Coffs Harbour Local Government Area - Water Safety NSW€¦ · Coastal Public Safety Risk...

Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety

Black Spots Fund watersafety.nsw.gov.auA NSW Government water safety initiative

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

July 2013

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Page 2 of 97

© Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Belrose 2013 All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer While Surf Life Saving New South Wales endeavours to provide reliable analysis and believes the contents of this report to be accurate, it will not be liable for any claim by any party acting on such information. All rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of Surf Life Saving New South Wales. We accept no duty of care or liability to you or any third party for any loss suffered in connection with the use of this document.


Page 3 of 97

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 12

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 12 1.2 SCOPE AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 14 1.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................................................................................................................... 15 1.5 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................................................ 17

2. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 18

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 18 2.3 SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 20 2.4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 21 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.6 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 22 2.7 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS .......................................................................................................................... 23 2.8 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .......................................................................... 25 2.9 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.10 FACILITIES AUDIT ........................................................................................................................................... 32 2.11 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS ............................................................................................................ 33 2.12 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................ 41

3. RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 44

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ........................................................................................... 44 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ............................................................................................................ 44 3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program ........................................................................ 45 3.1.3 Local Population Rating ...................................................................................................................... 47 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating .................................................................................................... 49 3.1.5 Access Rating ...................................................................................................................................... 51 3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ............................................................................................................ 53

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ........................................................................................................ 58 3.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 58 3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) ............................................................................................ 58 3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes............................................................................................. 59 3.2.4 Safety Signage..................................................................................................................................... 64 3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ................................................................................................................. 70 3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes ............................... 71 3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment .................................................................................................................... 74 3.2.8 System of Supervision ......................................................................................................................... 76

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................. 92

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) ........................................................................... 92 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ....................................................................................................................... 92 4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ........................................................................................................................ 94 4.4 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) .................................................................................. 95

5. MONITOR AND REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 96

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 97


Page 4 of 97

APPENDIX A: ACCESS AND SIGNAGE SCHEDULE APPENDIX B: RISK REGISTER AND TREATMENT PLAN APPENDIX C: PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT APPENDIX D: COVERAGE MAPS APPENDIX E: SURVEY RESULTS


Page 5 of 97

Executive Summary This report contains findings and recommendations 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 Coffs Harbour City Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage and Crown Lands. These locations include (north to south): 1. Pebbly Beach 23. Campbells 2. Station Creek 24. Pelican 3. Little Beach 25. Hills North 4. Red Rock 26. Hills/Opal Cove 5. Corindi North 27. Korora 6. Corindi/Arrawarra 28. Charlesworth Bay 7. Arrawarra Headland 29. Diggers Head 8. Oceanview 30. Diggers North 9. Mullaway 31. Diggers South 10. South Mullaway/Cabins 32. Macauleys Headland 11. Mullaway Head 33. Park Beach 12. Safety/Darkum 34. Park South/North Wall 13. Woolgoolga 35. Mutton Bird Island 14. Woolgoolga Back Beach 36. Jetty Beach 15. Hearnes Lake 37. South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point 16. Sandy 38. Gallows 17. Fiddamans 38. Boambee

18. Emerald 40. Boambee Headland 19. Shelly 41. Murrays/Sawtell 20. Moonee 42. Bonville Head 21. Sapphire 43. Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 22. Riecks Point

The beach names used in this report have been sourced from ‘Beaches of the New South Wales Coast – A guide to their nature, characteristics, surf and safety’ (Short, 2007). The beach names used may differ from those referenced by Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. Some locations may be known locally by other names. Where the names referenced in this report differ to names referenced by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales the alternate name has been included. This report also contains assessment site area coverage maps which graphically identify the area that has been assessed for each location (Appendix D). Activities/Facilities The Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public usage and recreational activity, including swimming, surfing (inc. all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving, boating, and walking. A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and key beach access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, holiday accommodation options, coastal walks, a number of public toilets/changing rooms, BBQ’s and picnic tables. Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and Appendix B, Coffs Harbour LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Coffs Harbour LGA:

Strong ocean 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


Page 6 of 97

Inshore holes/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks: 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 Stingers/sharks: As a result of marine life Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction Based on risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users:

Strong ocean currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Stingers/sharks: Swimmers, surf craft users Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters Existing Risk Treatments Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the below risk treatment initiatives within the Coffs Harbour LGA. These include:

o System of supervision o Education and awareness programmes o Safety signage o Public rescue equipment


Page 7 of 97

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

Recommendation 1 Coffs Harbour City Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 1.1 Beach usage and incident data (drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics)

should continue to be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.40)

1.2 Scheduled development plans within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area should have a section

titled ‘coastal public safety’ or similar. This section should detail how the proposed development may affect beach usage and propose risk treatment options which may include such things as education, signage, beach access and supervision. Funding for these treatment options may be sought under section 94 of the ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979’. (p.40)

1.3 Coffs Harbour City Council, National Parks & Wildlife and Surf Life Saving North Coast should hold regular

surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area. The committee should 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 be addressed in this agenda item. (p.43)

1.4 As funding becomes available, the treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using

a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.57) Education: 1.5 Education and awareness programmes within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area should continue

to be implemented and reviewed. (p.63) 1.6 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.63) 1.7 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.63)

1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. The Coffs Harbour City Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote these programmes and encourage enhanced participation at a local level. (p.63)

1.9 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.63)

1.10 Work with the Australian Backpacker and Youth Hostel Accommodation (Coffs YHA) to develop a targeted

educational campaign to include education collateral and practical surf safety education. (p.63)

1.11 Investigate the options of lifeguards providing beach safety reports during the NBN local news (Mid North Coast) on Friday evenings or when a dangerous surf warning has been issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). (p.63)


Page 8 of 97

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) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.69)

1.13 Temporary signage should be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a supervised swimming area. Temporary signage can also be used where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion, debris and creek openings. (p.69)

1.14 Using the Statewide Mutual Facility Visitation Rate as a guide, all potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. (p.69)

1.15 Existing signs under Council management should be replaced through natural attrition to reflect best practice signage layout, in order to ensure a consistent approach, at locations that may be managed in part by both Coffs Harbour City Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service. (p.69)

Access: 1.16 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.73)

1.17 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.73)

Public Rescue Equipment:

1.18 Life rings under the management of Coffs Harbour City Council (e.g. on the pier at Jetty Beach) should be replaced and included in a schedule of maintenance. (p.75)

Surveillance and Supervision: 1.19 To further enhance roving patrols in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area, lifeguard supervisors

should continue to visit those beaches that are outside the normal scope of a roving patrol during the summer school holidays (vehicle patrol). These beaches include Woolgoolga Back Beach, Sandy’s, Moonee, Sapphire, Jetty Beach, Gallows and Bonville. The lifeguard supervisor can provide preventative education, record visitation numbers, act on any preventative actions and provide any necessary warnings (e.g. dangerous surf and rip currents). (p.91)

1.20 Lifeguards at Woolgoolga currently provide coverage during the spring, summer and autumn school

holiday periods (weekdays). Explore the means to fund an increase to this service to providing coverage on weekdays between the beginning of the spring school holidays to the end of the autumn school holidays. (p.91)

1.21 Lifeguards at Red Rock currently provide coverage during the summer school holiday period. To

complement the volunteer patrols on weekends during the spring and autumn school holiday periods Coffs Harbour City Council should explore the means to fund the lifeguard service at Red Rock to provide coverage during these holiday periods on weekdays. (p.91)

Emergency Response: 1.22 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf

Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers, lifeguards and emergency services within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities


Page 9 of 97

may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures). (p.95)

1.23 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations (SLS), the Coffs Harbour City Council lifeguards and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.95)

Monitor and Review: 1.24 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. (p.96)

1.25 All drowning prevention strategies should 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.96)

Recommendation 2 The National Parks and Wildlife Service – Office of Environment and Heritage should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 2.1 Beach usage and incident data (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.40)

2.2 National Parks & Wildlife, Coffs Harbour City Council and Surf Life Saving North Coast should hold regular


2.3 As funding becomes available, the treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using

a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.57) Education: 2.4 Education and awareness programmes within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area should continue

to be implemented and reviewed. (p.63)

2.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.63)

2.6 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.63)

2.7 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.63) Safety Signage: 2.8 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) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.69)

2.9 Temporary signage should be used at locations where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion, debris and creek openings. (p.69)


Page 10 of 97

Access: 2.10 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.73)

2.11 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.73)

Monitor and Review: 2.12 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. (p.96)

2.13 All drowning prevention strategies should 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.96)

Recommendation 3 The Water Safety Advisory Committee should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 3.1 A review be commissioned to analyse the historical environmental conditions at the time of recorded

drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors. (p.38)

Education: 3.2 Encourage tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network programme with the aim

of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area. (p.63)

Safety Signage: 3.3 Work with Tourism NSW to encourage coastal accommodation providers (e.g. resorts and caravan parks)

that have direct beach access to implement the use of temporary signage at the main entry points during dangerous surf warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) – warning the public of large/hazardous waves. (p.69)

Emergency Marker Signage: 3.4 With guidance from the NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and Property

Information a state-aligned emergency marker program at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a program is established. (p.70)

Public Rescue Equipment:

3.5 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 rock fishing associations. (p.75)


Page 11 of 97

Recommendation 4 Australian CoastSafe 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.24)

Recommendation 5 Surf Life Saving (State, Branch & Club) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 5.1 Surf Life Saving North Coast, Coffs Harbour City Council and National Parks & Wildlife should hold regular


Education:

5.2 Continue working with the local agricultural industry to distribute education collateral to every farm within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area who may employee temporary workers (domestic and international). (p.63)

Surveillance and Supervision: 5.3 Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular

basis to cover a nearby beach or section of a beach that is not patrolled. (p.91) Emergency Response: 5.4 The following mobile emergency response beacons should be installed when lifeguards and lifesavers are

on duty: o Woolgoolga - 1km north of Surf Life Saving Club (Lakeside Caravan Park) o Sawtell - 600m south of Surf Life Saving Club o Park Beach - 800m north of Surf Life Saving Club (Hoey Moey) o Little Beach: North of Red Rock Main Beach (p.93)

5.5 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf

Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers, lifeguards and emergency services within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures). (p.95)

5.6 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations (SLS), the Coffs Harbour City Council lifeguards and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.95)


Page 12 of 97

1. Introduction, Scope & Context 1.1 Introduction This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related issues identified at every beach/rock platform located on the coast of the Coffs Harbour LGA. The Land Managers of this area include Coffs Harbour City Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage and Crown Lands. Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 31 June 2013, there have been 338 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 2004

1. The vast majority of these can be attributed to

swimming/rip-currents and rock-fishing, with almost all 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’. 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 Figure 1.1.1: The International Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain (Source: ILSF Drowning Prevention Strategies, 2008)

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database


Page 13 of 97

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 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 their 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 recommendations found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to risk management at the locations assessed.


Page 14 of 97

1.2 Scope and Context Surf Life Saving New South Wales received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water Safety Black Spot Fund to conduct coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches and rock platforms). The program will be staged over several years with phase one including the top ten drowning locations by Local Government Area in NSW. The report provides risk treatment recommendations 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 AS2416 – 2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags o AS 2899(.1&.2) – 1986 Public Information Symbols Part 1 and 2 o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols - Public information symbols o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic

Signs o ISO9001:2000 Quality Management Systems This coastal risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Coffs Harbour LGA which commenced on Tuesday 12 February and concluded on Wednesday 20 February, 2013. The assessment covered all coastal locations within the area. 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 Coffs Harbour 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 may occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this report. Boat ramps and bars at river mouths that fall within the assessed areas identified in Appendix D have been assessed within the framework of the coastal public safety risk assessment process. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment. 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.

Other appendices include: o Coverage maps of assessed locations Appendix D.

o Survey Results Appendix E.


Page 15 of 97

At no time during the inspection was the water entered, they 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

report as a result of the project timeframes. o The absence of a consistent methodology for recording attendance figures, preventative actions and

rescues between lifesavers and lifeguards.

1.4 Definition of Terms Table 1.4.1: The following is a summary of the definition of key terms used within this report.

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety And Management Program

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

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle used by lifeguards and lifesavers to patrol the beach

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

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazards A source of potential harm

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


Page 16 of 97

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

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

Lifesaving Service An organised and structured service comprised of paid lifeguards and/or 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.

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

Peak Water Safety Agencies

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 common interest. Peak bodies in the water safety sector may include 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.

PRE Public Rescue Equipment (e.g. life rings)

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

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

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

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

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments

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

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

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

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


Page 17 of 97

Risk Evaluation Process of comparing the level of risk against criteria

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

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

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

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

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

RWC Rescue Water Craft used by lifeguards and lifesavers. More commonly known as jetskis

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

1.5 Project Team Adam Weir – Coastal Risk Manager Australian CoastSafe Surf Life Saving New South Wales Ph: 02-9471 8000 | F: 02-9471 8001 | M: 0419 444 003 E: [email protected] W: www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint Coastal Risk Officers: Stuart Massey, Coastal Risk Officer, 0406 353 344, [email protected] Luke Stigter, Coastal Risk Officer, 0409 075 620, [email protected]


Page 18 of 97

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, 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 Coffs Harbour LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in Appendix D. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed Approx. 70km of coastline in the Coffs Harbour LGA. The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Coffs Harbour City Council o NPWS

Yuraygir National Park Coffs Coast Regional Park Moonee Beach Nature Reserve Mutton Bird Island Nature Reserve Bongil Bongil National Park

o NSW DPI – Marine Parks 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. The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of the Coffs Harbour 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. It is also noted that at most locations local land management authorities, such as Council and NPWS, do not manage lands below the mean high water (MHW) level in the Coffs Harbour LGA. Although most of the hazards and associated risks identified in this report do occur below MHW, access is provided to these locations through lands managed by local authorities and the associated use of these locations is either directly or indirectly promoted through websites and other collateral published by local land management authorities. Local land managers also derive a benefit from the use of these areas through the visitor passes, camping fees, council rates levied against business and parking fees. As a result, although these risks do not fall within the specific area of management for local authorities there may still a duty of care owed to those that use these locations. This report serves to provide options for how land managers may choose to further meet their duty of care obligations should funding become available for their implementation.


Page 19 of 97

Figure 2.2: Coffs Harbour LGA overview of beach locations


Page 20 of 97

2.3 Site Inspection Table 2.3.1: Assessed locations and the dates of their assessment

Location Land Management Authority Date Pebbly Beach National Parks and Wildlife Thursday 14 February, 2013 Station Creek National Parks and Wildlife Thursday 14 February, 2013 Little Beach Coffs Harbour City Council Wednesday 15 February, 2013

Red Rock National Parks and Wildlife & Coffs

Harbour City Council Wednesday 15 February, 2013

Corindi North Coffs Harbour City Council Wednesday 15 February, 2013

Corindi/Arrawarra National Parks and Wildlife & Coffs

Harbour City Council Thursday 14 February, 2013

Arrawarra Headland National Parks and Wildlife Thursday 14 February, 2013 Oceanview National Parks and Wildlife Thursday 14 February, 2013 Mullaway National Parks and Wildlife Thursday 14 February, 2013

South Mullaway/Cabins National Parks and Wildlife Friday 15 February, 2013 Mullaway Head National Parks and Wildlife Friday 15 February, 2013 Safety/Darkum National Parks and Wildlife Friday 15 February, 2013

Woolgoolga Coffs Harbour City Council Friday 15 February, 2013 Woolgoolga Back Beach National Parks and Wildlife Friday 15 February, 2013

Hearnes Lake National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013 Sandy National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013

Fiddamans National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013 Emerald National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013

Shelly National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013 Moonee National Parks and Wildlife Saturday 16 February, 2013 Sapphire National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013

Riecks Point National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013 Pelican National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013

Campbells National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013 Hills North National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013

Hills/Opal Cove National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013 Korora National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013

Charlesworth Bay National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013 Diggers Head National Parks and Wildlife Sunday 17 February, 2013 Diggers North National Parks and Wildlife Monday 18 February, 2013 Diggers South National Parks and Wildlife Monday 18 February, 2013

Macauleys Headland National Parks and Wildlife Monday 18 February, 2013 Park Beach Coffs Harbour City Council Monday 18 February, 2013

Park South/North Wall Coffs Harbour City Council Monday 18 February, 2013 Mutton Bird Island National Parks and Wildlife Tuesday 19 February, 2013

Jetty Beach Coffs Harbour City Council Tuesday 19 February, 2013 South Coffs Island/ Corambirra Point

Coffs Harbour City Council Tuesday 19 February, 2013

Gallows Coffs Harbour City Council Tuesday 19 February, 2013 Boambee Coffs Harbour City Council Tuesday 19 February, 2013

Boambee Headland Coffs Harbour City Council Tuesday 19 February, 2013 Murrays/Sawtell Coffs Harbour City Council Wednesday 20 February, 2013

Bonville Head Coffs Harbour City Council Wednesday 20 February, 2013 Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen National Parks and Wildlife & Coffs

Harbour City Council Wednesday 20 February, 2013


Page 21 of 97

2.4 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 Though outlined in more detail within the report and appendices, the Coffs Harbour LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Coffs Harbour LGA: Strong ocean 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/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks: 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 Stingers/sharks: As a result of marine life Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction Based on the risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong ocean 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/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Stingers/sharks: Swimmers, surf craft users Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters 2.5 Data Analysis Data relevant to this risk assessment has been considered in the production of the report. These include: o Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme (ABSAMP) o Australian Bureau of Statistics – 2010 Census data o Australian Lifeguard Service Statistics o Beachsafe (2012) www.beachsafe.org.au o NSW Tourism Statistics o Rock Fishing Review - Bradstreet et al, (2012) – Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales. Surf

Life Saving Australia: Sydney). o SLSA Incident Reporting Database (IRD)


Page 22 of 97

2.6 Beach Hazard Ratings and Overview The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme) was developed by Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The programme 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 in the following table Table 2.6.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings

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 2.6.2: Beach hazard rating calculation matrices for wave dominate beaches.

Wave Height

Beach Type

< 0.5 (m)

0.5 (m) 1.0 (m) 1.5 (m) 2.0 (m) 2.5 (m) 3.0 (m) > 3.0 (m)

Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10

Long Shore Bar Trough

4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10

Rhythmic Bar Beach

4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10

Transverse Bar Rip

4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low Tide Terrace 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Reflective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

The beach hazard ratings presented in this 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 depending upon an individual's own skill, understanding and competence in relation to a certain area the hazard may in fact be greater or less. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected areas of the Coffs Harbour LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.

Hazard Rating Details

1 - 3

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

4 - 6

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

7 - 8

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

9 - 10

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


Page 23 of 97

2.7 ABSAMP Types and Ratings The ABSAMP Hazard Rating for the assessed locations listed below. The table provides an ABSAMP rating and descriptive label/name type for each specific beach location. Table 2.7.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Coffs Harbour LGA

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Pebbly Beach nsw78 5 Low Tide Terrace

Station Creek nsw79 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Little Beach nsw80 5 Low Tide Terrace + Tidal Creek

Red Rock nsw81 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Corindi North nsw82 3 Reflective

Corindi/Arrawarra nsw83 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Arrawarra Headland nsw84 3 Low Tide Terrace

Oceanview nsw85 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mullaway nsw86 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

South Mullaway/Cabins nsw87 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mullaway Head nsw88 4 Reflective + Rocks

Safety/Darkum nsw89 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Woolgoolga nsw90 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Woolgoolga Back Beach nsw91 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Hearnes Lake nsw92 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Sandy nsw93 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Fiddamans nsw94 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Emerald nsw95 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Shelly nsw96 4 Low Tide Terrace

Moonee nsw97 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Sapphire nsw98 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Riecks Point nsw99 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Pelican nsw100 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Campbells nsw101 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Hills North nsw102 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Hills/Opal Cove nsw103 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Korora nsw104 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Charlesworth Bay nsw105 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Diggers Head nsw105RP 5* Rock Platform

Diggers North nsw106 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Diggers South nsw107 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Macauleys Headland nsw108 7 Boulder + Rocks

Park Beach nsw109 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Park South/North Wall nsw110 4 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mutton Bird Island nsw110RP 4* Rock Platform

Jetty Beach nsw111 3 Low Tide Terrace


Page 24 of 97


South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point

nsw111RP 5* Rock Platform

Gallows nsw112 7 Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Boambee nsw113 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

Boambee Headland nsw113RP 7* Rocks

Murrays/Sawtell nsw114 6 Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Bonville Head nsw115RP 7* Rocks

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen nsw115 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

* Coffs Harbour 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. This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. Prof. Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) has presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). 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. However, in order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed an interim solution has been applied which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology. 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 25 of 97

2.8 ABSAMP Beach Type Characteristic Overview and Hazards Each location and their beach characteristics and associated hazards are as follows: Rhythmic Bar and Beach o Gallows/South Wall o Murrays/Sawtell

Figure 2.8.1: 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-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 Transverse Bar and Rip o Station Creek o Red Rock o Corindi/Arrawarra o Oceanview o Mullaway o South Mullaway/Cabins o Safety/Darkum o Woolgoolga o Woolgoolga Back Beach o Hearnes Lake o Sandy o Fiddamens o Emerald o Moonee o Sapphire o Diggers North o Diggers South o Park Beach o Park South/North Wall o Boambee o Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen Figure 2.8.2: 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 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 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


Page 26 of 97

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. Low Tide Terrace o Pebbly Beach o Little Beach o Arrawarra Headland o Shelly o Riecks Point o Campbell’s o Nautilus/Pelican o Hills North o Hills/Opal Cove o Korora o Charlesworth Bay o Jetty Beach Figure 2.8.3: Low Tide Terrace

Low tide terrace beaches tend to occur when waves average about 1 m 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 20-50 m 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 rips. At high tide when waves are less than 1 m, 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 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. Reflective o Corindi North o Mullaway Head o Riecks Point o Campbell’s o Nautilus/Pelican o Hills North o Hills/Opal Cove o Korora o Charlesworth Bay

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/glossary/def_a-b.jsp#Beach_face

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/glossary/def_s-t.jsp#Spring

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/glossary/def_q-r.jsp#Rip_current

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/glossary/def_q-r.jsp#Rip_current

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/glossary/def_q-r.jsp#Rip_channel


Page 27 of 97

Figure 2.8.4: 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. 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. Rocks & Rock Platform o Mullaway Head o Diggers Head o Macauleys Head o Mutton Bird Island o South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point o Boambee Headland o Bonville Head


Page 28 of 97

2.9 Facility Visitation Rates (FVR) The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a term, which has been developed to provide a quantitative assessment that can be used 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. As 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 calculation is derived using: 1. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback relative to the table values outlined 2. Historical statistical data, and; 3. Utilisation of the Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) formula, where:

Facility Visitation Rate = (Development Rating x Population) + Frequency Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables: Table 2.9.1: 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

2 Cleared land, static infrastructure e.g. grass area with tables and chairs, toilet block, lookout

Sloping ground; no natural water; walking track around reserve

3 Cleared land with mobile infrastructure e.g. grassed area with play equipment, cycleway, market, leash free

dog areas

Reserve contains natural waterway that runs during wet weather, drops less

than 1 metre

4 Land manager owned infrastructure with no artificial lighting e.g. golf course, football field, recreational

ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 metre and 3 metres

5 Extensively developed infrastructure with artificial lighting e.g. sporting complex, artificially lit courts

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 metres

Table 2.9.2: Typical development ratings for beaches.

Rating Development

1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2





Table 2.9.3: A typical population use within a facility provided by Land Managers.

Rating Population Use

1 Less than 5 people at a time

2 5 to 50 people at a time



5 Greater than 500 people at a time

Table 2.9.4: Suggested Frequency of use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event in 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


Page 29 of 97

The values and calculations are outlined as follows: Table 2.9.5: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations

LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT RATING

X POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR

Pebbly Beach 3 X 3 + 3 12

Station Creek 3 X 3 + 3 12

Little Beach 3 X 3 + 3 12

Red Rock 3 X 4 + 3 15

Corindi North 2 X 4 + 3 11

Corindi/Arrawarra 3 X 4 + 3 15

Arrawarra Headland 2 X 4 + 3 11

Oceanview 3 X 3 + 3 12

Mullaway 3 X 3 + 3 12

South Mullaway/Cabins 3 X 3 + 3 12

Mullaway Head 2 X 2 + 2 6

Safety/Darkum 3 X 3 + 3 12

Woolgoolga 3 X 5 + 4 19

Woolgoolga Back Beach 3 X 4 + 3 15

Hearnes Lake 3 X 3 + 3 12

Sandy 3 X 4 + 3 15

Fiddamans 3 X 2 + 3 9

Emerald 3 X 4 + 4 16

Shelly 2 X 3 + 3 9

Moonee 3 X 4 + 3 15

Sapphire 3 X 4 + 4 16

Riecks Point 2 X 3 + 3 9

Pelican 2 X 4 + 4 12

Campbells 2 X 4 + 4 12

Hills North 2 X 2 + 2 6

Hills/Opal Cove 2 X 4 + 4 12

Korora 2 X 4 + 4 12

Charlesworth Bay 2 X 3 + 3 9

Diggers Head 3 X 2 + 2 8

Diggers North 3 X 3 + 3 12

Diggers South 3 X 4 + 4 16

Macauleys Headland 4 X 2 + 2 10

Park Beach 3 X 5 + 5 20

Park South/North Wall 2 X 4 + 4 12

Mutton Bird Island 2 X 2 + 2 6

Jetty Beach 3 X 5 + 4 19

South Coffs Island/ Corambirra Point

3 X 2 + 2 8

Gallows 4 X 3 + 3 15

Boambee 4 X 3 + 3 15

Boambee Headland 4 X 2 + 2 10

Murrays/Sawtell 3 X 5 + 5 20

Bonville Head 4 X 3 + 3 15

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 4 X 3 + 3 15


Page 30 of 97

Given the FVR scores, shown in the above table, listed below is an outline of the most appropriate sign characteristics pertinent to each location: FVR Score between 4 and 6 Locations include: o Mullaway Head o Hills North o Mutton Bird Island 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 Fiddamens o Shelly o Riecks Point o Charlesworth Bay o Diggers Head o South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point o Macauleys Head o Boambee Headland

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers 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 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 Pebbly Beach o Station Creek o Little Beach o Red Rock Main o Corindi North o Corindi/Arrawarra o Arrawarra Headland o Oceanview o Mullaway o South Mullaway/Cabins o Safety/Darkum o Woolgoolga Back Beach o Hearnes Lake o Sandy o Moonee o Campbell’s


Page 31 of 97

o Nautilis/Pelican o Hills/Opal Cove o Korora o Diggers North o Park South/North Wall o Gallows/South Wall o Boambee o Bonville Head o Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and 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 Woolgoolga o Emerald o Sapphire o Diggers South o Park Beach o Jetty Beach o Murray’s/Sawtell This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and 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 No locations This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and 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 32 of 97

2.10 Facilities Audit Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the beach/access points. These include but are not limited to: o Picnic areas o BBQ’s o Playgrounds o Benches o Showers/water taps o Amenities o Car parks o Art infrastructure o Rubbish bins o Boat ramps o Marinas

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. Facilities as well as other local attractions are included in risk management and while these facilities or local attractions may, in isolation, increase the likelihood of a particular risk occurring, they may be offset by other factors such as the type of visitor who is going to a particular location. All factors relating to a risk are assessed as a whole and not in isolation when determining the level of risk. It is the level of risk and not the type of facilities (in isolation to other factors) that is used when determining if a risk treatment is required A breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Coffs Harbour LGA can be requested by the Land Manager if required.


Page 33 of 97

2.11 Beach Usage and Incident Statistics

Beach statistics The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving and lifeguard services operating within the Coffs Harbour LGA. Volunteer lifesaving figures are the combined statistics from the last 3 patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13) on weekends and public holidays. Statistics have been sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’. The below tables are based on the figures supplied by Coffs Harbour City Council and also figures entered into the SLSA SurfGuard system. Australian CoastSafe is not liable for the accuracy of the data entered and acknowledges that the figures used for calculating attendances will vary based upon the methodology used and the subjective nature of estimating attendances. It is noted that the absence of a consistent methodology for recording attendance figures, preventative actions and rescues between lifesavers and lifeguards may not give an accurate reflection of the actions being taken by both agencies. Table 2.11.1: Surf Life Saving Club statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Notes to table: o Sawtell SLSC recorded the highest visitation levels and rescues o Coffs Harbour SLSC recorded the highest number of preventative actions and first aid cases Lifeguard statistics have been sourced from the Coffs Harbour City Council Lifeguard Services/Training Coordinator and the Lifeguard Services Annual Report, Season 2011/2012. Figures are the combined statistics from the last 2 patrolling seasons (2011/12, 2012/13). Table 2.11.2: Coffs Harbour lifeguard statistics for 2011 to 2013 (Coffs Harbour Lifeguard Headquarters, 2013)

Note: Statistics for season 2012/13 are not yet final.

Notes to table: o Sawtell has the highest attendance, average day attendance and first aid cases o Diggers Beach has the second highest average day attendance, followed by Woolgoolga and

Darlington/Lorikeet Park o Park Beach have recorded the highest number of rescues and preventative actions and first aid cases

Surf Life Saving Clubs Attendance Rescues Preventative Actions First Aid

Red Rock 7,091 11 636 25

Woolgoolga 86,925 22 922 72

Coffs Harbour (Park Beach) 89,830 90 3,102 128

Sawtell 139,165 118 1,095 70

Totals 323,011 241 5,755 295

Lifeguard Services Attendance Patrolled Days

Average Day

Attendance

Rescues Preventative Actions

First Aid

Red Rock 15,332 47 326 7 739 2

Corindi 25,374 56 453 3 1,578 11

Darlington/Lorikeet Park

56,079 56 1000 1 1,799 72

Woolgoolga 88,370 85 1039 4 1,424 27

Emerald 49,660 63 788 5 722 54

Diggers 150,036 118 1271 20 8,090 104

Park Beach 330,838 540 611 46 15,243 63

Sawtell 430,445 291 1479 32 14,726 191

Totals 911,319 n/a n/a 98 38,059 358


Page 34 of 97

Table 2.11.3: Coffs Harbour lifeguard attendance statistics over 7 seasons (Coffs Harbour Lifeguard Headquarters, 2013)

Lifeguard Services 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07

Park Beach 164,133 186,793 134,451 115,043 71,893 96,791

Sawtell Beach 167,024 244,993 247,281 191,161 150,295 185,005

Woolgoolga Beach 50,741 38,545 69,614 31,095 24,519 31,479

Diggers Beach 68,322 85,626 100,007 55,383 55,373 75,597

Sapphire Beach Not Serviced Not Serviced 11,334 7,323 4,270 5,725

Emerald Beach 22,991 23,575 29,704 18,686 14,972 41,472

Darlington/Lorikeet 17,021 32,936 25,915 24,033 14,963 20,382

Corindi 10,465 12,578 9,707 12,552 8,436 12,410

Red Rock 7,084 7,182 10,190 12,698 6,228 5,949

TOTALS 507,781 632,228 638,203 467,974 350,949 474,810

Note: These figures have been directly sourced from the ‘Coffs Harbour Annual Report, Lifeguard Services 2011-2012 season, pg. 5’

Notes to table: o Season 2009/10 was the busiest recorded season over the 7 season period o Season 2007/08 was the quietest recorded season over the 7 season period Population Statistics This table shows the population in the Coffs Harbour LGA is 68,413. Population over the last 10 years has increased by approximately 7,000 people (11.8% growth). Table 2.11.4: Coffs population data (ABS, 2011)

Coffs Harbour Local Government Area – Population

Year Males Females Total

2011 33,201 35,212 68,413

2006 31,573 33,337 64,910

2001 29,892 31,294 61,186

This table provides a breakdown of the population living in the coastal towns of the Coffs Harbour LGA (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Table 2.11.4: Population living in coastal suburbs within the Coffs Harbour LGA (ABS, 2011)

Beach Population Figures

Beach Suburb Population

Red Rock 310

Corindi 1,453

Arrawarra 516

Arrawarra Headland 467

Mullaway 523

Safety Beach 769

Woolgoolga 5,050

Sandy Beach 2,125

Emerald 2,135

Moonee 1,566

Sapphire Beach 1,765

Korora 2,225

Coffs Harbour 24,581

Toormina 6,076

Sawtell 3,490

Bonville 2,260

Totals 55,311


Page 35 of 97

Property Development. The Coffs Harbour City Council – Development Control Plan 2013 identifies locations for potential property development. These locations that will have a direct coastal impact on increased beach usage will include Jetty Beach, Boambee Creek, Hearnes Lake, Sandy Beach, Korora, Moonee, Woolgoolga and Sapphire. Another large project that will attract an increase in beach usage is the ‘Jetty4Shore’ project. The Jetty area is an important destination for tourists and residents and has economic importance for marina activities and tourism. This project is important to Coffs Harbour City Council as the Jetty area is the gateway to the marina, Marine Park and recreational activities. The upgrade of facilities in this area will present the area as a vibrant regional coastal community. Below is a proposed map of the facility upgrade. As a result of this project it is likely that beach usage will increase at Jetty Beach, Park South/North Wall, Gallows and the fishing locations off break walls and rock platforms. Figure 2.11.1: Jetty4Shore Project Layout – Jetty Beach Scheduled development plans within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area that provide access to the coast, or will have a foreseeable impact on coastal use, should take into consideration this impact and potential impost on coastal safety service provision. Consideration should also be given to potential risk treatment options which may include such things as education, signage, beach access and supervision. Funding for these treatment options may be sought under section 94 of the ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979’ Tourist Information The below information has been sourced from the ‘Destination NSW’ website. All statistics are the average from three year totals to four year totals to June 2012. Destination NSW breaks down the number of visitors into three categories and these include: 1. Domestic overnight travel 2. Domestic day trip travel 3. International overnight travel


Page 36 of 97

Table 2.11.4: Tourism data and visitor information for Coffs Harbour LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Overall Tourist Figures (‘000)

Domestic Overnight 680

Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 741

International Overnight 72

Table 2.11.5: Domestic overnight travel data and visitor information for Coffs Harbour LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

Eat out at restaurants 389 29.7 n/a

Go to the beach 292 22.4 n/a

Visit friends and relatives 264 20.2 n/a

General sight seeing 187 14.3 n/a

Go shopping for pleasure 174 13.3 n/a

Origin (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

Regional NSW 856 37.3 35.5

Sydney 691 30.1 26.6

Victoria 162 7.1 13.9

Queensland 466 20.3 13.3

ACT 62 2.7 4.2

Other Interstate 58 2.5 6.4

Top 5 Accommodation (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW%

Friends or relatives 849 37.2 39.1

Hotel, resort, motel 611 26.8 23.4

Caravan Park, Camping 387 16.9 12.4

Rented 258 11.3 9.9

Own Property 43 1.9 3.9

Age Group (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

15 to 24 years 89 13.1 14.5

25 to 34 years 94 13.7 14.0

35 to 44 years 138 20.2 21.5

45 to 54 years 127 18.6 19.0

55 to 64 years 119 17.5 16.6

65 years and over 115 16.9 14.4

In summary, beaches in the Coffs Harbour LGA are the second highest attraction for domestic overnight travellers. 37.3% of these people live in regional NSW and 30.1% live in Sydney. 37.2% are more likely to stay with friends or relatives with 26.8% staying in hotels/resorts/motels. Visitors within the 35- 44 year age bracket have the highest percentage with 20.2%. Table 2.11.6: Day trip travel data and visitor information for Coffs Harbour LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

Eat out at restaurants 338 35.0% n/a

Go Shopping for Pleasure 293 30.3% n/a

Visit Friends and Family 154 15.9% n/a

Go to the beach 91 9.5% n/a

General sight seeing 88 9.2% n/a


15 to 24 years 109 14.6 14.4

25 to 34 years 72 9.8 13.4

35 to 44 years 130 17.6 19.6

45 to 54 years 127 17.1 18.1

55 to 64 years 163 21.9 16.8

65 years and over 141 19.0 17.7


Page 37 of 97

Top 5 Origin (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

Mid North Coast 439 59.2 6.9

Northern Rivers 195 26.3 4.3

New England North West 30 4.1 3.0

Gold Coast n/a n/a 1.6

Sydney 19 2.5 42.0

In summary, the majority of day trippers visit friends/relatives, eat out at restaurants and shop than go to the beach. Visitors within the 55- 64 year age bracket have the highest percentage with 21.9% and the majority of these visitors come from the Mid North Coast and the Northern Rivers. Table 2.11.7: International overnight travel data and visitor information for Coffs Harbour LGA (‘Destination NSW’ 2013)

Top 5 origin markets (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

United Kingdom 23 32.1 13.3

Germany 8 10.8 3.8

New Zealand 6 8.1 13.3

Canada 5 7.4 2.9

USA 5 7.0 10.6


15 to 24 years 24 33.4 18.8

25 to 34 years 21 28.6 24.8

35 to 44 years 7 9.3 17.4

45 to 54 years 6 7.9 17.2

55 to 64 years 9 12.9 14.8

65 years and over 6 7.8 6.9

Top 3 Accommodation (‘000) COFFS HARBOUR % NSW %

Friends or relatives 91 28.8 27.5

Backpacker / hostel 54 17 6.9

Renting 39 12.5 40.3

The highest number of international tourist’s holiday from the United Kingdom, Germany and New Zealand and this is consistent with other regional centres similar to Coffs Harbour. Even though these countries represent the highest number of visitors, international tourists visit Coffs Harbour from countries all around the world. Visitors within the 15- 24 year age bracket have the highest percentage with 33.4% and the majority stay with friends and relatives followed by backpacker/hostel accommodation. Drowning Incidents Below are the drowning incidents that have occurred in the Coffs Harbour LGA from 1 July 2004 to 30 April 2013. Table 2.11.8: Drowning incidents within Coffs Harbour LGA from 2004 to 2013 (SLSA Incident Reporting Database, 2013)

Coastal Drowning Incidents – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Date Location Time Day Month Age &

Gender Nationality

Residential

Status Activity

11/09/2004 Red Rock Corindi Beach 13:20 Sat Sep 23 – F Unknown

Australian

Resident Swimming

2/01/2005 Park Beach 13:00 Sun Jan 35 – M Ireland

International

Tourist Swimming

13/11/2005 Diggers Beach 13:40 Sun Nov

55 – M Australian Australian

Resident Swimming

5/01/2006 Gallows/South Wall 12:15 Thu Jan


Resident Rock Fishing

26/04/2006 Diggers Beach 6:40 Wed Apr


Resident Swimming


Page 38 of 97

Coastal Drowning Incidents – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Date Location Time Day Month Age &

Gender Nationality

Residential

Status Activity

29/07/06 Solitary Island 21:07 Sat Jul 43 – M Australian

Australian

Resident Boating

29/07/06 Solitary Island 21:07 Sat Jul 40 – M Australian

Australian

Resident Boating

12/02/2007 Sawtell 18:40 Mon Feb


Resident Surfcraft

21/04/2008 Diggers Beach 6:40 Mon Apr

55 – M Unknown Australian

Resident Swimming

6/11/2008 Sapphire Beach 16:35 Thu Nov


Resident Swimming

7/01/2009 Park Beach 12:30 Wed Jan

36 – M Unknown Australian

Resident Swimming

28/03/2009 Sawtell Overnight Sat Mar


Resident Rock Fishing

4/11/2009 Red Rock 17:20 Wed Nov

27 – M Korean Australian

Resident Swimming

4/01/2011 Sandy Beach 14:40 Tue Jan

21 – F Chinese International

Tourist Swimming

28/08/2011 Sawtell 13:00 Sun Aug


Resident Surfcraft

23/04/2012 Diggers Beach 8:00 Mon Apr

27 – M French International

Tourist Swimming

5/07/2012 Jetty Beach 11:00 Thu Jul 40 – M Australian

Australian

Resident Surfcraft

20/10/2012 Woolgoolga 17:40 Sat Oct 23 – M Korean

International

Tourist Swimming

19/12/2012 Emerald Beach 17:15 Wed Dec 6 – M Unknown

Australian

Resident

Snorkelling/

Swimming

9/01/2013 Woolgoolga Back Beach 16:25 Wed Jan 57 - M Australian

Australian

Resident

Rock

Related

Notes to table: o 90% of drowning deaths were male o 75% of drowning deaths occurred after 12:00hrs in the afternoon, evening and overnight. o 80% of drowning deaths were Australian residents and 20% were international tourists. o 20% of drowning deaths occurred at Diggers Beach 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. 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 ‘black spot’ locations themselves. Improvements to Dangerous Surf Warnings and education/awareness programs may be improved as a result.

Treatment Option 3.1 A review be commissioned to analyse the historical environmental conditions at the time of recorded drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors.


Page 39 of 97

Emergency Callouts There have been 58 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2013 in the Coffs Harbour LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams (lifesavers/lifeguards), including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police. Of the 58 callouts, 36 rescues have been conducted.

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 2.11.9: SRERS call outs within Coffs Harbour LGA from 2004 to 2013 (SLSNSW Reporting Database, 2013)

SRERS – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Date Incident Location Month Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome

28/09/2008 North Wall Sep Spring Sun 8:52 Swimming No further action

11/04/2008 Woolgoolga Apr Autumn Fri 12:30 SurfCraft 1 Person found

6/11/2008 Sapphire Nov Spring Thu 16:25 Suicide Coastal Death

15/12/2008 Sapphire Dec Summer Mon 11:15 SurfCraft No Further action

2/01/2009 Park Beach Jan Summer Fri 7:12 SurfCraft No Further action

7/01/2009 Park Beach Jan Summer Wed 12:25 Swimming 1 Patient deceased

30/01/2009 Park Beach Jan Summer Fri 19:22 Swimming Stood Down

15/02/2009 Emerald Feb Summer Sun 16:01 Swimming 4 Patients rescued

28/03/2009 Sawtell Mar Autumn Sat 10:09 Swimming 1 Patient Deceased

26/04/2009 North Wall Apr Autumn Sun 11:42 SurfCraft Stood Down

9/05/2009 Red Rock May Autumn Sat 11:34 Rock fishing 1 patient rescued

7/09/2008 Red Rock Sep Spring Sun 14:35 Rock fishing 1 patient deceased

16/10/2009 Woolgoolga Oct Spring Fri 10:18 SurfCraft 1 Patient Rescued

4/11/2009 Little Beach Nov Spring Wed 17:19 Swimming

2 Patients Rescued

1 Patient Deceased

16/11/2009 Mullaway Nov Spring Mon 15:05 Swimming Stood Down

2/12/2009

Back Beach

Woolgoolga Dec Summer Wed 12:09 Swimming 1 Patient Found

8/12/2009 Woolgoolga Dec Summer Tue 9:45 Swimming No Further Action

24/12/2009 Bonville Headland Dec Summer Thu 15:42 Swimming 1 Patient Rescued

30/01/2010 Sawtell Jan Summer Sat 11:41 Swimming 2 Patients Rescued

2/02/2010 Gallows Feb Summer Tue 18:54 SurfCraft No Further Action

4/02/2010 Jetty Beach Feb Summer Thu 11:20 Swimming 3 Patients Rescued

14/02/2010 Coffs Harbour Feb Summer Sun 15:49 SurfCraft No Further Action

11/06/2010 Sawtell Jun Winter Fri 14:17 SurfCraft No Further Action

28/06/2010 Sandy Beach Jun Winter Mon 18:39 Rock Related No Further Action

11/08/2010 Park Beach Aug Winter Wed 1:44 Vessel 5 Patients Rescued

10/12/2010 Woolgoolga Dec Summer Fri 8:52 Swimming No Further Action

9/01/2011 Sapphire Beach Jan Summer Sun 14:51 Swimming Stood Down

28/01/2011 Bonville Headland Jan Summer Fri 14:31 Swimming No Further Action

11/02/2011 Sawtell Feb Summer Fri 18:44 Swimming 1 Patient Rescued

4/01/2011 Sandy Beach Jan Summer Tue 14:04 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

21/03/2011 Murrays Mar Autumn Mon 18:59 Swimming No Further Action

10/07/2010 Fiddamens Jul Winter Sat 11:11

Diving/

Snorkelling No Further Action

17/03/2011 Park Beach Mar Autumn Thu 8:16 Swimming 1 Patient Assisted

24/04/2011 Sandy Apr Autumn Sun 6:50

Parachute/

parasail No Further Action

28/08/2011 Sawtell Aug Winter Sun 16:01 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

11/12/2011

Woolgoolga

Headland Dec Summer Sun 20:26 SurfCraft 1 Patient Rescued

26/12/2011 Mooney Dec Summer Mon 11:43 Swimming 5 Patients Rescued


Page 40 of 97

SRERS – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Date Incident Location Month Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome

14/01/2012 Coffs Harbour Jan Summer Sat 19:50 Swimming 1 Patient Rescued

16/03/2012 Pig Island Mar Autumn Fri 18:52 SurfCraft No Further Action

22/04/2012 Diggers Beach Apr Autumn Sun 8:20 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

20/06/2012 Campbell’s Jun Winter Wed 11:59 SurfCraft No Further Action

4/08/2012 Bonville Aug Winter Sat 15:01 Swimming 1 Deceased

25/09/2012 Sawtell Sep Spring Tue 16:50 SurfCraft 1 Patient assisted

16/10/2012

Arrawarra

Headland Oct Spring Tue 18:40

Parachute/

parasail No Further Action

17/10/2012 Woolgoolga Oct Spring Wed 15:10 Swimming 4 Patients Rescued

20/10/2012 Woolgoolga Oct Spring Sat 17:41 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

16/11/2012 Sandy Beach Nov Spring Fri 7:57 Other No Further Action

2/12/2012 Woolgoolga Dec Summer Sun 19:01 Other No Further Action

13/12/2012 Pebbly Beach Dec Summer Thu 14:09 Swimming No Further Action

27/12/2012 Park Beach Dec Summer Thu 16:30 Swimming No Further Action

1/01/2013 Coffs Harbour Jan Summer Tue 8:38 Swimming Stood Down

9/01/2013

Back Beach

Woolgoolga Jan Summer Wed 16:25 Swimming 1 Coastal Death

13/01/2013 Boambee Jan Summer Sun 14:30 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued

31/01/2013 Arrawarra Jan Summer Thu 14:46 Swimming 1 Person Rescued

2/02/2013 Emerald Beach Feb Summer Sat 13:49 SurfCraft 1 Person Rescued

12/02/2013 Bundagen Feb Summer Tue 16:30 Swimming No Further Action

16/03/2013 Red Rock Corindi Mar Autumn Sat 16:18 SurfCraft No Further Action

15/04/2013 Sawtell Apr Autumn Mon 17:22 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued

01/05/2013 Diggers Beach May Autumn Wed 15:23 SurfCraft Stood Down

18/06/2103 Jetty Beach June Winter Tue 11:20 SurfCraft Stood Down

Notes to table: o 65% off all callouts occur after 12:00hrs, in the afternoon, evening and overnight. o 50% of all callouts occur during summer, 19% during autumn and spring and 12% during winter. o 58% of all callouts occur from swimming o 14% of all callouts occur at Sawtell, 12% at Woolgoolga and 10% at Park Beach

Treatment Options 1.1 & 2.1 Beach usage and incident data (drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety.

Treatment Option 1.2 Scheduled development plans within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area that provide access to the coast, or will have a foreseeable impact on coastal use, should take into consideration this impact and potential impost on coastal safety service provision. Consideration should also be given to potential risk treatment options which may include such things as education, signage, beach access and supervision. Funding for these treatment options may be sought under section 94 of the ‘Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979’.


Page 41 of 97

2.12 Communication and Consultation Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is at the heart of the risk 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, issues in regards to risk management and opportunities that may exist. Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Paul Quinn, Risk Coordinator, Coffs Harbour City Council o David Brooks, Park Manager, Coffs Harbour City Council o Greg Hackfath, Lifeguard Supervisor, Coffs Harbour City Council o Glenn Storrie, Coffs Coast Area Manager, National Parks & Wildlife Service o Nicola Johnstone, Manager - Solitary Islands Marine Park, National Parks & Wildlife Service o Bryan Van Der Walt, Manager Recreational Fisheries Programs, NSW Department of Primary Industries o Kerry Clancy, President, Surf Life Saving North Coast The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops o Print, Radio and Television 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 o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council Figure 2.12.1: Project Blueprint Flyer Consultation Workshop A public forum was held on Wednesday 3 April, 2013 at Park Beach Bowling Club to discuss drowning prevention. This public forum was advertised in local print media and through pre-identified stakeholders (via email and letter). Public forums were open to any member of the public such as surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups and marine rescue. The public forum was attended by: o Ashley Burns, Lifeguard, Coffs Harbour City Council o Alex Swadling, Lifeguard, Coffs Harbour City Council o Shane Swadling, Local resident o Greg Hackfath, Lifeguard Supervisor, Coffs Harbour City Council o Sonny Tisdell, Lifeguard Supervisor, Coffs Harbour City Council o Bryan Van Der Walt, NSW Department of Primary Industries o Sue Neil, club member, Woolgoolga SLSC


Page 42 of 97

o John Wake, club member, Coffs Harbour SLSC o Kerry Clancy, president, North Coast Surf Life Saving o Jayne Morrison, director of lifesaving, North Coast Surf Life Saving o Graeme King, Marine Rescue Coffs Harbour o Geoff Parker, Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Fishing Club Consultation Survey The consultation process has also involved the introduction of an online survey which has been useful to capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. Summary results will be published in the final report. Survey 1 The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. Survey Questions: o In your opinion, what are the (top three) factors contributing to drowning / coastal related incidents at this

location? o In your opinion, are there any particular risk factors at this location which may contribute to drowning at

this location? o If you believe age to be a contributing factor to drowning at this location, which age groups are most at

risk? o If you believe gender to be a contributing factor to drowning at this location, which gender is most at risk? o If you believe socio economic status to be a contributing factor to drowning at this location, which socio

economic groups are most at risk? o If you believe ethnicity to be a contributing factor to drowning at this location, which ethnic groups are

most at risk? o If you believe residency to be a contributing factor to drowning at this location, which residential groups

are most at risk? o Are there particular activities or types of behaviour that people engage in that you think places them at a

greater risk of drowning or other coastal related injury? o Are there any physical attributes or other factors relevant to the area that you think may place people at

greater risk of drowning or water related injury? (e.g. beach characteristics, parking/access points, tourism facilities on beach etc.)

o What are the current key strategies (top three) addressing the issue of drowning prevention / coastal safety? Please evaluate the effectiveness of these current strategies at this location?

o In your opinion, what key strategies (top 3) do you think should be implemented to address the issue of drowning / coastal related incidents at this location?

Survey 2 The second survey was sent to internal stakeholders only e.g. lifesavers and lifeguards. Questions focused on visitation numbers and incidents. Survey Questions: o To the best of your knowledge, what would be the maximum number of people at the location (on the

beach/rock platform/in water) at any one time o To the best of your knowledge, how often would the visitation numbers identified in the previous question

occur at the location? o In your opinion, which of the following risk groups are present at the location? o To the best of your knowledge is there a lifesaving service at this location (i.e. Council Lifeguards or

Volunteer Surf Life Saving Club) o To the best of your knowledge, how many incidents have occurred at this location in the past 5 years? o To the best of your knowledge, how many incidents have occurred at this location in the past 12 months? o How quickly can an emergency or lifesaving service respond to an emergency incident at this location (in

minutes)?


Page 43 of 97

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. Coffs Harbour City Council, National Parks & Wildlife and Surf Life Saving North Coast should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Coffs Harbour LGA. The committee should 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 be addressed in this agenda item. Feedback provided included that these meetings were organised in the past but had been poorly attended. Coffs Harbour City Council would prefer to meet with different agencies upon request.

Treatment Options 1.3, 2.2 & 5.1 Coffs Harbour City Council, National Parks & Wildlife and Surf Life Saving North Coast should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area. The committee should 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 be addressed in this agenda item.


Page 44 of 97

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 exiting 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, displayed on pages 54 to 57 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 3.1.6.2. 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)


Page 45 of 97

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program Table 3.1.2.1: ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations


Pebbly Beach NSW78 5 Low Tide Terrace

Station Creek NSW79 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Little Beach NSW80 5 Low Tide Terrace + Tidal Creek

Red Rock NSW81 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Corindi North NSW82 3 Reflective

Corindi/Arrawarra NSW83 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Arrawarra Headland NSW84 3 Low Tide Terrace

Oceanview NSW85 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mullaway NSW86 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

South Mullaway/Cabins NSW87 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mullaway Head NSW88 4 Reflective + Rocks

Safety/Darkum NSW89 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Woolgoolga NSW90 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Woolgoolga Back Beach NSW91 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Hearnes Lake NSW92 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Sandy NSW93 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Fiddamans NSW94 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Emerald NSW95 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Shelly NSW96 4 Low Tide Terrace

Moonee NSW97 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Sapphire NSW98 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Riecks Point NSW99 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Pelican NSW101 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Campbells NSW100 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Hills North NSW102 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Hills/Opal Cove NSW103 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Korora NSW104 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Charlesworth Bay NSW105 4 Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Diggers Head NSW105RP 5* Rock Platform

Diggers North NSW106 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Diggers South NSW107 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Macauleys Headland NSW108 7 Boulder + Rocks

Park Beach NSW109 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

Park South/North Wall NSW110 4 Transverse Bar and Rip

Mutton Bird Island NSW110RP 4* Rock Platform

Jetty Beach NSW111 3 Low Tide Terrace


NSW111RP 5* Rock Platform

Gallows NSW112 7 Rhythmic Bar and Beach


Page 46 of 97


Boambee NSW113 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

Boambee Headland NSW113RP 7* Rocks

Murrays/Sawtell NSW114 6 Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Bonville Head NSW115RP 7* Rocks

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen NSW115 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

* Coffs Harbour 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. This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. Prof. Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) has presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). 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. However, in order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed an interim solution has been applied which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.


Page 47 of 97

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 3.1.3.1: 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)



5 2500 + residents and/or 1000 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)

Table 3.1.3.2: Local population ratings applied to assessed locations

Location LPR Total

Pebbly Beach 3

Station Creek 3

Little Beach 3

Red Rock 3

Corindi North 4

Corindi/Arrawarra 4


Oceanview 3

Mullaway 3

South Mullaway/Cabins 3

Mullaway Head 3

Safety/Darkum 3

Woolgoolga 5

Woolgoolga Back Beach 5

Hearnes Lake 3

Sandy 4

Fiddamans 4

Emerald 4

Shelly 4

Moonee 4

Sapphire 4

Riecks Point 4

Pelican 4

Campbells 4

Hills North 4

Hills/Opal Cove 4

Korora 4

Charlesworth Bay 4

Diggers Head 5

Diggers North 5

Diggers South 5

Macauleys Headland 5

Park Beach 5

Park South/North Wall 5


Page 48 of 97

Location LPR Total

Mutton Bird Island 5

Jetty Beach 5

South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point 5

Gallows 5

Boambee 4

Boambee Headland 5

Murrays/Sawtell 5

Bonville Head 5

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 4


Page 49 of 97

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 3.1.4.1: Human/Activity Interaction descriptors.

Population (in-water)

Conflicting activities Population (on beach)

Conflicting activities

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 3.1.4.2: Human/Activity Interaction ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Population (in water)

Conflict Population (on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

Pebbly Beach 3 2 1 2 8

Station Creek 3 2 1 3 9

Little Beach 2 3 1 2 8

Red Rock 5 2 1 2 10

Corindi North 3 2 1 2 8

Corindi/Arrawarra 4 2 1 2 9

Arrawarra Headland 3 3 1 2 9

Oceanview 4 2 1 2 9

Mullaway 4 2 1 2 9

South Mullaway/Cabins 4 2 1 2 9

Mullaway Head 1 2 1 2 6

Safety/Darkum 4 2 1 2 9

Woolgoolga 5 3 3 2 13

Woolgoolga Back Beach 5 2 1 2 10

Hearnes Lake 3 2 1 3 9

Sandy 5 2 1 2 10

Fiddamans 2 2 1 2 7

Emerald 5 2 1 2 10

Shelly 3 2 1 2 8

Moonee 5 2 1 2 10

Sapphire 5 2 1 2 10

Riecks Point 3 2 1 2 8

Pelican 5 2 2 2 11

Campbells 5 2 1 2 10

Hills North 1 2 1 2 6

Hills/Opal Cove 5 2 2 2 11

Korora 5 2 1 2 10

Charlesworth Bay 5 2 1 2 10

Diggers Head 1 2 1 2 6

Diggers North 2 2 1 2 7

Diggers South 5 2 2 2 11

Macauleys Headland 1 2 1 2 6

Park Beach 5 2 3 2 12

Park South/North Wall 5 2 2 2 11

Mutton Bird Island 2 2 1 2 7

Jetty Beach 5 2 3 2 12


2 2 1 2 7

Gallows 4 2 1 2 9


Page 50 of 97

Location Population (in water)

Conflict Population (on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

Boambee 4 2 1 3 10

Boambee Headland 1 2 1 2 6

Murrays/Sawtell 5 2 3 2 12

Bonville Head 1 2 1 2 6

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 4 2 1 2 9


Page 51 of 97

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 3.1.5.1: Access rating descriptors

Table 3.1.5.2: Access ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Access Rating

Pebbly Beach 3

Station Creek 3

Little Beach 4

Red Rock 4

Corindi North 4

Corindi/Arrawarra 4


Oceanview 3

Mullaway 4

South Mullaway/Cabins 3

Mullaway Head 2

Safety/Darkum 4

Woolgoolga 4

Woolgoolga Back Beach 3

Hearnes Lake 3

Sandy 4

Fiddamans 2

Emerald 4

Shelly 3

Moonee 4

Sapphire 4

Riecks Point 3

Pelican 4

Access Rating Qualifying Description

1 No identifiable access via road or track, no facilities, car parking or obvious access points

2 Access via un-maintained track with no facilities and/or via water access

3 Access via any form of track or walkway (either maintained or un-maintained) AND any provision of facilities or services including (but not limited to) public transport, shower,

public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking

4 Access via maintained tracks with clearly identified parking area AND/OR provision of 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)

5 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 or

more vehicles/boat trailers. Public transport provided within 250m of a beach access point


Page 52 of 97

Location Access Rating

Campbells 4

Hills North 2

Hills/Opal Cove 4

Korora 4

Charlesworth Bay 4

Diggers Head 2

Diggers North 3

Diggers South 5

Macauleys Headland 2

Park Beach 5

Park South/North Wall 5

Mutton Bird Island 3

Jetty Beach 5

South Coffs Island/Corambirra Point 3

Gallows 3

Boambee 3

Boambee Headland 3

Murrays/Sawtell 5

Bonville Head 3

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 4


Page 53 of 97

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 3.1.6.1: Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location.

Location

AMSAMP X 2

(Out of 20)

Population Support

X 2 (Out of 10)

Human Activity/

Interaction (Out of 20)

Access X 2

(Out of 10)

Total Score

(Out of 60)

Pebbly Beach 10 6 8 6 30

Station Creek 12 6 9 6 33

Little Beach 10 6 8 8 32

Red Rock 10 6 10 8 34

Corindi North 6 8 8 8 30

Corindi/Arrawarra 12 8 9 8 37

Arrawarra Headland 6 6 9 8 29

Oceanview 12 6 9 6 33

Mullaway 12 6 9 8 35

South Mullaway/Cabins 12 6 9 6 33

Mullaway Head 8 6 6 4 24

Safety/Darkum 12 6 9 8 35

Woolgoolga 10 10 13 8 41

Woolgoolga Back Beach 12 10 10 6 38

Hearnes Lake 12 6 9 6 33

Sandy 10 8 10 8 36

Fiddamans 12 8 7 4 31

Emerald 12 8 10 8 38

Shelly 8 8 8 6 30

Moonee 12 8 10 8 38

Sapphire 12 8 10 8 38

Riecks Point 8 8 8 6 30

Pelican 8 8 11 8 35

Campbells 8 8 10 8 34

Hills North 8 8 6 4 26

Hills/Opal Cove 8 8 11 8 35

Korora 8 8 10 8 34

Charlesworth Bay 8 8 10 8 34

Diggers Head 10 10 6 4 30

Diggers North 12 10 7 6 35

Diggers South 12 10 11 10 43

Macauleys Headland 14 10 6 4 34

Park Beach 10 10 12 10 42

Park South/North Wall 8 10 11 10 39

Mutton Bird Island 8 10 7 6 31

Jetty Beach 6 10 12 10 38


10 10 7 6

33

Gallows 14 10 9 6 39

Boambee 14 8 10 6 38

Boambee Headland 14 10 6 6 36

Murrays/Sawtell 12 10 12 10 44

Bonville Head 14 10 6 6 36

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 14 8 9 8 39


Page 54 of 97

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 and low score. Table 3.1.6.2: Action Planning Priority scores for each location to assist in the prioritisation for risk mitigation strategies identified in this report.

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

1

Murray’s/Sawtell

44

High – this location should be considered as

a priority for implementation of identified

risk treatment options

2

Diggers South

43




3

Park Beach

42




4

Woolgoolga

41




5

Park South/North Wall

39

Medium – this location should be

considered for implementation of identified

risk treatment options after locations rated

as high or as funding becomes available

5

Bonville/Bongil/

Bundagen

39





5

Gallows

39





8

Emerald

38





8

Sapphire

38





8

Moonee

38





8

Jetty

38





8

Woolgoolga Back Beach

38





8

Boambee

38






Page 55 of 97

Priority

Priority location


Comments

14

Corinidi/Arrawarra

37





15

Sandy

36





15

Boambee Headland

36





15

Bonville Headland

36





18

Mullaway

35





18

Safety/Darkum

35





18

Pelican

35





18

Hills/Opal Cove

35





18

Diggers North

35





23

Red Rock Main

34





23

Campbell’s

34





23

Korora

34





23

Charlesworth Bay

34






Page 56 of 97

Priority

Priority location


Comments

23

Macauleys Headland

34





28

Station Creek

33





28

Oceanview

33





28

South Mullaway/Cabins

33





28

Hearnes Lake

33





28

South Coffs Island/

Corambirra

33





33

Little Beach

32





34

Fiddamens

31





35

Pebbly Beach

30

Low – this location should be considered for

implementation of identified risk treatment

options after locations rated as medium or

as funding becomes available

35

Corindi North

30





35

Shelly

30





35

Reicks Point

30





35

Diggers Head

30






Page 57 of 97

Priority

Priority location


Comments

40

Arrawarra Headland

29





41

Hills North

26





42

Mullaway Head

24





Key to Action Planning Priority

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

Treatment Options 1.4 & 2.3 As funding becomes available, the treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.


Page 58 of 97

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 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 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 endeavour 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 59 of 97

3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes Public education and awareness programmes are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (before a person/s are exposed to hazards). Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programmes 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) During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe was made aware of various education and awareness programmes that are currently, or have been previously in place to educate and inform the public at a local level. These programmes as well as any other initiatives within and around the Coffs Harbour LGA should continue to be implemented and reviewed. Programmes include: o Programmes encouraging local children to be active and providing the fundamentals of surf safety. o Water safety organisations providing surf education to schools and community groups. o Surf safety collateral available e.g. swimming and rock fishing in visitor information centres (tourism,

council and national parks) It is noted that the NPWS is supportive of beach safety however the agency does not consider themselves responsible for the implementation and review of education and awareness programmes. Educational Messages Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programmes 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/ The NSW Water Safety Advisory Council promotes the following website for information on beach safety through http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/: o BeachSafe: www.beachsafe.org.au The NSW Water Safety Advisory Council also promotes the following websites for information on rip current awareness and safety through http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/: o BeachSafe: www.beachsafe.org.au o Surf Education Australia: www.seaaustralia.com.au o Surf Education International: www.surfeducatorsinternational.com.au One such opportunity includes displaying posters which promote water safety at public amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. It was also noted that the beach safety section of the National Parks and Wildlife Service website currently includes the link to the ‘safewaters’ website. This website no longer exists as it has been replaced by the water safety website above and should therefore be updated. Coastal Accommodation The Coffs Harbour LGA is a popular destination for overnight visitors (domestic and international), especially through the school holiday periods. The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. Brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the LGA should be implemented. Safety messages and information provided to tourists, visitors and migrants is integral for the education of this high target group. Surf Education 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 (e.g. local schools). It is acknowledged that surf education in the Coffs Harbour LGA is strong and programmes include but are not limited to:

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/



http://www.seaaustralia.com.au/

http://www.surfeducatorsinternational.com.au/


Page 60 of 97

o Family surf safety days o Rip currents awareness day o School education (primary and high school) o Refugee surf safety days A number of not-for-profit water safety agencies (e.g. Surf Life Saving NSW, AustSwim and Royal Life Saving) are well placed to assist in the delivery of these programmes. Coffs Harbour City Council Lifeguard – School Education Ocean Safety Awareness Award: The Ocean Safety Awareness Award (OSAA) provides for students attaining Stage 3 K-6 PDHPE Outcomes including that for Safe Living (describes safe practices that are appropriate to a range of situations and environments) as well as covering a portion of the expected content coverage for Stage 3 Safe Living (Water Safety) found within the K-6 Personal Development, Health and Physical Education Key Learning Area. (Approximately 2,000 students participated). This program is aimed at Year 1 – 4 students. The OSAA program includes theoretical and practical activity for gaining knowledge, skills and understandings about the inshore coastal environment relating to personal safe practices at beaches and adjoining formations such as rock platforms and coastal cliffs. This program involves practical in-water skills at the beach conducted by Coffs Harbour City Council Lifeguards and includes surf assessment, introduction to surf entry, diving under waves, catching waves, basic self-rescue, marine hazards identification, simulated self-rescue, assessment and response to an aquatic emergency Ocean Safety Surfer Award: The OSSA is recognised by the NSW Department of Education and Training and is relevant for students participating in School Surfing for Sport as well as being capable of addressing Water Safety content within the Personal Development, Health and Physical Education Key Learning Area. Education Collateral Many of the farms located within the Coffs Harbour LGA employee temporary workers during busy periods of production. These workers often come from outside the area with a large proportion from different backgrounds or even overseas. In the past there have been a few cases where these workers have got themselves in difficulty when visiting the nearby beaches. Surf Life Saving has previously worked with one specific farm to distribute education collateral however an opportunity exists for this programme to be expanded to all farms located within the Coffs Harbour LGA who may employee temporary workers. Targeted Education – Coffs YHA The Australian Backpacker and Youth Hostel Accommodation (Coffs YHA) is a popular destination for domestic and international visitors. The Coffs YHA is located directly behind Park South/North Wall. This beach can be highly hazardous at times with numerous rip currents, gutters and dangerous surf. Currently there is no surf education and awareness programmes targeted at the Coffs YHA. An opportunity exists for the Coffs Harbour lifeguards to work with the Coffs YHA in a targeted educational campaign to include such these as education collateral and surf safety education (practical). Local Media Coffs Harbour LGA is in a unique position of having NBN local news in the Mid North Coast. Local news airs 5 nights a week and there is the opportunity to provide surf safety updates during the news before weekends and also dangerous surf safety alerts as required when issued by the BOM. Lifeguards currently work with local ABC and 2CS radio to communicate beach reports. Personal Protective Equipment Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman. Educational and awareness programmes in the Coffs Harbour LGA should continue to be reviewed and developed to promote and encourage fisherman to wear lifejackets.


Page 61 of 97

Education Summary The following table provides examples of a range of education and awareness programmes that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Coffs Harbour LGA. Table 3.2.3.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education and awareness programmes available to land managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of programmes that are available and delivered in 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 licenses, qualified and insured. Table 3.2.3.1: Examples/options of education and awareness programmes

Programme Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

School based water safety programmes

Local primary and high school students

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Coastal Accommodation Network

Tourists, visitors and migrants (TVM)

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Local Media Residents and TVM All locations Local media outlets

Learn to Swim / Swim and Survive

Young Children All locations Royal Life Saving Society Australia

Learn to Swim All ages All Locations AustSwim accredited swim schools

Nippers Local children All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. All ages All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. Local children All locations Coffs Harbour City Council Lifeguards

Rip Currents Awareness Day

All ages All locations Surf Life Saving North Coast

Surf Groms Local children All locations Surfing NSW

Surfers Rescue 24/7 Local surfing associations All locations Surfing NSW

Kids Academy of Surf (KAOS)

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

School surfing and surf education

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

Corp Surf 18 years + All locations Surf Educate Australia

Get hooked – it’s fun to fish

Schools All locations NSW DPI (Fisheries)

Rock fishing safety information

Rock fishers

Break wall and rock platforms

Peak water safety agencies

Boating safety information

Boaters Coffs Harbour

RMS / Department of Lands

QR codes

The use of QR codes on signage and other infrastructure to link to

location based beach safety information.

All locations Coffs Harbour City Council


Page 62 of 97

The images shown in Figure 3.2.3.2 below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral available to land managers, it is intended 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 Figure 3.2.3.2 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 3.2.3.1: Don’t put our life on the line Figure 3.2.3.2: Survive a rip current Figure 3.2.3.3: Beach safety for tourists/migrants Figure 3.2.3.4: Swim between flags


Page 63 of 97

Treatment Options 1.5 & 2.4 Education and awareness programmes within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area should continue to be implemented and reviewed.

Treatment Options 1.6 & 2.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’).

Treatment Options 1.7 & 2.6 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access.

Treatment Option 1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. The Coffs Harbour City Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote these programmes and encourage enhanced participation at a local level.

Treatment Options 1.9 & 2.7 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.

Treatment Option 1.10 Work with the Australian Backpacker and Youth Hostel Accommodation (Coffs YHA) to develop a targeted educational campaign to include such these as education collateral and practical surf safety education.

Treatment Option 1.11 Investigate the options of lifeguards providing beach safety reports during the NBN local news (Mid North Coast) on Friday evenings or when a dangerous surf warning has been issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

Treatment Option 3.2 Encourage tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network programme with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral e.g. brochures, flyers, pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area.

Treatment Option 5.2 Continue working with the local agricultural industry to distribute education collateral to every farm within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area who may employee temporary workers (domestic and international).


Page 64 of 97

3.2.4 Safety Signage Background 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 related to effective safety signage includes: o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (ASNZ2416:2010) o consistency in signage layout/display (ASNZ2416:2010 – Part 3) o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to optimal exposure to the most members of the

public, prior to arriving in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the land managers annual planning 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 required due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the consolidation of key information into other signs. For Land Managers this may see a reduction in implementation and maintenance costs related to signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site. Safety Signage Coffs Harbour City Council and the NPWS should be commended for implementing a system of aquatic and recreational safety signage at many of the access location s in the Coffs Harbour LGA ‘Appendix A’. Throughout the Coffs Harbour LGA signage will differ deepening on whether you are in Council or NPWS owned land. Figure 3.2.4.1: Council Signage at Park Beach Figure 3.2.4.2: NPWS Signage at Diggers Warning Symbols It is noted that warning symbols currently comply with ASNZ2416:2010, however to further enhance the effectiveness of the current signage strategy in the Coffs Harbour LGA it is recommended that all potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. 2Depending on the FVR score, Statewide Mutual outline that “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 (one, two, three or four) hazards should apply.” During the assessment process it was recorded that a number of existing signs under Council ownership had an insufficient number of warning symbols. 2 Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision, Statewide Mutual


Page 65 of 97

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). Part 3 of the standard “reflects good practice in the use of water safety signs and beach safety flags. The illustrations show examples of the selection and location of water safety signs and beach safety flags designed to provide information about aquatic hazards and the action necessary to avoid those hazards.” The standard also 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.” There are a number of beach locations within the Coffs Harbour LGA which have both Council and NPWS signage on the same stretch of beach. Below is an example at Hills/Opal Cove. Figure 3.2.4.3: Council Signage at Hills Beach Figure 3.2.4.4: NPWS at Hills Beach It is recognised that implementing consistent signage throughout the entire Coffs Harbour LGA will be challenging, however a consistent approach to signage across all locations, independent of the local land management authority is advised, since “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”

3.

Proposed Signage Furthermore, there is the opportunity to provide further aquatic and recreational safety signage as part of an ongoing management plan at the locations identified in Appendix A. These locations provide a list of associated hazards and a GPS position of where the sign should be placed. 3 AS 2416:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, Part 3, Guidance for Use (p.iv).


Page 66 of 97

Table 3.2.4.1: Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for the Coffs Harbour LGA

Combined Beach Locations Existing Signs

Possible Consolidation/

Remove

Proposed Level 2

Proposed Level 3

Total Proposed

Signs

Net Signage

Pebbly Beach 22 1 1 1 2 1

Station Creek 15 4 1 1 2 -2

Little Beach 3 0 0 0 0 0

Red Rock 19 1 0 5 5 4

Corindi North 8 0 0 0 0 0

Corindi/Arrawarra 31 8 0 1 1 -7

Arrawarra Headland 16 0 0 1 1 1

Oceanview 22 6 1 0 1 -5

Mullaway 26 3 0 1 1 -2

South Mullaway/Cabins 4 1 0 0 0 -1

Mullaway Head 3 0 0 0 0 0

Safety/Darkum 12 1 0 1 1 0

Woolgoolga 37 2 0 4 4 2

Woolgoolga Back Beach 17 1 0 1 1 0

Hearnes Lake 14 2 0 0 0 -2

Sandy 25 1 0 1 1 0

Fiddamans 5 0 0 0 0 0

Emerald 30 9 0 0 0 -9

Shelly 9 0 0 2 2 2

Moonee 33 5 0 0 0 -5

Sapphire 28 3 0 1 1 -2

Riecks Point 6 0 0 0 0 0

Campbells 21 1 0 3 3 2

Pelican 10 3 0 0 0 -3

Hills North 2 0 0 0 0 0

Hills/Opal Cove 15 1 0 0 0 -1

Korora 14 1 0 1 1 0

Charlesworth Bay 14 4 0 0 0 -4

Diggers Head 2 0 0 0 0 0

Diggers North 1 0 0 1 1 1

Diggers South 22 2 0 0 0 -2

Macauleys Headland 3 0 0 1 1 1

Park Beach 40 3 0 1 1 -2

Park South/North Wall 26 4 1 0 1 -3

Mutton Bird Island 11 1 0 1 1 0

Jetty Beach 72 0 0 1 1 1


2 0 0 0 0 0

Gallows 4 1 0 0 0 -1

Boambee 13 4 0 0 0 -4

Boambee Headland 5 1 0 1 1 0

Murrays/Sawtell 48 5 0 0 0 -5

Bonville Head 7 2 0 2 2 0

Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen 16 3 0 1 1 -2

Totals 733 84 4 33 37 -47

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated signage. For example 37 signs have been proposed in the Coffs Harbour LGA however 84 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated, leaving a net reduction in overall reduction in signage of 47 signs.


Page 67 of 97

When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended: 1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS 2416 – 2010: Water

Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags’ and align signage style/layout with the ‘AS 2416:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, Part 3, Guidance for Use’.

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: ASNZ2416:2010 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.

9. 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.

Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign) This type of signage can be an option for the Land Manager to be placed 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. See below for an example. Figure 3.2.4.5: Example level two car park sign


Page 68 of 97

QR Codes QR codes involve the use of smart phone technology to provide location based safety messaging. The system works by scanning a smart phone over the QR Code. These codes could be included on signage (i.e. a sticker) and linked to specific water related safety information, with the potential for multilingual messages.

There are numerous online providers that allow for the creation of a QR code. This stage of the process is cost effective and the only expense is printing. Certain online providers also allow customers to be able to track the number of people who have scanned the QR code. 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 from beach erosion, dangerous access, debris and creek openings. 2. When the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) release a dangerous surf warning when the swell reaches a

certain height and swell period. Dangerous surf warnings will appear on the official BOM forecast. The most appropriate locations for these signs would be at the main entry points to patrolled beaches and directly in front of accommodation providers who have direct beach access e.g. Breakfree Aanuka Beach Resort, Novotel, Pacific Bay Resort, Opal Cove Resort, Nautilus Beachfront Villas and Aqualuna Beach Resort.

3. Where a hazard may exist at a patrolled beach either side of the flags Figure 3.2.4.6: Example of temporary warning sign (Wollongong LGA) strategically placed in front of an access path leading to an unpatrolled section of the beach Temporary signage should be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a supervised swimming area. Temporary signage can also be used where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion, debris and creek openings.


Page 69 of 97

Treatment Options 1.12 & 2.8 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) or the removal of unnecessary signage.

Treatment Option 1.13 Temporary signage should be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a supervised swimming area. Temporary signage can also be used where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion, debris and creek openings.

Treatment Option 1.14 Using the Statewide Mutual Facility Visitation Rate as a guide, all potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols.

Treatment Option 1.15 Existing signs under Council management should be replaced through natural attrition to reflect best practice signage layout, in order to ensure a consistent approach, at locations that may be managed in part by both Coffs Harbour City Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Treatment Option 2.9 Temporary signage should be used at locations where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion, debris and creek openings.

Treatment Option 3.3 Work with Tourism NSW to encourage coastal accommodation providers (e.g. resorts and caravan parks) that have direct beach access to implement the use of temporary signage at the main entry points during dangerous surf warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) – warning the public of large/hazardous waves.


Page 70 of 97

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 rocks (where no cross-street or other reference point is available) it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response to it. Emergency location markers enable triple zero (000) call takers too immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero (000) call. Below is an example of an emergency marker sign could look like. Figure 3.2.5.1: An example of an 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 optimal Emergency Marker System to be effective, a standardised state-wide programme is required, that engages Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current programme exists in NSW. Many locations in NSW have local emergency marker system in place, where current signage displays a numbering code at some locations. This system is outlined in local emergency procedures however does not include a formal numbering system that links back to NSW emergency services (Police, Ambulance and Fire). Following on from recent meetings, Australian CoastSafe will be supplying the Emergency Information Coordination Unit (EICU) (NSW LPI) with the locations and numbers of these signs so there is a greater chance that a ‘000’ operator will recognise these numbers. Australian CoastSafe is 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 3.4 With guidance from the NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and Property Information a state-aligned emergency marker programme at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a programme is established.


Page 71 of 97

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes How 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 3.2.6.1: Formal access at Oceanview Figure 3.2.6.2: Informal access at Macauleys Head

In the Coffs Harbour LGA the majority of formal access tracks are well maintained. Periodic inspections take place due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts. A number of informal access tracks also exist.

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

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/situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or restrict the use of informal access


Page 72 of 97

Table 3.2.6.1: The table below shows a summary of access provision within the assessed locations

Location Open Access

Formal Pedestrian

Formal Vehicle

Informal Pedestrian

Private Access

Total Access

Possible Consolidation

Net Access

Pebbly Beach 0 12 1 0 1 14 0 14

Station Creek 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2

Little Beach 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Red Rock 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 12

Corindi North 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Corindi/Arrawarra 0 11 0 0 4 15 0 15

Arrawarra Headland 2 2 2 0 0 6 0 6

Oceanview 0 6 0 0 4 10 0 10

Mullaway 0 5 0 1 0 6 1 5

South Mullaway/Cabins 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 3

Mullaway Head 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Safety/Darkum 0 6 0 0 1 7 0 7

Woolgoolga 2 13 1 4 0 20 4 16

Woolgoolga Back Beach 0 5 1 0 1 7 0 7

Hearnes Lake 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 4

Sandy 0 7 1 1 0 9 0 9

Fiddamans 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 4

Emerald 2 8 1 2 0 13 0 13

Shelly 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3

Moonee 0 5 1 2 1 9 0 9

Sapphire 0 9 1 4 1 15 1 14

Riecks Point 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2

Campbells 0 5 0 0 6 11 0 11

Pelican 0 3 0 0 2 5 0 5

Hills North 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 3

Hills/Opal Cove 0 6 0 2 0 8 1 7

Korora 0 4 0 2 4 10 0 10

Charlesworth Bay 0 5 0 0 1 6 0 6

Diggers Head 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2

Diggers North 0 2 0 4 0 6 3 3

Diggers South 1 6 0 1 3 11 0 11

Macauleys Headland 0 3 0 5 0 8 0 8

Park Beach 0 19 0 0 2 21 0 21

Park South/North Wall 0 11 0 2 0 13 1 12

Mutton Bird Island 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 4

Jetty Beach 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 22

South Coffs Island/ Corambirra Point 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2

Gallows 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 3

Boambee 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3

Boambee Headland 0 2 0 4 1 7 0 7

Murrays/Sawtell 0 14 2 1 0 17 0 17

Bonville Head 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 3

Bonville/Bongil/ Bundagen 1 6 0 0 2 9 0 9

Totals 11 231 14 44 40 340 11 329


Page 73 of 97

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. For example, even though 340 access tracks have been located in the Coffs Harbour LGA, 11 of these access paths have the opportunity to be consolidated or redirected, leaving a net access of 329.

Treatment Options 1.16 & 2.10 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. 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 1.17 & 2.11 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.


Page 74 of 97

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 3.2.7.1: An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Research Review of Rock Fishing Safety in New South Wales, 2012)

PRE Type Morphology of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages Extensive Training Required

Recommended uses in NSW

Rescue Tube Sandy beaches and

rock pools

Can be thrown short distances

Requires the patient to enter the water

themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of deployment

Risk of theft, risk of using the line to

return the patient towards the rocks, not strong/tough

enough to be resilient from

environmental conditions

No May be used on a case by case basis.

Further

effectiveness investigation

required.

Throw Sticks (Stormy

grenades)

Personal device

(mobile)

Mobility – easily deployed to

incident locations

Effective mid-range (thrown)

Requires 2 to off-set ‘miss-throw’ of the

first

No Yes. Relevant personnel /staff

(emergency services/SLS

/rangers)

Life Ring (Angel ring)

Steep rampart rock

platforms

Ease of use. Rugged design.

Awareness campaign

established.

Single use device. Distance of

deployment. Requires rescuer to

approach the platform edge.

Weight.

No Steep (>1:1) rampart rock

platforms

Silent Sentry Sloping platforms

EPIRB unit immediately alerts

emergency services. Multiple balls can be rolled down slopes to the patient keeping the

rescuer at a safer distance

EPIRB units were vulnerable to

vandalism and disabled

No Sloping (<1:1) rampart rock

platforms.

Recommended redesign to

remove EPIRB housing.

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 ™

5 Project’ has seen the installation of 116 rings in NSW with 47 confirmed rescues involving their use. (Australian National Sports Fishing Association 2012, NSW Angel Ring Update, News Bulletin 16 June, 2012). There are currently 4 life rings situated in the Coffs Harbour LGA. The life ring at Little Beach, north of Red Rock recently saved the life of a person who was capsized on his canoe in a strong run out tide (16/03/2013).

4Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association. 5Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.


Page 75 of 97

The locations of proposed life rings are below and specific locations can be found in Appendix C. Table 3.2.7.2: The locations of proposed life rings.

It was noted that at the time of the risk assessment, the existing life ring on the Jetty Beach pier was missing and not in its box. If not already, this life ring should be replaced and continually maintained. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) GPS technology is available to be used within public rescue equipment such as life rings. Recreational fishing bodies have trialled certain tracking devices in some areas and should be consulted with in relation to this initiative. 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.

Treatment Option 1.18 Life rings under the management of Coffs Harbour City Council (e.g. on the pier at Jetty Beach) should be replaced and included in a schedule of maintenance.

Treatment Option 3.5 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 rock fishing associations.

Priority Location

1 Mutton Bird Island

2 South Wall – Coffs Harbour

3 Bonville Head

4 Look at me Now Headland (In between Shelly Beach and Moonee)


Page 76 of 97

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 water conditions, the proximity to large population bases or the attendance of the beach/coastal area due to its proximity 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. The decision whether to provide supervision or not to provide supervision can be difficult to establish because of the following: 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 Deemed too cost prohibitive and therefore not provided by the responsible land manager o The patronage of the location is too low and the assessed risk level is minimal o Public perception is that a service be provided 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. International Best Practice The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations internationally. ILSF presently includes over 100 member organisations, which collectively include millions of individual members

6. ILSF has member organisations throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe

and encompasses organisations responsible for coastal and inland aquatic safety services. Lifeguard/lifesaving uniforms The ILSF encourages organisations responsible for the provision of lifesaving services to adopt the red & yellow colours for uniforms

7. 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 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.

8

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.

6 ILSF, www.ilsf.org, June 2013 7 ILSF, Lifesaving position statement – LPS 05 – Lifesaver and Lifeguard Uniforms (p.2) 8 WHO, Guidelines for safe recreational water environments (Volume 1: Coastal and fresh waters)

http://www.ilsf.org/


Page 77 of 97

Coffs Harbour City Council does not agree with the position of the International Life Saving Federation. Red and yellow flags The use of red & yellow feathered flags is undertaken to provide the maximum visual effect to identify a designated swimming area. Coffs Harbour City Council currently does not use the feathered patrol flag on Coffs Harbour beaches. The use of the feather flag is provided as an option within AS2416:2010.2. The decision to use the feather flag should be based on an appropriate risk assessment. The feather flag is currently used at many locations within New South Wales and Queensland and is used at all patrolled locations in Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia. To date, there are no recorded incidents as a result of using the feather flag. Coffs Harbour City Council does not currently support the use of feathered patrolled flags. 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 following lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating. The scores are not absolute and are to be used as a guide in determining the actual levels. Table 3.2.8.1: lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating as calculated in the sections that follow.

Rating Lifesaving Service Level Description

</= 10 Warning Signage to Aquatic & Recreational Signage Style Guide standard

11-14 Emergency Beacons and/or Camera Surveillance or Swimming Enclosure (where applicable)

Routine monitoring/surveillance patrols (land, sea, air) to also be considered

15-19 Lifesaving service = 1 x Lifeguard personnel during period assessed (refer to note 2)

20-25 Lifesaving service = 2 x Lifeguard personnel during period assessed

26-30 Lifesaving service = 3 x Lifeguard personnel during period assessed

31 and > Lifesaving service= more than 3 Lifeguard personnel during period assessed

Notes to table: Note 1: When Visitations and Frequencies are low yet rating is high consideration should be given to some form of surveillance patrols or IT solutions to overcome variations of population/visitation numbers. Note 2: The option to have one lifeguard on a beach is only permissible under specific circumstances, these being: o The ABSAMP beach hazard rating is less than 4, or o Access to other rescue services is less than 5 minutes, direct communication with services is in place, and a

Rescue Water Craft is in place. Otherwise the minimum number of lifeguards at a given location would be two.

Detailed analysis of lifesaving service level scores for Fringe and Off-Peak seasons have not been assessed in this report as this was outside of the scope of this assessment. Australian CoastSafe is able to provide this service, alternatively your lifesaving service provider can assist you with determining these levels. Where the number of people in the patrolled area is over 1,000, the lifesaving service provider should increase the number of lifesaving personnel in line with the following table.


Page 78 of 97

Table 3.2.8.2: Impact of beach attendance on lifesaving service levels

No. of People on Beach No. of additional lifeguards

1,000 - 5,000 2

5,000 - 10,000 4

> 10,000 6

Crowds can become in themselves hazardous as a result of difficulties of surveillance and heightened crowd interaction

Reference Tables: The tables below provide definitions for the scores used in the Lifesaving Service Level Calculator. The definitions are range based to allow for a margin of error where detailed recorded data may be lacking. In such cases information has been gathered through consultation with local experts and beach users. Table 3.2.8.3: Peak Visitation Rating - visitation levels can be determined by (but not limited to) SLS patrol log books, tourism visitation statistics, local knowledge of the area (interviews with users and stakeholders)

Rating Description

1 Less than 50 people in the water and on the beach during peak period of day

2 51 to 249 people in the water and on the beach during peak period of day

3 250 to 500 people in water and on the beach during peak period of day

4 500 to 1,000 people in the water and on the beach during peak period of day

5 Greater than 1,000 people in the water and on the beach during peak period of day

Table 3.2.8.4: Frequency Rating – relating to the frequency with which the visitation rating (Table 3.2.8.3) occurs

Rating Description

1 Peak visitation occurs once in a month

2 Peak visitation levels occur once a week

3 Peak visitation levels occur every weekend (Saturday/Sunday)

4 Peak visitation levels occur every day

5 Peak visitation levels continuously every day

Table 3.2.8.5: Type of User – Residency Rating (>10% of the peak visitation)

Rating Beach visitor residency and assumed level of beach safety knowledge

1 General knowledge of local beaches and related beach safety issues, including awareness of rips and general beach hazards and role of lifesavers/lifeguards.

2 General knowledge of beach safety issues relevant to their state/region, awareness of rips and role of lifesavers/lifeguards, limited or no knowledge of beach in question

3 General knowledge of beach safety issues and role of lifesavers/lifeguards, limited or no knowledge of rips, limited or no knowledge of beaches and issues relating to beaches in state being visited, including biological hazards in northern Australia.

4 Limited or no knowledge of beach safety issues and role of lifeguards. Ability to read signs and converse with lifeguards. No knowledge of Australia beach conditions and general Australian beach hazards, especially rips in south and biological hazards (crocodiles & stingers) in northern Australia.

5 No knowledge of beach safety issues and role of lifeguards. Unable to read beach signage or converse with lifeguards. No knowledge of Australia beach conditions and general Australian beaches hazards, especially rips in south and biological hazards (crocodiles & stingers) in northern Australia.


Page 79 of 97

Table 3.2.8.6: Incident History Rating – for beaches where there is not currently a service. Consideration should be given to incidents occurring over the previous 5 years.

Rating Description

1 Less than 5 minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

2 5 or more minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

3 Less than 3 major incidents/first aid treatments reported

4 Between 4 and 6 major incidents/first aid treatments reported

5 7 or more major incidents/first aid treatments, OR 1 or more preventable fatalities in the previous 5 years

Table 3.2.8.7: Incident History Rating - for beaches where there is currently a service. Consideration should be given to incidents occurring over the previous 12 months / 1 year.

Rating Description

1 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

2 More than 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

3 1-3 major incidents/first aid treatments per month

4 Between 4 and 6 major incidents/first aid treatments per month

5 7 or more major incidents/first aid treatments per month, OR 1 or more fatalities in the previous 12 months

Table 3.2.8.8: Remoteness Rating – an indication of the proximity of support when responding to an incident in the water. This support could be from a neighbouring lifesaving/lifeguard service or a local emergency service such as Police, Fire or Ambulance.

Rating Description

1 Access to other rescue services/or assistance less than 3 minutes

2 Access to other rescue services/or assistance 3-5 minutes



5 Access to other rescue services/or assistance more than 15 minutes

Lifesaving Service Level Calculations: The tables and information below provide guidance on the appropriate level of lifesaving service required at Coffs Harbour LGA beaches once a decision to provide lifesaving / lifeguarding service has been made. The decision to provide a lifesaving/lifeguarding service is not dependant upon the outcome of the lifesaving service level calculations in the table below. Note: The below lifesaving service level calculators refer to beaches only. Rock platforms have been excluded.

Table 3.2.8.9: Pebbly Beach lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 2 4 2 3 5 21

Autumn 5 1 2 2 1 5 16

Winter 5 1 1 2 1 5 15

Spring 5 1 2 2 1 5 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to lower visitation numbers and incident history.


Page 80 of 97

Table 3.2.8.10: Station Creek lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 1 5 20

Autumn 6 1 2 2 1 5 17

Winter 6 1 1 2 1 5 16

Spring 6 1 2 2 1 5 17

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.11: Little Beach lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 2 3 2 3 5 20

Autumn 5 1 2 2 3 5 18

Winter 5 1 1 2 1 5 15

Spring 5 1 2 2 5 5 20

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during summer and 1

9 lifeguard during spring,

autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to regular roving patrols from Red Rock lifesavers and lifeguards. Table 3.2.8.12: Red Rock lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 2 4 3 3 5 22

Autumn 5 2 3 3 3 5 21

Winter 5 1 1 3 1 5 16

Spring 5 2 3 3 3 5 21

These calculations support the current service level provided during the summer school holidays, however there is an opportunity to provide lifeguard coverage during the autumn and spring school holidays. (See notes on p.91). If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.13: Corindi North lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 2 4 2 1 5 17

Autumn 3 2 3 2 1 5 16

Winter 3 1 2 2 1 5 14

Spring 3 2 3 2 1 5 16

9 Refer to Note 2 on p.77


Page 81 of 97

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1

10 lifeguard should be considered during spring, summer and autumn.

However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and roving patrols from Corinidi/Arrawarra. Table 3.2.8.14: Corindi/Arrawarra lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 3 3 5 24

Autumn 6 2 3 2 1 5 19

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 5 17

Spring 6 2 3 2 1 5 19

These calculations support the current service level provided during the summer school holidays. If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.15: Arrawarra Headland lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 2 4 2 1 5 17

Autumn 3 1 3 2 1 5 15

Winter 3 1 2 2 1 5 14

Spring 3 1 3 2 3 5 15

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer and autumn. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.16: Oceanview lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 1 1 4 18

Autumn 6 2 3 1 1 4 17

Winter 6 1 2 1 1 4 15

Spring 6 2 3 1 1 4 17

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history.



Page 82 of 97

Table 3.2.8.17: Mullaway lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 1 1 4 18

Autumn 6 2 3 1 1 4 17

Winter 6 1 2 1 1 4 15

Spring 6 2 3 1 3 4 19

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.18: South Mullaway/Cabins lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 1 4 19

Autumn 6 1 3 2 1 4 17

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 4 16

Spring 6 1 3 2 1 4 17

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.19: Safety/Darkum lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 1 3 18

Autumn 6 2 3 2 1 3 17

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 3 15

Spring 6 2 3 2 1 3 17

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.20: Woolgoolga lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 4 4 3 4 2 22

Autumn 5 3 4 3 4 2 21

Winter 5 2 3 3 3 2 18

Spring 5 3 4 3 5 2 22

These calculations support the current service level provided during the summer, spring and autumn school holidays, however there is an opportunity to provide lifeguard coverage in between the school holiday periods on weekdays (See notes on p.90).


Page 83 of 97

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.21: Back Beach Woolgoolga lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 5 2 21

Autumn 6 2 3 2 1 2 16

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 2 14

Spring 6 2 3 2 1 2 16

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during spring, summer and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, however a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90). Table 3.2.8.22: Hearnes Lake lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 1 1 3 17

Autumn 6 2 3 1 1 3 16

Winter 6 1 2 1 1 3 14

Spring 6 2 3 1 1 3 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer and autumn. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.23: Sandy’s lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 2 4 1 5 3 20

Autumn 5 2 3 1 3 3 17

Winter 5 1 2 1 3 3 15

Spring 5 2 3 1 3 3 17

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer and 1

11 lifeguard during spring and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be

provided at this location, a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90). Table 3.2.8.24: Fiddaman’s lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 1 4 1 1 4 17

Autumn 6 1 3 1 1 4 16

Winter 6 1 2 1 1 4 15

Spring 6 1 3 1 1 4 16



Page 84 of 97

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer and autumn. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.25: Emerald lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 2 5 4 23

Autumn 6 2 3 2 3 4 20

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 4 16

Spring 6 2 3 2 3 4 20

These calculations support the current service level provided during the summer school holidays. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during spring, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided over these periods, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers. Table 3.2.8.26: Shelly lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 1 4 1 1 4 15

Autumn 4 1 3 1 1 4 14

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 4 13

Spring 4 1 3 1 1 4 14

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during summer the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during summer due to lower visitation numbers and incident history.

Table 3.2.8.27: Moonee lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 3 5 22

Autumn 6 2 3 2 1 5 19

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 5 17

Spring 6 2 3 2 1 5 19

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during spring, summer and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90). Table 3.2.8.28: Sapphire lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 4 2 3 5 22

Autumn 6 2 3 2 2 5 19

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 5 17

Spring 6 2 3 2 5 5 23

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during spring, summer and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this


Page 85 of 97

location, a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90). Table 3.2.8.29: Riecks Point lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 2 4 2 1 4 17

Autumn 4 2 3 2 1 4 16

Winter 4 1 2 2 1 4 14

Spring 4 2 3 2 1 4 16

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring, summer and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.30: Pelican lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 3 4 3 1 4 19

Autumn 4 2 4 3 1 4 18

Winter 4 1 3 3 3 4 18

Spring 4 2 4 3 1 4 18

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.31: Campbell’s lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 2 4 3 1 4 18

Autumn 4 2 4 3 1 4 18

Winter 4 1 3 3 1 4 16

Spring 4 2 4 3 1 4 18

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.32: Hills North lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 1 4 1 1 4 15

Autumn 4 1 3 1 1 4 14

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 4 13

Spring 4 1 3 1 1 4 14

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during summer however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history.


Page 86 of 97

Table 3.2.8.33: Hills/Opal Cove lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 3 4 3 1 3 18

Autumn 4 2 4 3 1 3 17

Winter 4 1 3 3 1 3 15

Spring 4 2 4 3 1 3 17

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.34: Korora lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 2 4 1 1 3 15

Autumn 4 2 3 1 1 3 14

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 3 12

Spring 4 2 3 1 1 3 14

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during summer however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.35: Charlesworth Bay lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 2 4 3 1 3 15

Autumn 4 2 4 3 1 3 15

Winter 4 1 3 3 1 3 13

Spring 4 2 4 3 1 3 15

The lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring, summer and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, however a full service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.36: Diggers North lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 1 4 2 1 3 17

Autumn 6 1 3 2 1 3 16

Winter 6 1 2 2 1 3 15

Spring 6 1 3 2 1 3 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers.


Page 87 of 97

Table 3.2.8.37: Diggers lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 3 4 2 22

Autumn 6 2 4 3 5 2 22

Winter 6 1 3 3 3 2 18

Spring 6 2 4 3 4 2 21

These calculations support the current service level provided during the summer, autumn and spring school holidays. If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1

12 lifeguard should be considered. However, a service has not been

recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers. Table 3.2.8.38: Park Beach lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 5 3 4 3 4 2 21

Autumn 5 3 4 3 4 2 21

Winter 5 2 3 3 3 2 18

Spring 5 3 4 3 4 2 21

These calculations support the current service level provided. Table 3.2.8.39: Park South/North Wall lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 3 4 4 3 2 20

Autumn 4 2 3 4 3 2 18

Winter 4 1 2 4 1 2 14

Spring 4 2 3 4 3 2 18

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during summer, spring and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, a service has not been recommended due to regular roving patrols from Park Beach. (See notes on p.82) Table 3.2.8.40: Jetty Beach lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 4 4 3 4 2 20

Autumn 3 3 4 3 1 2 16

Winter 3 2 3 3 1 2 14

Spring 3 3 4 3 1 2 16

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during summer, spring and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, a service has not been recommended due to generally safer conditions and a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90).



Page 88 of 97

Table 3.2.8.41: Gallows lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 2 4 1 3 2 19

Autumn 7 2 3 1 1 2 16

Winter 7 1 2 1 1 2 14

Spring 7 2 3 1 1 2 16

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during summer, spring and autumn should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90). Table 3.2.8.42: Boambee lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 2 4 1 1 3 18

Autumn 7 2 3 1 1 3 17

Winter 7 1 2 1 1 3 15

Spring 7 2 3 1 1 3 17

If a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered during spring, summer, autumn and winter. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due lower visitation numbers and incident history. Table 3.2.8.43: Murrays/Sawtell lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 4 4 2 5 2 23

Autumn 6 3 4 2 4 2 21

Winter 6 2 3 2 3 2 18

Spring 6 3 4 2 4 2 21

These calculations support the current service level provided over spring, summer and autumn. If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers. Table 3.2.8.44: Bonville/Bongil/Bundagen lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 2 4 2 1 4 21

Autumn 7 2 3 2 1 4 19

Winter 7 1 2 2 1 4 17

Spring 7 2 3 2 1 4 19

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards during spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided at this location, however a service has not been recommended due to a proposed lifeguard roving vehicle patrol (see notes on p.90).


Page 89 of 97

Volunteer Lifesaving Service Surf Life Saving New South Wales are currently in the process of working with the North Coast Branch and local Surf Life Saving Clubs to set volunteer lifesaving dates and patrol hours for the next three seasons. Below are the patrol dates and hours that were covered during the 2012/2013 season over weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.8.45: Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Coffs Harbour LGA

Club Patrol Dates Sat Sun & PH

Red Rock

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 9am - 2pm 9am - 2pm

13/10/12 to 16/12/12 No Patrol 9am - 2pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 3pm 9am - 3pm

02/02/13 to 24/03/13 No Patrol 9am - 2pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 2pm 9am - 2pm

Woolgoolga

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 9am - 3pm 9am - 3pm

13/10/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 1pm 9am - 1pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

02/02/13 to 24/03/13 9am - 1pm 9am - 1pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 3pm 9am - 3pm

Coffs Harbour

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

Sawtell

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

13/10/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

02/02/13 to 24/03/13 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Regular roving patrols are encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are already 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 Red Rock SLSC: Little Beach (north) to Black Rock (1km south of SLSC) o Woolgoolga SLSC: 1km north of club (Lakeside Caravan Park) to Woolgoolga Headland o Coffs Harbour SLSC: 800m north of club (Hoey Moey) to Park Beach South/North Wall o Sawtell SLSC: Murrays beach (north) to Bonville Head It is also acknowledged that Surf Life Saving North Coast through its support services conducts roving patrols on an RWC during weekends and public holidays. The coverage area includes: o Zone: Boambee to Bonville As part of this roving patrol there is the opportunity to formally monitor and record usage patterns at these locations and report that information back to Surf Life Saving SurfCom or fellow lifesavers/lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond to.


Page 90 of 97

Paid Lifeguard Service - Existing Lifeguards provide coverage at the below locations during weekdays and are on duty with volunteer lifesavers on weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.8.46: Paid Lifeguard Services in the Coffs Harbour LGA

Service Patrol Dates Days Time

Red Rock Beach 19/12/11 to 27/01/12 5 days 9am - 3pm

Corindi Beach 28/12/11 to 22/01/12 7 days 9am - 5pm

Darlington/ Lorikeet 28/12/11 to 22/01/12 7 days 9am - 5pm

Woolgoolga

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 5 days 9am to 4pm

27/12/12 to 28/01/13 5 days 9am to 5pm

15/04/12 to 28/04/13 5 days 9am to 4pm

Emerald Beach 27/12/12 to 25/01/13 7 days 9am - 5pm

Diggers Beach

24/09/12 to 05/10/12 7 days 9am to 4pm

24/12/12 to 28/01/13 7 days 9am to 5pm

29/03/13 to 01/04/13 7 days 9am to 4pm

15/04/13 to 26/04/13 7 days 9am to 4pm

Park Beach

01/07/12 to 21/09/12 7 days 9am to 4pm

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 5 days 9am to 4pm

08/10/12 to 07/04/13 5 days 9am to 5pm

08/04/13 to 28/04/13 5 days 9am to 4pm

29/04/13 to 30/06/13 7 days 9am to 4pm

Sawtell Beach

22/09/12 to 07/10/12 5 days 9am to 4pm

08/10/12 to 07/04/13 5 days 9am to 5pm

08/04/13 to 28/04/13 5 days 9am to 4pm

Paid Lifeguard Service - Proposed Roving patrols: Similar to volunteer patrols, lifeguards also conduct roving patrols at the locations identified on the previous page. Lifeguards at Corindi, Darlington/Lorikeet and Diggers are also encouraged to conduct roving patrols. To further enhance roving patrols in the Coffs Harbour LGA, lifeguard supervisors should continue to visit those beaches that are outside the normal scope of a roving patrol during the summer school holidays (vehicle patrol). These beaches include Woolgoolga Back Beach, Sandy’s, Moonee, Sapphire, Jetty Beach, Gallows and Bonville. The lifeguard supervisor can provide preventative education, record visitation numbers, act on any preventative actions and provide any necessary warnings e.g. dangerous surf/rip currents. It is acknowledged that these roving patrols may not occur on a daily basis due to other supervisory duties that may take priority. Woolgoolga: Woolgoolga is a major hub of the northern beaches in the Coffs Harbour LGA and the continued growth of this area requires optimum beach safety services. There is the opportunity to mirror the patrol periods/hours conducted at Sawtell to provide a 7 month service at Woolgoolga. This beach can be heavily promoted at nearby accommodation providers to attract people to a safer swimming location that is supervised for 7 months of the year. As outlined on (p.39 & 40), Woolgoolga has also received the second highest number of emergency callouts since July 2008 with 12% of all callouts.


Page 91 of 97

Red Rock: To complement the volunteer lifesaving service that already exists at Red Rock, there is the opportunity for the lifeguard service at this location to cover the spring and autumn school holiday periods. Some of the key reasons include: 1. Public perception: During school holidays beach usage will be consistent whether it is a weekday, weekend

or public holiday. If a holiday maker goes to the beach with their family on a Sunday when volunteers from the Red Rock SLSC patrol, the public will have a perception that this same beach will be patrolled on Monday.

2. Holiday park: The Red Rock Holiday Park which has direct beach access attracts high visitation during school holiday periods. The holiday park has 110 sites with an average of 4 people per site. Therefore the maximum capacity can be estimated at approximately 440 people.

3. Remoteness: When the beach is not patrolled, the nearest lifeguard service and/or emergency services are located in Woolgoolga, which is approximately a 15 minute response time.

4. Education: This beach can be heavily promoted at nearby accommodation providers (Corinidi, Lorikeet and Darlington) to attract people to a safer swimming location that is supervised during these holiday periods.

Treatment Option 1.19 To further enhance roving patrols in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area, lifeguard supervisors should continue to visit those beaches that are outside the normal scope of a roving patrol during the summer school holidays (vehicle patrol). These beaches include Woolgoolga Back Beach, Sandy’s, Moonee, Sapphire, Jetty Beach, Gallows and Bonville. The lifeguard supervisor can provide preventative education, record visitation numbers, act on any preventative actions and provide any necessary warnings (e.g. dangerous surf and rip currents).

Treatment Option 1.20 Lifeguards at Woolgoolga currently provide coverage during the spring, summer and autumn school holiday periods (weekdays). Explore the means to fund an increase to this service to providing coverage on weekdays between the beginning of the spring school holidays to the end of the autumn school holidays.

Treatment Option 1.21 Lifeguards at Red Rock currently provide coverage during the summer school holiday period. To complement the volunteer patrols on weekends during the spring and autumn school holiday periods, Coffs Harbour City Council should explore the means to fund the lifeguard service at Red Rock to provide coverage during these holiday periods on weekdays.

Treatment Option 5.3 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 92 of 97

4. Emergency Response The relatively high rate of critical emergency incidents in the Coffs Harbour LGA makes ‘emergency response’ considerations very relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the area. Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to: o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000) o Emergency phones o Emergency response beacons o Emergency service response o Radio coverage o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service) 4.1 Emergency Communications/Reporting - Triple Zero (000) The ability of members of the public to request assistance in an emergency is an important component of a drowning prevention strategy. Triple Zero (000) should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency on all relevant signage/safety information and facilitated through any (specific) emergency communication devices. 4.2 Emergency Response Beacons Emergency Response Beacons (ERB) Emergency Response Beacons can be positioned in high use / high 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 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 ERB are generally only considered for use in a high risk location, where no or limited mobile phone coverage exists and where a service can ensure, show and maintain 100% coverage/monitoring of the beacon and have in place a consistent process of equipment checking/testing (daily). More information about ERB can be provided by Surf Life Saving New South Wales. A mobile emergency response beacon could be utilised by lifeguards and lifesavers when on duty at the below locations to help improve response times. It is reminded that a mobile emergency response beacon should not replace regular roving patrols. o Woolgoolga: 1km north of club (Lakeside Caravan Park) o Sawtell: 600m south of club o Park Beach: 800m north of club (Hoey Moey) o Little Beach: North of Red Rock Main These locations have been chosen due to the ease of access for lifeguards and lifesavers to set up/pack up ERBs before and after patrols, higher visitation numbers and/or emergency incidents (previous emergency callouts/drowning locations)


Page 93 of 97

Figure 4.3.1: A mobile Emergency Response Beacon in place at a beach.

Where an ERB has already been implemented at other locations in NSW, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between Surf Life Saving NSW and the lifesaving or lifeguard service. The MOU includes such things as ownership responsibilities, conditions of use, registration/insurance, servicing/maintenance, equipment, reporting, audits/inspections and suspension/withdrawal of the ERB.

Treatment Option 5.4 The following mobile emergency response beacons should be installed when lifeguards and lifesavers are on duty: o Woolgoolga - 1km north of Surf Life Saving Club (Lakeside Caravan Park) o Sawtell - 600m south of Surf Life Saving Club o Park Beach - 800m north of Surf Life Saving Club (Hoey Moey) o Little Beach: North of Red Rock Main Beach


Page 94 of 97

4.3 Emergency Service Response Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the Coffs Harbour LGA. Resources that may respond include: o Police (including Water Police) o Ambulance (including the Westpac Helicopter) o Coffs Harbour City Lifeguards o Surf Life Saving North Coast (Branch and Club Callout Teams) o State Emergency Service (SES) o Rural Fire Service o Marine Rescue NSW The table below outlines the locations of emergency services on the Coffs Harbour coastline. Table 4.4.1: Coastal Emergency Service locations for Coffs Harbour LGA.

Emergency Services – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb

Coffs-Clarence LAC 20 Moonee Street Coffs Harbour

NSW Water Police Coffs Harbour Jetty Coffs Harbour

NSW Police Force 20 Moonee Street Coffs Harbour

NSW Police Force 89 First Avenue Sawtell

NSW Police Force 22 Beach St Woolgoogla

NSW Ambulance Service 1 Queen Street Woolgoolga

NSW Ambulance Service 345 Pacific Hwy Coffs Harbour

NSW Fire and Rescue 9-11 Market Street Coffs Harbour

NSW Fire and Rescue 140 Sawtell Road Sawtell

NSW Fire and Rescue 61 Clarence St Woolgoolga

NSW Rural Fire Service Coral Street Corindi

NSW Marine Rescue Pollack Esplanade Woolgoolga

NSW Marine Rescue Victoria Street Coffs Harbour

As seen in the above table, emergency services are strategically placed in the larger towns within the Coffs Harbour LGA. Response times vary across the Local Government Area with the most remote beach (by road) being Station Creek and Pebbly Beach.


Page 95 of 97

4.4 Joint Emergency Response (Lifesavers and Lifeguards) Surf Rescue Emergency Response System 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 North Coast Branch and Coffs Harbour City Council have an effective callout system (capable of night operations) that can respond to incidents outside of patrolled locations/after hours. The following tables list the notification priority order for the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System for emergency activations within the Coffs Harbour LGA. These include: o Coffs Harbour City lifeguards are notified first on weekdays during operational hours o Surfcom Ballina is notified first on weekends and public holidays during operational hours and then Coffs

Harbour City Lifeguards are called immediately after. o Coffs Harbour City lifeguards are notified first for any after hour callouts

Branch Callout List

Priority Call Point of Call Mobile Other Call Sign

1st Call SurfCom Ballina - - SurfCom Ballina

2nd Call Les Pepper (Woolgoolga) - - North Coast 11

3rd Call Kevin Clancy (Sawtell) - - North Coast 12

4th Call John Wake (Coffs Harbour) - - North Coast 13

5th Call Kevin Morrison (Nambucca) - - North Coast 14

6th Call Wayne Scott (Red Rock) - - North Coast 15

Lifeguard Contacts

Priority Call Point of Call Mobile Call Sign

1st Call Greg Hackfath - Coffs Harbour 1

2nd Call Sonny Tisdell - Coffs Harbour 2

3rd Call Alistair Lane - Coffs Harbour 3

Note: mobile numbers have been removed from the above tables due to privacy reasons. As outlined on (p.39 & 40) lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many at unpatrolled locations/after hours). When meetings occur between Surf Life Saving North Coast and Coffs Harbour City Council, the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System should be a topic of discussion to review recent major incidents and to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures. There is also the opportunity for joint emergency response exercises before the start of the surf life saving season. Local emergency services such as police, water police and ambulance should also be involved with any meetings and scenarios that take place. This could be made possible through the Coffs Harbour Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC).

Treatment Options 1.22 & 5.5 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers, lifeguards and emergency services within the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures).

Treatment Options 1.23 & 5.6 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with North Coast Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations (SLS), the Coffs Harbour City Council lifeguards and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season.


Page 96 of 97

5. Monitor and Review This process 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 should ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This should include a process for the collection of data regarding any incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed as well as the use of public rescue equipment and emergency response phones. Land managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with this task. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage and public rescue equipment. It is acknowledged that the NPWS already have a system of monitor and review built into the ‘NPWS Visitor Safety Regional Risk Register User Guide’. Coffs Harbour City Council also has a comprehensive organisational risk management process and framework which incorporates a system of monitoring and reviewing all identified risks and the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies.

Treatment Options 1.24 & 2.12 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.

Treatment Options 1.25 & 2.13 All drowning prevention strategies should 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 97 of 97

References Angel Ring Project, 2012, ‘NSW Angel Ring Update – 17

th June 2012’, Australian National Sports fishing

Association (NSW Branch)’, Sydney, viewed on 7TH

January, 2013 Barns, R 2012, ‘NSW Councils Beach Safety Information Signage’, Statewide Mutual, Sydney 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. Census Data, 2011, ‘Quick Stats – Coffs Harbour Local Government Area’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Coffs Harbour City Council, 2012, ‘Annual Report Lifeguard Services 2011-2012’, Coffs Harbour City Council, Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour City Council, 2013, ‘Development Control Plan 2013’, Coffs Harbour City Council, Coffs Harbour Destination NSW, 2011, ‘Travel to Coffs Harbour Local Government Area’, Tourism Research Australia, Canberra, International Life Saving Federation, 2008, ‘Drowning Prevention Strategies A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving’, 8

th edition, The

International Life Saving Federation, Belgium Life Saving Victoria, 2006, ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual’, 3rd edition, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne NSW Division of Local Government, 2012, ‘Practice Note No. 15 – Water Safety’, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Nowra Short, A 2006, ‘Australian Beach Safety Management Program’, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney Standards Australia, 2009, ‘AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’, 4th edition, 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, ‘Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision’, V.3, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2010, ‘The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines’, 2nd edition, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2011, ‘Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessor Learner Guide’, V.3, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney World Health Organisation, 2003, ‘Guidelines for safe recreational water environments, V.1: Coastal and Fresh Waters, World Health Organisation, Switzerland, Geneva

Date post:	14-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Coffs Harbour Local Government Area - Water Safety NSW€¦ · Coastal Public Safety Risk...

Documents