Great Lakes Local Government Area · Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local...
Transcript of Great Lakes Local Government Area · Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local...
watersafety.nsw.gov.auA NSW Government water safety initiative
Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety
Black Spots Fund
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment Great Lakes Local Government Area
June 2016
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page ii
© Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Belrose 2015 All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
This work is copyright. However, material from this publication may be copied or published by State
Government agencies without the permission of Surf Life Saving NSW (SLSNSW) on the condition that the
meaning of the material is not altered and SLSNSW is acknowledged as the source of the material. Any other
persons or bodies wishing to use the material must seek permission. The views expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.
Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety Blacks Spots Fund
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. VIII
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. X
1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 PROJECT TEAM / AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................ 7
2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 13
2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 15
2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS .................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .................................................................... 19
2.6.1 Rhythmic Bar and Beach ............................................................................................................... 19
2.6.2 Transverse Bar and Rip ................................................................................................................. 19
2.6.3 Low Tide Terrace ........................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.4 Reflective....................................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.5 Rock Platforms and Rocky Coasts ................................................................................................. 22
2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ................................................................................................................ 23
2.7.1 Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables ......................................................................... 23
2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT ....................................................................................................................................... 28
2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM................................................................................................... 29
2.9.1 Population Statistics ..................................................................................................................... 29
2.9.2 Development Plans in Great Lakes................................................................................................ 30
2.9.3 Tourism Information ..................................................................................................................... 32
2.9.4 Beach Usage Statistics .................................................................................................................. 35
2.9.5 Drowning Incidents ....................................................................................................................... 40
2.9.6 Emergency Callouts ....................................................................................................................... 43
2.10 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................... 46
3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 49
3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ...................................................................................... 49
3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ....................................................................................................... 49
3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program ................................................................... 49
3.1.3 Local Population Rating ................................................................................................................ 51
3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ............................................................................................... 52
3.1.5 Access Rating ................................................................................................................................ 54
3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ....................................................................................................... 55
3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ................................................................................................... 63
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page iv
3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 63
3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) ....................................................................................... 63
3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programs ............................................................................................ 64
3.2.4 Safety Signage .............................................................................................................................. 72
3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ........................................................................................................... 84
3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs ................................ 85
3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment .............................................................................................................. 91
3.2.8 System of Supervision ................................................................................................................... 94
4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE ......................................................................................................................... 99
4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING ................................................................................................. 99
4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ............................................................................................................... 101
4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ................................................................................................................. 102
4.4 COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 104
4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) .......................................................................... 106
5 MONITOR AND REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 107
6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 108
APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Access and Signage Schedule APPENDIX B - Risk Register and Treatment Plan APPENDIX C - Public Rescue Equipment APPENDIX D - Facilities Audit APPENDIX E - Coverage Maps APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Engagement APPENDIX G - Life Saving Service Level Calculator
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1.1 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN. ................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2.2.1: GREAT LAKES LGA – ASSESSED LOCATIONS SITE INSPECTION (MAP 1 & 2). ....................................................... 9
FIGURE 2.2.2: GREAT LAKES LGA – ASSESSED LOCATIONS SITE INSPECTION (MAP 3). ........................................................... 10
FIGURE 2.3.1: RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS (STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, 2009). ..................................................................... 14
FIGURE 2.6.1 ILLUSTRATION OF A RHYTHMIC BAR & BEACH. ............................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 2.6.2: ILLUSTRATION OF A TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP. ........................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 2.6.3: ILLUSTRATION OF A LOW TIDE TERRACE. .................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 2.6.4: ILLUSTRATION OF A REFLECTIVE BEACH. ..................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 2.9.1: ILLUSTRATION OF THE TUNCURRY NORTH MASTER PLAN (NORTH TUNCURRY, 2014). ....................................... 30
FIGURE 2.9.2: ILLUSTRATION OF THE SEVEN MILE BEACH DEVELOPMENT. ........................................................................... 31
FIGURE 2.9.3 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN. ................................................................. 32
FIGURE 2.9.4 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA
(JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015). ............................................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 2.9.5 RESCUE STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE
2015). ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 2.9.6 FIRST AID STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO
JUNE 2015). .................................................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 2.9.7 PREVENTION STATISTICS RECORDED BY SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO
JUNE 2015). .................................................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 2.9.8 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO
JUNE 2015). .................................................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 2.9.9 RESCUE STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015). ........... 38
FIGURE 2.9.10 FIRST AID STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015). ....... 39
FIGURE 2.9.11 PREVENTION STATISTICS RECORDED BY PAID LIFEGUARDS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2015).... 39
FIGURE 2.9.12 GREAT LAKES LGA – DROWNING AND VICTIM POSTCODE. ........................................................................... 42
FIGURE 2.10.1: PROJECT BLUEPRINT FLYER.................................................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 3.2.1: DON’T PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE™ ........................................................................................................ 65
FIGURE 3.2.2: SURVIVE A RIP....................................................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 3.2.3: OLD 4 NEW ......................................................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 3.2.4: SWIM BETWEEN THE FLAGS. .................................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 3.2.5 RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE ROCK FISHING SCHOOL. .............................................................................. 66
FIGURE 3.2.6 GREAT LAKES ADVOCATE. ........................................................................................................................ 67
FIGURE 3.2.7 SURF SAFETY PRESENTATION AT NEWPORT BEACH (PITTWATER LGA). ............................................................. 69
FIGURE 3.2.8: AN EXAMPLE OF RIP CURRENT SIGN ON PUBLIC AMENITY BLOCKS. .................................................................... 69
FIGURE 3.2.9: EXAMPLE OF A NATIONAL PARKS VISITOR INFORMATION ............................................................................... 69
FIGURE 3.2.10: LARGE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER AT FORSTER MAIN BEACH. .................................................................. 70
FIGURE 3.2.11: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN. ........................................................................................................................ 72
FIGURE 3.2.12: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN. ........................................................................................................................ 72
FIGURE 3.2.13: COUNCIL ACCESS SIGN. ........................................................................................................................ 72
FIGURE 3.2.14: CAUTION – SAND EROSION. .................................................................................................................. 72
FIGURE 3.2.15: NATIONAL PARKS ACCESS SIGN. ............................................................................................................. 73
FIGURE 3.2.16: NATIONAL PARKS SAFETY SIGN – UNSTABLE GROUNDS. .............................................................................. 73
FIGURE 3.2.17: CROWN LANDS SAFETY SIGN ON THE TUNCURRY BREAK WALL. ..................................................................... 73
FIGURE 3.2.18: ALCOHOL SIGN THAT COULD BE PROHIBITED. ............................................................................................. 75
FIGURE 3.2.19: SIGNAGE THAT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REMOVED. ............................................................................. 75
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page vi
FIGURE 3.2.20: SIGNAGE AT BURGESS BEACH. ............................................................................................................... 76
FIGURE 3.2.21: AN EXAMPLE OF RIP EDUCATION SIGNAGE. ............................................................................................... 76
FIGURE 3.2.22: EXAMPLE OF ROCK FISHING SIGNAGE. ..................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 3.2.23: PROPOSED LOCATION SIGN. .................................................................................................................. 77
FIGURE 3.2.24 BOATING SAFETY INFORMATION. ............................................................................................................ 78
FIGURE 3.2.25 BAR CROSSING AT WALLIS LAKE ON A CALM DAY......................................................................................... 78
FIGURE 3.2.26: AN EXAMPLE OF A SET OF LIGHTS USED BY THE ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUATION FOR SAFETY REASONS IN
REGARDS TO TIDAL CHANGES. ............................................................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 3.2.27: EXAMPLE OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE DIRECTING PATRONS TO THE PATROLLED LOCATION. .................................... 79
FIGURE 3.2.28: EXAMPLE OF EMERGENCY MARKER SIGN. ................................................................................................. 84
FIGURE 3.2.29: FORMAL ACCESS AT BOOMERANG BEACH................................................................................................. 85
FIGURE 3.2.30: INFORMAL ACCESS AT BENNETTS HEAD. ................................................................................................... 85
FIGURE 3.2.31: AN EXAMPLE OF ACCESS REDIRECTION AT ONE MILE BEACH. ....................................................................... 86
FIGURE 3.2.32: EVIDENCE OF TYRE MARKS ON A NON PERMITTED 4WD BEACH. ................................................................... 87
FIGURE 3.2.33: TUNCURRY ROCK POOL. ....................................................................................................................... 88
FIGURE 3.2.34: THE LITTLE RIPPER LIFESAVER UAV CURRENTLY BEING TRIALLED IN NSW. ..................................................... 93
FIGURE 4.1.1: SUGGESTED EMERGENCY 'TRIPLE ZERO' INFORMATION FOR SIGNAGE. .............................................................. 99
FIGURE 4.1.2: ‘EMERGENCY +’ APPLICATION ................................................................................................................ 100
FIGURE 4.2.1: EXAMPLE OF A MOBILE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACON ON A BEACH. ............................................................ 101
FIGURE 4.3.1: EMERGENCY SERVICES LOCATED EAST OF THE PRINCES HIGHWAY IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA............................... 103
FIGURE 4.4.1: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE FORSTER REPEATER. ......................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 4.4.2: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE PACIFIC PALMS REPEATER. ................................................................................. 104
FIGURE 4.4.3: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE SEAL ROCKS REPEATER. ..................................................................................... 105
FIGURE 4.4.4: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE HAWKS NEST REPEATER. ................................................................................... 105
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page vii
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.4.1: DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS......................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2.2.1: ASSESSED LOCATIONS AND ASSESSMENT DATES. ............................................................................................ 11
TABLE 2.4.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS. ......................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 2.4.2: BEACH HAZARD RATING CALCULATION MATRICES FOR WAVE DOMINATE BEACHES. ............................................... 15
TABLE 2.5.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS – GREAT LAKES LGA. ............................................................................. 16
TABLE 2.7.1: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL HAZARDS RATING FOR RESERVES – NON BEACH ENVIRONMENTS. ................ 23
TABLE 2.7.2: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT RATINGS FOR BEACHES. ............................................................................................ 24
TABLE 2.7.3: TYPICAL POPULATION USE RATING FOR A FACILITY. ......................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2.7.4: SUGGESTED FREQUENCY USE RATING FOR A FACILITY. .................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2.7.5: FACILITY VISITATION RATES – FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ................................................................................ 24
TABLE 2.8.1: TOP 10 MOST COMMON COASTAL FACILITIES. .............................................................................................. 28
TABLE 2.8.2: TOP 10 LOCATIONS FOR FACILITIES. ............................................................................................................ 28
TABLE 2.9.1 GREAT LAKES POPULATION DATA (ABS, 2011). ............................................................................................ 29
TABLE 2.9.2 POPULATION COUNT OF COASTAL STATE SUBURBS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA (ABS, 2011). ................................... 29
TABLE 2.9.3 TOURISM DATA AND VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA. ................................................................. 32
TABLE 2.9.4 DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA. ............................................................. 32
TABLE 2.9.5 DOMESTIC DAY TRIP VISITOR INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA. ................................................................. 33
TABLE 2.9.6 INTERNATIONAL VISITORS INFORMATION FOR GREAT LAKES LGA. ..................................................................... 33
TABLE 2.9.7 ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS WITH DIRECT COASTAL ACCESS IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. ...................................... 34
TABLE 2.9.8 VOLUNTEER SURF LIFE SAVING TOTAL PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS AND RESCUES FOR BEACHES IN GREAT LAKES LGA ..... 39
TABLE 2.9.9 LIFEGUARD SERVICES TOTAL PREVENTATIVE ACTIONS AND RESCUES FOR BEACHES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. ............ 40
TABLE 2.9.10 DROWNING INCIDENTS FROM 01/07/04 TO 30/06/15 IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. .......................................... 40
TABLE 2.9.11 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS THROUGH THE SRES FROM 01/01/08 TO 30/06/15 IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. ............. 43
TABLE 3.1.1 ABSAMP MODAL RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ......................................................................... 49
TABLE 3.1.2 LOCAL POPULATION RATING DESCRIPTORS. .................................................................................................... 51
TABLE 3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ........................................................................ 51
TABLE 3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION DESCRIPTORS. ............................................................................................. 52
TABLE 3.1.5 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ....................................................... 52
TABLE 3.1.6 ACCESS RATING DESCRIPTORS. .................................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 3.1.7 ACCESS RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ........................................................................................ 54
TABLE 3.1.8 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY CALCULATIONS FOR EACH ASSESSED LOCATION. ..................................... 55
TABLE 3.1.9: KEY TO LAND MANAGEMENT OF LOCATIONS. ................................................................................................ 57
TABLE 3.1.10 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORES FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ..................................................................... 57
TABLE 3.2.1: EXAMPLES OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS. ............................................................................... 64
TABLE 3.2.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GREAT LAKES COUNCIL. ......... 80
TABLE 3.2.3: SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE. .......................................................................................................................................................... 81
TABLE 3.2.4: ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN LANDS MANAGED BY GREAT LAKES COUNCIL. .......................................................... 88
TABLE 3.2.5: ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN LANDS MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. ............................ 89
TABLE 3.2.6 AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT (PRE) (BRADSTREET, ET AL., 2012). ............................................ 91
TABLE 3.2.7 PRIORITY ORDER FOR LIFE RINGS. ................................................................................................................ 92
TABLE 3.2.8 VOLUNTEER LIFESAVING SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. .......................................................................... 95
TABLE 3.2.9 PAID LIFEGUARD SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES LGA. .................................................................................... 96
TABLE 4.3.1 COASTAL EMERGENCY SERVICE LOCATIONS FOR GREAT LAKES LGA (<10KM FROM THE COAST). .......................... 102
TABLE 4.4.1: KEY TO RADIO COVERAGE STRENGTH. ........................................................................................................ 104
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains findings and treatment options which align with current International and Australian
standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific
to locations under the authority of Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Crown
Lands.
These locations include (north to south):
1. Nine Mile Beach 26. Blueys Beach
2. Tuncurry Beach 27. Blueys Head
3. Tuncurry Rock Pool 28. Danger Point
4. Forster Main Beach 29. Bald Head
5. Second Head 30. Sandbar / Cellito Beach
6. Pebbly Beach 31. Number Six Beach
7. The Tanks 32. Number Five Beach
8. Bennett’s Head 33. Number Four Beach
9. One Mile Beach 34. Number Three Beach
10. Burgess Beach 35. Number Two Beach
11. Cape Hawke Headland 36. Number One Beach
12. McBrides Beach 37. Seal Rocks Point
13. Cape Hawke North Beach 38. Boat Beach
14. Cape Hawke South Beach 39. Sugarloaf Point
15. Janies Corner 40. Lighthouse Beach
16. Seven Mile Beach 41. Treachery Head
17. Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 42. Treachery Beach
18. Lindeman Cove 43. Yagon Head
19. Yes I Know Rock 44. Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach
20. Elizabeth Beach 45. Big Gibber Headland
21. Shelly Beach 46. Mungo Beach
22. Seagull Point 47. Dark Point North Beach
23. Charlotte Head 48. Dark Point / Little Gibber
24. Boomerang Beach 49. Bennett’s Beach
25. Boomerang Point 50. Yacaaba Headland
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page ix
Activities/Facilities
The Great Lakes Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public usage and
recreational activity, including swimming, surfing (including all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving, boating,
and walking.
A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and beach
access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, coastal walks, a number of public amenity blocks, BBQs, and picnic
tables.
Hazards/Risks
The Great Lakes LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the
area. These are outlined in detail in ‘Appendix B’.
Based on the risk assessment in ‘Appendix B’, the following hazards have been rated with the greatest
inherent risk for the Great Lakes LGA:
Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type
Waves/waves overwashing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells
Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type
Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action
Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type
Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement
Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography
Boating traffic/collision: As a result of human interaction
It has been identified that the hazards listed above pose risk to the following types of recreational users:
Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users
Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users
Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen
Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users
Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users
Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen
Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers
Boating traffic/collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters
Existing Risk Treatments
Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the following risk
treatment initiatives within the Great Lakes LGA:
o System of supervision
o Education and awareness programs
o Public rescue equipment
o Safety signage
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page x
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Please note:
o The below recommendations are provided as options for guidance only and will not be binding to the Land Manager.
o The below recommendations are in no particular order in regards to prioritisation.
o Further explanation to the recommendations should also be referenced and can be found on the corresponding pages.
o Some treatment options may be relevant for two or more agencies.
Recommendation 1
Great Lakes Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:
Strategic Coordination:
1.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area
e.g. Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased
coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue
equipment and supervision. (p.31)
1.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard
statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk
treatments for coastal safety. (p.45)
1.3 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower
North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues
and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this
report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to
meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)
1.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using
a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.62)
Education:
1.5 Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to
be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not
have the expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety
organisations to assist in delivery. (p.71)
1.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are
recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p.71)
1.7 Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted
through any websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages. (p.71)
1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community
groups upon request. Great Lakes Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote
these programs and encourage enhanced participation at a local and regional level. (p.71)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xi
1.9 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations.
Specific examples can be referenced in the report. (p.71)
1.10 Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing
standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers.
Collateral could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens
and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries. (p.71)
1.11 Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational
programs encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.71)
Safety Signage:
1.12 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should
be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and
upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing
signs into a single sign (less signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.82)
1.13 Existing access signage that does not meet a consistent adopted style should be replaced through
natural attrition. (p.82)
1.14 As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational
signage should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should
inform beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current.
(p.82)
1.15 Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in
promoting this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at
popular rock platforms / headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined
in the main report. (p.82)
1.16 Great Lakes Council should approach the Roads and Maritime Service to implement specific boat
safety signage (outlined in the report) at all boat ramp locations. (p.83)
Access:
1.17 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through
ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than
informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage
needed. (p.90)
1.18 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation,
in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.90)
1.19 Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well
known to emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be
provided with keys. (p.90)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xii
1.20 In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do
not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land
Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access.
(p.91)
1.21 Following the completion of studies in relation to the Tuncurry Rock Pool area, Great Lakes Council
should review and implement the findings to ensure that inexperienced swimmers and / or children
aren’t swept out beyond the enclosure during periods of hazardous conditions e.g. strong outgoing
tidal currents. (p.91)
Supervision/Surveillance:
1.22 Great Lakes Council should explore the means to fund the expansion of the lifeguard service at
Forster Main Beach to provide supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in
addition to the autumn and spring services already provided. (p.98)
1.23 A lifeguard service at Tuncurry should be strongly considered when the proposed large development
at North Tuncurry has been finalised. (p.98)
1.24 The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and
locations) should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is
provided. (p.98)
Emergency Response:
1.25 In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an
opportunity to promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community.
(p.100)
1.26 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach
and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)
1.27 When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be
aware that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons
could also be encouraged. (p.105)
1.28 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty
Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year
before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.106)
Monitor & Review:
1.29 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure
the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been
implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed. (p.107)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xiii
1.30 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the
relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management
area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.107)
Recommendation 2
The National Parks and Wildlife Service should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:
Strategic Coordination:
2.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area
e.g. Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased
coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue
equipment and supervision. (p.31)
2.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard
statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk
treatments for coastal safety. (p.45)
2.3 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower
North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues
and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this
report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to
meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)
2.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using
a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.62)
Education:
2.5 Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to
be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not
have the expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety
organisations to assist in delivery. (p.71)
2.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are
recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p.71)
2.7 Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted
through any websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages. (p.71)
2.8 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations.
Specific examples can be referenced in the report. (p.71)
2.9 Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational
programs encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.71)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xiv
Safety Signage:
2.10 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should
be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and
upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing
signs into a single sign (less signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.82)
2.11 As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational
signage should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should
inform beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current.
(p.82)
2.12 Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in
promoting this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at
popular rock platforms / headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined
in the main report. (p.82)
Access:
2.13 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through
ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than
informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage
needed. (p.90)
2.14 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation,
in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.90)
2.15 Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well
known to emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be
provided with keys. (p.90)
2.16 The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold discussions with the operators of Treachery Camp
in regards to providing them with keys to be able to gain entry to the emergency vehicle access at the
middle of Treachery Beach for emergency purposes.(p.90)
2.17 In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do
not permit 4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land
Managers should continue to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access.
(p.91)
Public Rescue Equipment
2.18 Land Managers should consider implementing life rings at the proposed locations identified in
‘Appendix C’. The Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational
Fishing Alliance of NSW will be able to provide guidance on costings, suppliers and ongoing
maintenance. (p.93)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xv
Emergency Response:
2.19 In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an
opportunity to promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community.
(p. 100)
2.20 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach
and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)
2.21 When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be
aware that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons
could also be encouraged. (p.105)
Monitor & Review:
2.22 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure
the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been
implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed. (p.107)
2.23 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the
relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management
area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.107)
Recommendation 3
The Water Safety Advisory Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:
Education:
3.1 Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing
standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers.
Collateral could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens
and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries. (p.71)
Emergency Marker Signage:
3.2 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property
Information, a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be
considered. (p.84)
Public Rescue Equipment:
3.3 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in
consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the
Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should
be determined by these fishing associations. (p.93)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xvi
Recommendation 4
Surf Life Saving (State, Branch and Club) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:
Strategic Coordination:
4.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and
Surf Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky
coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related
to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed. (p.18)
4.2 Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower
North Coast and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues
and implements coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this
report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to
meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving season. (p.48)
Education:
4.3 The Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should participate in the annual
Rip Current Awareness Day. (p.71)
Safety Signage:
4.4 Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the coastal tourist parks to inform
guests of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to alert
park operators when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory
process. (p.83)
4.5 Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct
patrons to a supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary
hazards such as strong currents, creek openings and pollution. (p.83)
Public Rescue Equipment:
4.6 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to
investigate effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches. (p.93)
Supervision/Surveillance:
4.7 Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving
Club to discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost patrol at Tuncurry Beach during
the summer school holiday period. (p.98)
4.8 Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular
basis to cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled. (p.98)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page xvii
Emergency Response:
4.9 Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach
and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach. (p.101)
4.10 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and
Hunter Branch to raise any current issues and opportunities which could see further radio
infrastructure installed to improve communication. (p.105)
4.11 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty
Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year
before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.106)
4.12 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Forster Marine
Rescue Unit. (p.106)
Recommendation 5
Marine Rescue NSW and the Roads and Maritime Service NSW should consider implementing the following
risk treatment options:
5.1 Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate
possible options to warn boat uses when crossing river bars. (p.83)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 1 of 110
1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Project Background:
Surf Life Saving New South Wales (SLSNSW) is undertaking a significant state-wide drowning prevention
project, known as Project Blueprint. As a core component of the project, every accessible coastal beach and
rock platform in New South Wales (NSW) are being assessed using industry leading systems and processes. The
outcomes will include evidence based drowning prevention treatment options to stakeholders and
government, both at a local, regional and state level.
Project Blueprint is being delivered by Australian CoastSafe, as the leading coastal public safety risk
management authority in Australia. Australian CoastSafe is the strategic and intelligence beach safety unit of
Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) – visit www.coastsafe.org.au for more information.
This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related
issues identified at every beach and rock platform located on the coast of the Great Lakes LGA. The Land
Managers of this area include Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Crown Lands.
The Drowning Issue:
Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 30 June 2015, there have
been 403 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 20041. The vast majority of these can be attributed to
swimming/rip-currents, rock-fishing and boating, with a high majority occurring at unpatrolled locations/times,
where no expert assistance is immediately available.
Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of
factors known as the ‘drowning chain’ and these are:
o Lack of knowledge, disregard or misunderstanding of the hazard
o Uninformed or unrestricted access to the hazard
o Lack of supervision or surveillance
o An inability to cope once in difficulty
The strategies that have been identified to address the drowning chain are:
o Education and information
o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings
o Provision of supervision
o Acquisition of survival skills
1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 2 of 110
Figure 1.1.1 The international Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain. Source: International Life Saving Federation
Treatment Options:
This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and
long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with
clear supporting evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders, and the application of effective risk
mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required.
It is acknowledged that Land Managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land Managers
should balance water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide
services and facilities to meet the current future needs of their local communities as a whole, all within a
limited budget.
This report recognises that there are many inherent risks associated with the NSW coastline and that in most
instances these risks associated with the NSW coastline cannot be eliminated and can only be managed within
the operations contexts of the Land Manager, taking into account all of their responsibilities and available
resources. This report also recognises that visitors to these areas also have a personal responsibility for their
own safety and those they are responsible for.
The treatment options found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to
risk management at the locations assessed and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 3 of 110
1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE
Project Context:
SLSNSW received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water Safety Black
Spots Fund to deliver coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches and rock
platforms). The program will be staged over several years with phase four (the final phase) to include the
Kempsey, Port Macquarie Hastings, Greater Taree, Great Lakes, Port Stephens, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie
LGAs.
The report provides risk treatment options about how to improve risk and safety management in line with
current industry standards:
o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines,
o AS/NZS2416.1:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags,
o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols – Public information symbols,
o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic
Signs, and
o ISO9001:2008 Quality Management Systems – Requirements.
Project Scope:
This coastal risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment
undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Great Lakes LGA which commenced on Thursday 25th June and
concluded on Tuesday 30th June, 2015.
The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment, including but not
limited to; signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user
groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people
to visit the location.
The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of
the Great Lakes LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this
report.
Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in
nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the
coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating occur in these waters the detailed
assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities with then areas falls outside the
scope of this report. Information on boating safety can be found at
http://maritimemanagement.transport.nsw.gov.au/
The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk
assessment.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 4 of 110
Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail:
o Access locations, classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment
options. Signage that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current signage Appendix A.
o Hazards, their potential risks, risk groups, risk scores and treatment options Appendix B.
o Public rescue equipment that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current public rescue
equipment Appendix C.
o Facilities and points of interest that may attract members of the public to coastal locations Appendix D.
Other appendices include:
o Coverage maps of assessed locations Appendix E.
o Stakeholder Engagement Appendix F.
o Life Saving Service Level Calculator Appendix G.
At no time during the inspection was the water entered. The assessments were performed from the land,
along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.
1.3 LIMITATIONS
The following are acknowledged as limitations of this coastal public safety risk assessment.
o The absence of an agreed and recognised methodology for rating the hazardousness of rock platforms.
o Difficulty in gaining feedback from all identified stakeholders.
o Limited timeframes allowed for stakeholders to provide feedback on consultative draft versions of the
main report and appendices as a result of the project timeframes.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 5 of 110
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Definitions of the key terms used within this report are provided below.
Table 1.4.1: Definitions of key terms.
ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety and Management Program.
Attendance A snapshot of the on-beach and in-water attendance taken every two hours on a
daily basis.
ATV All-terrain vehicle.
CALD Culturally And Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities.
Coastal
The foreshore, seabed, coastal water, and airspace above a large body of water
(harbour/bay/inlet), including areas up to 2NM offshore and of which the
landward boundary is the line of mean high water, except that where that line
crosses a river/inlet, the landward boundary at that point shall be the point
upstream that is calculated by multiplying the width of the river/inlet mouth by 5
(Adapted from the Resource Management Amendment Act 1991 – New Zealand).
Coastal Waterway A coastal body of water e.g. river/creek opening.
Consequence Outcome or impact of an event.
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.
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.
Frequency A measure of the number of occurrences per unit of time.
Geomorphology Is the scientific study of landforms and the processes that shape them.
Hazard A source of potential harm.
Hazard Symbols A graphical symbol used together with a safety colour and safety shape to form a
safety sign.
Inaccessible A location that is not able to be accessed from land by standard reasoning and/or
entry is prohibited by private access.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 6 of 110
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.
IRB Inflatable Rescue Boat.
LGA
Local Government Area – for the purposes of this report this area is used to
determine the scope of the assessment (i.e. the coastal boundary of the Local
Government Area). This may include lands managed by Councils, Crown and
National Parks and Wildlife Service.
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.
Prevailing The conditions existing in a particular place or at a particular time.
Preventative Action /
Prevention
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.
Probability A measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number.
Rescue A lifesaver/lifeguard rendering direct assistance to a beachgoer in difficulty in the
water.
Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 7 of 110
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).
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 Management Standards Australia defines risk management as coordinated activities to direct
and control an 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 Process of selection and implementation of measures to modify risk.
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 (jet ski).
SLS Branch Surf Life Saving Branch, a regional body of Surf Life Saving formed to further the
objects of surf lifesaving in a particular geographic area.
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 / AUTHORS
Project Team:
Adam Weir, Operations Manager, [email protected]
Luke Stigter, Coastal Risk Co-ordinator, [email protected]
Chris Twine, Coastal Risk Officer, [email protected]
Australian CoastSafe
Surf Life Saving New South Wales
Ph: 02-9471 8000| F: 02-9471 8001
W: www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 8 of 110
2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The methodology included site identification, site inspection, hazard identification, data analysis, beach hazard
ratings, beach identification, facility visitation ratings, facilities, beach usage, tourism data, incident data,
communication and consultation.
2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION
The map on the following page provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the
Great Lakes LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in ‘Appendix
E’. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed approximately 152km of coastline in the Great Lakes
LGA.
The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of:
o Great Lakes Council
o National Parks and Wildlife Service
Darawank Nature Reserve
Booti Booti National Park
Myall Lakes National Park
o Crown Lands
The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment and is not limited to
signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user groups,
conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people to visit
the location.
The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of
the Great Lakes LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this
report.
Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in
nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the
coastal aquatic environment.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 9 of 110
Figure 2.2.1: Great Lakes LGA – Assessed Locations Site Inspection (Map 1 & 2).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 10 of 110
Figure 2.2.2: Great Lakes LGA – Assessed Locations Site Inspection (Map 3).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 11 of 110
Table 2.2.1: Assessed locations and assessment dates.
Location Land Management Authority Date
Nine Mile Beach Great Lakes Council /
National Parks and Wildlife Service Thursday 25 June, 2015
Tuncurry Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
Tuncurry Rock Pool Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
Forster Main Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
Second Head Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
Pebbly Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
The Tanks Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
Bennett’s Head Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June, 2015
One Mile Beach Great Lakes Council Thursday 25 June and Friday 26 June, 2015
Burgess Beach Great Lakes Council Friday 26 June, 2015
Cape Hawke Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
McBrides Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Cape Hawke North Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Cape Hawke South Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Janies Corner National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Seven Mile Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Lindeman Cove National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Yes I Know Rock National Parks and Wildlife Service Friday 26 June, 2015
Elizabeth Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Shelly Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Seagull Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Charlotte Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Boomerang Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Boomerang Point Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Blueys Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Blueys Head Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Danger Point Crown Lands Not Accessible
Bald Head Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Sandbar / Cellito Beach Great Lakes Council /
National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Number Six Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible
Number Five Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible
Number Four Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible
Number Three Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible
Number Two Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Not Accessible
Number One Beach Great Lakes Council /
National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Seal Rocks Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Saturday 27 June, 2015
Boat Beach Great Lakes Council Saturday 27 June, 2015
Sugarloaf Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015
Lighthouse Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015
Treachery Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 12 of 110
Location Land Management Authority Date
Treachery Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015
Yagon Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June, 2015
Submarine / Yagon Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Sunday 28 June and
Tuesday 30 June, 2015
Big Gibber Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015
Mungo Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015
Dark Point North Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29 June, 2015
Dark Point / Little Gibber National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29 June, 2015
Bennett’s Beach Great Lakes Council /
National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29 June and
Tuesday 30 June, 2015
Yacaaba Headland National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30 June, 2015
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 13 of 110
2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
During the site inspection hazards were identified within the area inspected and assessed in terms of their
individual risk to public safety (extreme, high, medium, low) using a risk assessment matrix ‘Appendix B’.
The risk assessment matrix considers both the type of harm that could be sustained as a result of an individual
hazard and the likelihood of this harm actually occurring.
Hazards/Risks:
The Great Lakes LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the
beaches in the area.
Based on the risk assessment in ‘Appendix B’, the following hazards have been rated with the greatest
inherent risk for the Great Lakes LGA:
Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type
Waves/waves over washing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells
Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type
Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action
Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type
Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement
Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography
Boating traffic/collision: As a result of human interaction
It has been identified that the above listed hazards pose risk to the following types of recreational users:
Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users
Waves/waves over washing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users
Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen
Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users
Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users
Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen
Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers
Boating traffic/collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters
This coastal public safety risk assessment aligns with the international standard of risk management ‘AS/NZS
ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’ (Standards Australia, 2009).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 14 of 110
Figure 2.3.1: Risk management process (Standards Australia, 2009).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 15 of 110
2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW
The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Program) was developed by Professor Andrew Short
from the University of Sydney Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The program
has identified coastal hazards that affect bathers and rates the safety of the beach on a scale of one to ten,
where one (1) is the least hazardous and ten (10) is the most hazardous. The beach hazard ratings and
definitions are provided below. Table 2.4.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings.
The beach hazard rating is calculated by determining the beach type and wave height. This can be done under
either modal (average) or prevailing (current) conditions. The beach hazard rating is then calculated by using
the following table. Table 2.4.2: Beach hazard rating calculation matrices for wave dominate beaches.
Wave Height
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 used in risk based calculation throughout the report relate to modal beach
conditions and as such the hazard rating of a beach may increase when conditions alter e.g. with increasing
wave height, winds, strong tides and high tide. Furthermore, a hazard rating is also applied to an average
person and therefore the hazard may in fact be greater or less, depending upon an individual’s own skill, and
understanding and competence in relation to a certain area. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected
areas of the Great Lakes LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.
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.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 16 of 110
2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS
The ABSAMP Hazard Rating for the assessed locations listed in Table 2.5.1 below. The table provides both a
modal and a prevailing ABSAMP rating. The modal ABSAMP rating represents the average conditions for each
location, which has been extracted from the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. The prevailing
ABSAMP rating represents the conditions observed by Australian CoastSafe on the day each audit took place.
Table 2.5.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Great Lakes LGA.
Location Name ABSAMP
No.
ABSAMP
Rating
(Modal)
ABSAMP Type
(Modal)
ABSAMP Rating
(Prevailing)
ABSAMP Type
(Prevailing)
Nine Mile Beach nsw195 7 Transverse Bar
and Rip 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Tuncurry Beach nsw195s 7 Transverse Bar
and Rip 4 Low Tide Terrace
Tuncurry Rock Pool nsw195a 2 Reflective 3 Reflective
Forster Main Beach nsw196 4 Low Tide
Terrace 4 Low Tide Terrace
Second Head nsw196RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms
Pebbly Beach nsw197 4 Reflective +
Rocks 3 Reflective + Rocks
The Tanks nsw197RPa 5* Boulders 4* Boulders
Bennett’s Head nsw197RPb 5* Rock Headland 4* Rock Headland
One Mile Beach nsw198 6 Transverse Bar
and Rip 5
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Burgess Beach nsw199 4 Low Tide
Terrace + Rocks 4
Low Tide Terrace +
Rocks
Cape Hawke
Headland nsw199RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms
McBrides Beach nsw200 4 Reflective 3 Reflective
Cape Hawke North
Beach nsw201 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip +
Rocks
Not assessed – inaccessible
Cape Hawke South
Beach nsw202 7
Rhythmic Bar
and Beach +
Rocks
Not assessed – inaccessible
Janies Corner nsw203 7 Transverse Bar
and Rip 7
Rhythmic Bar and
Beach
Seven Mile Beach nsw204 6 Rhythmic Bar
and Beach 7
Rhythmic Bar and
Beach - Transverse
Bar and Rip
Booti Hill / Flat
Rock Point nsw204RPa 7* Rock Platforms 6* Rock Platforms
Lindeman Cove nsw205 7 Low Tide
Terrace 4 Low Tide Terrace
Yes I Know Rock nsw205RPa 6* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 17 of 110
Location Name ABSAMP
No.
ABSAMP
Rating
(Modal)
ABSAMP Type
(Modal)
ABSAMP Rating
(Prevailing)
ABSAMP Type
(Prevailing)
Elizabeth Beach nsw206 4 Low Tide
Terrace 4 Low Tide Terrace
Shelly Beach nsw207 3 Reflective 3 Reflective
Seagull Point nsw207RPa 5* Rock Platforms 5* Rock Platforms
Charlotte Head nsw207RPb 5* Rock Platforms Not assessed – inaccessible
Boomerang Beach nsw208 6 Transverse Bar
and Rip 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Boomerang Point nsw208RPa 6* Rock Headland 7* Rock Headland
Blueys Beach nsw209 6 Transverse Bar
and Rip 6
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Blueys Head nsw209RPa 6* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland
Danger Point nsw209RPb 6* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland
Bald Head nsw209RPc 6* Rock Platforms 6* Rock Platforms
Sandbar / Cellito
Beach nsw210 6
Transverse Bar
and Rip 6
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Number Six Beach nsw211 5 Transverse Bar
and Rip Not assessed – inaccessible
Number Five Beach nsw212 5 Transverse Bar
and Rip Not assessed – inaccessible
Number Four
Beach nsw213 5
Transverse Bar
and Rip Not assessed – inaccessible
Number Three
Beach nsw214 4
Transverse Bar
and Rip Not assessed – inaccessible
Number Two Beach nsw215 4 Reflective +
Rocks Not assessed – inaccessible
Number One Beach nsw216 4 Low Tide
Terrace 4 Low Tide Terrace
Seal Rocks Point nsw216RPa 4* Rock Platforms 4* Rock Platforms
Boat Beach nsw217 3 Reflective 3 Reflective
Sugarloaf Point nsw217RPa 5* Rock Headland 5* Rock Headland
Lighthouse Beach nsw218 7 Transverse Bar
and Rip 6
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Treachery Head nsw218RPa 7* Rock Headland 6* Rock Headland
Treachery Beach nsw219 7 Transverse Bar
and Rip 6
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Yagon Head nsw219RPa 7* Rock Headland 7* Rock Headland
Submarine / Fiona
/ Yagon Beach nsw220 7
Rhythmic Bar
and Beach 7
Rhythmic Bar and
Beach
Big Gibber
Headland nsw220RPa 7* Rock Headland 8* Rock Headland
Mungo Beach nsw221 7 Rhythmic Bar
and Beach 8
Rhythmic Bar and
Beach
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 18 of 110
Location Name ABSAMP
No.
ABSAMP
Rating
(Modal)
ABSAMP Type
(Modal)
ABSAMP Rating
(Prevailing)
ABSAMP Type
(Prevailing)
Dark Point North
Beach nsw222 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip
Dark Point / Little
Gibber nsw222RPa 7* Rock Platforms 7* Rock Platforms
Bennett’s Beach nsw223 7
Transverse Bar
and Rip – Low
Tide Terrace
7 - 4
Transverse Bar
and Rip – Low Tide
Terrace
Yacaaba Headland nsw223RPa 7* Rock Headland 4* Rock Headland
* Great Lakes LGA Rock Platform Ratings
Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the
ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy
has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification
study on rocky coasts (Kennedy, et al., 2013). This research has now received funding under an Australian
Research Council linkage grant. Professor Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) presented the
methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). An update of this
research was provided by Dr. David Kennedy at the NSW Coastal Conference in Ulladulla (November, 2014).
As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach
hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches
on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather
conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated
hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the
potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform.
It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a
rock platform. In order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed the interim solution,
which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology detailed above, has been applied. Once the
research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these
calculations should be revisited.
Treatment Option 4.1
Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf Life
Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be
commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this
report should be reviewed.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 19 of 110
2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS
The modal beach characteristics and associated hazards for each location are as follows:
2.6.1 RHYTHMIC BAR AND BEACH
Rhythmic bar and beach type commonly occurs
around the southern Australian coast. They
usually consist of relatively fine-medium (0.3
mm) sand and exposure to waves averaging
more than 1.5 m. They are characterised by an
outer bar which is separated from the beach by
a deep trough, however unlike the longshore
bar and trough type, the bar varies in width and
elevation alongshore, and it is rhythmic.
Waves break more heavily on the shoreward-
protruding rhythmic bar sections with the
broken wave and white water flowing shoreward as a wave bore. The bore then flows off the bar into the
deeper tough, where it moves shoreward and longshore as a rip feeder current. Part of the wave reforms in
the trough and breaks again on the shore.
The water from both the wave bore and the swash piles up in the rip feeder channel and moves sideways
toward the adjacent rip embayment. The converging feeder currents turn and flow seaward as a rip current
through the trough and across the deeper seaward-protruding sections of the rhythmic bar.
The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as rhythmic bar and beach:
o Cape Hawke South Beach
o Seven Mile Beach
o Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach
o Mungo Beach
2.6.2 TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP
Transverse bar and rip (TBR) type is the most
common and extensive of Australia’s wave-
dominated beach types. They occur primarily on
beaches composed of fine to medium sand (0.3
mm) and exposed to waves averaging 1.5 m.
This beach type received its name from the fact
that the bars are transverse or perpendicular to
and attached to the beach, separated by deeper
rip channels.
The bars and rips are usually regularly spaced
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
Figure 2.6.1 Illustration of a Rhythmic Bar & Beach.
Figure 2.6.2: Illustration of a Transverse Bar and Rip.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 20 of 110
resulting in lower energy swash in lee of the bars and higher energy swash/shore break in lee of the rips. The
shoreline is rhythmic building a few metres seaward behind the attached bars as deposition occurs forming the
mega cusp horns and being scoured out and often scarped in lee of the rips forming the embayments. The surf
zone has a cellular circulation pattern. Waves tend to break more on the bars and move shoreward as wave
bores. This water flows both directly into the adjacent rip channel and, closer to the beach, into the rip feeder
channels located at the base of the beach. The water in the rip feeders converge and return seaward as a
strong rip current.
The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as transverse bar and rip:
o Nine Mile Beach
o Tuncurry Beach
o One Mile Beach
o Cape Hawke North Beach
o Janies Corner
o Boomerang Beach
o Blueys Beach
o Sandbar / Cellito Beach
o Number Six Beach
o Number Five Beach
o Number Four Beach
o Number Three Beach
o Lighthouse Beach
o Treachery Beach
o Dark Point North Beach
o Bennetts Beach
2.6.3 LOW TIDE TERRACE
Low tide terrace beaches tend to occur when
waves average about 1m and sand is fine to
medium. They are characterised by a moderately
steep beach face, which is joined at the low tide
level to an attached bar or terrace, hence the
name – low tide terrace. The bar usually extends
between 20-50m seaward and continues
alongshore, attached to the beach. It may be flat
and featureless, have a slight central crest, called
a ridge, and may be cut every several tens of
metres by small shallow rip channels, called mini
rips.
At high tide when waves are less than 1m, they may pass right over the bar and not break until the beach face,
which behaves much like a reflective beach. At spring low tide, however, the entire bar is usually exposed as a
ridge or terrace running parallel to the beach and waves break by plunging heavily on the outer edge of the
bar.
At mid tide, waves usually break right across the shallow bar, when they are most likely to generate rip
currents. The water is returned seaward, both by reflection off the beach face, especially at high tide, and via
Figure 2.6.3: Illustration of a Low Tide Terrace.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 21 of 110
the mini rips, even if no rip channels are present. The rips, however, are usually shallow, ephemeral or
transient meaning they will flow strongly for a few minutes then dissipate.
The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as low tide terrace:
o Forster Main Beach
o Burgess Beach
o Lindeman Cove
o Elizabeth Beach
o Number One Beach
o Bennetts Beach
2.6.4 REFLECTIVE
Reflective sandy beaches lie at the lower energy
end of the wave-dominated beach spectrum.
They are characterised by relatively steep, narrow
beaches usually composed of coarser sand (0.4
mm). On the open Australian coast, sandy
beaches require waves to be less than 0.5 m to be
reflective. For this reason they are also found
inside the entrance to bays, at the lower energy
end of some ocean beaches and in lee of the reefs
and islets that front many beaches.
Reflective beaches are Australia's most common beach type occurring in every state though they are more
common around the southern half of the continent. Reflective beach morphology consists of the steeper,
narrow beach and swash zone, with beach cusps commonly present in the upper high tide swash zone. They
have no bar or surf zone as waves move unbroken to the shore, where they collapse or surge up the beach
face.
The following beaches within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as reflective:
o Tuncurry Rock Pool
o Pebbly Beach
o McBrides Beach
o Shelly Beach
o Number Two Beach
o Boat Beach
Figure 2.6.4: Illustration of a Reflective beach.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 22 of 110
2.6.5 ROCK PLATFORMS AND ROCKY COASTS
Rock platforms and rocky coasts are wave eroded regions that exist at the base of rocky cliffs and headlands.
They are typically influenced by tides and waves. For coastal hazards, rocky coasts can therefore be considered
static features unable to adjust their morphology during storms unlike sandy beaches (Kennedy, et al., 2013).
The following regions within the Great Lakes LGA are classified as Rock Platforms or Rocky Coast:
o Second Head
o The Tanks
o Bennetts Head
o Cape Hawke Headland
o Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point
o Yes I Know Rock
o Seagull Point
o Charlotte Head
o Boomerang Point
o Blueys Head
o Danger Point
o Bald Head
o Seal Rocks Point
o Sugarloaf Point
o Treachery Head
o Yagon Head
o Big Gibber Headland
o Dark Point / Little Gibber
o Yacaaba Headland
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 23 of 110
2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR)
The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a quantitative assessment system developed by State-wide Mutual as ‘Best
Practice’ for Signage As Remote Supervision (2007). The FVR can be used by NSW Local Government to
determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location).
The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes site population use and
frequency of use. Since the FVR calculation is used to determine aquatic recreational warning signage
requirements, the figures used are those of the peak period of beach usage.
The following information is used to calculate the FVR:
1. Observational data collected during the site assessment; (only during peak summer periods do we rely on
observational data)
2. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback; and,
3. Historical statistical data
The Facility Visitation Rate is calculated using the following formula:
FVR = (Development x Population) + Frequency
Where:
Development* = the level of facilities and infrastructure that exist within or about the facility.
Population = the average number of people that use the facility at any point in time.
Frequency = the number of times that the facility is used by patrons.
* Note: Development ratings were calculated with reference to 2.7.2
2.7.1 FACILITY VISITATION RATING (FVR) REFERENCE TABLES
Table 2.7.1: Typical Development and Natural Hazards Rating for Reserves – non beach environments.
Rating Development Natural Hazards
1 Virginal bush, cleared land, no infrastructure No hazardous features
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, cycle way, market, leash free dog
areas
Reserve contains natural waterway that
runs during wet weather, drops less
than 1 meter
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
meter and 3 meters
5 Extensively developed infrastructure with artificial
lighting e.g. sporting complex, artificially lit courts
Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater
than 3 meters
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 24 of 110
Table 2.7.2: Typical development ratings for beaches.
Rating ABSAMP Beach Rating
1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2
2 Beach hazard rating 3 and 4
3 Beach hazard rating 5 and 6
4 Beach hazard rating 7 and 8
5 Beach hazard rating 9 and 10
Table 2.7.3: Typical population use rating for a facility.
Rating Population Use
1 Less than 5 people at a time
2 5 to 50 people at a time
3 50 to 100 people at a time
4 100 to 500 people at a time
5 Greater than 500 people at a time
Table 2.7.4: Suggested Frequency use rating for a Facility.
Rating Frequency of Use
1 An annual activity or event is held at the facility
2 An activity event takes place in the facility on a monthly basis
3 An activity event takes place in the facility on a weekly basis
4 An activity event takes place in the facility on a daily basis
5 The facility is in continuous use for the majority of the day
The FVR values for assessed locations in the Great Lakes LGA are provided in Table 2.7.5.
Table 2.7.5: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations.
LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT
RATING X POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR
Nine Mile Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15
Tuncurry Beach 4 x 4 + 4 = 20
Tuncurry Rock Pool 1 x 4 + 4 = 8
Forster Main Beach 2 x 5 + 5 = 15
Second Head 2 x 2 + 3 = 7
Pebbly Beach 2 x 2 + 4 = 8
The Tanks 3 x 2 + 4 = 10
Bennett’s Head 3 x 1 + 3 = 6
One Mile Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16
Burgess Beach 2 x 2 + 3 = 7
Cape Hawke Headland 2 x 1 + 3 = 5
McBrides Beach 2 x 1 + 3 = 5
Cape Hawke North Beach 4 x 1 + 1 = 5
Cape Hawke South Beach 4 x 1 + 1 = 5
Janies Corner 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Seven Mile Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Lindeman Cove 4 x 1 + 2 = 6
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 25 of 110
LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT
RATING X POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR
Yes I Know Rock 3 x 2 + 3 = 9
Elizabeth Beach 2 x 5 + 5 = 15
Shelly Beach 2 x 3 + 4 = 10
Seagull Point 3 x 1 + 3 = 6
Charlotte Head 3 x 1 + 2 = 5
Boomerang Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16
Boomerang Point 3 x 1 + 2 = 5
Blueys Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16
Blueys Head 3 x 1 + 2 = 5
Danger Point 3 x 1 + 1 = 4
Bald Head 3 x 2 + 2 = 8
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3 x 4 + 4 = 16
Number Six Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4
Number Five Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4
Number Four Beach 3 x 1 + 1 = 4
Number Three Beach 2 x 1 + 1 = 3
Number Two Beach 2 x 1 + 1 = 3
Number One Beach 2 x 4 + 4 = 12
Seal Rocks Point 2 x 2 + 4 = 8
Boat Beach 2 x 3 + 4 = 10
Sugarloaf Point 3 x 2 + 3 = 9
Lighthouse Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15
Treachery Head 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Treachery Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15
Yagon Head 4 x 1 + 1 = 5
Submarine / Yagon Beach 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Big Gibber Headland 4 x 1 + 2 = 6
Mungo Beach 4 x 3 + 3 = 15
Dark Point North Beach 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Dark Point / Little Gibber 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Bennett’s Beach 4 x 5 + 5 = 25
Yacaaba Headland 4 x 2 + 3 = 11
Given the FVR scores listed in Table 2.7.5, the most appropriate signage characteristics for each location are
listed below.
FVR Score between 4 and 6
o Bennett’s Head
o Cape Hawke Headland
o McBrides Beach
o Cape Hawke North Beach
o Cape Hawke South Beach
o Lindeman Cove
o Charlotte Head
o Boomerang Point
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 26 of 110
o Blueys Head
o Danger Point
o Number Six Beach
o Number Five Beach
o Number Four Beach
o Number Three Beach
o Number Two Beach
o Yagon Head
This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided
by Land Manager have signage and spaced no greater than 1000 metres apart around the beach perimeter.
Additionally the signage should contain the following:
o The name of the facility
o A general warning message
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility
NB: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols.
FVR Score between 7 and 10
o Tuncurry Rock Pool
o Second Head
o Pebbly Beach
o The Tanks
o Burgess Beach
o Yes I Know Rock
o Shelly Beach
o Bald Head
o Seal Rocks Point
o Boat Beach
o Sugarloaf Point
This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided
by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter.
Additionally the signage should contain the following:
o The name of the facility
o A general warning message
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms
o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign
as warning symbols. If no highs then the top hazard should appear
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility
FVR Score between 11 and 15
o Nine Mile Beach
o Forster Main Beach
o Janies Corner
o Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point
o Elizabeth Beach
o Number One Beach
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 27 of 110
o Lighthouse Beach
o Treachery Head
o Treachery Beach
o Submarine / Yagon Beach
o Mungo Beach
o Dark Point North Beach
o Dark Point / Little Gibber
o Yacaaba Headland
This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided
by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter.
Additionally the signage should contain the following:
o The name of the facility
o A general warning message
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms
o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign
as warning symbols. If no highs then the top two hazards should appear
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility
FVR Score between 16 and 20
o Tuncurry Beach
o One Mile Beach
o Seven Mile Beach
o Boomerang Beach
o Blueys Beach
o Sandbar / Cellito Beach
This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided
by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter.
o The name of the facility
o A general warning message
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms
o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign
as warning symbols. If no highs then the top three hazards should appear
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility
FVR Score between 21 and 26
o Bennett’s Beach
This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided
by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 100 metres apart around the beach perimeter.
Additionally the signage should contain the following:
o The name of the facility
o A general warning message
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms
o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign
as warning symbols. If no highs then the top four hazards should appear
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 28 of 110
2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT
Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the
beach/access. The 10 most common coastal facilities along the Great Lakes LGA coastline are shown in the
table below.
Table 2.8.1: Top 10 most common coastal facilities.
Rank Facility Type Count
1 Bench 108
2 Car Park 89
3 Rubbish Bins 44
4 Picnic Table 27
5 Sheltered Picnic Table 25
6 Accommodation 23
7 Amenities 21
8 Shower 20
9 Viewing Platform 18
10 Barbecue Area 12
Why do we record facilities?
Facilities are recorded because it is important for the Land Manager to recognise that by providing the above
facilities it is expected that there will be an increase in people visiting these areas. This increase can correlate
to the likelihood of a risk occurring in a coastal environment. Treatment plans identified in the report should
be implemented in these areas to reduce the risk of a particular event occurring.
Below is a list of the top ten locations for facilities within the Great Lakes LGA:
Table 2.8.2: Top 10 locations for facilities.
Rank Location Count
1 One Mile Beach 56
2 Forster Main Beach 51
3 Bennetts Beach 41
4 Tuncurry Beach 31
5 Seven Mile Beach 28
6 Boomerang Beach 26
7 Tuncurry Rockpool 23
8 The Tanks 21
9 Elizabeth Beach 19
10 Pebbly Beach 18
Refer to Appendix D for a further breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Great Lakes LGA.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 29 of 110
2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM
Population growth is an important consideration when evaluating and predicting beach usage trends.
Increasing beach usage due to population growth relates to an increase in the probability of an event
occurring. Tourism operations and development proposals are also associated with population growth, and
these should also be considered when determining suitable risk treatment options.
2.9.1 POPULATION STATISTICS
The 2011 census recorded a population count of 34,430 in the Great Lakes LGA. Over the last 10 years, the
population has increased by 3,164 people (10.12% growth). The first table lists the male, female and total
population in the Great Lakes LGA for the last three Census counts. The second table lists the 2011 population
of the suburbs that are situated along the coast of the Great Lakes LGA.
Table 2.9.1 Great Lakes population data (ABS, 2011).
Table 2.9.2 Population count of coastal state suburbs in the Great Lakes LGA (ABS, 2011).
State Suburb Males Females Total
Tuncurry 2,756 3,044 5,800
Forster 6,251 6,865 13,116
Green Point 295 292 587
Elizabeth Beach 112 118 230
Boomerang Beach 217 217 434
Smith’s Lake 551 525 1,076
Bangawahl
(Inc. Seal Rocks) 142 112 254
Hawks Nest 575 548 1,123
Great Lakes Local Government Area – Population
Year Males Females Total
2011 16,860 17,570 34,430
2006 16,091 16,675 32,766
2001 15,339 15,867 31,266
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 30 of 110
2.9.2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN GREAT LAKES
Existing and future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Great Lakes LGA
should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education,
signage, beach access and supervision.
One particular example includes the development behind Nine Mile Beach (Tuncurry North). The North
Tuncurry Development Project involves a proposal to re-zone a 615 hectare parcel of Crown Lands –
illustration figure below (North Tuncurry, 2014).
Figure 2.9.1: Illustration of the Tuncurry North Master Plan (North Tuncurry, 2014).
There are also plans for development to be undertaken at the northern end of Seven Mile Beach behind the
Booti Booti National Park. This development includes 199 houses and 118 apartments built on 70 hectares of
land (Wellings, 2008). The below figure is an artist’s impression of what the site may look like and the YouTube
link – ‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mb6FHfzH1Q’ provides potential buyers with the benefits of
living in the area.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 31 of 110
Figure 2.9.2: Illustration of the Seven Mile Beach Development.
The project has currently stalled because of financial pressures of the current developers.
Beach Usage:
It is expected that attendance to Nine Mile Beach - Tuncurry and Seven Mile Beach will increase rapidly once
these developments have been finalised.
These developments will:
1. Improve access to the coast.
2. See an increase in facilities such as car parks, foreshore BBQ’s and picnic tables etc.
3. See an increase with interaction activities such as swimming, surfcraft use and fishing.
There is also mention and preliminary discussions of a possible new Surf Life Saving Club at North Tuncurry.
Treatment Options 1.1 & 2.1
Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Great Lakes Local Government Area e.g. Nine
Mile Beach (Tuncurry) and Seven Mile Beach, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing
possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 32 of 110
2.9.3 TOURISM INFORMATION
The following table shows the number of domestic overnight visitors, domestic day trippers and international
visitors over a four year annual average to the year ending September 2014 (Destination NSW, 2015).
Table 2.9.3 Tourism data and visitor information for Great Lakes LGA.
Overall Tourist Figures (‘000)
Domestic Overnight 585
Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 401
International Visitors 12
Domestic overnight visitors are the most common visitor type followed by domestic day tripper, while
international visitors only make up around 1% of total visitors.
Figure 2.9.3 The international Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain. Source: International Visitor Survey and National Visitor Survey, Tourism Research Australia (TRA).
Since December 2008 the number of total visitors has risen by approximately 100,000 people (11% increase).
Table 2.9.4 Domestic Overnight visitor information for Great Lakes LGA.
Top 5 Activities (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Go to the beach 315 54 23
Eat out at restaurants 288 49 58
Visiting friends/relatives 229 39 49
General sight seeing 179 31 25
Go shopping (pleasure) 145 25 26
Origin (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Sydney 245 42 28
Regional NSW 284 49 41
Victoria 19 3 11
Queensland 24 4 11
Top 5 Accommodation (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Caravan park/camping 645 28 13
Rented house/apartment 608 26 10
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 33 of 110
Friends or relatives 515 22 39
Hotel, resort or motel 212 9 25
Own property 159 7 4
Age Group (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
15 - 24 years 82 14 15
25 - 34 years 89 15 17
35 - 44 years 99 17 18
45 - 54 years 104 18 19
55 - 64 years 109 19 16
65 years or over 103 18 15
Travel Party (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Travelling with Children 223 38 26
Adult couple 200 34 27
Friends or relatives
(no children) 90 15 15
Travelling alone 53 9 26
Purpose of Visit (Visitors) (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Holiday 394 67 42
Visiting friends/relatives 156 27 37
Other 15 3 6
In summary, beaches in the Great Lakes LGA are the number one attraction for domestic overnight travellers
and this is considerably higher than the NSW average of 23%. 49% of these people live in Regional NSW while
42% come from Sydney. 28% stay at caravan parks and commercial camping grounds which also exceeds the
NSW average of 13%. The number of visitors from each demographic is fairly even with only slightly more
visitors within the 55 to 64 age bracket. The majority of visitors travel with children and overall visitors come
to the Great Lakes LGA for a holiday.
Table 2.9.5 Domestic Day Trip visitor information for Great Lakes LGA.
Top 5 Activities (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
Eat out at restaurants 155 39 44
Visiting friends/relatives 118 29 36
Go to the beach 95 24 10
Go shopping (pleasure) 78 20 21
In summary, the most popular activity for domestic day trippers is to eat out at restaurants. Around 24% of
domestic day trippers will visit the beach and this exceeds the NSW average of 10%.
Table 2.9.6 International visitors information for Great Lakes LGA.
Top 4 Origin Markets (‘000) Great Lakes % NSW Average %
UK 3 26 11
New Zealand 2 13 13
Germany 1 10 4
USA 1 10 10
In Summary, visitors from the UK make up the highest proportion of international visitors to the region with
26%. This exceeds the NSW average of 11%, while German visitors also exceed the NSW average of 4%.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 34 of 110
Local Accommodation Providers
Local accommodation providers also attract beach users to the coast especially during school holiday periods.
The beachside suburbs of the Great Lakes LGA have many holiday apartments/houses, caravan parks/camping
grounds and hotels/motels. The accommodation providers that have direct access to coastal waters are listed
below:
Table 2.9.7 Accommodation providers with direct coastal access in the Great Lakes LGA.
Venue Type Location Park Owner
Approx.
Max
Capacity
Tuncurry Beach Holiday Park Camping, cabins
and caravans Tuncurry Beach
North Coast
Holiday Parks 1,500
Forster Beach Holiday Park Camping, cabins
and caravans Forster Beach
North Coast
Holiday Parks 1,100
Ocean Front Motor Lodge Self-contained
apartments Forster Beach Private 32
The Dorsal Hotel Hotel Forster Beach Private 60
Camp Elim Cabins Seven Mile Beach Private 300
Sundowner Tiona Holiday Park Camping, cabins
and caravans Seven Mile Beach Private 650
The Ruins Campground Camping Seven Mile Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service 500
Pacific Palms Holiday Park Camping, cabins
and caravans Elizabeth Beach Private 500
Moby’s Beachside Retreat Self-contained
apartments Boomerang Beach Private 1,300
Sandbar Caravan Park Camping, cabins
and caravans Sandbar/Cellito Private 920
Seal Rocks Holiday Park Camping, cabins
and caravans
Number One/
Seal Rocks
North Coast
Holiday Parks 600
Treachery Camp Camping, cabins
and caravans Treachery Private 500
Yagon Head Campground Camping Submarine /
Fiona / Yagon
National Parks and
Wildlife Service 148
Boomeri Campground Camping Mungo Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service 80
Wells Campground Camping Mungo Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service 48
White Tree Bay Campground Camping Mungo Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service 60
Dees Corner Campground Camping Mungo Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service 64
Banksia Green Campground Camping Mungo Beach National Parks and
Wildlife Service
60
Stewart and Lloyds
Campground Camping Mungo Beach
National Parks and
Wildlife Service 48
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 35 of 110
Venue Type Location Park Owner
Approx.
Max
Capacity
Oceanside Hawks Nest Self-contained
apartments Bennett’s Beach Private 200
Hawks Nest Beach Holiday
Park
Camping, cabins
and caravans Bennett’s Beach
North Coast
Holiday Parks 2,000
Note: There are also numerous inland caravan parks, motels and holiday rentals.
The Great Lakes LGA has a transient population meaning that some coastal locations may see limited activity
for the majority of the year until peak holiday times where the population dramatically increases.
Caravan parks/camping grounds that have direct access to coastal waters are of significance when determining
the level of risk at a certain location. As most guests are domestic or international visitors their knowledge of
the beach conditions will be less than local residents and therefore there is a higher chance of visitors getting
into difficulty.
Many access points from caravan parks and camping grounds also lead to unpatrolled beaches or sections of a
beach which may also increase the level of risk.
Some treatment options regarding accommodation providers that have direct access to coastal waters can be
found in Sections 3.2.3 – Education and Awareness Programs and 3.2.4 – Safety Signage.
2.9.4 BEACH USAGE STATISTICS
Volunteer Lifesaving Statistics:
The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving (volunteers) operating within the Great Lakes
LGA. Figures for are over five patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15). Statistics for
lifesavers have been sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’.
Attendances:
The graph below provides the average daily attendances as recorded by lifesavers (weekends and public
holidays) for the services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.
Figure 2.9.4 Average daily attendance statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 36 of 110
Notes to graph:
o Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) recorded the highest average daily attendance compared with other Surf Club
beaches for each patrolling season.
o The highest average daily attendance was recorded by Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) and this occurred in
season 2011/12.
o Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) recorded the lowest average daily attendance compared with other
Surf Club beaches for each patrolling season.
o The lowest average daily attendance was recorded by Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) and this
occurred in season 2012/13.
Rescues:
The graph below provides the rescues as recorded by lifesavers (weekends and public holidays) for the services
operating within the Great Lakes LGA.
Figure 2.9.5 Rescue statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o Hawks Nest SLSC (Bennetts Beach) recorded the highest number of rescues in season 2010/11 and
2011/12.
o Cape Hawke SLSC (One Mile Beach) recorded the second highest number of rescues.
o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) and Forster SLSC (Forster Beach) recorded the least amount of rescues
and this is reflected by these two beaches being more protected from prominent south east swells than
Bennetts Beach and One Mile Beach.
First Aid and Preventative Actions: The graphs below display the first aid and prevention statistics for lifesavers (weekends and public holidays).
Preventative Actions may include:
o Swimmers advised/warned
o Craft users advised/warned
o Beach users advised/warned
o Warning signs erected
o Shark alarm
o Searches/lost children
First Aid cases may include:
o Minor injuries/first aid
o Major injures/hospitalisation
o Marine stings
o Spinal injuries
o Shock
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 37 of 110
Figure 2.9.6 First Aid statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) recorded the highest total number of first aids.
o The highest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2010/2011 at Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth
Beach).
o The lowest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2013/14 at Forster SLSC (Forster Beach).
Figure 2.9.7 Prevention statistics recorded by Surf Life Saving Club volunteers in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o The graph shows that overall Hawks Nest SLSC (Bennetts Beach) recorded more preventative actions
compared with other Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes LGA.
o Pacific Palms SLSC (Elizabeth Beach) recorded the least amount of preventative actions. Paid Lifeguard Statistics:
The following statistics have been recorded by the paid lifeguards operating within the Great Lakes LGA.
Figures are over 5 patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15).
Attendances:
The graph below provides the average daily attendances as recorded by paid lifeguards (weekdays) for the
services operating within the Great Lakes LGA.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 38 of 110
Figure 2.9.8 Average daily attendance statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o Elizabeth Beach lifeguards recorded the highest average daily attendance figures compared with other
lifeguard locations.
o The highest average daily attendance was recorded by Elizabeth Beach and this occurred in season
2011/12.
o One Mile Beach lifeguards recorded the lowest average daily attendance figures compared with other
lifeguard locations.
o The lowest average daily attendance was recorded by One Mile Beach lifeguards and this occurred in
season 2011/12.
Rescues:
The graph below provides the rescues as recorded by lifeguards (weekdays) for the services operating within
the Great Lakes LGA.
Figure 2.9.9 Rescue statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o One Mile Beach lifeguards recorded the highest number of rescues in all seasons except 2014/15.
o Elizabeth Beach lifeguards recorded the least number of rescues for all combined seasons.
First Aid and Preventative Actions:
The graphs below display the first aid and prevention statistics for lifeguards (weekdays).
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 39 of 110
Figure 2.9.10 First Aid statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o The highest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2010/2011 at Forster Beach.
o The lowest amount of first aid cases occurred in season 2011/2012 at One Mile Beach.
Figure 2.9.11 Prevention statistics recorded by paid lifeguards in the Great Lakes LGA (July 2010 to June 2015).
Notes to graph:
o The graph shows that overall Bennetts Beach recorded more preventative actions than any other lifeguard
service in the Great Lakes LGA.
o One Mile Beach recorded the least amount of preventative actions.
Rescues/Preventative Actions:
The following tables show the cumulative statistics for both Preventative Actions and rescues which are then
used to determine the Preventative Actions: rescues ratio. In theory, the more Preventative Actions a
club/service makes, the number of rescues that are required to be conducted will decrease e.g. Tea Gardens
Hawks Nest SLSC makes 54 Preventative Actions before having to conduct a single rescue. These statistics may
highlight which clubs/services have the opportunity to be more proactive in making Preventative Actions with
the aim of reducing the amount of rescues that need to be performed.
Table 2.9.8 Volunteer Surf Life Saving total Preventative Actions and rescues for beaches in Great Lakes LGA (June 2010 – July 2015).
Forster SLSC Cape Hawke
SLSC Pacific Palms
SLSC
Tea Gardens Hawks Nest
SLSC
Total Preventative Actions 2,037 1,953 1,692 6,092
Total Rescues 29 64 42 111
Ratio Preventative Actions: Rescues 70:1 31:1 40:1 54:1
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 40 of 110
Notes to table:
o The most effective ratio was recorded by Forster SLSC and the least effective was recorded by Cape Hawke
SLSC.
Table 2.9.9 Lifeguard services total Preventative Actions and rescues for beaches in the Great Lakes LGA (June 2010 – July 2015).
Forster Beach One Mile Beach Elizabeth Beach Bennetts
Beach
Total Preventative Actions 7,051 4,583 10,671 23,381
Total Rescues 19 68 13 40
Ratio Preventative Actions: Rescues 371:1 67:1 820:1 584:1
Notes to table:
o The most effective ratio was recorded by Elizabeth Beach lifeguards and the least effective was recorded by
One Mile Beach lifeguards.
2.9.5 DROWNING INCIDENTS
The drowning incidents that have occurred in the Great Lakes LGA from the 1st of July 2004 are provided
below. The table excludes any inland drowning incidents.
Table 2.9.10 Drowning Incidents from 01/07/04 to 30/06/15 in the Great Lakes LGA.
*The Coroner is still yet to determine if drowning was a contributing factor to this fatality.
Notes to table:
o The average age of drowning victims was 55.
o 77% of victims were male.
o 66% of people who drowned reside outside of the Great Lakes LGA.
o Three of the most recent drowning incidents occurred from fishing from rocks or a boat
o 55% of incidents occurred after 12:00hrs.
o It is acknowledged that the incidents at Seven Mile Beach and McBrides Beach were a result of Self-harm.
Date Location Time Age &
Gender Nationality
Residential Status
Activity Victim
Postcode
19/11/2006 Bennett's
Beach 13:00 30 / M Australian
Australian Resident
Swimming 2017
7/02/2009 Jimmy's Beach 19:15 31 / F Chinese Australian Resident
Surfcraft 2600
25/01/2010 Blueys Beach 18:45 61 / M Australian Australian Resident
Swimming 2042
8/02/2010 Wallis Lake Entrance
7:00 76 / M Australian Australian Resident
Boating 2428
31/08/2012 Seven Mile
Beach n/a 82 / F Australian
Australian Resident
Self Harm 3689
6/04/2014 McBrides
Beach 13:30 54 / M Australian
Australian Resident
Self Harm 2428
7/05/2014 Sugarloaf
Point 12:30 45 / M Australian
Australian Resident
Rock Fishing 2580
09/06/2015 Tuncurry * 11:30 75 / M Australian Australian Resident
Rock Fishing 2423
27/06/2015 Broughton
Island 10:00
40’s / M
Australian Australian Resident
Boating 2322
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 41 of 110
While data surrounding incident location/time has been referenced, specific environmental conditions at the
time of incidents have not been adequately assessed to identify causal factors and specific trends. This
information exists and is held in raw format by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), including wave
height/direction, tides, wind speed/direction, temperature, and visibility.
The Bureau of Meteorology and Surf Life Saving Australia are currently undertaking a retrospective analysis of
meteorological and oceanographic conditions prevalent at the time of drowning cases between 2003 and 2013
to identify trends and inform the refinement of the hazardous surf warning system.
Review and assessment of this data may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage
recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions
for types of localities, and specific ‘Blacks spot’ locations. Dangerous surf warnings and education/awareness
programs may be improved as a result.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 42 of 110
Figure 2.9.12 Great Lakes LGA – Drowning and Victim Postcode.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 43 of 110
2.9.6 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS
There have been 76 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from
1st January 2008 to 30th June 2015 in the Great Lakes LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams
(lifesavers/lifeguards) including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police.
As a result of the 76 callouts, 24 persons were rescued and 53 callouts resulted in ‘no further action’ or ‘stood
down before response’ meaning resources were ultimately not required. Such cases include self rescue, rescue
by another member of the public, rescue by another emergency response organisation, and false alarms.
Unfortunately, 5 of these callouts were a result of coastal drowning.
Note: The data below does not incorporate incidents from other emergency services where the SRERS may not have been
tasked e.g. Water Police, Ambulance and Marine Rescue data.
Table 2.9.11 Emergency Callouts through the SRES from 01/01/08 to 30/06/15 in the Great Lakes LGA.
Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome
23/04/2008 Lighthouse Beach Autumn Wed 8:00 Rock Related 1 Person Rescued
24/04/2008 Elizabeth Beach Autumn Thu 14:51 Rockfishing Stood Down
30/12/2008 Bennetts Beach Summer Tue 14:56 Shark Sighting No Further Action
23/12/2008 One Mile Beach Summer Tue 14:05 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued
7/02/2009 Sandbar/Cellito Summer Sat 14:26 Shark Sighting No Further Action
10/04/2009 Pebbly Beach Autumn Fri 11:23 Diving/
Snorkelling No Further Action
23/04/2009 Wallis Lake
Entrance Autumn Thu 10:28 SurfCraft 1 Person Rescued
31/10/2009 Bennetts Beach Spring Sat 11:09 Shark Sighting No Further Action
1/01/2010 Jimmys Beach Summer Fri 13:01 Self Harm 1 Person Found
8/02/2010 Wallis Lake
Entrance Summer Mon 7:19 Rockfishing 1 Coastal Drowning
1/03/2010 Wallis Lake
Entrance Autumn Mon 11:23 Environmental No Further Action
23/03/2010 Blueys Beach Autumn Tue 16:14 Swimming 1 Person Rescued
2/05/2010 Wallis Lake
Entrance Autumn Sun 14:47 Vessel 1 Person Rescued
16/01/2011 Pebbly Beach Summer Sun 16:42 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued
25/01/2011 Wallis Lake
Entrance Summer Tue 8:23 Vessel No Further Action
30/01/2011 Nine Mile Beach Summer Sun 9:45 Shark Sighting No Further Action
13/02/2011 Bennetts Beach Summer Sun 14:05 Shark Sighting No Further Action
1/03/2011 Boomerang Beach Autumn Tue 17:35 Vessel No Further Action
17/06/2011 Seal Rocks Point Winter Fri 13:29 Rockfishing 1 Person Rescued
19/11/2011 Bennetts Beach Spring Sat 10:00 Shark Sighting No Further Action
26/11/2011 Wallis Lake
Entrance Spring Sat 16:40 Vessel 1 Person Rescued
31/12/2011 Blueys Beach Summer Sat 11:43 Swimming 3 Persons Rescued
18/01/2012 One Mile Beach Summer Wed 14:35 Swimming No Further Action
18/01/2012 Forster Main Beach Summer Wed 9:49 Swimming No Further Action
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 44 of 110
Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome
10/05/2012 Elizabeth Beach Autumn Thu 15:12 Swimming No Further Action
29/06/2012 Elizabeth Beach Winter Fri 8:44 Swimming No Further Action
16/07/2012 Bennetts Beach Winter Mon 10:46 Shark Sighting No Further Action
5/10/2012 Seal Rocks Spring Fri 14:52 Shark Sighting No Further Action
28/10/2012 Boat Beach Spring Sun 9:05 SurfCraft No Further Action
11/12/2012 Forster Summer Tue 10:33 Swimming No Further Action
22/12/2012 Boomerang Beach Summer Sat 15:45 Swimming No Further Action
29/12/2012 Bennetts Beach Summer Sat 10:36 Shark Sighting No Further Action
4/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Fri 9:28 Shark Sighting No Further Action
5/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Sat 10:28 Shark Sighting No Further Action
7/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Mon 8:35 Shark Sighting No Further Action
7/01/2013 Forster Summer Mon 10:06 Other No Further Action
8/01/2013 Nine Mile Beach Summer Tue 9:45 SurfCraft No Further Action
11/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Fri 14:23 Other No Further Action
23/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Wed 9:05 Shark Sighting No Further Action
24/01/2013 Bennetts Beach Summer Thu 8:38 Shark Sighting No Further Action
24/01/2013 Wallis Lake
Entrance Summer Thu 17:24 Vessel 1 Person Rescued
2/02/2013 Tea Gardens Summer Sat 17:13 Vessel 1 Person Rescued
14/03/2013 Wallis Lake
Entrance Autumn Thu 9:22 Swimming No Further Action
17/03/2013 Forster Autumn Sun 13:07 Swimming 1 Person Rescued
2/10/2013 Wallis Lake
Entrance Spring Wed 10:16 SurfCraft No Further Action
12/10/2013 Seven Mile Beach Spring Sat 16:10 SurfCraft No Further Action
22/10/2013 Seven Mile Beach Spring Tue 15:32 Swimming 1 Person Rescued
7/12/2013 One Mile Beach Summer Sat 16:56 Swimming No Further Action
17/12/2013 Seven Mile Beach Summer Tue 11:32 Swimming No Further Action
26/12/2013 Jimmy’s Beach Summer Thu 16:14 Vessel No Further Action
2/01/2014 Bennetts Beach Summer Thu 16:13 Shark Sighting No Further Action
21/01/2014 Seven Mile Beach Summer Tue 17:20 Swimming No Further Action
11/03/2014 Booti Hill /
Flat Rock Point Autumn Tue 17:15 Vessel 1 Person Rescued
17/03/2014 Forster Autumn Mon 13:54 SurfCraft No Further Action
6/04/2014 McBrides Beach Autumn Sun 13:30 Rockfishing 1 Coastal Drowning
14/04/2014 Boomerang Beach Autumn Mon 12:57 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued
21/04/2014 Sandbar / Cellito Autumn Mon 13:58 Other No Further Action
7/05/2014 Sugarloaf Point Autumn Wed 12:31 Rockfishing 2 Persons Rescued,
1 Coastal Drowning
9/06/2014 Elizabeth Beach Winter Mon 10:26 SurfCraft No Further Action
22/07/2014 Boat Beach Winter Tue 9:48 Rock Related No Further Action
25/08/2014 Wallis Lake
Entrance Winter Mon 9:56 Swimming No Further Action
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 45 of 110
Date Incident Location Season Day Time Job Type Summary Outcome
23/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Tue 13:47 Swimming No Further Action
23/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Tue 15:01 Swimming 2 Persons Rescued
29/09/2014 One Mile Beach Spring Mon 11:44 Shark Sighting No Further Action
15/10/2014 Forster Spring Wed 13:58 Other 1 Inland Drowning
21/10/2014 Boat Beach Spring Tue 14:40 SurfCraft No Further Action
1/11/2014 Seal Rocks Spring Sat 15:36 Swimming No Further Action
9/11/2014 Forster Spring Sun 11:56 Swimming No Further Action
23/11/2014 Forster Spring Sun 15:15 Swimming No Further Action
23/11/2014 Wallis Lake
Entrance Spring Sun 19:26 Swimming No Further Action
4/01/2015 Forster Summer Sun 8:06 Shark Sighting No Further Action
21/01/2015 Nine Mile Beach Summer Wed 17:11 Swimming No Further Action
31/01/2015 Nine Mile Beach Summer Sat 15:25 Swimming No Further Action
5/02/2015 Wallis Lake
Entrance Summer Thu 15:49 SurfCraft No Further Action
2/03/2015 Bennett’s Head Autumn Mon 8:47 Rock Related No Further Action
09/06/2015 Tuncurry Winter Tue 11:30 Rock Fishing 1 coastal drowning /
death
Notes to table:
o 16% of all emergency incidents occurred at Wallis Lake Entrance.
o 89% of emergency incidents were located in lands managed by Great Lakes Council and 11% were located
in lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
o 46% of emergency incidents occurred within the Tuncurry to Cape Hawke area, 23% within the Seven Mile
Beach to Sandbar / Cellito area and 31% within the Seal Rocks to Hawks Nest area.
o 35% of emergency incidents were a result of swimming, 22% from shark sightings, 12% from rock fishing /
rock related incidents, 12% from surf craft, 10% from vessels and 9% from other unique means.
o 45% of emergency incidents occurred during summer, 24% during autumn, 8% during winter and 23%
during spring.
Treatment Options 1.2 & 2.2
Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard
statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for
coastal safety.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 46 of 110
2.10 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is a core component of the risk
assessment and management process.
Stakeholder Consultation
Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key
stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in
place, risk management issues and opportunities that may exist.
Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with:
o Andrew Staniland, Manager – Parks and Recreation, Great Lakes Council
o Rachel Kempers, Area Manager – Great Lakes, National Parks and Wildlife Service
o Brett Cann, Senior Ranger, National Parks and Wildlife Service
The consultation process has been aided in the following ways:
o Open community forums and workshops,
o Print and radio media announcements of workshops and consultation,
o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops,
o Use of social media – Twitter,
o Web based surveys,
o Web based information submissions,
o On-site communication and distribution of flyers,
o On-site one-to-one surveying, and
o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.
Consultation Workshop
Two separate community forums were held in the Great Lakes LGA to engage with the local community. These
were advertised in local media and pre-identified stakeholders were notified via email and follow up phone
calls. The community forums were open to any member of the public including surf lifesavers, lifeguards,
fishing groups, surfing associations, emergency services personnel, boaters, residents, etc.
The first community forum was held at Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club on Wednesday 24th June, 2015 and
was attended by:
o Simon Lee, Forster Surf Life Saving Club and the Australian Lifeguard Service Coordinator – Great Lakes /
Taree
o Grahame Burns, Local resident
o Nathan De Rooy, Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club and Professional Lifeguard
o Julie Wilcox, Director of Lifesaving Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club
o Brian Wilcox, President Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club
The second community forum was held at Hawks Nest Golf Club on Monday 29th June, 2015 and was attended
by:
o Rhonda Scruton, CEO Hunter Surf Life Saving
o Henry Scruton, President Hunter Surf Life Saving
o Brad Love, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
o Dan Chester, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club and Fire and Rescue NSW
o Kate Maddison, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 47 of 110
o Debbie Booth, Director of Education Hunter Surf Life Saving and Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving
Club
o Peter Weir, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
o John Esters, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
o Phillip Everett, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
o Tony Logue, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club
o Trevor Jennings, Tea Gardens Hawks Nest Progress Association
Figure 2.10.1: Project Blueprint Flyer.
Consultation Survey
The consultation process also involved the introduction of two online surveys which has been useful to capture
input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. The first survey was sent to both internal
and external stakeholders (total of 128 stakeholders). Questions focused on drowning identification and
prevention. The second survey was sent to internal stakeholders only e.g. lifesavers and lifeguards (total of 101
stakeholders). Questions focused on visitation numbers and incidents. Specific questions and answers can be
referenced in ‘Appendix F’ (to be included with final report).
Stakeholder communication
The process of communicating risk estimates from the assessment process to decision-makers and ultimately
to the public, sometimes referred to as risk education, is only one part of the communication process. In
getting those affected by risk to accept risk mitigation measures, and in providing decision-makers and
communities with the information they need to tolerate and deal with risks, there needs to be two-way
communications that includes those affected by risk, the public, into the decision-making process.
Great Lakes Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and other
relevant coastal safety agencies should hold regular liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety
issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Great Lakes LGA. It is acknowledged that this concept
would need the establishment of a ‘terms of reference’ with clear structural and governance arrangements. It
is recommended that the committee could have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal
risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can then be addressed
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 48 of 110
in this agenda item. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year (before
and after) the surf life saving season.
The Local Emergency Management Committee is an effective group in the Great Lakes LGA which discuss
emergency management processes, opportunities and issues (including coastal). The group is made up of
representatives from NSW Police, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Ambulance Service,
State Emergency Service, Marine Rescue, Great Lakes Council, Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast, Local
Government Departments (Education, Communication Services) and the Roads and Maritime Services.
Treatment Options 1.3, 2.3 & 4.2
Land Managers in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast
and other related coastal safety agencies as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements
coastal safety strategies. It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part
of this meeting. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and
after the surf life saving season.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 49 of 110
3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK)
3.1.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY INDEX
The Action Planning Priority Index can be viewed as the gross risk score for a beach. The index seeks to identify
the risks associated with the broader coastal environment under assessment, rather than specific hazards and
risks present at a particular location or site. The majority of information detailed in this section of the report
will be identified through pre-existing data (where available), with new data sourced where gaps are present
or the data is not reliable.
The total score for the Action Planning Priority Index is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk
mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action
Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in Table 3.1.8.
The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s).
The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information:
1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP) Rating
2. Local Population Rating (LPR)
3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR)
4. Access Rating (AR)
3.1.2 AUSTRALIAN BEACH SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Table 3.1.1 ABSAMP modal ratings applied to assessed locations.
Location Name ABSAMP Rating
Nine Mile Beach 7
Tuncurry Beach 7
Tuncurry Rock Pool 2
Forster Main Beach 4
Second Head 4*
Pebbly Beach 4
The Tanks 5*
Bennett’s Head 5*
One Mile Beach 6
Burgess Beach 4
Cape Hawke Headland 4*
McBrides Beach 4
Cape Hawke North Beach 7
Cape Hawke South Beach 7
Janies Corner 7
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 50 of 110
Location Name ABSAMP Rating
Seven Mile Beach 6
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 7*
Lindeman Cove 7
Yes I Know Rock 6*
Elizabeth Beach 4
Shelly Beach 3
Seagull Point 5*
Boomerang Beach 6
Boomerang Point 6*
Blueys Beach 6
Blueys Head 6*
Danger Point 6*
Bald Head 6*
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 6
Number Six Beach 5
Number Five Beach 5
Number Four Beach 5
Number Three Beach 4
Number Two Beach 4
Number One Beach 4
Seal Rocks Point 4*
Boat Beach 3
Sugarloaf Point 5*
Lighthouse Beach 7
Treachery Head 7*
Treachery Beach 7
Yagon Head 7*
Submarine / Yagon Beach 7
Big Gibber Headland 7*
Mungo Beach 7
Dark Point North Beach 7
Dark Point / Little Gibber 7*
Bennett’s Beach 7
Yacaaba Headland 7*
* Great Lakes LGA Rock Platform Ratings
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 51 of 110
3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATING
The Local Population Rating (LPR) expands on the information obtained from the Facility Visitation Rating. This
additional population rating identifies the population of residents and/or non-residents located within 2km’s
of a coastal location under assessment. The highest figure (resident or non-resident) will be recorded.
Table 3.1.2 Local population rating descriptors.
Population Rating Qualifying Description (all staying/living within 2km of beach)
1 < 50 residents and/or < 20 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)
2 50 – 250 residents and/or 21 – 100 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)
3 250 – 1000 residents and/or 100 – 500 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)
4 1000 – 2500 residents and/or 500 – 1000 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)
5 2500 + residents and/or 1000 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)
Table 3.1.3 Local population ratings applied to assessed locations.
Location LPR Total
Nine Mile Beach 5
Tuncurry Beach 5
Tuncurry Rock Pool 5
Forster Main Beach 5
Second Head 5
Pebbly Beach 5
The Tanks 5
Bennett’s Head 5
One Mile Beach 5
Burgess Beach 5
Cape Hawke Headland 2
McBrides Beach 2
Cape Hawke North Beach 1
Cape Hawke South Beach 1
Janies Corner 1
Seven Mile Beach 4
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 3
Lindeman Cove 3
Yes I Know Rock 5
Elizabeth Beach 5
Shelly Beach 4
Seagull Point 4
Boomerang Beach 5
Boomerang Point 4
Blueys Beach 4
Blueys Head 4
Danger Point 4
Bald Head 4
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 4
Number Six Beach 1
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 52 of 110
Location LPR Total
Number Five Beach 1
Number Four Beach 1
Number Three Beach 1
Number Two Beach 4
Number One Beach 4
Seal Rocks Point 4
Boat Beach 4
Sugarloaf Point 4
Lighthouse Beach 4
Treachery Head 3
Treachery Beach 3
Yagon Head 2
Submarine / Yagon Beach 2
Big Gibber Headland 1
Mungo Beach 3
Dark Point North Beach 1
Dark Point / Little Gibber 1
Bennett’s Beach 5
Yacaaba Headland 1
3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATING The Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) identifies any conflicts present at the coastal environment between the number of people and activities taking place. Activities include both those in the water and those on the beach.
Table 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction descriptors.
Population
(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 3.1.5 Human/Activity Interaction ratings applied to assessed locations.
Location Population
(in water) Conflict
Population
(on beach) Conflict HAI Total
Nine Mile Beach 2 2 1 3 8
Tuncurry Beach 5 2 1 2 10
Tuncurry Rock Pool 3 2 1 2 8
Forster Main Beach 5 2 3 2 12
Second Head 1 1 1 1 4
Pebbly Beach 1 2 1 2 6
The Tanks 1 2 1 2 6
Bennett’s Head 1 1 1 1 4
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 53 of 110
Location Population
(in water) Conflict
Population
(on beach) Conflict HAI Total
One Mile Beach 5 2 2 2 11
Burgess Beach 1 2 1 2 6
Cape Hawke Headland 1 1 1 1 4
McBrides Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Cape Hawke North Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Cape Hawke South Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Janies Corner 1 1 1 1 4
Seven Mile Beach 4 2 1 2 9
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 1 1 1 1 4
Lindeman Cove 1 1 1 1 4
Yes I Know Rock 1 1 1 1 4
Elizabeth Beach 5 3 4 3 15
Shelly Beach 2 2 1 2 7
Seagull Point 1 1 1 1 4
Boomerang Beach 4 2 1 2 9
Boomerang Point 1 1 1 1 4
Blueys Beach 3 2 1 2 8
Blueys Head 1 1 1 1 4
Danger Point 1 1 1 1 4
Bald Head 1 1 1 1 4
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3 2 1 3 9
Number Six Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Number Five Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Number Four Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Number Three Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Number Two Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Number One Beach 4 2 1 2 9
Seal Rocks Point 2 2 1 2 7
Boat Beach 3 2 1 3 9
Sugarloaf Point 1 1 1 1 4
Lighthouse Beach 3 2 1 3 9
Treachery Head 1 1 1 1 4
Treachery Beach 3 2 1 2 8
Yagon Head 1 1 1 1 4
Submarine / Yagon Beach 2 2 1 1 6
Big Gibber Headland 1 1 1 1 4
Mungo Beach 2 2 1 2 7
Dark Point North Beach 1 1 1 1 4
Dark Point / Little Gibber 1 1 1 1 4
Bennett’s Beach 5 2 3 3 13
Yacaaba Headland 2 1 1 2 6
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 54 of 110
3.1.5 ACCESS RATING
Beaches or coastal environments that have increased accessibility (i.e. near major roads, cities, public
transport, car parks, boat ramps, maintained access paths etc.) increase the likelihood of users at that beach.
This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury.
Table 3.1.6 Access rating descriptors.
Table 3.1.7 Access ratings applied to assessed locations.
Location Access Rating
Nine Mile Beach 3
Tuncurry Beach 4
Tuncurry Rock Pool 5
Forster Main Beach 5
Second Head 2
Pebbly Beach 3
The Tanks 3
Bennett’s Head 2
One Mile Beach 4
Burgess Beach 3
Cape Hawke Headland 2
McBrides Beach 2
Cape Hawke North Beach 1
Cape Hawke South Beach 1
Janies Corner 2
Seven Mile Beach 4
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 2
Lindeman Cove 2
Yes I Know Rock 2
Elizabeth Beach 4
Shelly Beach 3
Seagull Point 2
Boomerang Beach 4
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
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 55 of 110
Location Access Rating
Boomerang Point 2
Blueys Beach 3
Blueys Head 2
Danger Point 1
Bald Head 2
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 3
Number Six Beach 1
Number Five Beach 1
Number Four Beach 1
Number Three Beach 1
Number Two Beach 1
Number One Beach 3
Seal Rocks Point 2
Boat Beach 3
Sugarloaf Point 2
Lighthouse Beach 3
Treachery Head 3
Treachery Beach 3
Yagon Head 2
Submarine / Yagon Beach 3
Big Gibber Headland 2
Mungo Beach 3
Dark Point North Beach 2
Dark Point / Little Gibber 2
Bennett’s Beach 4
Yacaaba Headland 2
3.1.6 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORE
The action planning priority score provides an indicator for the overall level of risk of the location. The scores
range from 0 to 60. These scores can be used to prioritise the order in which risk treatments described in the
next section of this report are implemented.
Table 3.1.8 Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location.
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)
Nine Mile Beach 14 10 8 6 38
Tuncurry Beach 14 10 10 8 42
Tuncurry Rock Pool 4 10 8 10 32
Forster Main Beach 8 10 12 10 40
Second Head 8 10 4 4 26
Pebbly Beach 8 10 6 6 30
The Tanks 10 10 6 6 32
Bennett’s Head 10 10 4 4 28
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 56 of 110
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)
One Mile Beach 12 10 11 8 41
Burgess Beach 8 10 6 6 30
Cape Hawke Headland 8 4 4 4 20
McBrides Beach 8 4 4 4 20
Cape Hawke North Beach 14 2 4 2 22
Cape Hawke South Beach 14 2 4 2 22
Janies Corner 14 2 4 4 24
Seven Mile Beach 12 8 9 8 37
Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point 14 6 4 4 28
Lindeman Cove 14 6 4 4 28
Yes I Know Rock 12 10 4 4 30
Elizabeth Beach 8 10 15 8 41
Shelly Beach 6 8 7 6 27
Seagull Point 10 8 4 4 26
Boomerang Beach 12 10 9 8 39
Boomerang Point 12 8 4 4 28
Blueys Beach 12 8 8 6 34
Blueys Head 12 8 4 4 28
Danger Point 12 8 4 2 26
Bald Head 12 8 4 4 28
Sandbar / Cellito Beach 12 8 9 6 35
Number Six Beach 10 2 4 2 18
Number Five Beach 10 2 4 2 18
Number Four Beach 10 2 4 2 18
Number Three Beach 8 2 4 2 16
Number Two Beach 8 8 4 2 22
Number One Beach 8 8 9 6 31
Seal Rocks Point 8 8 7 4 27
Boat Beach 6 8 9 6 29
Sugarloaf Point 10 8 4 4 26
Lighthouse Beach 14 8 9 6 37
Treachery Head 14 6 4 6 30
Treachery Beach 14 6 8 6 34
Yagon Head 14 4 4 4 26
Submarine / Yagon Beach 14 4 6 6 30
Big Gibber Headland 14 2 4 4 24
Mungo Beach 14 6 7 6 33
Dark Point North Beach 14 2 4 4 24
Dark Point / Little Gibber 14 2 4 4 24
Bennett’s Beach 14 10 13 8 45
Yacaaba Headland 14 2 6 4 26
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 57 of 110
Where limited resources prohibit the implementation of all risk treatments recommended in this report, those
beaches that have received a high action planning priority score should be treated first, then beaches with a
medium, low and very low score.
Table 3.1.9: Key to land management of locations.
Council Managed NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Managed Mixed Land Managers
Table 3.1.10 Action Planning Priority scores for assessed locations.
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
1 Bennett’s Beach 45
High – this location should be
considered as a priority for
implementation of identified risk
treatment options
2 Tuncurry Beach 42
High – this location should be
considered as a priority for
implementation of identified risk
treatment options
3 One Mile Beach 41
High – this location should be
considered as a priority for
implementation of identified risk
treatment options
3 Elizabeth Beach 41
High – this location should be
considered as a priority for
implementation of identified risk
treatment options
5 Forster Main Beach 40
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
6 Boomerang Beach 39
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
7 Nine Mile Beach 38
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
8 Seven Mile Beach 37
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 58 of 110
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
8 Lighthouse Beach 37
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
10 Sandbar / Cellito
Beach 35
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
11 Blueys Beach 34
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
11 Treachery Beach 34
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
13 Mungo Beach 33
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
14 Tuncurry Rock Pool 32
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
14 The Tanks 32
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
16 Number One Beach 31
Medium – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as high or as funding
becomes available
17 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
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 59 of 110
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
17 Burgess 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
17 Yes I Know Rock 30
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
17 Treachery Head 30
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
17 Submarine / Yagon
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
22 Boat Beach 29
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
23 Bennett’s Head 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
23 Booti Hill / Flat Rock
Point 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
23 Lindeman Cove 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
23 Boomerang Point 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 60 of 110
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
23 Blueys Head 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
23 Bald Head 28
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
29 Shelly Beach 27
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
29 Seal Rocks Point 27
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
31 Second Head 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
31 Seagull Point 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
31 Danger Point 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
31 Sugarloaf Point 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
31 Yagon Head 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 61 of 110
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
31 Yacaaba Headland 26
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
37 Janies Corner 24
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
37 Big Gibber Headland 24
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
37 Dark Point North
Beach 24
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
37 Dark Point / Little
Gibber 24
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
41 Cape Hawke North
Beach 22
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
41 Cape Hawke South
Beach 22
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
41 Number Two Beach 22
Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as medium or as
funding becomes available
44 Cape Hawke Headland 20
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 62 of 110
Priority Priority location Total Score Comments
44 McBrides Beach 20
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
46 Number Six Beach 18
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
46 Number Five Beach 18
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
46 Number Four Beach 18
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
49 Number Three Beach 16
Very Low – this location should be
considered for implementation of
identified risk treatment options after
locations rated as low or as funding
becomes available
Treatment Options 1.4 & 2.4
As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a
staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.
Key High 41+ Medium 31-40 Low 21-30 Very Low 0-20
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 63 of 110
3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
There are a range of risk treatment options that can be considered in the context of coastal risk management.
The selection of the most appropriate option involves balancing the financial, social and environmental
impacts of implementing each against the benefits derived from each. These may include any combination of
the following:
o Spread (share) risk – insurance,
o Engineer (structural and technological) risk treatment – include modified practices,
o Regulatory and institutional – change through revised regulations and planning,
o Avoid – isolate the risk, move people away,
o Research to better understand, and
o Educate and inform stakeholders.
3.2.2 HIERARCHY OF RISK TREATMENTS (CONTROLS)
In determining the most appropriate and cost effective option, it is important to consider the hierarchy of risk
treatments (controls). The hierarchy is a sequence of options which offer a number of ways to approach the
hazard control process.
o Hard controls deal with the tangible such as:
Eliminate the hazard which in a coastal context is often difficult to achieve.
Isolate the hazard which in a coastal context can be difficult due to the dynamic nature of
environmental and weather conditions.
Use engineering controls such as design of access paths, installation of appropriate signage, and
revegetation.
Use administrative controls such as supervision, emergency action plans, other documented policies,
practices and procedures.
Use of personal protective equipment such as lifejackets and public rescue equipment.
o Soft controls deal with human behaviour such as:
Use of effective leadership, management, trust, ethics, integrity, and building relationships
Education
Outlined below are principal risk treatment solutions that expand upon those listed within the Risk Register
and Treatment Plan in ‘Appendix B’. The solutions outlined endeavour to provide specific and detailed
information relative to the beach locations; however due to the diverse nature of location characteristics,
recommendations are at times mainly generic in nature.
Land Managers should plan to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations
capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are outlined on the
following pages.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 64 of 110
3.2.3 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS
Public education and awareness programs are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy,
and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (prior to hazard exposure).
Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programs include:
o Consistency in safety messaging (elimination of confusing/unclear or dissipative information).
o Consistency in the method of provision (ongoing information provided at regular locations/times).
o Longevity in the provision of information (ongoing, not a one-off).
Education Summary:
The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programs that can be adopted by Land
Managers within the Great Lakes LGA. Table 3.2.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education
and awareness programs available to Land Managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of
programs that are available and delivered within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land Managers are not
limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider engaged
to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified, regularly audited and insured.
Table 3.2.1: Examples of Education and Awareness programs.
Organisation Program Focus Area
Australian Professional
Lifeguard Association Backpack Beach Survival Guide Swimming / Rip Currents
AustSwim Learn to Swim Swimming
Marine Rescue NSW Log on and off Boating
Marine Rescue NSW Using your marine radio Boating
NSW Department of Primary
Industries (Fisheries) Get hooked – It’s fun to fish Fishing
Paddle NSW Paddle Safe Watercraft
Surf Educate Australia Kids Academy of Surf Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Educate Australia Corp Surf Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW Nippers Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW Surf Ed. Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW Beach to Bush Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW Western Sydney Blackspot Project Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW BeachSafe Swimming / Rip Currents
Surf Life Saving NSW Coastal Accommodation Safety
Network Swimming / Rip Currents
Surfing NSW Vegemite Surf Groms Surfing / Rip Currents
Surfing NSW Surfers Rescue 24/7 Surfing / Conducting Rescues
Recreational Fishing
Alliance NSW Rock Fishing Safety Awareness Rock Fishing
Royal Life Saving Society Swim and Survive Swimming
Transport NSW (Maritime) Old 4 new lifejacket upgrade Boating & Fishing
Transport NSW (Maritime) Wear a Lifejacket Boating & Fishing
Transport NSW (Maritime) Boating Education Officers Boating
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 65 of 110
The figures below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral
available to Land Managers, rather to provide examples of a range of collateral that are available and can be
provided to Land Managers upon request. Land Managers are not limited to the education collateral shown in
the figures below, however they should ensure that any education collateral distributed or displayed is aligned
to the key water safety messages promoted by the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.
Figure 3.2.1: Don’t put your life on the line™2
Figure 3.2.2: Survive a rip current.
Figure 3.2.3: Old 4 New Lifejacket Upgrade.
Figure 3.2.4: Swim between the flags.
3.2.3.1 EXISTING CONTROLS:
During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe were
made aware of various beach safety information sources and education programs that are currently in place to
educate and inform the public at a local level in the Great Lakes LGA. These programs as well as any other
initiatives within and around the Great Lakes LGA should continue to be implemented, reviewed and
supported by Land Managers and key stakeholder groups.
It is acknowledged that Land Managers or key stakeholder groups may not have the capacity or expertise to
implement surf education programs, and where this is the case they should work with peak water safety
organisations to enhance the delivery of education programs within these areas.
Swimming Safety:
Nippers:
The nippers program is a junior activities program that introduces children aged 5 to 13 to surf lifesaving. It is a
fun outdoors activity that develops a child’s confidence, teaches valuable life skills and safety knowledge.
Nippers are held every Sunday between October to March at Forster SLSC, Cape Hawke SLSC, Pacific Palms
SLSC and Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC (Surf Life Saving NSW, 2015).
Surf Awareness School:
Volunteers from the Forster Surf Life Saving Club organise a surf awareness school that is staged over a three
weekly period during the summer holiday period. The programme is aimed at holiday makers and in three
years has reached 360 people. The majority of participants involved come from country NSW and Sydney. The
programme has gained a positive reputation with the Forster community as a fun and worthwhile Christmas
School holiday activity.
2 Don’t put your life on the line is a registered trade mark of the NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance NSW.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 66 of 110
The club also runs an educational programme for local indigenous teenagers as well as running programs for
local schools upon request.
These programs in particular should continue to be supported by Great Lakes Council and could be expanded
to other areas outside of Forster such as Bennetts Beach.
Surfing Safety:
Surf Schools/Surf Groms:
The Great Lakes Surf School operates around the Forster area. This school provides surfing lessons, surfing
tours and most importantly provides beginner surfers with key surf safety knowledge and awareness.
Surfers Rescue 24/7:
Surfing NSW, with support of the NSW Government are giving surfers in NSW the opportunity to do a free CPR
and Board Rescue Course (Surfers Rescue 24/7, 2015). Any competent surfer from a recreational grass roots
boardrider to professional surfers can participate in this course.
Rock Fishing Safety:
The Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW has produced the Safe Fishing website, which also provides
multilingual information and resources to promote safer recreational rock fishing (Recreational Fishing
Alliance, 2011). Part of this initiative has been the provision of multilingual flyers and DVDs to promote rock
fishing safety.
Education days are also organised for rock fishers to provide educational learning and fishing techniques that
will provide rock fishers with more information to make an informed decision about where they decide to fish
as well as communicating key safety messages. One of these education days has also been filmed and is
available through the YouTube channel ‘ACFishing’.
Figure 3.2.5 Recreational Fishing Alliance rock fishing school.
Boating Safety:
Lifejackets:
Nine out of ten people who drowned when boating in NSW were not wearing a lifejacket (Roads and Maritime
Services 2014). On 1 November 2010, the rules governing the use of lifejackets on recreational vessels were
strengthened to prevent loss of life on waterways. Lifejackets must be worn in the following circumstances:
1. By children less than 12 years old at all times when aboard a vessel less than 4.8 metres long and when
aboard a vessel less than 8 metres long which is underway.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 67 of 110
2. By anyone being towed, including waterskiing, wakeboarding or parasailing and those being towed on
tubes, sea biscuits or similar towable devices.
3. Boating at night and boating alone when aboard a vessel less than 4.8 metres long.
4. By a person on a PWC (Jet Ski) at all times.
5. By anyone aboard a canoe or kayak when more than 100 metres from shore.
6. By a person kitesurfing alone more than 400 metres from shore.
7. In certain situations of heightened risk including, but not limited to bad weather and crossing bars.
8. By anyone at any time when directed by the skipper.
Boating Education Officers:
Boating Education Officers support Boating Safety Officers to help raise boating safety awareness and provide
public safety information. Boating Education Officers visit boat ramps and retailers to directly engage
recreational boaters to deliver information about the latest safety gear. They can also visit schools to deliver
interactive boating safety presentations.
Smart Phone App:
The Marine Rescue smartphone app provides boaters with a range of valuable safety tools and information.
The app enables boaters to log on directly with Marine Rescue and there is also a safety tracking option,
updating a boats position every 30 minutes (Marine Rescue NSW 2015).
General Water Safety:
Smart Phone App:
The Beachsafe smartphone app provides beach goers with detailed information about Australia’s beaches,
including full weather and forecast information, tide, swell and water temperature. Most importantly the app
shows which locations are patrolled by either paid lifeguards or volunteer lifesavers and the dates / times the
beach is supervised (Beachsafe 2015).
Media:
Throughout the year, local radio and print media play a key role in delivering key safety messages as well as
informing the public when dangerous surf warnings are in place.
Figure 3.2.6 Great Lakes Advocate.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 68 of 110
3.2.3.2 RECOMMENDED CONTROLS:
Educational Messages:
Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programs which include standardised
key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agency websites such as:
NSW Water Safety Advisory Council: http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/
Together with the following referenced websites of the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council for beach safety:
o BeachSafe: www.BeachSafe.org.au
o Safe Fishing: http://www.safefishing.com.au
o Boating: http://maritimemanagement.transport.nsw.gov.au
Online Education:
The Great Lakes Council (2015) website provides a list of beaches which are patrolled and unpatrolled. This
webpage could be further enhanced by providing a detailed list of the patrol dates and times. The webpage
could also provide surf safety tips and refer back to the BeachSafe website - www.BeachSafe.org.au.
The Great Lakes Tourism website provides a short description and the facilities available at main beaches
within the LGA (Great Lakes, 2015). These webpages could also be further enhanced by providing a detailed
list of the patrol dates and times together with surf safety tips.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (2015) website provides a list of safety advice for all water related
activities and provides a link to the NSW Water Safety website.
Land Managers may also be able to utilise social media through its Facebook account to communicate safety
messages or advise when dangerous surf warnings are in place.
Community Education:
School Programs:
Providing surf education is a key component in addressing the drowning chain and has the opportunity to
reach a key target group. Surf education is not a core responsibility for Land Managers however they are still
encouraged to assist with school participation levels. This type of promotion could include joint media
releases, website promotion or written communication from council to target groups in local/regional areas.
Surf education (theory and application) can be very beneficial for primary and high school students. This type
of education can include but is not limited to:
o Class room based surf safety presentations
o Swim and survive
o Surf education programs at the beach
Apart from education within schools the Great Aussie Bush Camp (located outside of Tea Gardens) is another
example of where surf education could take place.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 69 of 110
Figure 3.2.7 Surf Safety Presentation at Newport Beach (Pittwater LGA). (Photo Courtesy of Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches)
Water Safety Information:
Displaying posters which promote water safety at locations such as public amenity blocks, Surf Life Saving
Clubs and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access is a great opportunity for
the exposure of messages.
Figure 3.2.8: An example of rip current sign on public amenity blocks.
Figure 3.2.9: Example of a National Parks visitor information board where water safety information could be displayed.
Educational posters/signage should not be placed in positions where they would compete with formal aquatic
and recreational safety signage which is usually placed around formal access points and high traffic areas (see
Section 3.2.4 Safety Signage).
Quick Response (QR) codes may also be able to be utilised on any posters and visitor information
noticeboards. QR codes involve the use of smart phone technology to provide location based safety
messaging. They also allow for the embedding of additional detailed information for beach users that are
interested in knowing more, without competing with other relevant information in visitor information boards.
The system works by scanning a smart phone over the QR Code. These codes can be linked to specific water
related safety information about a specific location, with the potential for multilingual messages. Information
may also be able to include when dangerous surf warnings occur.
Tourists and Visitors:
The Great Lakes LGA is a popular destination for domestic travellers, especially through the school holiday
periods. A number of caravan and tourist parks within the Great Lakes LGA provide direct access to the coast,
often to unpatrolled sections of a beach. A recent study has found that “visitors to coastal tourist parks are at a
greater risk when swimming and bathing due to a high percentage of parks being close to unpatrolled beaches
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 70 of 110
with hazardous swimming conditions” (McKay, et al., 2014). It is therefore important to ensure that the guests
of these accommodation providers have some understanding of beach safety.
Education Collateral:
The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers
(including holiday rental real estate organisations) in the Great Lakes LGA could be implemented on an
ongoing basis to ensure the collateral is part of the welcome information package for guests. Brochures and
flyers about surf safety could also be made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea
Gardens and at local shops such as newsagents or bakeries.
Figure 3.2.10: Large accommodation provider at Forster Main Beach.
Rip Current Awareness Day:
Over the past few years, Surf Life Saving Clubs have participated in an annual day to raise awareness about rip
currents through an educational and visual demonstration. As part of these scheduled events, coloured dye is
released by club members at various beaches around Australia to show the speed and distance of which a rip
current can flow. Surf clubs can organise to participate in these educational demonstrations. Surf Life Saving
Australia can provide the necessary resources to branches and clubs upon request.
Personal Protective Equipment:
Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman and recreational boaters.
Educational and awareness programs in the Great Lakes LGA should also promote and encourage these user
groups to wear lifejackets. These messages could be included in community based education programs or the
use of educational signage at well-known rock fishing locations.
The NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services has prepared a report on behalf of the Water Safety
Advisory Committee on the outcome of consultation undertaken in 2013 on the wearing of lifejackets by rock
fishers. The report, which includes a number of options to increase the wearing of lifejackets by rock fishers,
will be submitted to the NSW Government for consideration.
A coronial inquest was also held in June 2015 focusing on the deaths of nine rock fishermen. Magistrate C
Forbes, Deputy State Coroner made the following recommendation to the Minister for Justice and Police.
“To the Minister for Justice and Police
I recommend the introduction of legislation required the mandatory use of life jackets by those
engaged in rock fishing including:
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 71 of 110
a) A requirement that the life jackets comply with the Australian Standards,
b) The consideration of a twelve month grace period,
c) The legislation be introduced with a dedicated education campaign, and
d) The consideration of accompanying the introduction of mandatory life jackets with initiatives to
facilitate the wearing of appropriate life jackets such as coupons or gift vouchers for free or subsided
life jackets or life jacket borrowing schemes for those engaged in rock fishing.”3
Treatment Options 1.5 & 2.5
Education and awareness programs within the Great Lakes Local Government Area should continue to be
implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not have the
expertise to implement educational programs should approach peak water safety organisations to assist in
delivery.
Treatment Options 1.6 & 2.6
Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by
the aquatic industry (e.g. http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/).
Treatment Options 1.7 & 2.7
Land Managers should ensure that patrolled locations and surf safety information is promoted through any
websites, specific promotional material, newsletters and social media pages.
Treatment Option 1.8
Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups
upon request. Great Lakes Council should continue to work with these agencies to promote these programs
and encourage enhanced participation at a local and regional level.
Treatment Options 1.9 & 2.8
Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations. Specific
examples can be referenced in the report.
Treatment Options 1.10 & 3.1
Approach tourism and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing standardised surf
safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers. Collateral could also be
made available at the Visitor Information Centres in Forster and Tea Gardens and at local shops such as
newsagents or bakeries.
Treatment Options 1.11 & 2.9
Land Managers should assist peak water safety organisations to promote existing educational programs
encouraging rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.
Treatment Option 4.3 The Surf Life Saving Clubs in the Great Lakes Local Government Area should participate
in the annual Rip Current Awareness Day.
3 Coroners Court New South Wales 2015
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 72 of 110
3.2.4 SAFETY SIGNAGE
Safety signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy and targets the in-transit and
on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location.
Key factors relating to effective safety signage include:
o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display,
o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (AS/NZS2416:2010),
o consistency in signage layout/display (Australian Water Safety Council, 2013),
o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to maximise exposure to the public prior to arriving
in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs, and
o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the Land Managers annual planning.
3.2.4.1 EXISTING CONTROLS:
Existing safety signage within the Great Lakes LGA in regards to coastal safety is below and includes:
o warning signage at coastal access points,
o warning signage at popular cliff edge locations,
o warning signage due to sand erosion,
o warning signage at breakwater locations, and
o temporary signage in place when lifesavers and lifeguards are on duty. Great Lakes Council
Figure 3.2.11: Council Access Sign.
Figure 3.2.12: Council Access Sign.
Figure 3.2.13: Council Access Sign.
Figure 3.2.14: Caution – Sand Erosion.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 73 of 110
National Parks and Wildlife Service
Figure 3.2.15: National Parks Access Sign.
Figure 3.2.16: National Parks Safety Sign – unstable grounds.
Crown Lands
Figure 3.2.17: Crown Lands Safety Sign on the Tuncurry break wall.
3.2.4.2 RECOMMENDED CONTROLS:
Proposed Signage:
As funding becomes available, Appendix A outlines where access signage has the opportunity of being
implemented. The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to assist in prioritisation: Land Managers
should implement signage at high and medium ranked locations before lower ranked locations.
Signage Types (National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual)
Level 1 Road Signs: Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the closest intersection
location for directional purposes.
Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign): Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the
main entrance/car park to an aquatic environment. The recommended content includes location name,
emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.
Level 3 Access Signs (Secondary access sign): Land Managers can place this type of sign at access points or
pathways that lead to the aquatic environment (beach, rock pool or rock platform). Level 3 access signs follow
the same principles as those of Level 2 car park signs and typically display the location name, emergency
contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 74 of 110
Level 4 Individual Hazard and Regulation sign: Land Managers have the option to us this sign where a hazard is
localised and has been identified at a level of risk that warrants sign posting.
Examples of these signs can be referenced in ‘Appendix A’.
When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended:
1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water
Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags’, and align signage style/layout with the ‘National Aquatic and
Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd
Edition, July 2006’ or the State-wide Mutual guide. It is the
recommendation of this report that style is aligned to the former.
2. Signage layout (top-down order) consists of the following:
a) Location name and emergency marker (if/when applicable) or street address
b) Hazards and warnings within the designated area
c) Safety information or general location/area details
d) Regulations
e) Facility / Land Manager
3. Safety signs should meet the size/height/placement specifications outlined in ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water
safety signs and beach safety flags’.
4. ‘Diamond’ hazard symbols should be utilised (not triangle). Context: AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 provides for the
use of either ‘diamond’ or ‘triangle’ hazard symbols. For consistency with existing signage and across local
government areas the more effective diamond symbols should be utilised.
5. Effective placement of aquatic and recreational safety signage in a public reserve cannot be
underestimated. Location, height and existing visual distractions are major factors which contribute to
the effectiveness of a sign when installed.
6. Signs positioned in car parks should be placed central to the parking area and where parked vehicles will
not obscure the sign.
7. Signs that are positioned in relation to open access areas should be spaced at regular intervals, with the
distance between individual signs dependent upon the calculated Facility Visitation Rate (FVR).
8. Signs that are positioned in relation to defined access points should be sited as close as practical to the
access point, or other appropriate location, and need to be consistently applied where possible e.g. on the
left of the track entrance.
To effectively capture the attention of visitors, improve overall visual amenity and avoid confusion as a result
of too many signs. Repetitive and/or unnecessary information and signs should be removed. Further, any non-
essential signage (not related to location, safety, hazard, prohibition information) that is present at a location
should be considered for removal or re-located as appropriate so as not to impact on the recognition of the
safety orientated priority signage
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 75 of 110
Consistent Signage:
It is the view of Australian CoastSafe that a consistent strategy of signage should be implemented within an
LGA. Consistent signs are encouraged to avoid confusion and give a clear and consistent message. Below is an
excerpt from AS 2416:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, Part 3, Guidance for Use (p.iv).
The standard states that “a standardized method of signing with the use of appropriate supplementary text
throughout the working and public environment assists the process of education and instruction on the
meaning of water safety signs and beach safety flags, and the appropriate actions to take.” The intention of
AS2416:2010 Part 3 is “to ensure a uniformity of application of water safety signs and beach safety flags which
leads to increased familiarity, and therefore improved safety, for the users including visitors and for the
general public.”
As seen in the signage example above, Great Lakes Council currently have a few access signs that are
inconsistent which can be updated.
Signage Consolidation/Removal:
It is important to note that at most locations, an improved safety signage system usually results in an overall
reduction in the quantity of signage due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the
consolidation of key information into other signs. Excessive signage at coastal access points can cause people
to become desensitised to the information presented to them and have the opposite effect of their intended
purpose. Signage consolidation may see a reduction in the implementation and maintenance costs related to
signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site. ‘Appendix A’ references those few signs that have the
opportunity to be consolidated/removed.
Figure 3.2.18: Alcohol sign that could be prohibited.
Figure 3.2.19: Signage that has the opportunity to be removed.
Safety Symbols:
As outlined in the Facilitation Visitation Rating – Section 2.7, all potential hazards identified within the facility
that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. There are some instances in the
Great Lakes LGA where existing signs have an insufficient number of hazard symbols when compared to the
Risk Register and Treatment Plan – Appendix B. It is recommended that the required hazard symbols are
updated on these signs through the use of stickers or natural attrition. Below is an example of an access sign at
Burgess Beach where the hazard of submerged rocks / shallow sandbanks could be included as a symbol.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 76 of 110
Figure 3.2.20: Signage at Burgess Beach. Education Signage:
Rip currents are the number one cause of drowning along the coastline of NSW (SLSNSW, 2015). 90% of the
25,000 surf rescues each year are also rip related (Science of the Surf, 2015).
As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches where rip currents can occur
educational signage could be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. An example of this
sign can be viewed below, however it is suggested that proposed educational signage should be larger than
this example. The sign informs beachgoers of how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape
the rip current.
If implemented, this type of signage should not be placed in positions where they would compete with already
existing access signage.
Figure 3.2.21: An example of rip education signage.
Rock Fishing Signage:
Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting
this key safety message. Below is an example of a specific sign related to rock fishing that could be
implemented at popular rock platforms / headlands. The sign notifies rock fishermen of hazards such as
dangerous waves and slippery rocks and provides this warning in different key languages. Some options for the
implementation of this sign could include Cape Hawke Headland, Booti Hill / Flat Rock Point, Seagull Point /
Charlotte Head and Sugarloaf Point.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 77 of 110
Figure 3.2.22: Example of Rock Fishing Signage. Proposed Location Signs:
Figure 3.2.23: Proposed Location Sign. The sign shown above has been recommended at locations which score between a 4 and 6 as per the Facility Visitation Ratings (p.23). This signage should contain the following:
o The name of the facility,
o A general warning message,
o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms, and
o Any information symbols relevant to the facility.
Note: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols. Appendix A outlines where these signs can
be implemented. Boat Ramp Locations:
As boating is a significant activity within Great Lakes, boat ramp locations are of significance to the people who
use them. Adequate signage situated at boat ramps will be a beneficial method in promoting boating safety
practices. The below example is of a sign located at a boat ramp in Batemans Bay. This signage has relevant
warning symbols and provides general safety advice and information fit for the activity of boating. As such, this
signage would be a good benchmark template for implementation at other boat launching locations identified
in Appendix A.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 78 of 110
Figure 3.2.24 Boating Safety Information.
It should be noted that the hazard symbols may change depending on the specific location (see Appendix A)
and that the general safety advice can also be interchangeable with relevant boating safety campaigns. Bar Crossing Signage:
As highlighted in section 2.9.6, 16% (11) of all emergency incidents within the Great Lakes LGA occur at the
river entrance to Wallis Lake. This is a result of vessels that are in need of assistance.
Figure 3.2.25 Bar crossing at Wallis Lake on a calm day.
A similar sign to the example below could be implemented at boat ramps or break wall locations to determine
the safety level of river bar crossings e.g. during calm conditions a green light may be displayed, an orange
light during moderate conditions, and during high conditions a red light may be displayed.
An advantage of the below example is that the sign can be controlled from a central location i.e. an operations
centre or headquarters, meaning that specific personnel would not have to manually change the safety rating
on a daily basis.
NSW Marine Rescue in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options
to warn boat uses when crossing river bars.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 79 of 110
Figure 3.2.26: An example of a set of lights used by the Royal National
Lifeboat Instituation for safety reasons in regards to tidal changes.
Temporary Signage:
Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of
risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature.
Temporary hazards signs can be utilised in the following ways:
1. Where there is a higher risk of injury from temporary hazards
2. Where a hazard may exist at a patrolled beach either side of the flags
3. To direct patrons to a flagged area
Figure 3.2.27: Example of temporary signage directing patrons to the patrolled location.
Tourist Parks:
Accommodation providers that have direct coastal access at unpatrolled locations are well positioned to
implement temporary signage to inform people park guests of when beach conditions warrant the ‘closing of a
beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to inform park managers of when dangerous swell events are
occurring through a media release. A temporary sign could be positioned in front of the main access paths that
lead to the beach.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 80 of 110
Signage Summary Table:
Great Lakes Council
Table 3.2.2 Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for Great Lakes Council.
Locations Existing
Signs Maintenance
Required
Possible Consolidate/
Remove/ Relocate/ Replace
Proposed Level 3 Access
Proposed Level 4 Hazards
Proposed Location
Sign
Boating Information
Sign
Total Proposed
Signs
Net Signage
Nine Mile
Beach 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuncurry Beach 29 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 -1
Tuncurry Rock
Pool 25 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 -3
Forster Main
Beach 38 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 -3
Second Head 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Pebbly Beach 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The Tanks 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Bennett’s Head 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
One Mile Beach 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3
Burgess Beach 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1
Boomerang
Beach 28 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 -1
Boomerang
Point 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blueys Beach 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Blueys Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Danger Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bald Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sandbar /
Cellito Beach 15 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
Number One
Beach 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boat Beach 8 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2
Bennett’s Beach 31 2 7 5 0 0 0 5 -2
Totals 273 3 24 14 3 0 1 18 -6
Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated/removed/replaced signage. So, 18 signs have been
proposed and 24 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated/removed/relocated, leaving a net sum
of negative 6 signs.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 81 of 110
National Parks and Wildlife Service
Table 3.2.3: Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Locations Existing
Signs Maintenance
Required
Possible Consolidate/
Remove/ Relocate/ Replace
Proposed Level 3 Access
Proposed Level 4 Hazards
Proposed Location
Sign
Boating Information
Sign
Total Proposed
Signs
Net Signage
Nine Mile
Beach 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cape Hawke
Headland 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
McBrides
Beach 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Cape Hawke
North Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cape Hawke
South Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Janies Corner 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Seven Mile
Beach 42 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 2
Booti Hill / Flat
Rock Point 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lindeman Cove 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yes I Know
Rock 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elizabeth Beach 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shelly Beach 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -2
Seagull Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charlotte Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Six
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Five
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Four
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Three
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Two
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number One
Beach 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seal Rocks
Point 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1
Sugarloaf Point 25 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1
Lighthouse
Beach 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Treachery Head 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 82 of 110
Locations Existing
Signs Maintenance
Required
Possible Consolidate/
Remove/ Relocate/ Replace
Proposed Level 3 Access
Proposed Level 4 Hazards
Proposed Location
Sign
Boating Information
Sign
Total Proposed
Signs
Net Signage
Treachery
Beach 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
Yagon Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Submarine /
Fiona / Yagon
Beach
20 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3
Big Gibber
Headland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mungo Beach 45 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Dark Point
North Beach 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dark Point /
Little Gibber 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bennett’s
Beach 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yacaaba
Headland 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 253 7 10 7 1 1 0 9 -1
Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated/removed/replaced signage. So, 9 signs have been
proposed and 10 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated/removed/relocated, leaving a net sum
of -1 signs.
Treatment Options 1.12 & 2.10
Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be
implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing
signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less
signs), sign relocation or the removal of unnecessary signage.
Treatment Option 1.13
Existing access signage that does not meet a consistent adopted style should be replaced through natural
attrition.
Treatment Options 1.14 & 2.11
As the majority of access locations lead to unpatrolled sections of beaches ‘rip current’ educational signage
should be implemented at main car parks or at high usage access areas. The sign should inform beachgoers of
how to identify a rip current and what options to take to escape the rip current.
Treatment Options 1.15 & 2.12
Signage that encourages rock fishermen to wear lifejackets can assist peak water safety agencies in promoting
this key safety message. Specific signs relating to rock fishing could be implemented at popular rock platforms
/ headlands and break walls. A specific example of this type of sign is outlined in the main report.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 83 of 110
Treatment Option 1.16
Great Lakes Council should approach the Roads and Maritime Service to implement specific boat safety
signage (outlined in the report) at all boat ramp locations.
Treatment Options 4.4
Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the coastal tourist parks to inform guests of
when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to alert park operators
when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory process.
Treatment Option 4.5
Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a
supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as strong
currents, creek openings and pollution.
Treatment Option 5.1
Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options
to warn boat uses when crossing river bars.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 84 of 110
3.2.5 EMERGENCY MARKER SYSTEM
When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify
the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space
parkland, walking trails, beaches or rock platforms (where no cross-street or other reference point is available)
it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response.
Emergency location markers enable triple zero call takers to immediately and accurately verify the location of
an emergency triple zero call.
Figure 3.2.28: Example of emergency marker sign.
Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety
signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage.
For an emergency marker system to be effective, a standardised state-wide program is required, that engages
Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current
program exists in NSW.
Australian CoastSafe is currently working with key government departments and emergency services to
develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near
future.
Treatment Option 3.2
With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information, a
state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 85 of 110
3.2.6 ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONGOING CAPITAL WORKS/MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS
The way the coast is accessed is a significant factor in the management of coastal risk. While preventing public
access/use to the coastal environment is not desired, a number of options exist to minimise the risks
associated with the access way itself and the hazards that may be encountered on the coast (via that access
way).
In reference to the assessment process, access points have been broken down into formal (defined), and
informal (undefined) access.
Access issues are interrelated to other risk management initiatives/options such as water safety signage,
emergency access numbering/reporting, supervision (lifeguard) information and public rescue equipment. An
effective access plan for an area may optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of other initiatives.
Figure 3.2.29: Formal access at Boomerang Beach. Figure 3.2.30: Informal access at Bennetts Head.
Formal Access:
The majority of formal access tracks in the Great Lakes LGA are well maintained. Land managers conduct
inspections due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts when required.
Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer
‘track’, exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quantity of signage required
and enhancing emergency access, reporting and location identification.
Informal Access:
A number of informal access tracks also exist. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use
(uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/unstable and uneven surfaces),
may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting
difficult (location awareness).
Options for formalising, redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers,
vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations and situations it may be difficult to formalise
access and/or restrict the use of informal access.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 86 of 110
Figure 3.2.31: An example of access redirection at One Mile Beach.
Restricted Access:
During the course of the assessment Australian CoastSafe endeavoured to reach every beach and rock
platform within the Great Lakes LGA. However a few identified locations were unable to be assessed as they
were either restricted by private road/property, or there was no identifiable or safe way of reaching these
locations from land. Although some determined people may be able to get to these locations on foot by
walking around rocky headlands, CoastSafe assessors were of the opinion that these locations would be
inaccessible to a reasonable person and were unsafe.
These locations included:
o Cape Hawke North Beach
o Cape Hawke South Beach
o Charlotte Head
o Danger Point
o Number Six Beach
o Number Five Beach
o Number Four Beach
o Number Three Beach
o Number Two Beach Four Wheel Drive Access:
There are a number of vehicle entry points for four wheel driving (4WD), see ‘Appendix A’ for specific
locations. Great Lakes Council have developed a fact sheet on 4WD that has information relating to driving
permits, a detailed list of locations that are permitted and a list of do’s and don’ts (Great Lakes Council, 2015).
Some of the main regulations include:
o A speed limit is a maximum of 40km/h
o Drivers are required to slow to a speed of not more than 15 km/h when within 50 metres of people on
beaches and when accessing the beach
o Pedestrian beach users have right of way over motor vehicles at all times
o Motor vehicles must be kept at least 15 metres from other beach users
o Current tide charts should be in all vehicles
In some instances CoastSafe assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit
4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue to ensure that
strategies are put in place to deter access to non 4WD beaches.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 87 of 110
Figure 3.2.32: Evidence of tyre marks on a non permitted 4WD beach.
Open Access:
Open access occurs where there are no channels of barriers restricting where visitors can access the aquatic
environment.
Emergency Vehicle Access:
Access for emergency and lifeguarding/lifesaving services should be well known to key personnel. These access
paths are regularly monitored to ensure that emergency vehicles are able to access a coastal location. All
emergency vehicle access locations are recorded in ‘Appendix A’.
One particular emergency vehicle access at Treachery Beach was raised by the owners of Treachery Camp. As
this location is remote and the response time for emergency services can be extensive it was requested by the
camp owners that they have keys to be able to access the 4WD vehicle track at the middle of Treachery Beach
as they are often the first responders to incidents. The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold
discussions with Treachery Camp to discuss further.
Boat Ramp Access:
There were 3 coastal boat ramp locations within the assessed area of the Great Lakes LGA and specific
locations can be found in ‘Appendix A’. It is necessary for these boat ramps to have appropriate warning
signage (see section – 3.2.4).
Marine Parks Authority:
Marine parks conserve the marine biodiversity along the coastline. This may impact on the access to specific
locations of the coast for recreational fishing activities. The Port Stephens–Great Lakes Marine Park extends
from Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club south to Birubi Beach Surf Life Saving Club at the northern end of
Stockton Beach (NSW Marine Estate, 2015).
The zoning map outlines the sanctuary zones within the Great Lakes LGA:
o Cape Hawke North Beach
o Cape Hawke South Beach
o The eastern tip of Yacaaba Headland
Recently the NSW Government proposed to rezone the shoreline at the following from sanctuary zones to
habitat protection zone to permanently allow shore-based recreational line fishing:
o South end of Sandbar / Cellito Beach
o Submarine / Fiona / Yagon Beach
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 88 of 110
Infrastructure Zoning:
Tuncurry Rock Pool has a beach hazard rating of 2 which falls into the least hazardous category. Under modal
conditions there is low danger posed by water depths and weak currents. However during larger swells and
strong outgoing tidal currents this location can become more hazardous particular with children and poor
swimmers.
As reported in the Great Lakes Advocate on April 30, 2014 an experienced off duty volunteer surf life saver on
holiday from Sydney was required to rescue 12 Indian tourists who were struggling against the strong tidal
surge and being swept out into deeper water. If it wasn’t for the quick reaction from the rescuer the outcome
may have been devastating. An external company specialising in coastal hydrology is undertaking a study of the Tuncurry Rock Pool area. This will determine the best way to minimise the risk to swimmers by the strong tidal currents in the enclosure. As seen in the below figure there is currently a gap in the enclosure where people may be swept out during hazardous conditions. There is safety signage already present at this location and the results of the hydrology study should be examined and implemented.
Figure 3.2.33: Tuncurry Rock Pool. Access Summary Table: Great Lakes Council Table 3.2.4: Access provision within lands managed by Great Lakes Council.
Location Open
Access Formal
Pedestrian
4WD Vehicle Access/
Boat Ramp
Informal / Old Access
Private / Restricted
Access
Total Access
Possible Redirection
Net Access
Nine Mile Beach 0 1 6 5 0 12 2 10
Tuncurry Beach 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8
Tuncurry Rock Pool 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Forster Main Beach 0 9 0 2 0 11 1 10
Second Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Pebbly Beach 0 3 0 2 0 5 1 4
The Tanks 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2
Bennett’s Head 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3
One Mile Beach 0 13 0 3 0 16 3 13
Burgess Beach 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1
Boomerang Beach 0 8 0 1 1 10 1 9
Boomerang Point 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 89 of 110
Location Open
Access Formal
Pedestrian
4WD Vehicle Access/
Boat Ramp
Informal / Old Access
Private / Restricted
Access
Total Access
Possible Redirection
Net Access
Blueys Beach 0 4 0 1 3 8 1 7
Blueys Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Danger Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bald Head 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2
Sandbar / Cellito
Beach 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 4
Number One Beach 1 2 0 2 0 5 2 3
Boat Beach 0 1 2 14 0 17 7 10
Bennett’s Beach 1 8 7 3 1 20 2 18
Totals 5 62 16 42 5 130 22 108
Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. In other words, 130 access points have been located, however 22 of these access points have the opportunity to be redirected, leaving a net access of 108.
National Parks and Wildlife Service
Table 3.2.5: Access provision within lands managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Location Open
Access Formal
Pedestrian
4WD Vehicle Access/
Boat Ramp
Informal / Old Access
Private / Restricted
Access
Total Access
Possible Redirection
Net Access
Nine Mile Beach 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 2
Cape Hawke
Headland 0 2 0 5 1 8 1 7
McBrides Beach 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cape Hawke North
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cape Hawke South
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Janies Corner 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Seven Mile Beach 1 11 0 5 1 18 4 14
Booti Hill /
Flat Rock Point 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 4
Lindeman Cove 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Yes I Know Rock 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4
Elizabeth Beach 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 6
Shelly Beach 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
Seagull Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charlotte Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Six Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Five Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Four Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number Three
Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 90 of 110
Location Open
Access Formal
Pedestrian
4WD Vehicle Access/
Boat Ramp
Informal / Old Access
Private / Restricted
Access
Total Access
Possible Redirection
Net Access
Number Two Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number One Beach 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Seal Rocks Point 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 1
Sugarloaf Point 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 4
Lighthouse Beach 0 4 1 3 0 8 0 8
Treachery Head 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3
Treachery Beach 0 5 1 1 0 7 1 6
Yagon Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Submarine / Fiona /
Yagon Beach 0 3 0 4 0 7 4 3
Big Gibber Headland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mungo Beach 0 9 2 3 0 14 3 11
Dark Point North
Beach 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dark Point /
Little Gibber 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Bennett’s Beach 1 1 1 2 0 5 1 4
Yacaaba Headland 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3
Totals 2 51 10 42 2 107 19 88
Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. In other words, 107
access points have been located, however 19 of these access points have the opportunity to be redirected,
leaving a net access of 88.
Treatment Options 1.17 & 2.13
Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing
infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal),
enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.
Treatment Options 1.18 & 2.14
Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order
to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.
Treatment Options 1.19 & 2.15
Land Managers should ensure all emergency service gates that lead to coastal locations are well known to
emergency services, lifeguarding/lifesaving services and that key personnel should be provided with keys.
Treatment Option 2.16
The National Parks and Wildlife Service should hold discussions with the operators of Treachery Camp in
regards to providing them with keys to be able to gain entry to the emergency vehicle access at the middle of
Treachery Beach for emergency purposes.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 91 of 110
Treatment Option 1.20 & 2.17
In some instances CoastSafe Assessors noticed tyre marks on beaches / sections of beaches that do not permit
4WD. This was seen on Seven Mile Beach, Mungo Beach and Tuncurry Beach. Land Managers should continue
to ensure that strategies are put in place and monitored to deter access.
Treatment Option 1.21
Following the completion of studies in relation to the Tuncurry Rock Pool area, Great Lakes Council should
review and implement the findings to ensure that inexperienced swimmers and / or children aren’t swept out
beyond the enclosure during periods of hazardous conditions e.g. strong outgoing tidal currents.
3.2.7 PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT
The table below provides an overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) currently in or available for use in
Australia.
Table 3.2.6 An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Bradstreet, et al., 2012).
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 rescuer
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
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 92 of 110
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 ™ Project’ has seen the installation of 131 rings in NSW
with 62 confirmed rescues involving their use (ANSA, 2014).
On 4 February 2014, The Australian National Sports Fishing Association received additional funding for the
expansion and maintenance of the Angel Ring Project through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust.
There are currently 3 life rings situated in the Great Lakes LGA, however 4 life rings have been proposed. These
locations are below and are in priority order for implementation. Further information can be found in
Appendix C.
Table 3.2.7 Priority order for Life Rings.
In regards to any maintenance issues that may arise, ANSA NSW has stated the following:
“ANSA NSW will maintain contact with the local clubs, NSW Government agencies
and individuals who have installed or agreed to manage the angel rings and
continue communication to ensure that management targets are met.
As a minimum ANSA NSW or its nominated management team must complete a
visual check at least every 2 months to determine the rings status.” (ANSA, 2013)
Global Positioning Satellite (GPS):
GPS technology is available to be used within public rescue equipment such as life rings. Recreational fishing
bodies have already trialled certain tracking devices in some areas and should be consulted with in relation to
this matter. This technology may be beneficial by the way of a daily audit that can record when a life ring has
been washed away or stolen as part of an asset management system.
4Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.
Priority Order Location
1 Tuncurry Break Wall
2 Forster Break Wall
3 Sugarloaf Point
4 Yes I Know Rock
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 93 of 110
Shark Surveillance/Protection:
The use of drones was discussed as an option at the Hawks Nest community forum to monitor shark activity
during patrols. UAVs for surveillance are currently being trialled at some coastal locations, however a report
prepared for the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Bryson and Williams 2015) suggests that there are
still many limitations about the practicality and effectiveness of drones.
A separate report (Cardno 2015) lists a range of other shark mitigation strategies including electrical deterrent
barriers, physical and visual barriers, detection methods and personal deterrents.
Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to investigate
effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches.
Figure 3.2.34: The Little Ripper Lifesaver UAV currently being trialled in NSW.
Treatment Options 2.18
Land Managers should consider implementing life rings at the proposed locations identified in ‘Appendix C’.
The Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW
will be able to provide guidance on costings, suppliers and ongoing maintenance.
Treatment Option 3.3
Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in
consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing
Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these
fishing associations.
Treatment Option 4.6
Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with the NSW Department of Primary Industries to investigate
effective shark mitigation and surveillance strategies for NSW beaches.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 94 of 110
3.2.8 SYSTEM OF SUPERVISION
The supervision of aquatic coastal locations is often required to manage the risk of the location, whether due
to prevailing weather and beach conditions, the proximity to large population bases, or the attendance of the
beach/coastal area due to its location or attractiveness.
The primary decision to be made by Land Managers before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to
determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver
and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A
mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a
proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location.
Uncertainties may exist when deciding whether supervision at a given location is appropriate, since:
o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non-suitable location, such as when the beach
topography and morphology create a highly hazardous location. This factor would be reflected in the
ABSAMP beach hazard rating;
o Such services may be deemed too expensive and therefore not provided by the responsible land manager;
o The patronage of the location is low and the assessed risk level is minimal.
There are a range of aquatic supervisory services that should be considered, as it is not “one size fits all”. They
include:
o Full time comprehensive lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, fixed and
portable facilities, equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services.
o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, portable facilities,
equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services.
o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with trained personnel, portable facilities, some equipment and craft,
and links to a command centre.
o A flexible demand based service with trained personnel provision which allocates resources to where they
are most needed.
o Surveillance cameras.
o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access.
Lifesaving Service Level Calculator:
The lifesaving service level calculator takes into consideration the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings, visitation
levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history and remoteness of location to determine best
practice lifesaving service levels.
The first decision that needs to be made by a Land Manager is whether or not a location should be patrolled.
The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to guide decision making on which locations are of greater
inherent risk and therefore a higher priority for a lifesaving service. The lifesaving service level calculations
should not be used in isolation to determine whether or not a lifesaving service should be provided, however
once a decision has been made to provide a service the calculations should be referred to for guidance on the
minimum service level required. Calculations for all beaches can be found in ‘Appendix G’.
International Best Practice:
The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations
internationally.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 95 of 110
Lifeguard/Lifesaving Uniforms:
The ILSF recommends the colours for uniforms be red & yellow5. Lifeguards/lifesavers throughout the world
are called upon to provide safety services at a range of water environments that include swimming pools,
beaches, lakes, river front and other waterfronts. In providing these aquatic safety services, it is important that
the people using these environments for aquatic activity can readily identify the lifeguards/lifesavers for:
o Guidance on safety issues, and
o Assistance in times of need
As such the lifeguards should be readily distinguishable against the many people and colours they may be
wearing while in, on or around these aquatic environments.
The red and yellow colours have been used by a number of International Lifesaving Member Federations for
many years to such an extent and with much success that red and yellow has become synonymous with
lifesavers and lifeguards in these countries.
Lifeguard uniforms within the Great Lakes LGA are consistent with the with ISLF position statement.
Volunteer Lifesaving Service - Existing:
Below are the patrol dates and hours for the 2015/2016 season over weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.8 Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Great Lakes LGA.
Club Patrol Dates Saturdays, Sundays & Public Holidays
Start Time Finish Time
Forster SLSC
19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 9am 1pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm
30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 9am 1pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
Cape Hawke SLSC
19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 9am 1pm
19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm
30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 9am 1pm
Pacific Palms SLSC
19/09/2015 - 13/12/2015 10am 2pm
19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm
30/01/2016 - 25/04/2016 10am 2pm
Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC
19/09/2015 - 05/10/2015 10am (Sat)
9am (Sun + PH) 3pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
10/10/2015 - 13/12/2015 10am (Sat)
9am (Sun + PH) 2pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
19/12/2015 - 26/01/2016 9am 5pm
30/01/2016 - 19/03/2016 10am (Sat)
9am (Sun + PH) 2pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
25/03/2016 - 25/04/2016 10am (Sat)
9am (Sun + PH) 3pm (Sat)
4pm (Sun + PH)
5 ILSF Lifesaving Position Statement - LPS 05 - Lifesaver And Lifeguard Uniforms
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 96 of 110
Regular roving patrols are also encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are
incorporated into a Clubs Patrol Operation Manual. Roving patrols can be conducted by ATV, IRB/RWC or
walking and should continue to be conducted at the following locations throughout a patrol.
o Forster SLSC: Break wall (north) to ocean pool (south)
o Cape Hawke SLSC: North Headland (north) to Konda Place (south)
o Pacific Palms SLSC: North end of Elizabeth Beach (north) to Shelly Beach (south)
o Tea Gardens Hawks Nest SLSC: Sanderling Ave (north) to Deadmans car park (south)
Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter:
The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter (Hunter Area) is also a vital service that operates around the Great
Lakes LGA. This service is activated through the triple zero ambulance service and can respond to coastal
incidents that may be remote for emergency services attending by road. At times, the service can also conduct
roving patrols, looking out for swimmers, surfcraft users, rock fishermen and boaters who may be in need of
assistance as well as scanning for dangerous marine life around patrolled locations.
RWC Patrols:
It is also acknowledged that the Lower North Coast Branch through its support services conducts three roving
patrols through an RWC on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays through the school holiday periods (9am –
1pm during autumn and spring) and (9am – 5pm during summer). The first area falls within the Greater Taree
LGA, the second are covers from Nine Mile Beach to Cape Hawke and the third area covers from Seven Mile
Beach to Seal Rocks. These services are also available for callouts that occur through the surf rescue
emergency response system.
Paid Lifeguard Service – Existing:
The Great Lakes lifeguard patrol dates and hours from the 2014/2015 season are provided below. Table 3.2.9 Paid Lifeguard Services in the Great Lakes LGA.
Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times
Forster Beach
22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm
22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
One Mile Beach
22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm
22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
Elizabeth Beach
22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm
22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
Bennett’s Beach
22/09/2014 - 03/10/2014 5 days 9am – 5pm
22/12/2014 - 23/01/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
07/04/2015 - 17/04/2015 5 days 9am – 5pm
Lifeguards also provide supervision at Tea Gardens Pool from the start of the spring school holidays through to
the end autumn school holidays.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 97 of 110
Marine Rescue:
Marine Rescue plays a key role in boating safety and response within the Great Lakes LGA and is stationed at
Wallis Lake entrance. These units are able to respond to incidents via a number of vessels. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS): The RMS website lists coastal bars at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/using-waterways/navigation-communication/coastal-bars.html. Some have web cam vision which can be accessed http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/using-waterways/web-cameras/index.html System of Supervision – Proposed: Paid Lifeguards Australian CoastSafe acknowledges the challenges that arise for regional coastal councils in regards to funding lifeguard services.
Some options to assist in funding lifeguard services may include:
1. Slight levy applied to rates at Tourist Parks.
2. Paid parking at the main car parks for non-residents.
3. Joint funding arrangements with tourism organisations and local businesses.
4. Future grant funding.
The lifeguard treatment options listed below are based upon the research and data contained within this
Project Blueprint coastal public safety risk assessment:
o Lifesaving service level calculator ‘Appendix G’,
o Anecdotal evidence and feedback obtained through the various methods of consultation,
o Historical drowning and emergency response incidents,
o Historical beach visitation data (where available), and
o Tourism NSW and ABS population data.
Forster Main Beach:
The main beach in Forster is currently patrolled during the school holiday periods. As a highly popular tourism
destination, Forster still experiences high beach usage outside of the school holiday periods as many couples,
young families, university students and retirees choose to travel at these times. The beach is surrounded by
numerous accommodation providers e.g. caravan park, resorts/hotels/motels and apartments. Peak visitation
occurs during summer and it’s important for the people staying near Forster to have the option to swim at a
patrolled beach throughout this period. The suburb of Forster has the highest population count as shown in
section 2.9.1 and as the most centrally located beach within the immediate Forster area Great Lakes Council
should consider the provision of supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in addition to
the autumn and spring services.
Tuncurry Beach:
In reference to section 2.9.2, beach visitation at Tuncurry Beach will continue to increase when the large
development at North Tuncurry has been finalised and therefore a lifeguard service at this location should be
strongly considered. This future increase in visitation is also supported by current high beach visitation during
school holiday periods as the beach is backed by a large coastal accommodation provider that can
accommodate up to 1,500 people and the large car park and attractive facilities at the very southern end of
the beach. As the beach is more exposed to swells and rip currents, incidents at this beach may see an increase
if no means of supervision is provided.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 98 of 110
Volunteer Lifesavers:
Tuncurry Beach:
As outlined earlier the southern end of Tuncurry Beach can experience high visitation during the school holiday
periods and especially during the summer holidays. Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast
Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club to discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost
patrol at Tuncurry Beach during the summer school holiday period.
With reference to the Standard Operating Procedures – Lifesaving Services, an outpost patrol is defined as a
sub patrol that has no patrol flags, and operates as an extension of the base patrol to provide surveillance at
an area of high risk.
Treatment Option 1.22
Great Lakes Council should explore the means to fund the expansion of the lifeguard service at Forster Main
Beach to provide supervision every day (weekdays) from December to February in addition to the autumn and
spring services already provided.
Treatment Option 1.23
A lifeguard service at Tuncurry should be strongly considered when the proposed large development at North
Tuncurry has been finalised.
Treatment Option 1.24
The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and locations)
should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.
Treatment Option 4.7
Surf Life Saving NSW should meet with Lower North Coast Surf Life Saving and Forster Surf Life Saving Club to
discuss the benefits and limitations of providing an outpost patrol at Tuncurry Beach during the summer
school holiday period.
Treatment Option 4.8
Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular basis to
cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 99 of 110
4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Consideration of issues in relation to emergency response is extremely relevant to a drowning prevention
strategy for the Great Lakes LGA.
Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to:
o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000),
o Emergency phones/alarms,
o Emergency response beacons,
o Emergency service response,
o Radio coverage, and
o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service).
4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING
The ability of members of the public to request assistance in an emergency is an important component of a
drowning prevention strategy.
The Australian Government, through the Attorney-General’s Department are currently running a national
Triple Zero (000) campaign which aims to build awareness of the Triple Zero (000) number and educate the
community about when to use the number. The campaign serves to reinforce to members of the public their
responsibilities when calling the Triple Zero (000) emergency number both in nominating the required
emergency service and identifying the location they are calling from. The campaign uses the internet,
newspapers, radio and television to promote messages of Triple Zero (000). In addition, elements of the
campaign have been translated to reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities throughout Australia.
In addition, “Triple Zero (000) should not be referred to as 'Triple Oh', as this can cause confusion and could
result in people incorrectly dialling 666 on some alpha-numeric keypads. If dialled within Australia, emergency
calls to 666 will not be re-routed to Triple Zero (000)” (Australian Government, Attorney's-General
Department, 2012).
Figure 4.1.1: Suggested emergency 'Triple Zero' information for signage.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 100 of 110
Emergency Services Smart Phone Application
‘Emergency +’ is an application developed by emergency services, the federal government and industry
partners. The application uses a mobile phone's GPS functionality so callers can provide emergency call-takers
with their exact location information. ‘Emergency+’ also includes SES and Police Assistance Line numbers as
options, so non-emergency calls are made to the most appropriate number (Apple 2014).
One disadvantage of the application is that you are required to have phone coverage for it to work. Dependent
on phone providers, many Black spot locations exist in remote areas.
Figure 4.1.2: ‘Emergency +’ Application for smart phones.
In reference to coastal environments, while the application provides the latitude/longitude and a nearest
street reference, it does not inform emergency services of what is the most effective and efficient way to
access the person who is need of assistance. This is where the Emergency Marker System (section 3.2.5) will be
a beneficial ‘value-add’ as all access locations to the coastline will be mapped, potentially including all the
routing information, outlining to responding emergency services of how to best enhance responsiveness to a
particular point of interest.
Treatment Options 1.25 & 2.19
In consultation with the Local Emergency Management Committee, Land Managers have an opportunity to
promote the ‘Emergency +’ smart phone application throughout the local community.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 101 of 110
4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS
Emergency Response Beacons (ERB) can be positioned in high use/risk areas. They are highly visible and once
activated, link via radio to lifesaving/lifeguard services.
The two main types of ERB are:
Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight
hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach
lifesaving/lifeguard service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non-lifesaving).
Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and
provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system,
whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those
monitoring the ERB.
Fixed ERBs are generally only considered for use in high risk locations, where:
o Limited or no mobile phone coverage exists,
o A service can consistently monitor the beacon, and
o A daily process of equipment checking/testing is in place.
More information about ERB can be provided by Surf Life Saving New South Wales.
Figure 4.2.1: Example of a mobile emergency response beacon on a beach.
Possible locations for emergency response beacons or radio technology in the Great Lakes LGA could be used
at Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach.
Treatment Options 1.26, 2.20 & 4.9
Emergency Response Beacon technology should be considered for Tuncurry Beach, Boomerang Beach and ‘The
Ruins’ at the southern end of Seven Mile Beach.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 102 of 110
4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE
Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the
Great Lakes LGA (see table and figure below). Resources that may respond include:
o NSW Police (including Water Police),
o NSW Ambulance,
o NSW Fire and Rescue,
o State Emergency Service (SES),
o Marine Rescue NSW,
o Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter – Hunter Region
o Great Lakes Council Lifeguards,
o Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast (Branch and Club Callout Teams), and
o Surf Life Saving Hunter (Branch and Club Callout Teams). Table 4.3.1 Coastal Emergency Service locations for Great Lakes LGA (<10km from the coast).
Emergency Services – Great Lakes Local Government Area
Emergency Service Street Address Suburb
NSW Police 83 Albert Street Forster
NSW Police 51 – 53 Marine Drive Tea Gardens
NSW Ambulance Service Manning Street Tuncurry
NSW Ambulance Service 103 Myall Street Tea Gardens
NSW Fire and Rescue 22 Lake Street Forster
NSW Fire and Rescue 135 Marine Drive Tea Gardens
Marine Rescue NSW Oyster Parade (nearest cross street) Forster
Marine Rescue NSW Lighthouse Road Nelson Bay
State Emergency Service 200 Charlotte Bay Street Pacific Palms
Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Beach Street Forster
Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Underwood Road (nearest cross street) Cape Hawke
Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Lakeside Crescent Pacific Palms
Surf Life Saving and Lifeguards Corner Booner Street and Beach Road Hawks Nest
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 103 of 110
Figure 4.3.1: Emergency services located east of the Princes Highway in the Great Lakes LGA.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 104 of 110
4.4 COMMUNICATIONS
Radio Coverage
The State Operations Centre in Belrose (SLSNSW) assist lifeguards and lifesavers during normal operations and
emergency incidents via UHF radio communication. The UHF radio signal strength on the Great Lakes coastline
uses the repeaters at Forster, Pacific Palms, Seal Rocks and Hawks Nest. Below are the coverage maps for each
of these repeaters. Table 4.4.1: Key to radio coverage strength.
Figure 4.4.1: Signal strength of the Forster Repeater.
Figure 4.4.2: Signal strength of the Pacific Palms Repeater.
As seen in the above figures signal strength around the Tuncurry and Forster areas is strong. The Cape Hawke
area has average to limited coverage. The majority of Seven Mile Beach and Pacific Palms have strong
coverage. The very southern end of Seven Mile Beach has average to limited coverage.
No coverage (Blacks spot)
Signal strength (limited)
Signal strength (average)
Signal strength (strong)
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 105 of 110
Figure 4.4.3: Signal strength of the Seal Rocks Repeater.
Figure 4.4.4: Signal strength of the Hawks Nest Repeater.
As seen in the above figures signal strength around the Seal Rocks Area is strong. The southern end of
Boomerang Beach, Sandbar/Cellito and Submarine/Fiona/Yagon Beach has average signal strength. Signal
strength along Bennetts Beach has strong coverage however Mungo Beach has average to limited signal
strength.
Phone Coverage:
Due to the remote location and topography of the Great Lakes LGA, phone coverage in the area is often
limited. Larger phone providers such as Telstra and Optus are more reliant than other smaller providers like
Vodaphone, however there are still areas where Telstra and Optus coverage are limited. Areas within the
Myall Lakes National Park are one example where phone coverage is very limited. Non reliant phone coverage
may impact on an effective emergency response, and it is advised that when Land Managers and tourism
agencies promote coastal walks for example, people are well informed that only specific phone providers may
gain coverage, and even then phone reception may still be very poor in some areas. Personal locater beacons
could also be encouraged.
Treatment Option 4.10
Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Lower North Coast and Hunter
Branch to raise any current issues and opportunities which could see further radio infrastructure installed to
improve communication.
Treatment Options 1.27 & 2.21
When Land Managers and tourism agencies promote the coastline i.e. coastal walks, people should be aware
that phone reception may be very limited in some areas. The use of personal locater beacons could also be
encouraged.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 106 of 110
4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS)
Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS)
The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW) was established in January 2008 and provides a single
point of contact for emergency services when there is a need to utilise surf rescue assets in coastal incidents.
The emergency number can be contacted 24/7 and operators (State Duty Officers) can task/notify any surf
rescue asset in NSW.
Through the growth of this system the Lower North Coast Branch have an effective Branch Duty Officer system
and dedicated Club Callout Teams that can respond to incidents outside of patrolled locations/after hours.
Lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many of which occur at
unpatrolled locations and/or after hours).
The most appropriate resource at the time of the incident are notified first and activated i.e. volunteer
lifesavers, paid lifeguards or other emergency services.
Marine Rescue NSW:
Marine Rescue NSW is at times the most appropriate resource to respond to incidents along the coastline
(particular vessel incidents). As part of the SRERS, Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and
develop relationships with the Forster Marine Rescue Unit.
Emergency Scenario Training
Communications and emergency response could be enhanced by conducting an annual emergency response
scenario training day for lifesaving and lifeguarding services. Such exercises help to establish and cement the
chain of command, cooperation and adherence operational procedures in the event of a joint emergency
response with local emergency services. A suitable location to hold this scenario could be in Forster.
Treatment Options 1.28 & 4.11
An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Lower North Coast Branch Duty
Officers/Support Operations, Great Lakes Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year before the
commencement of the surf life saving season.
Treatment Option 4.12
Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Forster Marine Rescue
Unit.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 107 of 110
5 MONITOR AND REVIEW
The process of monitor and review ensures that risk treatment options are meeting their objectives, new
hazards and risks are identified in a timely manner and evolving strategies are in line with community
expectations.
Land Managers are encouraged to ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any
risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This can include a process for the review of any
drowning or emergency response incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed. The treatment
options outlined in this report can also be used as a benchmark as future funding opportunities become
available and when budget preparations occur annually.
Land Managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with the monitor
and review process. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage,
education, public rescue equipment, supervision and emergency response.
Treatment Options 1.29 & 2.22
In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the
effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented
and where future funding opportunities can be directed.
Treatment Options 1.30 & 2.23
All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the relevant
strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a
structured approach to maintenance.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 108 of 110
6 REFERENCES
Apple 2015, Emergency + Preview, viewed 13 August 2015,
<https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/emergency-+/id691814685?mt=8>
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, Quick Stats, viewed 27 July 2015,
<http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/map>
Australian National Sports Fishing Association 2014, Angel Ring Project, viewed 27 July 2015,
<http://angelrings.com.au/>
Attorney Generals’ Department 2014, Triple Zero (000) awareness campaign and promotional material, viewed
13 August 2015,
<http://www.triplezero.gov.au/Pages/TripleZero(000)AwarenessCampaignandpromotionalmaterial.aspx>
Australian Water Safety Council 2006, National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, State
Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Bradstreet, A, Sherker, S, Brighton, B, Weir, A, Thompson, M 2012, Research Review of Rock Fishing in New
South Wales, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney.
Bryson, M and Williams, S 2015, Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Marine Surveys: Literature
Review and Suggestions for Future Research, Report prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries
Bureau of Meteorology 2014, ‘Hazardous surf climatology’, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne.
Cardno 2015, Shark Deterrents and Detectors – Review of Bather Protection Technologies, Report prepared for
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Connor 2014, ‘Drones flying high for beach safety’ Bay Post 11 September, viewed 31 July 2015,
<http://www.batemansbaypost.com.au/story/2549994/drones-flying-high-for-beach-safety/>
Destination New South Wales 2014, ‘LGA Profile – Great Lakes, Destination New South Wales, Sydney.
Great Lakes Council 2015, Pools and Beaches, viewed on 24 July 2015,
<http://www.greatlakes.nsw.gov.au/Community/Parks_and_Recreation/Pools_and_Beaches#Vehicles_on_Bea
ches>
Great Lakes 2015, Beaches, viewed on 24 July 2015
<http://www.greatlakes.org.au/spaces/beaches>
International Life Saving Federation 2008, A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment
for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving, The International Life Saving Federation, Belgium.
Kennedy, D, Sherker, S, Brighton, B, Weir, A, Woodroffe, C 2013, ‘Rocky coast hazards and public safety:
Moving beyond the beach in coastal risk management. Ocean and Coastal Management’, Volume 82, pp. 85-
94.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 109 of 110
Marine Parks Authority 2015, Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park, viewed 28 July 2015,
<http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/psglmp.html>
Marine Rescue NSW 2015, Marine Rescue App, viewed 28 July 2015,
http://www.marinerescuensw.com.au/marinerescue-app
McKay, C, Brander, R, Goff, J 2014, ‘Putting tourists in harms way - Coastal tourist parks and hazardous
unpatrolled surf beaches in New South Wales’, Tourism Management, Volume 45, pp. 71-84.
New South Wales Division of Local Government 2012, ‘Practice Note No. 15 – Water Safety’, Department of
Premier and Cabinet, New South Wales Government.
New South Wales Marine Estate 2015, Marine protected areas, viewed 28 July 2015,
<http://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/nsw-marine-estate/marine-protected-areas>
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlifes 2014, Staying Safe in National Parks, veiwed 29 July 2015,
<http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety>
Recreational Fishing Alliance 2011, Safe Fishing, viewed 24 September 2013,
<http://www.safefishing.com.au/index.html>
Roads and Maritime Services 2014, Lifejacket Wear It, viewed 24 July 2015,
<http://www.lifejacketwearit.com.au/>
Roads and Maritime Services 2015, Web Cameras, viewed 27 July 2015,
<http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/using-waterways/web-cameras/index.html>
Science of the Surf 2015, Why do we need SOS, viewed 29 July 2015,
<http://www.scienceofthesurf.com/about.html>
Short, A 2006, Australian Beach Safety Management Program, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney,
Sydney.
Standards Australia 2009, ‘AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’, Standards
Australia, Sydney.
Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 1: Specifications
for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas’, Standards Australia, Sydney.
Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 2: Specifications
for beach safety flags – “colour, shape, meaning and performance’, Standards Australia, Sydney.
Standards Australia 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 3: Guidance for
use’, Standards Australia, Sydney.
Statewide Mutual 2007. ‘Signage As Remote Supervision’, Statewide Mutual, Sydney.
Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Great Lakes Local Government Area
Page 110 of 110
Surf Life Saving Australia 2014, Beachsafe, viewed 24 July 2015, <http://beachsafe.org.au/>
Surf Life Saving Australia 2010, ‘The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines, 2nd edition’, Surf Life Saving
Australia, Sydney.
Surf Life Saving New South Wales 2015, Incident Reporting Database, Surf Life Saving New South Wales,
Sydney.
Surfing New South Wales 2015, Surfers Rescue 24/7, viewed 24 July 2015,
<http://www.surfersrescue247.com.au/>
Urban Growth 2015, North Tuncurry, viewed 29 July 2015,
<http://northtuncurry.com.au/>
Wellings 2008, ‘Give me the resort life’ The Sydney Morning Herald 5 January, viewed 29 July 2015,
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/australian-capital-territory/give-me-the-resort-
life/2007/12/12/1199554550494.html> White 2014, ‘Twelve rescued at Tuncurry Rockpool’ Great Lakes Advocate 30 April, viewed 31 July 2015 <http://www.greatlakesadvocate.com.au/story/2247860/twelve-rescued-at-tuncurry-rockpool/>