Tweed Local Government Area - watersafety.nsw.gov.au · Norries Head 10. Wooyung...

Funded by the NSW Government under the NSW Water Safety

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

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment Tweed Local Government Area

June 2013

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Tweed Local Government Area

of 79

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


of 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5

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

1. INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 11

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 SCOPE AND CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................... 12

1.3 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 13

1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ..................................................................................................................................... 13

1.5 PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................................................................... 15

2. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................................... 16

2.3 SITE INSPECTION ............................................................................................................................................. 18

2.4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 18

2.5 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 19

2.6 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 20

2.7 ABSAMP BEACH TYPES AND RATINGS................................................................................................................ 21

2.8 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .......................................................................... 22

2.9 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR)...................................................................................................................... 24

2.10 FACILITIES AUDIT .......................................................................................................................................... 27

2.11 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS ........................................................................................................... 28

2.12 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................. 34

3. RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 37

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (GROSS RISK) .......................................................................................................... 37

3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ............................................................................................................ 37

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety & Aquatic Management Program Rating ................................................... 38

3.1.3 Local Population Rating ..................................................................................................................... 39

3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating .................................................................................................... 40

3.1.5 Access Rating ..................................................................................................................................... 41

3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ............................................................................................................ 42

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ........................................................................................................ 44

3.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 44

3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls)............................................................................................. 44

3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes ............................................................................................. 45

3.2.4 Safety Signage .................................................................................................................................... 49

3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ................................................................................................................. 53

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes ................................ 55

3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment.................................................................................................................... 57

3.2.8 System of Supervision ......................................................................................................................... 59

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................. 72

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) .......................................................................... 72

4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ...................................................................................................................... 72

4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ........................................................................................................................ 74

4.4 BORDER RELATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 76

5. MONITOR AND REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 78


of 79

APPENDIX A: ACCESS AND SIGNAGE SCHEDULE

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


of 79

Executive Summary This report contains findings and recommendations which align with current International and Australian standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific to locations under the authority of Tweed Shire Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage.

1. Flagstaff/Duranbah 6. North Beach/South Bogangar 2. Fingal/Letitia Spit 7. Hastings Point Inlet 3. Dreamtime/Kingscliff/Cudgen 8. Cudgera 4. Bogangar/Cabarita 9. Pottsville 5. Norries Head 10. Wooyung

Activities/Facilities The Tweed Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public usage and recreational activity; including swimming, surfing (inc. all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving, boating, and walking. A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and key beach access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, holiday accommodation options, coastal walks, a number of public toilets/changing rooms, BBQ’s, picnic tables and playgrounds. Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and in Appendix B, the Tweed LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Tweed LGA: Strong ocean/tidal/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/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Stingers/sharks: As a result of marine life Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction Based on risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong ocean/tidal/rip currents Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Stingers/sharks: Swimmers, surf craft users Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters


of 79

Existing Risk Treatments Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the below risk treatment initiatives within the Tweed LGA. These include: o System of supervision o Education and awareness programmes o Safety signage o Local emergency marker system


of 79

Summary of Key Recommendations Please note:

o The below recommendations are provided as options for guidance only and will not be binding to the Land Manager

o The below recommendations are in no particular order in regards to prioritisation

o Further explanation to the recommendations should also be referenced and can be found on the corresponding pages

Recommendation 1 The Tweed Shire Council should consider implementing the following treatment options: Strategic Coordination:

1.1 Beach usage and incident data (drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics)

should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.33)

1.2 The ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’ should continue to hold regularly scheduled surf liaison

meetings as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Tweed coastal environment. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Recommendations found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.36)

1.3 Treatment options in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on

evidence. (p.43) Education: 1.4 Existing education and awareness programmes within the Tweed Local Government Area should continue

to be implemented and reviewed. (p.47) 1.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic safety industry e.g. (Water Safety NSW website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.47)

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

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.47) 1.7 Work with peak coastal water safety agencies to conduct surf safety programmes at local public schools.

(p.47) 1.8 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear

lifejackets. (p.47) Signage: 1.9 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be

implemented at the locations listed in Appendix A. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.52)

1.10 Temporary signage should be used at locations where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion and debris. (p.52)

Access: 1.11 Formal access tracks identified in Appendix A should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than


of 79

informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.56)

1.12 Informal access tracks identified in Appendix A should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.56)

Surveillance and Supervision: 1.13 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.70) 1.14 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Duranbah to patrol all weekends

during the surf life saving season. Lifeguards should also patrol every day during the summer months. (p.70)

1.15 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Kingscliff to provide year round

patrols, excluding when the volunteer lifesavers patrol the beach on weekends and public holidays (during the surf life saving season). (p.70)

1.16 After the contract for Salt expires, it is recommended that lifeguard patrol coverage is decreased as

funding can be used at other priority locations such as Duranbah and Kingscliff. However, as the beach is backed by large resorts and new development, a lifeguard service should still operate during the school holiday periods (spring, summer and autumn). Lifeguards should also patrol every day during the summer months (weekdays). (p.70)

1.17 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Cabarita to patrol every day

during the summer months (weekdays). (p.71) 1.18 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Pottsville North to provide

coverage on weekends from the end of the summer school holidays until the start of the autumn school holidays. (p.71)

1.19 Utilise the ‘Lifesaving Service Level Calculator’ on an annual basis, or as population densities change

significantly, to measure the extent of increased beach usage in proximity to the proposed Kings Forest property development at Cabarita. (p.71)

Monitor and Review:

1.20 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented. (p.78)

1.21 All drowning prevention strategies should be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.78)

Recommendation 2 The National Parks and Wildlife Service - Office of Environment and Heritage should consider implementing the following treatment options Strategic Coordination: 2.1 Beach usage and incident data (drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard statistics)

should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.33)


of 79

2.2 A staff member from NPWS should be represented on the ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’ which acts as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Tweed coastal environment. (p.36)

2.3 Treatment options in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on

evidence. (p.43) Education: 2.4 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.47) 2.5 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear

lifejackets. (p.47) Signage: 2.6 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be

implemented at the locations listed in Appendix A. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.52)

Access: 2.7 Formal access tracks identified in Appendix A should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing

infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.56)

2.8 Informal access tracks identified in Appendix A should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate use of formal access. (p.56)

Monitor and Review

2.9 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented. (p.78)

2.10 All drowning prevention strategies should be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic

and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.78)

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

drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors. (p.33)

Education: 3.2 Develop relationships with tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network

programme with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral e.g. brochures, flyers, pamphlets etc. to all coastal accommodation providers in the Tweed Local Government Area. (p.48)

Signage:


of 79

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

that have direct beach access to implement the use of temporary signage at the main entry points during dangerous surf warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) – warning the public of large/hazardous waves. (p.52)

Emergency Marker Signage:

3.4 With guidance from the NSW Government - Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and

Property Information a state-aligned emergency marker programme at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a programme is established. (p.54)

Public Rescue Equipment: 3.5 Explore the means to fund the expansion 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’. (p.58)

Recommendation 4 Australian CoastSafe, Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast and local Clubs should consider implementing the following treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 4.1 The ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’ should continue to hold regularly scheduled surf liaison

meetings as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Tweed coastal environment. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Recommendations found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.36)

Emergency Marker Signage: 4.2 To reduce the likelihood of confusion which may lead to delays in an emergency response, Australian

CoastSafe will supply the Emergency Information Coordination Unit (EICU) (NSW LPI) with data and information collected referencing the existing localised marker system for inclusion in the Spatial Information and Mapping System (SIMS). (p.54)

System of Supervision: 4.3 Surf Life Saving New South Wales & Surf Life Saving Far North Coast should work with Fingal, Cudgen

Headland, Salt and Cabarita Surf Life Saving Clubs to align volunteer patrolling hours to ensure consistent service delivery across the Tweed Coast. (p.71)

Emergency Response: 4.4 Explore the means to fund Emergency Response Beacons (mobile) at the following locations to be used in

conjunction with lifesaving and lifeguard patrols: North Kingscliff Caravan Park (1.5km north of club) Fingal/Letitia Spit (1.7km north of club) (p.73)

4.5 Cross-border joint operations between surf rescue agencies and other emergency services operating in

both NSW and QLD should be improved by developing formalised standard operating procedures. (p.77) Recommendation 5 The Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:


of 79

5.1 Install and maintain public rescue equipment e.g. life rings at the locations outlined in Appendix C (depending on the outcome of treatment option 3.5). Final positioning should be determined by ANSA NSW. (p.58)

1. Introduction, Scope & Context 1.1 Introduction This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related issues identified at every beach, rock platform and break wall assessed on the coastline of the Tweed LGA. The Land Managers of this area include the Tweed Shire Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) -Office of Environment and Heritage and Crown Lands. Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 31 December 2012, there have been 332 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 2004. The vast majority of these can be attributed to swimming/rip-currents and rock-fishing, with almost all occurring at unpatrolled locations/times, where no expert assistance is immediately available. Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of causal factors identified in the ‘drowning chain’ (ILSF, 2008). These are:

o Lack of knowledge, disregard or misunderstanding of the hazard o Uninformed or unrestricted access to the hazard o Lack of supervision or surveillance o An inability to cope once in difficulty The strategies that have been identified to address the drowning chain are:

o Education and information o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings o Provision of supervision o Acquisition of survival skills

Figure 1.1.1: The International Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain (Source: ILSF Drowning Prevention Strategies, 2008)


of 79

This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with clear evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders and the application of effective risk mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required. It is acknowledged that Land Managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land Managers should balance their water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide services and facilities to meet the current and 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 cannot be eliminated and can only be managed within the operational contexts of Land Managers, taking into account all of their responsibilities and available resources. This report also recognises that visitors to these coastal areas also have a personal responsibility for their own safety and those they are responsible for. The recommendations found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to risk management at the locations assessed. 1.2 Scope and Context Surf Life Saving New South Wales recently received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water Safety Black Spot Fund to commence coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches, rock platforms, break walls). The programme will be staged over several years with phase one to include the top ten drowning locations by (Local Government Area) in NSW. The report provides risk treatment options about how to improve risk and safety management in line with current industry compliance standards: o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines o AS2416 – 2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags o AS 2899(.1&.2) – 1986 Public Information Symbols Part 1 and 2 o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols - Public information symbols o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic

Signs o ISO9001:2000 Quality Management Systems This coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Tweed LGA which commenced on Monday 2nd July 2012 and concluded on Sunday 8th July 2012. The assessment covered coastal locations within the LGA. 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 Tweed LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report. Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating may occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this report. Boat ramps and bars at river mouths that fall within the assessed areas identified in Appendix D have been assessed within the framework of the coastal public safety risk assessment process. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/


of 79

The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment. Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail: o Access locations; classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment

options. Signage that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current signage Appendix A.

o Hazards; their potential risks, risk groups, risk scores and treatment options Appendix B.

o Public rescue equipment that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current public rescue equipment Appendix C.

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

o Survey Results Appendix E. At no time during the inspection was the water entered, inspections 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 points have been acknowledged as limitations of this coastal public safety risk assessment. o The absence of an agreed and recognised methodology for rating the hazardousness of rock platforms. o Difficulty in gaining feedback from all identified stakeholders. o Limited timeframes allowed for stakeholders to provide feedback on consultative draft versions of the

report as a result of the project timeframes.

1.4 Definition of Terms

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

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety and Management Program

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

ATV All-terrain vehicle

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

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event

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

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

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

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


of 79

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

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

Hazards A source of potential harm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments


of 79

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 Treatment Process of selection and implementation of measures to modify risk

Risk Management Standards Australia defines risk management as coordinated activities to direct and control 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.

RWC Rescue water craft (jet ski)

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.

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

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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint




of 79

2. Assessment Methodology 2.1 Introduction The methodology included site identification, site inspection, hazard identification, data analysis, beach hazard ratings, beach identification, facility visitation ratings, facilities, beach usage, incident data, communication and consultation. 2.2 Site Identification The map on the following page provides an overview of the locations within the Tweed LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. Specific coverage maps can be referenced in Appendix D and the Australian CoastSafe team assessed Approx. 38km of coastline in the Tweed LGA. The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Tweed Shire Council o NPWS

Cudgen Nature Reserve Wooyung Nature Reserve Billinudgel Nature Reserve

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 Tweed 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.


of 79

Figure 2.1.1: Tweed LGA overview of beach locations


of 79

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

2.4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment During the site inspection hazards were identified within the area inspected and assessed in terms of their individual risk to public safety (extreme, high, medium, low) using a risk assessment matrix Appendix B. The risk assessment matrix considers both the type of harm that could be sustained as a result of an individual hazard and the likelihood of this harm actually occurring. Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and in Appendix B, the Tweed LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Tweed LGA: Strong ocean/tidal/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/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Stingers/sharks: As a result of marine life Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction Based on risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong ocean/tidal/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Stingers/sharks: Swimmers, surf craft users Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters

Location Date

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH Monday 2nd July 2012

FINGAL Tuesday 3rd July 2012

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/CUDGEN Wednesday 4th July 2012

BOGANGAR/CABARITA Thursday 5th July 2012

NORRIES HEAD Friday 6th July 2012

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR Friday 6th July 2012

HASTINGS POINT INLET Friday 6th July 2012

CUDGERA Saturday 7th July 2012

POTTSVILLE Saturday 7th July 2012

WOOYUNG Sunday 8th July 2012


of 79

2.5 Data Analysis Data relevant to this risk assessment has been considered in the production of the report. These include:

o Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme (ABSAMP) o Australian Bureau of Statistics –Census data o Volunteer lifesaving and paid lifeguard statistics o Beachsafe (2012) www.beachsafe.org.au o NSW Tourism Statistics o Rock Fishing Review - Bradstreet et al, (2012) – Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales. Surf

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

http://www.beachsafe.org.au/


of 79

2.6 Beach Hazard Ratings and Overview ABSAMP was developed by Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney - Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The programme has identified coastal hazards that affect members of the public and rates the safety of the beach on a scale of one to ten, where one (1) is the least hazardous and ten (10) is the most hazardous. The beach hazard ratings and definitions are provided in the following table. Table 2.6.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings

The beach hazard rating is calculated by determining the beach type and wave height. This can be done under either modal (average) or prevailing (current) conditions. The beach hazard rating is then calculated by using the following table: Table 2.6.2: Beach hazard rating calculation matrices for wave dominate beaches.

Wave Height

Beach Type

< 0.5 (m)

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

Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10

Long Shore Bar Trough

4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10

Rhythmic Bar Beach

4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10

Transverse Bar Rip

4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low Tide Terrace 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Reflective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

The beach hazard ratings presented in this report relate to modal beach conditions and as such the hazard rating of a beach may increase when conditions alter e.g. with increasing wave height, winds, strong tides and high tide. Furthermore, a hazard rating is also applied to an average person and therefore depending upon an individual's own skill, understanding and competence in relation to a certain area the hazard may in fact be greater or less. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected areas of the Tweed 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.


of 79

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

Location Name ABSAMP no. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP type

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH nsw001 7 Transverse bar and rip

FINGAL nsw002 7 Rhythmic bar and beach

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/ CUDGEN

nsw003 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

BOGANGAR/CABARITA nsw004 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

NORRIES HEAD nsw005 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR

nsw006 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

HASTINGS POINT INLET nsw007 5 Reflective

CUDGERA nsw008 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

POTTSVILLE nsw009 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

WOOYUNG nsw010B 6 Rhythmic bar and beach


of 79

2.8 ABSAMP Beach Type Characteristic Overview and Hazards Each location and their beach characteristics and associated hazards are as follows. Transverse Bar and Rip o Flagstaff/Duranbah o Norrie’s Head Figure 2.8.1: Transverse Bar and Rip

Transverse bar and rip 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 1.5m. 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. 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. Rhythmic Bar and Beach o Fingal o Dreamtime/Kingscliff/Cudgen o Bogangar/Cabarita o North Beach/South Bogangar o Cudgera o Pottsville o Wooyung

Figure 2.8.2: 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.


of 79

Reflective o Hastings Point Inlet Figure 2.8.3: 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.


of 79

2.9 Facility Visitation Rates (FVR) The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a term, which has been developed to provide a quantitative assessment that can be used to determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location). The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes (peak period) site population use, and frequency of use. The following calculation is derived using: 1. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback relative to the table values outlined, and; 2. Utilisation of the Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) formula, where:

Facility Visitation Rate = (0.5 x ABSAMP Rating) x Population) + Frequency Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables: Table 2.9.1: Typical Development and Natural Hazards Rating for Reserves

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 metre

4 Council owned infrastructure with no artificial lighting e.g. golf course, football field, recreational ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 metre and 3 metres

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

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 metres

Table 2.9.2: A typical population use within a facility provided by Council. It is important that Council's table reflects as accurately as possible its actual situation.

Rating Population Use

1 Less than 5 people at a time

2 5 to 50 people at a time



5 Greater than 500 people at a time

Table 2.9.3: Suggested Frequency of use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event in held at the facility

2 An activity event takes place in the facility on a monthly basis

3 An activity event takes place in the facility on a weekly basis

4 An activity event takes place in the facility on a daily basis

5 The facility is in continuous use for the majority of the day


of 79

The values and calculations are outlined as follows: Table 2.9.4: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations

LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT RATING

* POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH 4 * 5 + 4 = 24

FINGAL 4 * 4 + 3 = 19

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/CUDGEN 3 * 4 + 4 = 20

BOGANGAR/CABARITA 4 * 4 + 3 = 19

NORRIES HEAD 3 * 3 + 4 = 13

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR 3 * 3 + 3 = 12

HASTINGS POINT INLET 3 * 4 + 4 = 16

CUDGERA 3 * 4 + 4 = 16

POTTSVILLE 3 * 4 + 4 = 16

WOOYUNG 3 * 4 + 3 = 15

Given the FVR scores, shown in the above table, listed below is an outline of the most appropriate sign characteristics pertinent to each location: FVR Score between 7 and 10 o No locations

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by council have signage and spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o All Council’s 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 Wooyung o North Beach/South Bogangar o Norries Head This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by council have signage and spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o All Council’s 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 Fingal o Dreamtime/Kingscliff/Cudgen o Bogangar/Cabarita o Hastings Point Inlet o Cudgera o Pottsville This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Council have signage and spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter.


of 79

o The name of the facility o A general warning message o All Council’s 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 25 o Flagstaff/Duranbah This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 100 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o All Council’s 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


of 79

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

Why do we record facilities? Facilities are recorded because it is important for the Land Manager to recognise that by providing the above facilities it is expected that there will be an increase in people visiting these areas. This increase can correlate to the likelihood of a risk occurring in a coastal environment. Treatment plans identified in the report should be implemented in these areas to reduce the risk of a particular event occurring. Facilities as well as other local attractions are included in risk management and while these facilities or local attractions may, in isolation, increase the likelihood of a particular risk occurring, they may be offset by other factors such as the type of visitor who is going to a particular location. All factors relating to a risk are assessed as a whole and not in isolation when determining the level of risk. It is the level of risk and not the type of facilities (in isolation to other factors) that is used when determining if a risk treatment is required A breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Tweed LGA can be requested by the Land Manager if required.


of 79

2.11 Beach Usage and Incident Statistics Beach Statistics The following statistics have been taken from the lifesaving and lifeguard services operating in the Tweed LGA. All figures are the combined total statistics over the last 3 seasons (2011/12, 2010/11, 2009/10). Table 2.11.1: Surf Life Saving Club statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Surf Life Saving Clubs Rescues Preventions First Aid

Letitia Spit/Fingal Point 49 2201 223

Kingscliff 24 2147 282

Salt 25 2701 40

Cabarita 81 2941 211

Totals 179 9990 756

Table 2.11.2: Lifeguard statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Australian Lifeguard Service Rescues Preventions First Aid

Duranbah 126 12171 569



Salt 65 18657 306

Casuarina 3 3614 16

Cabarita 13 3009 165

Hastings Point 46 5536 149

Pottsville North 25 3929 82

Pottsville South 20 3819 54

Totals 321 57568 1623

Table 2.11.3: Combined attendance statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Combined Attendance (Lifesavers & Lifeguards)

Location Attendance Patrolled Days Average Attendance per Day

Duranbah 217232 273 796


Cabarita 131128 429 306

Salt 265517 1095 242


Hastings Point 60096 273 220

Pottsville North 38914 219 178

Pottsville South 34844 219 159

Casuarina 36509 273 134

When lifesaving and lifeguard attendances are combined, Duranbah recorded the highest ‘average attendance per day’. It is taken into consideration that the figure for Duranbah is largely made up of surf board riders as the location is a highly popular surfing destination. Kingscliff recorded the second highest figure, well above any of the other locations. Salt, which patrols 365 days came in fourth and was lower than first expected. Casuarina had the lowest average attendance per day. Case Study: Kingscliff vs. Salt (Attendance Figures) This table shows that during the spring, summer and autumn school holiday periods (past 3 seasons), Kingscliff has a higher beach attendance than Salt. All attendance figures recorded were over the same period of days.


of 79

Table 2.11.4: Case Study: Attendance Figures for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Attendance Figures

Season 2011/12 Spring School Holidays

Summer School Holidays

Autumn School Holidays

Total Attendance

Salt 1699 7587 1885 11171

Kingscliff 1816 10232 4363 16411




Total Attendance

Salt 2426 10999 3468 16893

Kingscliff 2996 18243 3599 24838




Total Attendance

Salt 2123 15027 2003 19153

Kingscliff 2342 20789 3760 26891

Population Statistics The below table shows that over a ten year period, population in the Tweed LGA has grown by 12,621 and this population is expected to rise . Population growth in the LGA is expected to continue (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Table 2.11.5: Tweed population data (ABS, 2011)

Tweed LGA – Population

Year Males Females Total

2011 41,679 45,322 89,012

2006 38,624 40,697 81,327

2001 36,196 38,184 76,381

The below table provides a breakdown of the population living in the coastal towns of Tweed LGA (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Table 2.11.6: Population living in coastal suburbs within the Tweed LGA (ABS, 2011)

Beach Population Figures

Beach Suburb People

Tweed Heads 7,525

Chinderah 1,480

Kingscliff 6,392

Casuarina 1,661

Bogangar 3,099

Hastings Point 582

Pottsville 5,735

Mooball/Wooyung 377

Totals 26,851

Tourism Information The below information has been sourced from the ‘Destination NSW’ website. All statistics are the average from three year totals to four year totals to June 2012. Destination NSW breaks down the number of visitors into three categories and these include: 1. Domestic overnight travel 2. Domestic day trip travel 3. International overnight travel


of 79

Table 2.11.7: Tourism data and visitor information for Tweed LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Overall Tourist Figures (‘000)

Domestic Overnight 680

Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 741

International Overnight 72

Table 2.11.8: Domestic overnight travel data and visitor information for Tweed LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) % NSW %

Eat out at restaurants 270 n/a n/a

Go to the beach 225 n/a n/a

Visit friends and relatives 212 n/a n/a

General sight seeing 139 n/a n/a

Go shopping for pleasure 133 n/a n/a

Origin (‘000) % NSW %

Regional NSW 360 21.3 35.5

Sydney 268 15.9 26.6

Victoria 180 10.7 13.9

Queensland 764 45.2 13.3

ACT 35 2.1 4.2

Other Interstate 82 4.8 6.4

Accommodation (‘000) % NSW%

Friends or relatives 579 34.3 39.1

Caravan Park/Camping 375 22.2 12.4

Hotel, resort, motel 320 19.0 23.4

Rented 240 14.2 9.9

Serviced apartment 61 3.6 2.6

Age Group (‘000) % NSW %

15 to 24 years 70 14.9% 14.5

25 to 34 years 52 11.0% 14.0

35 to 44 years 98 20.9% 21.5

45 to 54 years 88 18.6% 19.0

55 to 64 years 80 17.0% 16.6

65 years and over 82 17.4% 14.4

In summary, Tweed beaches are the second most popular attraction for domestic overnight travellers. 45.2% of these people live in Queensland and 34.3% are most likely to stay with friends or relatives. Visitors within the 35-44 year age bracket have the highest percentage of visitors with 20.9%. Table 2.11.9: Day trip travel data and visitor information for the Tweed LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) % NSW %

Eat out at restaurants 419 47.3 43.9

Visit friends and relatives 265 29.9 34.6

Go to the beach 206 23.2 10.2

Go shopping for pleasure 140 15.7 21.3

General sight seeing 136 15.4 16.8


15 to 24 years 101 11.3 14.4

25 to 34 years 101 11.3 13.4

35 to 44 years 156 17.6 19.6

45 to 54 years 169 19.0 18.1

55 to 64 years 154 17.4 16.8

65 years and over 206 23.3 17.7

In summary, day trippers are more likely to eat out at restaurants and visit friends/relatives than go to the beach. The 65 years and over age bracket make up the highest percentage of day trippers with 23.3%.


of 79

Table 2.11.10: International overnight travel data and visitor information for the Tweed LGA (‘Destination NSW’ 2013)


15 to 24 years 3 15.1 18.8

25 to 34 years 4 21.6 24.8

35 to 44 years 2 11.8 17.4

45 to 54 years 3 12.3 17.2

55 to 64 years 5 21.9 14.8

65 years and over 4 17.4 6.9

Top 5 origin markets (‘000) % NSW %

New Zealand 6 29.7 13.3

United Kingdom 4 19.8 13.3

USA 2 9.0 10.6

Germany 1 5.9 3.8

Canada 1 4.0 2.9

The highest number of international tourist’s holiday from New Zealand and the United Kingdom and the 55 to 64 years age bracket make up the highest percentage of visitors with 21.9% closely followed by the 25 to 34 years age bracket with 21.6% Drowning Incidents Below are the drowning incidents that have occurred in the Tweed LGA from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2012. Table 2.11.11: Drowning incidents within Tweed LGA from 2004 to 2012 (SLSA Incident Reporting Database, 2012)

Coastal Drowning Incidents – Tweed LGA

Date Location Time Month Age /

Gender

Ethnicity Residential Status Activity

24/07/2005 Casuarina Beach 1650hrs July 50 – M United Kingdom International Tourist Swimming

8/01/2006 Kingscliff Beach 0800hrs Jan 42 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

22/04/2006 Norrie’s Head 1505hrs Apr 15 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

8/10/2006 Tweed River Mouth Unknown Oct 69 – M United Kingdom Australian Resident Swimming

8/05/2007 Kingscliff Beach 1230hrs May 45 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

26/06/2007 Kingscliff Beach Unknown June 52 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

8/02/2009 Letitia Spit/Fingal 1520hrs Feb 49 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

12/4/2009 New Brighton 1400hrs Apr 35 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

13/08/2009 Cabarita Beach 1230hrs Aug 65 – M Indian Australian Resident Swimming

13/06/2010 Jack Evans Boat

Harbour

0745hrs June 75 – M Australian Australian Resident Swimming

20/12/2010 Jack Evans Boat

Harbour

1723hrs Dec 80 – M Unknown Australian Resident Surf craft

28/01/2011 Letitia Spit/Fingal 1530hrs Jan 73 – M German International Tourist Swimming

4/12/2011 Norrie’s Head 1430hrs Dec 16 – M Kenyan Australian Resident Swimming

Notes to table: o 92% of drowning deaths were a result of swimming/rip currents. o The average age for drowning deaths is 51.2 years. o 100% of the victims were males. o 69% of drowning deaths occurred after 1200hrs in the afternoon/evening. 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.


of 79

Review and assessment of this data, may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions for types of localities and specific ‘black spot’ locations themselves. Improvements to Dangerous Surf Warnings and education/awareness programmes may be improved as a result. Emergency Callouts There have been 46 Emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) since 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2012. The SRERS involves callout teams (lifesavers/lifeguards), including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police.

Note: The data below does not incorporate incidents from other emergency services where the SRERS may not have been

tasked e.g. Water Police, Ambulance and Marine Rescue data.

Table 2.11.12: SRERS call outs within Tweed LGA from 2008 to 2012 (SLSNSW Reporting Database, 2012)

SRERS – Tweed LGA

Date Location Month Season Day Time Activity

13/11/2007 Kingscliff November Spring Tue 1500hrs Swimming

20/01/2008 Duranbah January Summer Sun 1300hrs Vessel

26/04/2008 Duranbah April Autumn Sat 1134hrs Vessel

5/10/2008 Kingscliff October Spring Sun 1330hrs Surf Craft

6/10/2008 Duranbah October Spring Mon 1618hrs Surf Craft

6/10/2008 Duranbah October Spring Mon 1552hrs Swimming

25/01/2009 Hastings Point January Summer Sun 1410hrs Surf Craft

30/01/2009 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point January Summer Fri 1607hrs Swimming

8/02/2009 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point February Summer Sun 1521hrs Swimming

24/02/2009 Kingscliff February Summer Tue 1746hrs Swimming

22/03/2009 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point March Autumn Sun 1508hrs Other

7/05/2009 Tweed Heads River Entrance May Autumn Thu 1038hrs Vessel

21/10/2009 Duranbah October Spring Wed 1825hrs Swimming

16/01/2010 Wooyung January Summer Sat 1425hrs Swimming

13/02/2010 Cabarita February Summer Sat 1419hrs Rock Related

1/03/2010 Tweed Heads River Entrance March Autumn Mon 1439hrs Vessel

7/03/2010 Tweed Heads River Entrance March Autumn Sun 1851hrs Vessel

20/03/2010 Duranbah March Autumn Sat 1708hrs Vessel

31/03/2010 Kingscliff March Autumn Wed 0850hrs Vessel

17/05/2010 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point May Autumn Mon 1008hrs Vessel

6/07/2010 Tweed Heads River Entrance July Winter Tue 0754hrs Vessel

8/11/2010 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point November Spring Mon 1808hrs Vessel

2/12/2010 Tweed Heads River Entrance December Summer Thu 0849hrs Vessel

20/12/2010 Duranbah December Summer Mon 1723hrs Swimming

20/01/2011 Kingscliff January Summer Thu 1849hrs Swimming

28/01/2011 Fingal Beach January Summer Fri 1430hrs Swimming

2/02/2011 Kingscliff February Summer Wed 0935hrs Vessel

8/04/2011 Pottsville April Autumn Fri 2034hrs Other

5/08/2011 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point August Winter Fri 1513hrs Vessel

6/08/2011 Kingscliff August Winter Sat 1244hrs Vessel

20/08/2011 Hastings Point August Winter Sat 1336hrs Vessel

8/09/2011 Kingscliff September Spring Thu 1226hrs Swimming

19/09/2011 Kingscliff September Spring Mon 1417hrs Surf Craft


of 79

SRERS – Tweed LGA

Date Location Month Season Day Time Activity

24/09/2011 Salt September Spring Sat 1217hrs Suicide

15/11/2011 Tweed Heads River Entrance November Spring Tue 0948hrs Swimming

27/11/2011 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point November Spring Sun 0920hrs Swimming

4/12/2011 Cabarita Beach December Summer Sun 2010hrs Swimming

12/12/2011 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point December Summer Mon 1352hrs Surf Craft

19/12/2011 Hasting Point December Summer Mon 1110hrs Swimming

25/12/2011 Cabarita Beach December Summer Sun 1224hrs Swimming

25/12/2011 Letitia Spit/Fingal Point December Summer Sun 1401hrs Vessel

6/01/2012 Kingscliff January Summer Fri 1608hrs Swimming

14/01/2012 Kingscliff January Summer Sat 1025hrs Shark Sighting

10/03/2012 Duranbah March Autumn Sat 1613hrs Swimming

19/04/2012 Kingscliff April Autumn Thu 1402hrs Surf Craft

6/05/2012 Casuarina May Autumn Sun 1342hrs Swimming

Notes to table: o 29% of jobs were located at Kingscliff, more than any other location in the Tweed. o 78% of jobs happened after 1200hrs in the afternoon/evening. o 40% of all incidents occurred over summer, 28% over autumn, 23% over spring and 9% over winter. o 43% of all incidents occurred at locations outside of the lifesaving season and outside operational hours.

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

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


of 79

2.12 Communication and Consultation Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is at the heart of the risk management process. Stakeholder Consultation Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in place, issues in regards to risk management and opportunities that may exist. Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Stewart Brawley, Manager Recreation Services, Tweed Shire Council o Jimmy Keough, Surf Life Saving Emergency Coordinator, Far North Coast Branch o Ben Redman, Surf Life Saving Branch Director of Lifesaving, Far North Coast Branch o Belinda Doman, Surf Life Saving Branch Support Officer, Far North Coast Branch o Scott McCartney, Northern Region Lifeguard Coordinator, Australian Lifeguard Service o Jarrad Cain, Tweed Lifeguard Coordinator, Australian Lifeguard Service o Tweed Local Emergency Management Committee The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops o Print, Radio and Television media announcements of workshops and consultation o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops o Use of social media - Twitter o Web based surveys o Web based information submissions o On-site communication and distribution of flyers o On-site one-to-one surveying o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council Figure 2.12.1: Project Blueprint Flyer Consultation Workshop A public forum held on Saturday 6 April, 2013 at Cudgen Headland SLSC at 3pm. This public forum was advertised in local print media and through pre-identified stakeholders (via email and letter). Public forums were open to any member of the public such as surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups and marine rescue. Unfortunately, this public forum had nil attendance. Consultation Survey The consultation process has also involved the introduction of an online survey which has been useful to capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. Summary results will be published in the final report.


of 79

Survey 1 The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. Survey Questions: o In your opinion, what are the (top three) factors contributing to drowning / coastal related incidents at this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minutes)? 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. A great initiative in the Tweed LGA has been the development of the ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’. This committee is an effective working group and includes the following stakeholders: o Stewart Brawley, Manager Recreation Services, Tweed Shire Council o Scott McCartney, Northern Region Lifeguard Coordinator, Australian Lifeguard Service o Club Captains from Fingal, Cudgen Headland, Salt and Cabarita SLSC’s o Representation from Far North Coast Surf Life Saving


of 79

To further enhance this group a staff member from the local NPWS should also be represented at these meetings. The Tweed Local Emergency Management Committee is also an effective group that reviews recent incidents, issues and opportunities relating to coastal public safety and emergency management.

Treatment Option 1.2 & 4.1 The ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’ should continue to hold regularly scheduled surf liaison meetings as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Tweed coastal environment. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Recommendations found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item

Treatment Option 2.2 A staff member from NPWS should be represented on the ‘Tweed Beach Safety Liaison Committee’ which acts as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Tweed coastal environment.


of 79

3. Risk Assessment Findings 3.1 Action Planning Priority (Gross Risk)

3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index

The Action Planning Priority Index can be viewed as the gross risk score for a beach. The index seeks to identify the risks associated with the broader coastal environment under assessment, rather than specific hazards and risks present at a particular location or site. The majority of information detailed in this section of the report will be identified through pre exiting data (where available), with new data sourced where gaps are present or the data is not reliable. The total score for the Action Planning Priority Index, displayed on pages 42 & 43, is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in table 3.1.6.2. The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s). The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information: 1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP Rating) 2. Local Population Rating (LPR) 3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) 4. Access Rating (AR)


of 79

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety & Aquatic Management Program Rating

Table 3.1.2.1: ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations

Location Name ABSAMP no. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP type

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH nsw001 7 Transverse bar and rip

FINGAL nsw002 7 Rhythmic bar and beach

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/CUDGEN nsw003 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

BOGANGAR/CABARITA nsw004 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

NORRIES HEAD nsw005 5 Transverse Bar and Rip

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR nsw006 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

HASTINGS POINT INLET nsw007 5 Reflective

CUDGERA nsw008 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

POTTSVILLE nsw009 6 Rhythmic bar and beach

WOOYUNG nsw010B 6 Rhythmic bar and beach


of 79

3.1.3 Local Population Rating

The Local Population Rating (LPR) expands on the information obtained from the Facility Visitation Rating. This additional population rating identifies the population of residents and/or non-residents located within 2km’s of a coastal location under assessment. The highest figure (resident or non-resident) will be recorded. Table 3.1.3.1: Local population rating descriptors

Table 3.1.3.2: Local population ratings applied to assessed locations

Location LPR Total

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH 5

FINGAL 3

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/CUDGEN 5

BOGANGAR/CABARITA 5

NORRIES HEAD 3

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR 3

HASTINGS POINT INLET 3

CUDGERA 3

POTTSVILLE 3

WOOYUNG 2

Population Rating Qualifying Description (all staying/living within 2km of beach)

1 < 50 residents and/or < 20 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)

2 50 – 250 residents and/or 21 – 100 non-residents (domestic or overseas tourists)



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


of 79

3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating

The Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) identifies any conflicts present in the coastal environment between the number of people and activities taking place. Activities include both those in the water and those on the beach. Table 3.1.4.1: Human/Activity Interaction descriptors.

Population (in-water)

Conflicting activities Population (on beach)

Conflicting activities

100+ 5 Persistent and dangerous 5 1000+ 5 Persistent and dangerous 5

75-100 4 Persistent 4 750-1000 4 Persistent 4

50-75 3 Regular 3 500-750 3 Regular 3

25-50 2 Isolated conflicts 2 250-500 2 Isolated conflicts 2

1-25 1 No conflicts reported 1 1-250 1 No conflicts reported 1

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

Location Population (in

water)

Conflict Population (on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH 5 4 1 2 12

FINGAL 5 3 1 2 11


5 3 2 2 12

BOGANGAR/CABARITA 5 3 3 2 13

NORRIES HEAD 2 2 1 2 7


4 3 1 2 9

HASTINGS POINT INLET 5 2 2 2 11

CUDGERA 3 3 1 2 9

POTTSVILLE 3 3 1 2 9

WOOYUNG 3 3 1 2 9


of 79

3.1.5 Access Rating

Coastal environments that have increased accessibility (i.e. near major roads, cities, public transport, car parks, boat ramps, maintained access paths etc.) increase the likelihood of users at that beach. This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury. Table 3.1.5.1: Access rating descriptors

Table 3.1.5.2: Access ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Access Rating


FINGAL 4

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/CUDGEN 5

BOGANGAR/CABARITA 4

NORRIES HEAD 4

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH BOGANGAR 4


CUDGERA 4

POTTSVILLE 4

WOOYUNG 3

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


of 79

3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score

The action planning priority score provides an indicator for the overall level of risk of the location. The scores range from 0 to 60. These scores can be used to prioritise the order in which risk treatments described in the next section of this report are implemented. Table 3.1.6.1: Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location

Location

AMSAMP

X 2 (Out of 20)

Population Support

X 2 (Out of 10)

Human Activity/

Interaction (Out of 20)

Access

X 2 (Out of 10)

Total Score

(Out of 60)

FLAGSTAFF/DURANBAH 14 10 12 10 46

FINGAL 14 6 11 8 39


12 10 12 10 44

BOGANGAR/CABARITA 12 10 13 8 43

NORRIES HEAD 10 6 7 8 31


12 4 9 8 33

HASTINGS POINT INLET 10 6 11 8 35

CUDGERA 12 6 9 8 35

POTTSVILLE 12 6 9 8 35

WOOYUNG 12 4 9 6 31

Three beaches have an action planning priority score greater than 40. Scores of 40 or higher indicate a high level of overall risk. 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 score should be treated and so on. Table 3.1.6.2: Action Planning Priority scores for each location to assist in the prioritisation for risk mitigation strategies identified in this report.

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

1


High – this location should be considered

as a priority for implementation of

identified risk treatment options

2

DREAMTIME/KINGSCLIFF/

CUDGEN 44




3

BOGANGAR 43




4

FINGAL 39

Medium – this location should be

considered for implementation of

identified risk treatment options after

locations rated as high or as funding

becomes available

5






becomes available


of 79

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

6

CUDGERA 35





becomes available

7

POTTSVILLE 35





becomes available

8

NORTH BEACH/SOUTH

BOGANGAR 33





becomes available

9

NORRIES HEAD 32





becomes available

10

WOOYUNG 31





becomes available

Key to Action

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

Treatment Option 1.3 & 2.3 Treatment options in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.


of 79

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

3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls)

In determining the most appropriate and cost effective option, it is important to consider the hierarchy of risk treatments (controls). The hierarchy is a sequence of options which offer a number of ways to approach the hazard control process. o Hard controls deal with the tangible such as:

Eliminate the hazard which in a coastal context is often difficult to achieve Isolate the hazard which in a coastal context can be difficult due to the dynamic nature of

environmental and weather conditions Use engineering controls such as design of access paths, installation of appropriate signage, and

revegetation Use administrative controls such as supervision, emergency action plans, other documented policies,

practices and procedures o Soft controls deal with human behaviour such as:

Use of effective leadership, management, trust, ethics, integrity, and building relationships Education programmes

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, treatment options are at times mainly generic in nature. Land Managers in the Tweed LGA should endeavour to adopt the most appropriate treatment options specific to their organisations capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are expanded on below.


of 79

3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes

Public education and awareness programmes are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (before a person/s are exposed to hazards). Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programmes include: o Consistency in safety messaging (elimination of confusing/unclear or dissipative information) o Consistency in the method of provision (ongoing information provided at regular locations/times) o Longevity in the provision of information (ongoing, not a one-off) During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe was made aware of various education and awareness programmes that are currently, or have been previously in place to educate and inform the public at a local level. These programmes as well as any other initiatives within and around the Tweed LGA should continue to be implemented and reviewed. Programmes include: o Encouraging local children to be active and providing the fundamentals of surf safety. o Water safety organisations providing surf education to schools and community groups. o Surf safety collateral available e.g. swimming and rock fishing safety in visitor information centres (tourism,

council and national parks) o The distribution of surf safety flyers and brochures to coastal accommodation providers such as resorts,

hotels/motels, self-contained apartments and caravan parks. o Local media and promotional opportunities to deliver key safety messages and dangerous surf warnings

through local print, radio and television networks. Educational Messages Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programmes which include standardised key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agency websites such as: NSW Water Safety Advisory Council: http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/ Together with the following referenced websites of the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council for beach safety: o BeachSafe: www.beachsafe.org.au o Rip Currents: www.ripcurrents.com.au One such opportunity includes displaying posters which promote water safety at public amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. Coastal Accommodation The Tweed LGA is a popular destination for overnight visitors (domestic and international), especially through the school holiday periods. The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the LGA should be implemented. Safety messages and information provided to tourists, visitors and migrants is integral for the education of this high target group. Surf Education Providing surf education is a key component in addressing the drowning chain and has the opportunity to reach a key target group. Surf education is not a core responsibility for Land Managers however they are still encouraged to assist with school participation levels. This type of promotion could include joint media releases, website promotion or written communication from council to target groups (e.g. local schools). Surf education (theory and application) can be very beneficial in coastal towns for primary and high school. 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 programmes at the beach

A number of not-for-profit water safety agencies (e.g. Surf Life Saving NSW, AustSwim and Royal Life Saving) are well placed to assist in the deliver these programmes.

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

http://www.beachsafe.org.au/

http://www.ripcurrents.com.au/


of 79

Personal Protective Equipment Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman. Educational and awareness programmes in the Tweed LGA should continue to be reviewed and developed to promote and encourage fisherman to wear lifejackets. Education Summary The following table provides examples of a range of education and awareness programmes that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Tweed LGA. Table 3.2.3.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education and awareness programmes available to Land Managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of programmes that are available and delivered in within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land Managers are not limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider engaged to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified and insured. Table 3.2.3.1: Examples of education and awareness programmes

Programme Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

School based water safety programmes

Local primary and high school students

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Coastal Accommodation Network

Tourists, visitors and migrants (TVM)

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Local Media Residents and TVM All locations Local media outlets

Learn to Swim / Swim and Survive

Young Children All locations Royal Life Saving Society Australia

Learn to Swim All ages All Locations AUSTWIM accredited swim schools

Nippers Local children All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. All ages All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Rip Currents Awareness Day

All ages All locations Surf Life Saving Far North Coast

Surf Groms Local children All locations Surfing NSW

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

Kids Academy of Surf (KAOS)

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

School surfing and surf education

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

Corp Surf 18 years + All locations Surf Educate Australia

Get hooked – it’s fun to fish

Schools All locations NSW DPI (Fisheries)

Rock fishing safety information

Rock fishers

Break wall and rock platforms

Peak water safety agencies

Boating safety information

Boaters Port Hacking NSW Maritime / Department of Lands

QR codes

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

location based beach safety information.

All locations Tweed Shire Council

Marine Education Centre Schools All locations Marine Teachers Association

The images shown in below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral available to Land Managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of collateral that are available and can be provided to Land Managers upon request. Land Managers are not limited to the education collateral shown 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.


of 79

Education Collateral – Examples Only: Figure 3.2.3.1: Don’t put our life on the line Figure 3.2.3.2: Survive a rip current Figure 3.2.3.3: Beach safety for visitors Figure 3.2.3.4: Swim between flags

Treatment Option 1.4 Existing education and awareness programmes within the Tweed Local Government Area should continue to be implemented and reviewed.

Treatment Option 1.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic safety industry e.g. (Water Safety NSW website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’).

Treatment Option 1.6 & 2.4 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access.

Treatment Options 1.7 Work with peak coastal water safety agencies to conduct surf safety programs at local schools.

Treatment Option 1.8 & 2.5 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear lifejackets. Treatment Option 3.2


of 79

Develop relationships with tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network programme with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral e.g. brochures, flyers, pamphlets etc. to all coastal accommodation providers in the Tweed Local Government Area.


of 79

3.2.4 Safety Signage

Background Safety Signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy and targets the in-transit and on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location. Key factors related to effective safety signage includes: o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (ASNZ2416:2010) o consistency in signage layout/display (National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd

Edition, July 2006’) o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to optimal exposure to the most members of the

public, prior to arriving in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the Land Managers annual planning It is important to note that at most locations, an improved safety signage system usually results in an overall reduction in the quantity of signage due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the consolidation of key information into other signs. For Land Managers this may see a reduction in implementation and maintenance costs related to signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site. Tweed Shire Council and NPWS have implemented a commendable system of aquatic and recreational safety signage at many of the access points in the Tweed LGA. In general, the pictograms on Council’s signs are current with AS/NZS 2416:2010, although some pictograms have been taken from an earlier version of the Standard and should be amended through the use of stickers

1. The style/layout meets the type recommended

in the ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’ Figure 3.2.4.1: Council Signage at Kingscliff Figure 3.2.4.2: NPWS Signage at Cabarita

There is an opportunity to provide further aquatic and recreational safety signage as part of an ongoing management plan at the locations identified in Appendix A. These locations provide a list of associated hazards and a GPS position of where the sign should be placed.

1 State-wide Mutual – NSW Councils Beach Safety Information Signage


of 79

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

Combined Beach Locations Existing Signs

Possible Consolidation

Proposed Level 2

Proposed Level 3

Total Proposed

Signs

Net Signage

Duranbah/Flagstaff 26 5 0 0 0 -5

Fingal 29 5 2 10 12 7

Dreamtime/Cudgen/Kingscliff 100 14 1 6 7 -7

Bogangar/Cabarita 170 14 2 7 9 -5

Norries Head 9 1 0 0 0 -1

South Bogangar/North Beach 34 3 0 1 1 -2

Hastings Point 19 0 1 5 6 6

Cudgera 42 11 1 4 5 -6

Pottsville 42 5 0 3 3 -2

Wooyung 42 7 0 2 2 -5

Total 513 65 7 38 45 -20

When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended: 1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS/NZS 2416 – 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 - Sings as Remote Supervision. 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/NZS2416:2010 provides for the

use of either ‘diamond’ or ‘triangle’ hazard symbols. For consistency with existing signage and across local government areas the more effective diamond symbols should be utilised.

5. Effective placement of aquatic and recreational safety signage in a public reserve cannot be

underestimated. Location, height and existing visual distractions are major factors which contribute to the effectiveness of a sign when installed.

6. Signs positioned in car parks should be placed central to the parking area and where parked vehicles will

not obscure the sign.

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

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

9. To effectively capture the attention of visitors, improve overall visual amenity and avoid confusion as a

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


of 79

Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign) This type of signage can be an option for the Land Manager to be placed at the main entrances to an aquatic environment. The recommended content includes location name, emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information. See below for an example. Figure 3.2.4.3: Example level two car park sign

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

QR codes are easily created, with many tools available freely through the internet. This stage of the process is cost effective and the only expense is printing. Certain online providers also allow customers to be able to track the number of people who have scanned the QR code. Temporary Signage Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature. In the context of this assessment existing individual temporary hazard signs were identified at locations where the hazard of dangerous access (beach erosion) are at a higher risk. Temporary hazard signs should also be considered for the hazard of debris (large amounts). Temporary hazard signs can also be used when the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) release a dangerous surf warning when the swell reaches a certain height and swell period. Dangerous surf warnings will appear on the official BOM forecast. The most appropriate locations of these signs would be at the main entry points directly in front of accommodation providers who have direct beach access. Figure 3.2.4.4: Debris at Fingal Beach Figure 3.2.4.5: Beach erosion at Duranbah


of 79

Treatment Options 1.9 & 2.6 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage.

Treatment Options 1.10 Temporary signage should be used at locations where there is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as dangerous access, beach erosion and debris.

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


of 79

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 to it. Emergency location markers enable triple zero (000) call takers too immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero (000) call. Below is an example of how an emergency marker sign could look like. Figure 3.2.5.1: An example of an emergency marker sign.

Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage. For an optimal Emergency Marker System to be effective, a standardised state-wide programme is required, that engages Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No programme currently exists in NSW. Some locations in NSW have a local emergency marker system in place, where current signage displays a numbering code. This system is outlined in local emergency procedures however does not include a formal numbering system that links back to NSW emergency services (Police, Ambulance and Fire). Following on from recent meetings, Australian CoastSafe will be supplying the Emergency Information Coordination Unit (EICU) (NSW LPI) with data and information collected referencing the existing localised marker system for inclusion in the Spatial Information and Mapping System (SIMS). Australian CoastSafe is working with key government departments and emergency services to develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near future. Figure 3.2.5.2: An example of emergency marker signage in the Tweed LGA Australian CoastSafe is working with key government departments and emergency services to develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near future.


of 79

Treatment Option 3.4 With guidance from the NSW Government - Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and Property Information a state-aligned emergency marker programme at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a programme is established.

Treatment Option 4.2 To reduce the likelihood of confusion which may lead to delays in an emergency response, Australian CoastSafe will supply the Emergency Information Coordination Unit (EICU) (NSW LPI) with data and information collected referencing the existing localised marker system for inclusion in the Spatial Information and Mapping System (SIMS).


of 79

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes How the coast is accessed is a significant factor in the management of coastal risk. While preventing public access/use to the coastal environment is not desired, a number of options exist to minimise the risks associated with the access way itself and the hazards that may be encountered on the coast (via that access way). In reference to the assessment process, access points have been broken down into formal (defined), and informal (undefined) access. Access issues are interrelated to other risk management initiatives/options such as water safety signage, emergency access numbering/reporting, supervision (lifeguard) information and public rescue equipment. An effective access plan for an area may optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of other initiatives. Figure 3.2.6.1: Formal access at South Bogangar Figure 3.2.6.2: Informal access at Cudgera

Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer ‘track’ effectively exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quality of signage required and enhancing emergency reporting/location identification. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/sink-holes), may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting difficult (location awareness). In the Tweed LGA the majority of formal access tracks are well maintained. Periodic inspections take place due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts. A number of informal access tracks also exist. Options for formalising/redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers, vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations/situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or discourage the use of informal access.


of 79

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

Location Open Access Formal Pedestrian

Formal Vehicle

Informal Pedestrian

Possible Consolidation

Total

Duranbah 1 6 1 1 1 9

Fingal 0 14 6 1 1 21

Dreamtime / Kingscliff / Cudgen

0 29 2 3 3 34

Bogangar / Cabarita

0 42 4 0 0 46

Norries Head 0 4 0 0 0 4

North Beach / South Bogangar

0 13 2 1 1 16

Hastings Point Inlet

2 3 0 0 0 5

Cudgera 0 17 4 3 3 24

Pottsville 0 9 5 1 1 15

Wooyung 0 5 6 4 4 15

Treatment Option 1.11 & 2.7 Formal access tracks identified in Appendix A should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.

Treatment Option 1.12 & 2.8 Informal access tracks identified in Appendix A should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate use of formal access.


of 79

3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment

The table below provides an overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) currently in or suggested for use in Australia (Research Review of Rock Fishing Safety in New South Wales 2012) Table 3.2.7.1: An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Research Review of Rock Fishing Safety in New South Wales, 2012)

PRE Type Morphology of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages Extensive Training Required

Recommended uses in NSW

Rescue Tube Sandy beaches and rock pools

Can be thrown short distances

Requires the patient to enter the water themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of deployment

Risk of theft, risk of using the line to return the patient towards the rocks, not strong/tough enough to be resilient from environmental conditions

No May be used on a case by case basis. Further effectiveness investigation required.

Throw Sticks (Stormy grenades)

Personal device (mobile)

Mobility – easily deployed to incident locations Effective mid-range (thrown)

Requires 2 to off-set ‘mis-throw’ of the first

No Yes. Relevant personnel /staff (emergency services/SLS /rangers)

Life Ring (Angel ring)

Steep rampart rock platforms

Ease of use. Rugged design. Awareness campaign established.

Single use device. Distance of deployment. Requires rescuer to approach the platform edge. Weight.

No Steep (>1:1) rampart rock platforms

Silent Sentry Sloping platforms

EPIRB unit immediately alerts emergency services. Multiple balls can be rolled down slopes to the patient keeping the rescuer at a safer distance

EPIRB units were vulnerable to vandalism and disabled

No Sloping (<1:1) rampart rock platforms. Recommended redesign to remove EPIRB housing.

Life Rings (Angel Rings™

2)

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 ™

3 Project’ has seen the installation of 116 rings in NSW with 47 confirmed rescues involving their use. (Australian National Sports Fishing Association 2012, NSW Angel Ring Update, News Bulletin 16 June, 2012).

2Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.

3Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.


of 79

There are currently no life rings in the Tweed LGA. The locations of proposed life rings are below, specific locations can be found in Appendix B.

Priority Location

1 Cudgen Headland Break wall (North & South)

2 Tweed River Break wall (North & South)

3 Hastings Point

4 Pottsville River Break wall (North & South)

Life ring positioning should be undertaken in consultation with ANSA (NSW Branch). 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.

Treatment Option 3.5 Explore the means to fund the expansion of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW with the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’.

Treatment Option 5.1 Install and maintain public rescue equipment e.g. life rings at the locations outlined in Appendix C (depending on the outcome of treatment option 3.5). Final positioning should be determined by ANSA NSW.


of 79

3.2.8 System of Supervision

The supervision of aquatic coastal locations by trained lifesavers/lifeguards is often required to manage the risk of the location and is arguably the most effective risk mitigation strategy. The primary decision to be made by the Tweed Shire Council before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location. The decision whether to provide supervision or not to provide supervision can be difficult to establish because of the following: o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non suitable location, such as when the beach

topography and morphology create a highly hazardous location. This factor would be reflected in the ABSAMP beach hazard rating

o Deemed too cost prohibitive and therefore not provided by the responsible Land Manager o The patronage of the location is too low and the assessed risk level is minimal There are a range of aquatic supervisory services which can be considered, as it is not ‘one size fits all’. They include: o Full time comprehensive lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, fixed and

portable facilities, equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services. o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, portable facilities,

equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services. o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with trained personnel, portable facilities, some equipment and craft,

and links to a command centre. o A flexible demand based service with trained personnel provision which allocates resources to where they

are most needed. o Surveillance cameras. o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access. International Best Practice The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations internationally. Lifeguard/lifesaving uniforms The ILSF recommends the colours for uniforms be red & yellow. 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. Red and yellow flags The use of red & yellow feathered flags is undertaken to provide the maximum visual effect to identify a designated swimming area. Tweed Shire Council currently uses the feathered patrol flag on Tweed beaches which are patrolled.


of 79

Volunteer Lifesaving Service Surf Life Saving New South Wales are currently in the process of working with the Far North Coast Branch and Tweed Surf Life Saving Clubs to set volunteer lifesaving dates and patrol hours for the next three seasons (2013/14 to 2015/16). Patrol dates and hours are proposed to be consistent across the Tweed Coast and will greatly increase the safety of these locations. Currently patrol hours vary across the four clubs in the region. Saturday patrol hours have been proposed to be slightly extended to meet roughly the same hours patrolled on Sunday. The reason for this increase is that visitation numbers can be just as high on Saturdays than on Sundays and Public Holidays. Paid Lifeguard Service The Tweed Shire Council, through the Australian Lifeguard Service has a commendable lifeguard service. The following section examines the lifeguard services at each location within the Tweed Shire Council. The recommendations outlined may be useful to council when seeking advice for future lifeguard contracts. 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 (p.42 & 43) should be used to guide decision making on which locations are of greater 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. The following lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating as calculated in the above tables. The scores are not absolute and are to be used as a guide in determining the actual levels.

Table 3.2.8.1: lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating as calculated in the sections that follow.

Rating Lifesaving Service Level Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


of 79

Where the number of people in the patrolled area is over 1,000 the lifesaving service provider should increase the number of lifesaving personnel in line with the following table. Table 3.2.8.2: Impact of beach attendance on lifesaving service levels

No. of People on Beach No. of additional lifeguards

1,000 - 5,000 2

5,000 - 10,000 4

> 10,000 6

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

Duranbah/Flagstaff: Paid Lifeguard Service Duranbah is a highly populated location. Situated adjacent to the Gold Coast many tourists are attracted to this easily accessible and picturesque beach. Duranbah is also a premier and world renowned surfing destination. The Duranbah lifeguards perform many rescues and preventions as tourists can be exposed to the large topographic (permanent) rips at either side of the beach. Anecdotal feedback from the consultation phase suggests that when lifeguards are not on duty, there are many rescues that are conducted by local surfers. Duranbah Lifeguards are a useful resource for emergency services to utilise when responding to incidents that may occur at the following locations: 1. Tweed River Mouth e.g. Boating/Rock fishing/Surf craft 2. Northern end of Fingal beach 3. Southern end of Fingal beach (when there are no lifesaving/lifeguard services operating) 4. Point Danger Table 3.2.8.3: Current and recommended lifeguard service

Current Lifeguard Service

Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times

Duranbah/Flagstaff Spring School Holidays 7 days 9am - 5pm

Summer School Holidays 7 days 9am - 6pm

Shoulder Period (Feb/Mar) 2 days (Weekends) 9am - 5pm

Autumn School Holidays 7 days 9am - 5pm

Recommended Lifeguard Service

Duranbah/Flagstaff Spring School Holidays 7 days 9am - 5pm

Shoulder Period (Oct/Nov) 2 days (Weekends) 9am - 5pm

(All summer months) 7 days 9am - 5pm 9am - 6pm (during school holidays)

Shoulder Period (Mar) 2 days (Weekends) 9am - 5pm


Volunteer Lifesaving Service There is no SLSC located at Duranbah.


of 79

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Table 3.2.8.4: Duranbah lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating

Incident History Rating

Remoteness Rating

Total LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 4 4 2 0 5 3 24

Autumn 6 3 4 2 0 2 3 20

Winter 6 3 4 2 0 1 3 19

Spring 6 3 4 2 0 2 3 20

The calculations for spring, summer and autumn support the commentary above. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers (swimmers) and low incident history. Fingal/Letitia Spit: Paid Lifeguard Service It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, the lifeguard service at this beach is currently adequate. Table 3.2.8.5: Current lifeguard service


Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times

Spring School Holidays 5 days 9am - 5pm



Volunteer Lifesaving Service The Fingal Rovers SLSC patrols every Saturday, Sunday and Public Holiday between the start of the spring school holidays until the end of the autumn school holidays or Anzac Day (whichever is later). Table 3.2.8.6: Current and recommended lifesaving service

Current Lifesaving Service

Date Saturday Sundays Public Holidays

Peak (Spring Hols) 9am – 4pm 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm

Shoulder Period 10am – 3pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Peak (Summer Hols) 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm


Peak (Autumn Hols) 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Recommended Lifesaving Service







of 79


Table 3.2.8.7: Fingal lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remotene

ss Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 2 3 3 21

Autumn 6 3 3 2 3 3 20

Winter 6 2 2 1 3 3 17

Spring 6 3 3 2 3 3 20

The calculations for spring, summer and autumn support the current level of service. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Kingscliff: Paid Lifeguard Service Kingscliff is a popular destination that attracts a high number of domestic and international tourists. The beach is backed by coastal accommodation providers such as resorts/hotels, motels, self-contained apartments and two caravan parks. Lifeguards at this beach provide safety to the hundreds of people enjoying recreational activities. For the majority of the time, the southern end of the beach provides a less hazardous place for recreational activities. However, as the beach becomes more exposed around the middle of the beach and towards the northern end, conditions can be drastically different. In emergency situations, lifeguards can quickly respond to these locations and further around to Fingal (10 mins on RWC). Lifeguards can also respond to southern neighbouring locations such as Bogangar/Salt (5mins on RWC). It is proposed that the Kingscliff lifeguard service should expand to cover 12 months (excluding weekends and public holidays during the volunteer surf life saving season). If Kingscliff is patrolled during over this period, positive public relations/media and local educational campaigns may be able to attract visitors (domestic and international) to Kingscliff. This will not only provide a safe place for recreational activities but there will be an increase in the local economy as beachgoers will utilise local businesses such as cafes/restaurants etc. The benefit of a 12 month service will ensure that any tourist/local has the option of swimming at a patrolled beach all year round in the Tweed Shire Council. An option to assist with funding for this lifeguard service is the introduction of paid parking (for non-locals) at the main car parks at Kingscliff. This strategy has been developed by many coastal councils and national park locations. Table 3.2.8.8: Current and recommended lifeguard service







Winter 7 days 10am - 4pm

Non surf life saving season (Spring & Autumn)

7 days 10am - 4pm

Surf life saving season 5 days 9am - 5pm then 9am - 6pm (during summer school holidays)


of 79

Volunteer Lifesaving Service The Cudgen Headland SLSC patrols every Saturday, Sunday and Public Holiday between the start of the spring school holidays until the end of the autumn school holidays or Anzac Day (whichever is later). Table 3.2.8.9: Current and recommended lifesaving service





Peak (Summer Hols) 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm 9am - 5pm









Lifesaving Service Level Calculator Table 3.2.8.10: Kingscliff lifesaving service level calculator


Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating

Total LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 4 4 2 0 5 3 24

Autumn 6 3 4 2 0 5 3 23

Winter 6 2 4 2 0 5 3 22

Spring 6 3 4 2 0 5 3 23

The calculations for spring, summer, autumn and winter support the commentary above. Bogangar/Salt: Paid Lifeguard Service The Salt lifeguard service are currently contracted to provide an all year round service (365 days) until 2014/2015. When this contract expires, the Tweed Shire Council will have to make an informed decision whether to retain this service in its current capacity or decrease the number of days Salt is patrolled throughout the year. The beach at Salt does not attract the same levels of tourists/locals that visit Duranbah and Kingscliff, however as the beach is backed by large resorts and new development, public safety at this location should still be a high consideration. This location is also highly exposed to high waves, rip currents and inshore gutters/holes. After the contract for Salt expires, it is recommended that patrol coverage be decreased as funding can be used at other priority locations such as Duranbah and Kingscliff. However, as the beach is backed by large resorts and new development, a lifeguard service should still operate during school holiday periods (spring, summer and autumn) and during the summer months (excluding weekends and public holidays). Resort management may be unsupportive of a reduction in patrol coverage, however there is an opportunity for a joint arrangement in regards to co-funding between resort management and Tweed Shire Council. Resort management may also be able to promote Kingscliff as the premier swimming location in the area and a return shuttle bus service could be arranged between Salt and Kingscliff when the beach at Salt is not patrolled. If the 12 month service is relocated to Kingscliff a corresponding education campaign would need to be developed and this can be promoted through Tweed Shire Council and Northern Rivers Tourism.


of 79

Table 3.2.8.11: Current and recommended lifeguard service



12 months 5 days 9am - 5pm

1/2 day Sat & Sun 2pm - 5pm



(All summer months) 5 days 9am - 6pm


Volunteer Lifesaving Service The Salt SLSC patrols every Saturday, Sunday and Public Holiday between the start of the spring school holidays until the end of the autumn school holidays or Anzac Day (whichever is later). Currently, lifeguards at Salt patrol during the afternoon period from 2pm to 5pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays. It is proposed that for season 2015/2016 the club will take over the afternoon patrols currently conducted by lifeguards. Table 3.2.8.12: Current and recommended lifesaving service



Sep – Autumn 8am – 2pm 8am – 2pm 8am – 2pm

Recommended Lifesaving Service (Season 2015-2016)







Table 3.2.8.13: Salt lifesaving service level calculator


Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating

Total LSSL Score

New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 2 0 5 3 23

Autumn 6 2 3 2 0 4 3 20

Winter 6 1 2 2 0 4 3 18

Spring 6 2 3 2 0 4 3 20

The calculations for summer, autumn, winter and spring support the commentary above. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Casuarina: Paid Lifeguard Service It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, the lifeguard service at this beach is currently adequate. Table 3.2.8.14: Current lifeguard service








of 79

Volunteer Lifesaving Service There is no SLSC located at Casuarina Table 3.2.8.15: Casuarina lifesaving service level calculator


Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating

Total LSSL Score

New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 2 0 2 3 20

Autumn 6 2 3 2 0 2 3 18

Winter 6 1 2 1 0 2 3 15

Spring 6 2 3 2 0 2 3 18

The calculations for summer support the current level of service. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over autumn, winter and spring should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods (excluding the month of march), a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Cabarita: Paid Lifeguard Service Cabarita is another popular destination for tourists and locals. Lifeguards at this beach can also respond to emergency incidents to the north, but most importantly to the south at Norries Head and South Bogangar/North beach, both of which can be highly hazardous beaches. Table 3.2.8.16: Current and recommended lifeguard service








(All summer months) 5 days 9am - 6pm


Volunteer Lifesaving Service Cabarita SLSC patrols every Saturday, Sunday and Public Holiday between the start of the spring school holidays until the end of the autumn school holidays or Anzac Day (whichever is later). Table 3.2.8.17: Current and recommended lifesaving service



Sep 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Oct/Nov 10am – 2pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Dec/Jan 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm 9am – 5pm

Feb/Mar 10am – 2pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Easter 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Apr 10am – 2pm 9am – 4pm 9am – 4pm

Recommended Lifesaving Service







of 79

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator Table 3.2.8.18: Cabarita lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residenc

y Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total LSSL

Score

New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 1 0 5 3 22

Autumn 6 3 3 1 0 4 3 20

Winter 6 2 2 1 0 4 3 18

Spring 6 3 3 1 0 4 3 20

The calculations for spring, summer and autumn support the commentary above. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Norries Head: There is currently no lifeguard or lifesaving service at this location. It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, a system of supervision at this location is not of high priority at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.19: Norries Head lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residenc

y Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total LSSL

Score

New Existing

Summer 5 2 4 1 3 3 18

Autumn 5 2 3 1 3 3 17

Winter 5 1 2 1 3 3 15

Spring 5 2 3 1 3 3 17

The calculations support that a service is not required at this location. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. South Bogangar/North Beach: There is currently no lifeguard or lifesaving service at this location. It is the view of Australian Coast Safe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, a system of supervision at this location is not of high priority at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.20: South Bogangar/North Beach lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residenc

y Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total LSSL

Score

New Existing

Summer 6 2 3 1 5 3 20

Autumn 6 2 2 1 2 3 16

Winter 6 1 2 1 2 3 15

Spring 6 2 2 1 2 3 16

The calculations support that a service is not required at this location over spring, autumn and winter. During summer the calculation supports 2 lifeguards during this period. This calculation of 20 during has scored high as a drowning occurred at this location during December 2011. Despite this calculation, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Furthermore, even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over spring, autumn


of 79

and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Hastings Point: Paid Lifeguard Service It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, the lifeguard service at this beach is currently adequate. Table 3.2.8.21: Current Lifeguard service







Volunteer Lifesaving Service There is no SLSC located at Hastings Point. Table 3.2.8.22: Hastings Point lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 3 4 2 4 4 20

Autumn 3 3 4 2 4 4 20

Winter 3 1 2 2 3 4 16

Spring 3 3 4 2 4 4 20

These calculations support the service of spring, summer and autumn. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Pottsville North (Cudgera): Paid Lifeguard Service Pottsville is the largest southern most town in the Tweed LGA and is a popular destination. The beach has numerous access points which are appealing to the public. The beach at Pottsville can be highly hazardous, especially around the break wall. The response time for emergency services at this location also increases due to the distance from Kingscliff, where the nearest emergency services are located. Lifeguards from Pottsville also respond to emergency incidents at Pottsville South and Wooyung. Table 3.2.8.23: Current and recommended lifeguard service












of 79

Volunteer Lifesaving Service There is no lifesaving service SLSC located at North Pottsville, however volunteer lifesavers from Cabarita SLSC occasionally patrol at this location during well-known busy weekends in December, January and February. Below were the lifesaving patrol dates and hours for last season. Table 3.2.8.24: Current lifesaving service



11, 18 Nov/2 Dec 12 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm

26 & 28 Jan 13 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm

3 & 10 Feb 13 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm 9am – 1pm

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator Table 3.2.8.25: Pottsville North lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 3 4 2 0 4 4 23

Autumn 6 2 3 2 0 3 4 20

Winter 6 1 3 2 0 1 4 17

Spring 6 2 3 2 0 3 4 20

The calculations for spring, summer and autumn support the commentary above. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Pottsville South Paid Lifeguard Service It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, the lifeguard service at this beach is currently sufficient. Table 3.2.8.26: Current lifeguard service






Volunteer Lifesaving Service There is no SLSC located at Pottsville South. Lifesaving Service Level Calculator Table 3.2.8.27: Pottsville South lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 3 1 3 4 19

Autumn 6 2 2 1 3 4 18

Winter 6 1 2 1 3 4 17

Spring 6 2 2 1 3 4 18


of 79

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Wooyung: There is currently no lifeguard or lifesaving service at this location. It is the view of Australian CoastSafe, that through on-site data collected, consultation and beach usage statistics, a system of supervision at this location is not of high priority at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.28: Wooyung lifesaving service level calculator

Season ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 2 3 1 3 4 19

Autumn 6 2 2 1 3 4 18

Winter 6 1 2 1 3 4 17

Spring 6 2 2 1 3 4 18

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over spring, summer, autumn and winter should be considered if a lifeguard service were to be provided during these periods, a service has not been recommended due to lower visitation numbers and low incident history. Tweed Property Development Plans for property development are currently underway in some locations in the Tweed LGA. This development may impact on an increase in beach usage at all locations within the area but will have a direct impact on the locations of Salt, Casuarina, Cabarita, Norries Head and South Bogangar/North Beach. To address this potential increase in beach usage one tool the Tweed Shire Council should utilise is the ‘Lifesaving Service Level Calculator’. This should be done on an annual basis while property development is occurring in these areas to work out if beach usage is increasing. Lifeguard services at nearby locations may need to be developed or extended based on the results of the ‘Lifesaving Service Level Calculator’ and other incidents that may be occurring in the area. Tweed Shire Council already do a great job in ensuring property development plans have considered the link between population growth/increased beach usage and coastal public safety. Treatment Option 1.13 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 1.14 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Duranbah to patrol all weekends during the surf life saving season. Lifeguards should also patrol every day during the summer months.

Treatment Option 1.15 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Kingscliff to provide year round patrols, excluding when the volunteer lifesavers patrol the beach on weekends and public holidays (during the surf life saving season).

Treatment Option 1.16 After the contract for Salt expires, it is recommended that lifeguard patrol coverage is decreased as funding can be used at other priority locations such as Duranbah and Kingscliff. However, as the beach is backed by large resorts and new development, a lifeguard service should still operate during the school holiday periods (spring, summer and autumn). Lifeguards should also patrol every day during the summer months (weekdays).


of 79

Treatment Option 1.17 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Cabarita to patrol every day during the summer months (weekdays).

Treatment Option 1.18 Explore the means to fund an increase to the Tweed lifeguard service at Pottsville North to provide coverage on weekends from the end of the summer school holidays until the start of the autumn school holidays.

Treatment Option 1.19 Utilise the ‘Lifesaving Service Level Calculator’ on an annual basis, or as population densities change significantly, to measure the extent of increased beach usage in proximity to the proposed Kings Forest property development at Cabarita.

Treatment Option 4.3 Surf Life Saving New South Wales & Surf Life Saving Far North Coast should work with Fingal, Cudgen Headland, Salt and Cabarita Surf Life Saving Clubs to align volunteer patrolling hours to ensure consistent service delivery across the Tweed Coast.


of 79

4. Emergency Response The relatively high rate of critical emergency incidents in the Tweed LGA makes ‘emergency response’ considerations very relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the area. Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to: o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000) o Emergency phones o Emergency response beacons o Emergency service response o Radio coverage o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service) 4.1 Emergency Communications/Reporting - Triple Zero (000) The ability of members of the public to request assistance in an emergency is an important component of a drowning prevention strategy. Triple Zero (000) should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency on all relevant signage/safety information and facilitated through any (specific) emergency communication devices.

4.2 Emergency Response Beacons

Emergency Response Beacons (ERB) Emergency Response Beacons can be positioned in high use / high risk areas. They are highly visible and once activated, link via radio to lifesaving services or park staff. The two main types of ERB are: Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach lifesaving service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non lifesaving). Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system, whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those monitoring the ERB. Fixed Emergency Response Beacons are generally only considered for use in a high risk location, where no or limited mobile/cell phone coverage exists and where a service can ensure, show and maintain 100% coverage/monitoring of the beacon and have in place a consistent process of equipment checking/testing (daily). More information about Emergency Response Beacons can be provided by Surf Life Saving New South Wales. Due to the number of emergency incidents, visitation numbers and ease of access, a mobile emergency response beacon should be utilised by lifeguards and lifesavers when on duty at the below locations to help improve response times. o North Kingscliff Caravan Park (1.5km north of club) o Fingal/Letitia Spit (1.7km north of club)


of 79

Figure 4.2.1: A mobile Emergency Response Beacon in place at a beach.

It is reminded that a mobile emergency response beacon should not replace a roving patrol.

Treatment Option 4.4 Explore the means to fund Emergency Response Beacons (mobile) at the following locations to be used in conjunction with lifesaving and lifeguard patrols: North Kingscliff Caravan Park (1.5km north of club) Fingal/Letitia Spit (1.7km north of club)


of 79

4.3 Emergency Service Response

The relatively high rate of coastal emergency incidents in the Tweed LGA compared with other coastal councils in NSW makes the considerations for ‘emergency response’ very relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the area. Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the Tweed LGA. Resources that may respond include: o Police (including Water Police) o Ambulance (including the Westpac Helicopter) o Australian Lifeguard Service - Tweed Shire Council o Surf Life Saving Far North Coast (Branch Callout Teams & SLSCs) o State Emergency Service (SES) o Rural Fire Service o Marine Rescue NSW The map on the next page outlines the locations of emergency services on the Tweed coastline. Below is a summary of these locations. Table 4.3.1: Coastal Emergency Service locations for Tweed LGA.

Emergency Services - Tweed LGA

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb Phone Number

NSW Police Service Station 50 Recreation Street Tweed Heads (07) 5536 0999

NSW Police Service Station 156 Marine Parade Kingscliff (02) 6674 9399

NSW Ambulance Station 17 Solander Street Tweed Heads 13 1233

NSW Ambulance Station 48 Marine Parade Kingscliff 13 1233

NSW Fire Brigade Station Corner Minjungbal Drive & Dry Dock Road Tweed Heads (07) 5536 2222

NSW Fire Brigade Station 152 Marine Parade Kingscliff (02) 6674 1271

State Marine Rescue Unit Tweed Terrace Point Danger (07) 5536 9333

State Marine Rescue Unit 1 Bay Street Tweed Heads (02) 6676 2997

State Marine Rescue Unit Marine Parade Kingscliff (02) 6674 2451

State Marine Rescue Unit 1/1 Coronation Avenue Pottsville (02) 6676 2997

The majority of emergency services within the Tweed LGA are located around Tweed Heads and Kingscliff and therefore have relatively quick response times to these locations. As you begin to head south of Kingscliff average response times will increase.


of 79

Figure 4.3.1: Coastal Emergency Service locations for Tweed LGA.


of 79

Emergency Service Communications (internal / joint) Radio coverage for surf life saving communications was assessed and the large majority of areas have a strong signal strength. Some areas including Duranbah and Cudgera/Pottsville have moderate/limited coverage in small pockets however; there are no black spot locations (no coverage what so ever). NSW Water Police - Marine Area Command During the course of the assessment the lack of a NSW Water Police - Marine Area Command between Coffs Harbour and the Queensland/New South Wales border was brought to the attention of assessors. Concerns were raised in relation to the provision of Search and Rescue, which is the responsibility of the NSW Police Force and also enforcement, considering the time necessary to respond to incidents from Coffs Harbour to the Far North Coast of New South Wales. Also raised were the risks associated with moving assets and personnel vast distances either by road or sea. A Marine Area Command based in the Tweed LGA would improve response by NSW Police to this area as well as reducing the risks posed to NSW Police Force personnel and assets during transit. 4.4 Border Relations Surf rescue agencies from NSW and QLD (Australian Lifeguard Service – Tweed, Gold Coast City Lifeguards, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast and Surf Life Saving Point Danger) often work together when emergency incidents occur close to the state border e.g. Point Danger, Duranbah, Tweed River Mouth and Fingal (map following page). There is an opportunity for these agencies to improve border relations. Improvements relate to information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures. A first step could be an open forum between relevant agencies. 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. When an incident occurs around the NSW/QLD border, State Duty Officers firstly notify assets from NSW but then directly after contact assets from QLD e.g. the Gold Coast City Lifeguards. Through the QLD emergency response system, the Westpac Helicopter based on the Gold Coast can be utilised to respond to emergencies at boarder locations. This helicopter will have a quicker ‘Estimated Time of Arrival’ (ETA) than the Westpac Helicopter from Lismore. Due to the limited mobile phone towers in the Tweed LGA, when the SRERS is called through upward notification (local Duty Officers, Lifeguard Supervisors and Emergency Services) the call is answered by the QLD Emergency Response System, not NSW. Because this occurs, the Far North Coast Branch advertise the actual mobile number of SRERS. There are still instances however where this process is not followed and can delay emergency response. Lifeguard/Lifesaving Resources The lifeguard and lifesaving patrol dates and times for Duranbah and Fingal can be referenced on (p.62, 63). Below are the patrol dates and times for Rainbow Bay (Gold Coast). The lifesavers/lifeguards patrol at Rainbow Bay for 365 days.


of 79

Table 4.4.1: Rainbow Bay Lifeguards and Lifesavers patrol coverage

Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times

Rainbow Bay Lifeguards

01/09/12 to 30/11/12 5 days 8am - 5pm

01/12/12 to 31/01/13 5 days 7:30am – 6:30pm

01/02/13 to 31/03/13 5 days 8am - 5pm

01/04/13 to 31/08/13 7 days 8am - 5pm

Rainbow Bay SLSC 19/09/12 to 03/05/13 Sat, Sun & Public Holidays 8am - 5pm

The map below demonstrates that Rainbow Bay lifeguards/lifesavers are the closest and most appropriate resource to respond to emergency incidents south of the NSW border when the lifeguards and lifesavers are not on patrol at Duranbah and Fingal. The estimated time of arrival (ETA) for resources at Rainbow Bay to arrive at Duranbah is 5 minutes and the ETA to arrive at the southern end of Fingal is 10 minutes. On the other hand, if an incident occurs around Point Danger/Snapper Rocks area lifeguards from Duranbah have the opportunity to assist lifeguards from Rainbow Bay if required. Table 4.4.2: Border relations map showing the close proximity of services

Treatment Option 4.5 Cross-border joint operations between surf rescue agencies and other emergency services operating in both NSW and QLD should be improved by developing formalised standard operating procedures.


of 79

5. Monitor and Review

This process ensures that risk treatment options are meeting their objectives, new hazards and risks are identified in a timely manner and evolving strategies are in line with community expectations. Land Managers should ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This should include a process for the collection of data regarding any incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed as well as the use of public rescue equipment and emergency response phones. Land Managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with this task. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage and public rescue equipment.

Treatment Options 1.20 & 2.9 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented.

Treatment Options 1.21 & 2.10 All drowning prevention strategies should be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance.


of 79

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

th June 2012’, Australian National Sports fishing Association (NSW

Branch)’, Sydney, viewed on 7TH

January, 2013

<http://www.angelrings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/NewsBulliten17thJune2012.pdf>

Barns, R 2012, ‘NSW Councils Beach Safety Information Signage’, State-wide Mutual, Sydney

Bradstreet A, Sherker S, Brighton B, Weir A, Thompson, M 2012, ‘Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales’,

Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney.

Census Data, 2011, ‘Quick Stats – Tweed Local Government Area’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, viewed on 4

February, 2013

Destination NSW, 2011, ‘Travel to Tweed Local Government Area’, Tourism Research Australia, Canberra, viewed on 4

February, 2013

Life Saving Victoria, 2006, ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual’, 3rd edition, State Government of

Victoria, Melbourne

McCarthey, A 2012, ‘Advice – Liability of Council when installing Water Safety Signage & Personal Rescue Equipment’, State

of New South Wales (Crown Solicitor’s Office), Sydney

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

Nowra

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

Standards Australia, 2009, ‘AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’, 4th edition, Standards

Australia, Sydney

Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 1: Specifications for water

safety signs used in workplaces and public areas’, Standards Australia, Sydney

Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 2: Specifications for beach

safety flags – “colour, shape, meaning and performance’, Standards Australia, Sydney

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

Standards Australia, Sydney

State-wide Mutual, 2007, ‘Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision’, V.3, State-wide Mutual, Sydney

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

Sydney

Surf Life Saving Australia, 2011, ‘Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessor Learner Guide’, V.3, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney

Tweed Shire Council, 2010 ‘Emergency Beach Locators and Emergency Vehicle Access Points’, Tweed Shire Council,

Murwillumbah

Tweed Local Government Area - watersafety.nsw.gov.au · Norries Head 10. Wooyung...

Documents

Transcript of Tweed Local Government Area - watersafety.nsw.gov.au · Norries Head 10. Wooyung...