of the Seal Rocks Repeater. Figure 4.4.4: Signal strength of the Hawks Nest Repeater.

As seen in the above figures signal strength around the Seal Rocks Area is strong. The southern end of Boomerang Beach, Sandbar/Cellito and Submarine/Fiona/Yagon Beach has average signal strength. Signal strength along Bennetts Beach has strong coverage however Mungo Beach has average to limited signal strength.

Phone Coverage: Due to the remote location and topography of the Great Lakes LGA, phone coverage in the area is often limited. Larger phone providers such as Telstra and Optus are more reliant than other smaller providers like Vodaphone, however there are still areas where Telstra and Optus coverage are limited. Areas within the Myall Lakes National Park are one example where phone coverage is very limited. Non reliant phone coverage may impact on an effective emergency response, and it is advised that when Land Managers and tourism agencies promote coastal walks for example, people are well informed that only specific phone providers may gain coverage, and even then phone reception may still be very poor in some areas. Personal locater beacons could also be encouraged.

Treatment Option 4.10 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and Hunter Branch to raise any current issues and opportunities which could see further radio infrastructure installed to improve communication.

Treatment Options 1.27 & 2.21 When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be aware that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons could also be encouraged.

Page 105 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS)

Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW) was established in January 2008 and provides a single point of contact for emergency services when there is a need to utilise surf rescue assets in coastal incidents. The emergency number can be contacted 24/7 and operators (State Duty Officers) can task/notify any surf rescue asset in NSW.

Through the growth of this system the Lower North Coast Branch have an effective Branch Duty Officer system and dedicated Club Callout Teams that can respond to incidents outside of patrolled locations/after hours. Lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many of which occur at unpatrolled locations and/or after hours).

The most appropriate resource at the time of the incident are notified first and activated i.e. volunteer lifesavers, paid lifeguards or other emergency services.

Marine Rescue NSW: Marine Rescue NSW is at times the most appropriate resource to respond to incidents along the coastline (particular vessel incidents). As part of the SRERS, Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Forster Marine Rescue Unit.

Emergency Scenario Training Communications and emergency response could be enhanced by conducting an annual emergency response scenario training day for lifesaving and lifeguarding services. Such exercises help to establish and cement the chain of command, cooperation and adherence operational procedures in the event of a joint emergency response with local emergency services. A suitable location to hold this scenario could be in Forster.

Treatment Options 1.28 & 4.11 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season.

Treatment Option 4.12 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Forster Marine Rescue Unit.

Page 106 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

5 MONITOR AND REVIEW

The process of monitor and review ensures that risk treatment options are meeting their objectives, new hazards and risks are identified in a timely manner and evolving strategies are in line with community expectations.

Land Managers are encouraged to ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This can include a process for the review of any drowning or emergency response incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed. The treatment options outlined in this report can also be used as a benchmark as future funding opportunities become available and when budget preparations occur annually.

Land Managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with the monitor and review process. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage, education, public rescue equipment, supervision and emergency response.

Treatment Options 1.29 & 2.22 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed.

Treatment Options 1.30 & 2.23 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance.

Page 107 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

6 REFERENCES

Apple 2015, Emergency + Preview, viewed 13 August 2015,

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, Quick Stats, viewed 27 July 2015,

Australian National Sports Fishing Association 2014, Angel Ring Project, viewed 27 July 2015,

Attorney Generals’ Department 2014, Triple Zero (000) awareness campaign and promotional material, viewed 13 August 2015,

Australian Water Safety Council 2006, National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

Bradstreet, A, Sherker, S, Brighton, B, Weir, A, Thompson, M 2012, Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney.

Bryson, M and Williams, S 2015, Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Marine Surveys: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research, Report prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries

Bureau of Meteorology 2014, ‘Hazardous surf climatology’, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.

Cardno 2015, Shark Deterrents and Detectors – Review of Bather Protection Technologies, Report prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries

Connor 2014, ‘Drones flying high for beach safety’ Bay Post 11 September, viewed 31 July 2015,

Destination New South Wales 2014, ‘LGA Profile – Great Lakes, Destination New South Wales, Sydney.

Great Lakes Council 2015, Pools and Beaches, viewed on 24 July 2015,

Great Lakes 2015, Beaches, viewed on 24 July 2015

International Life Saving Federation 2008, A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving, The International Life Saving Federation, Belgium.

Kennedy, D, Sherker, S, Brighton, B, Weir, A, Woodroffe, C 2013, ‘Rocky coast hazards and public safety: Moving beyond the beach in coastal risk management. Ocean and Coastal Management’, Volume 82, pp. 85- 94.

Page 108 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Marine Parks Authority 2015, Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park, viewed 28 July 2015,

Marine Rescue NSW 2015, Marine Rescue App, viewed 28 July 2015, http://www.marinerescuensw.com.au/marinerescue-app

McKay, C, Brander, R, Goff, J 2014, ‘Putting tourists in harms way - Coastal tourist parks and hazardous unpatrolled surf beaches in New South Wales’, Tourism Management, Volume 45, pp. 71-84.

New South Wales Division of Local Government 2012, ‘Practice Note No. 15 – Water Safety’, Department of Premier and Cabinet, New South Wales Government.

New South Wales Marine Estate 2015, Marine protected areas, viewed 28 July 2015,

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlifes 2014, Staying Safe in National Parks, veiwed 29 July 2015,

Recreational Fishing Alliance 2011, Safe Fishing, viewed 24 September 2013,

Roads and Maritime Services 2014, Lifejacket Wear It, viewed 24 July 2015,

Roads and Maritime Services 2015, Web Cameras, viewed 27 July 2015,

Science of the Surf 2015, Why do we need SOS, viewed 29 July 2015,

Short, A 2006, Australian Beach Safety Management Program, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Standards Australia 2009, ‘AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’, Standards Australia, Sydney.

Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 1: Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas’, Standards Australia, Sydney.

Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 2: Specifications for beach safety flags – “colour, shape, meaning and performance’, Standards Australia, Sydney.

Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 3: Guidance for use’, Standards Australia, Sydney.

Statewide Mutual 2007. ‘Signage As Remote Supervision’, Statewide Mutual, Sydney.

Page 109 of 110 Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area

Surf Life Saving Australia 2014, Beachsafe, viewed 24 July 2015,

Surf Life Saving Australia 2010, ‘The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines, 2nd edition’, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney.

Surf Life Saving New South Wales 2015, Incident Reporting Database, Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Sydney.

Surfing New South Wales 2015, Surfers Rescue 24/7, viewed 24 July 2015,

Urban Growth 2015, North Tuncurry, viewed 29 July 2015,

Wellings 2008, ‘Give me the resort life’ The Sydney Morning Herald 5 January, viewed 29 July 2015,

White 2014, ‘Twelve rescued at Tuncurry Rockpool’ Great Lakes Advocate 30 April, viewed 31 July 2015

Page 110 of 110