Download pdf - Gosford Local Government Area - Water Safety NSW · Gosford Local Government Area July 2013. ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 7 North Avoca 22 Little Tallow 8 Avoca 23 Box Head

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 Gosford Local Government Area

July 2013

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Gosford Local Government Area

Page 2 of 88

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


Page 3 of 88

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 ASSESSMENT AREA/PARAMETER’S ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 19 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 20 2.6 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................................. 20 2.7 ABSAMP BEACH TYPES AND RATINGS FOR BEACHES IN GOSFORD LGA ..................................................................... 21 2.8 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .......................................................................... 23 2.9 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ...................................................................................................................... 26 2.10 FACILITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 2.11 BEACH USAGE & INCIDENT STATISTICS ............................................................................................................... 30 2.12 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................. 39

3. RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 42

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (GROSS RISK) ........................................................................................................... 42 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index .............................................................................................................. 42

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety & Aquatic Management Program Rating (ABSAMP Rating) ........................ 43

3.1.3 Local Population Rating ....................................................................................................................... 45

3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ...................................................................................................... 46

3.1.5 Access Rating ....................................................................................................................................... 47

3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score .............................................................................................................. 49

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ......................................................................................................... 53 3.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 53

3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) .............................................................................................. 53

3.2.3 Educate and Awareness Programmes ................................................................................................. 54

3.2.4 Safety Signage ..................................................................................................................................... 58

3.2.5 Emergency Marker System .................................................................................................................. 62

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes .................................. 64

3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment ..................................................................................................................... 66

3.2.8 System of Supervision .......................................................................................................................... 68

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................. 80

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) ........................................................................... 80 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ....................................................................................................................... 80 4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ......................................................................................................................... 82 4.4 CENTRAL COAST EMERGENCY TASKING ................................................................................................................ 85

5 MONITOR AND REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 87

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 88


Page 4 of 88

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


Page 5 of 88

Executive Summary This report contains findings and recommendations specific to current International and Australian standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific to locations under the authority of Gosford City Council, National Parks & Wildlife Service – Office of Environment & Heritage and Crown Lands.

1 Forresters 16 Bouddi Point

2 Spoon Bay 17 Maitland Bay

3 Wamberal 18 Gerrin Point

4 Terrigal 19 Bullimah

5 Terrigal Haven 20 Putty/Killcare

6 Skillion Head 21 Tallow

7 North Avoca 22 Little Tallow

8 Avoca 23 Box Head

9 Winnie Bay 24 Iron Ladder

10 Copacabana 25 Lobster

11 MacMasters 26 Ocean

12 Mourwaring Point 27 Umina

13 Little 28 Pearl

14 Bombi Point 29 Middle Head

15 Caves Bay

Activities/Facilities The area has approx 37 kilometres of assessed coastline and is a beach fringed local government area. The area is administered by the Gosford City Council & National Park & Wildlife Service. There are 21 beaches in the assessment area starting from Forresters NSW283 to Middle Head NSW299. There are numerous rock platforms along the coastline that can see moderate levels of rock platform use (e.g. rock fishing). During the on site data collection Australian CoastSafe assessed 8 rock platform areas which are also included in the list above. The area sees year round public usage and recreational activity, namely swimming, surfing, walking and rock fishing. Specific data relating to total public usage and user trends is sufficient for the purposes of this report and fulfils the requirements of the various risk based calculations used in this report. This data has been obtained through Surf Life Saving & Gosford City Council beach usage statistics, consultation and observations made at the time of assessment. A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including camping grounds, well maintained car parks and key beach access, numerous public toilets/changing rooms, BBQ’s and picnic tables. Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and appendices, the Gosford Local Government Area (LGA) holds a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix C, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Gosford LGA: Strong ocean currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type Waves/waves over washing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells Inshore holes/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks/surface: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms/reefs: As a result of coastal geography Surfing collision: As a result of human interaction


Page 6 of 88

Dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography Based on the risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong ocean currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves over washing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks/surface: Fishermen, rock platform users, walkers Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms/reefs: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Surfing collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters Dangerous access: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Existing Risk Treatments Gosford City Council in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented a number of effectives risk treatment initiatives within the area, these include: o Safety Signage o Lifesaving Services o Education Material o School Education


Page 7 of 88

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 Gosford City Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options Strategic Coordination:

1.1 Beach usage and incident data (drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguards

statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety.(p.38)

1.2 Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast should continue to hold regular surf liaison

meetings as an effective forum which raises coastal safety issues and implements strategies in the Gosford Local Government Area. A member from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Bouddi National Park and the Wyrrabalong National Park) should also be represented at this meeting. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.41)

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

evidence.(p.52) Education: 1.4 Education and awareness programmes within the Gosford Local Government Area should continue to be

implemented and developed. (p.57)

1.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. Water Safety NSW website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.57)

1.6 Explore funding options to assist Surf Life Saving Central Coast engage an Education Officer to facilitate

school education programs within the Gosford Local Government Area. (p.57) 1.7 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.57)

1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. It is recommended that Gosford City Council work with these agencies to promote these programmes and encourage enhanced participation at a local level. (p.57)

1.9 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear lifejackets. (p.57)

Signage: 1.10 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be

implemented by Land Managers at the locations listed in Appendix A. This may include 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.61)


Page 8 of 88

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 informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.(p.65)

Surveillance and Supervision: 1.12 The level of lifesaving and lifeguarding service (i.e. staffing levels, operational dates, and operational

hours) provided by Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast should be reviewed regularly to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.(p.79)

Emergency Response: 1.13 Surf emergency response procedures to be further reviewed to promote a faster and more coordinated

response to aquatic emergencies.(p.86) Review: 1.14 Gosford City Council in partnership with other stakeholders (where appropriate) should review the

effectiveness of any risk treatment plans and initiatives that have been implemented, on at least an annual basis. (p.87)

1.15 All drowning prevention strategies should continue to be documented and incorporated into the relevant

strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance (p.87)

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 lifeguards

statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.38)

2.2 Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises coastal safety issues and implements strategies in the Gosford Local Government Area. A member from National Parks and Wildlife Service (Bouddi National Park and the Wyrrabalong National Park) should be represented at these committee meetings once a year as coastal Land Managers in the Gosford Local Government Area. (p. 41)

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

evidence. (p.52) 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.57) 2.5 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear

lifejackets. (p.57)


Page 9 of 88

Signage: 2.6 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be

implemented by Land Managers at the locations listed in Appendix A. This may include 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.61)

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.65)

Emergency Response:

2.8 Surf Life Saving Support Services (Central Coast) and Gosford City Council Lifeguard Supervisors should be issued gate access keys to access identified gates in Wyrrabalong National Park and Boudi National Park for use in the event of an emergency. This should be implemented under an appropriately authorised and administered system. (p. 84)

Review: 2.9 The National Parks and Wildlife Service - Office of Environment and Heritage in partnership with other

stakeholders (where appropriate) should review the effectiveness of any risk treatment plans and initiatives that have been implemented, on at least an annual basis. (p.87)

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.87)

Recommendation 3 Australian CoastSafe and Surf Life Saving New South Wales should consider implementing the following risk treatment options Strategic Coordination: 3.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf

Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed. (p.22)

3.2 Radio tests within the assessment area should be conducted by surf life saving to analyse the need for

upgrades in radio infrastructure. (p. 84) Recommendation 4 The Water Safety Advisory Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options Strategic Coordination: 4.1 A review be commissioned to analyse the historical environmental conditions at the time of recorded

drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors. (p.35)


Page 10 of 88

Education:

4.2 Develop relationships with tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network program with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral e.g. brochures, flyers, pamphlets etc. to all coastal accommodation providers in the Gosford Local Government Area. (p.57)

4.3 Identify the relevant user groups and related resources/websites (including non-english) that promote

rock fishing in the Gosford Local Government Area, and target safety messaging to those groups/resources. This research may also provide the opportunity for targeted education campaigns. (p.57)

Signage: 4.4 In consultation with the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Surf Life Saving New South

Wales, Land Managers should implement a state-aligned emergency marker program at all identified access locations (incl. safety signage) once such a program is established. (p.63)

Public Rescue Equipment:

4.5 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in Appendix C. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations. (p. 67)

Recommendation 5 Surf Life Saving Central Coast should consider implementing the following risk treatment options Strategic Coordination: 5.1 Gosford City Council & Surf Life Saving Central Coast & National Parks and Wildleife Service should

continue to hold regularly scheduled surf liaison meetings as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Gosford 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.41)

Education: 5.2 Explore funding options to assist Surf Life Saving Central Coast engage an Education Officer to facilitate

school education programs within the Gosford Local Government Area. (p. 57) Surveillance & Supervision: 5.3 The level of lifesaving and lifeguarding service (i.e. staffing levels, operational dates, and operational

hours) provided by Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast should be reviewed regularly to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.(p.79)

5.4 Surf Life Saving Central Coast Support Operations (eg: RWC and Duty Officer) resources could be used to formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations and report that information back to SurfCom or the Local Lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond. (p. 79)

Emergency Response: 5.5 Emergency response procedures to be further reviewed to promote a faster and more coordinated

response to aquatic emergencies. (p.86)


Page 11 of 88

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 located in the Gosford City Council. Tragically, New South Wales (NSW) accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 30 June 2013, there have been 338 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 2004.

1. The vast majority of these

can be attributed to swimming/rip-currents and rock-fishing, with almost all occurring at unpatrolled locations/times, where no expert assistance is immediately available. Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of causal factors known as the ‘drowning chain’. These are: o Lack of knowledge, disregard or misunderstanding of the hazard o Uninformed or unrestricted access to the hazard o Lack of supervision or surveillance o An inability to cope once in difficulty The strategies that have been identified to address the drowning chain are: o Education and information o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings o Provision of supervision o Acquisition of survival skills

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

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database


Page 12 of 88

This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with clear evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders and the application of effective risk mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required. It is acknowledged that land managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land managers should balance their water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide services and facilities to meet the current future needs of their local communities as a whole, all within a limited budget. This report recognises that there are many inherent risks associated with the NSW coastline and that in most instances these risks associated with the NSW coastline cannot be eliminated and can only be managed within the operations contexts of the land manager, taking into account all of their responsibilities and available resources. This report also recognises that visitors to these areas also have a personal responsibility for their own safety and those they are responsible for. The recommendations found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to risk management at the locations assessed.

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 (every accessible beach and rock platform). The assessments to be conducted will be on beaches and rock platforms listed as open coast under the ABSAMP system. Bay beaches (e.g. Broken Bay, Botany Bay) fall outside the scope of this assessment. The program will be staged over several years with phase one to include the top ten drowning locations by Local Government Area (LGA) in NSW. The report provides risk treatment recommendations about how to improve risk and safety management in line with current Australian and International 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 Gosford City Council which commenced on Monday 22

nd

April 2013 and concluded on Thursday 2nd

May 2013. The assessment covered all coastal locations identified in Figure 2.2.1 (p.16). Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating may occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this report. Boat ramps and bars at river mouths that fall within the assessed areas identified in Appendix D have been assessed within the framework of the coastal public safety risk assessment process. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au. The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment.


Page 13 of 88

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, they were performed from the land, along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.

1.3 Limitations

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

report as a result of the project timeframes.

1.4 Definition of Terms

The following are definitions of key terms used within this report. Table 1.4.1: Glossary of terms and acronyms used in this report.

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety And Management Program

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

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

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

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event

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

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

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

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


Page 14 of 88

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

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

Likelihood Used as a general description of probability or frequency

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

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

Peak Water Safety Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 15 of 88

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments

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

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

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

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

Risk Evaluation Process of comparing the level of risk against criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Project Team

Adam Weir – Coastal Risk Manager Australian CoastSafe Surf Life Saving New South Wales Ph: 02-9471 8000 | F: 02-9471 8001 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




Page 16 of 88

2. Assessment Methodology

2.1 Introduction

The methodology included site identification and inspection, hazard identification and risk assessment, beach identification and detailed risk assessments, beach usage and incident data and communication and consultation.

2.2 Assessment Area/Parameter’s

The figure below provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the Gosford LGA subject to the coastal public safety risk assessment. The specific site locations can be referenced in Appendix D. The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Gosford City Council o National Parks & Wildlife Service

Wyrrabalong National Park Boudi National Park

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 constraints of the assessment are determined by the areas constituting the Ballina Shire Council, including accesses to coastal aquatic venues within the area that may fall under differing Land Manager jurisdiction. Specific geographic constraints may be determined for individual venues as part of project preparation and be represented within the 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. Only beaches classified as ocean beaches under the Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme have been assessed as part of this assessment. Beaches classified as bay beaches have been excluded.


Page 17 of 88

Figure 2.2.1: Gosford City Council overview of beach locations


Page 18 of 88

2.3 Site Inspection

Site visits were completed on the following dates. Table 2.3.1: Site locations and the dates of assessment:

Location Land Authority Manager Date

Forresters Gosford City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 22nd

April 2013

Spoon Bay National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 23rd

April 2013

Wamberal Gosford City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 23rd

April 2013

Terrigal Gosford City Council Wednesday 24th

April 2013

Terrigal Haven Gosford City Council Wednesday 24th

April 2013

Skillion Head Gosford City Council Wednesday 24th

April 2013

North Avoca Gosford City Council Wednesday 24th

April 2013

Avoca Gosford City Council Friday 26th

April 2013

Winnie Bay Gosford City Council Friday 26th

April 2013

Copacabana Gosford City Council Thursday 25th

April 2013

MacMasters Gosford City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service Thursday 25th

April 2013 & Friday 26

th April 2013

Mourwaring Point

National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Little National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Bombi Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Caves Bay National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Bouddi Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Maitland Bay National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Gerrin Point National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Bullimah National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Putty Gosford City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service Monday 29th

April 2013

Killcare Gosford City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Tallow National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Little Tallow National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Box Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Iron Ladder National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Lobster National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 30th

April 2013

Ocean Gosford City Council Thursday 2nd

May 2013

Umina Gosford City Council Thursday 2nd

May 2013

Pearl Gosford City Council Thursday 2nd

May 2013

Middle Head National Parks and Wildlife Service Thursday 2nd

May 2013


Page 19 of 88

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 (consequence) and the likelihood of this harm actually occurring (likelihood). Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and appendices, the Gosford Local Government Area (LGA) holds a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix C, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Gosford LGA: Strong ocean currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type Waves/waves over washing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells Inshore holes/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks/surface: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms/reefs: As a result of coastal geography Surfing collision: As a result of human interaction Dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography Based on the risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong ocean currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves over washing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks/surface: Fishermen, rock platform users, walkers Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Rock shelves/platforms/reefs: Surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Surfing collision: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters Dangerous access: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Existing Risk Treatments Gosford City Council in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented a number of effectives risk treatment initiatives within the area, these include: o Safety Signage o Lifesaving Services o Education Material o School Education


Page 20 of 88

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 – 2011 Census data o Beachsafe (2012) www.beachsafe.org.au o National Coronial Information System o Gosford City Council Lifeguards – Service Data o Australian National Sportfishing Association – angel-ring program – location and usage data 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) o Surf Guard patrol statistics (lifesaving) o NSW Tourism Statistics

2.6 Beach Hazard Ratings and Overview

The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme) was developed by Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney - Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The programme has identified coastal hazards that affect 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:

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.

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


Page 21 of 88

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 Gosford LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.

2.7 ABSAMP Beach Types and Ratings for beaches in Gosford LGA

The ABSAMP hazard rating for the assessed beaches is listed in table 2.6.1. The table provides an ABSAMP rating and descriptive label/name type for each specific beach location. Table 2.7.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Gosford Local Government Area.

Location Name Absamp No. Absamp Rating Absamp Type

Forresters nsw283 4 Reflective

Spoon Bay nsw284 4 Reflective / Low Tide Tce

Wamberal nsw285a 7 Transverse Bar Rip

Terrigal nsw285b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Terrigal Haven nsw286 3 Reflective

Skillion Head nsw286RPa 5* Rock Platform

North Avoca nsw287a 7 Rhythmic Bar Beach

Avoca nsw287b 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Winnie Bay nsw287RPa 6* Rock Platform

Copacabana nsw288a 6 Transverse Bar Rip

MacMasters nsw288b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Mourwaring Point nsw288RPa 5* Rock Platform

Little nsw289 4 Low Tide Terrace / Rocks

Bombi Point nsw289RPa 4* Rock Platform

Caves Bay nsw289RPb 4* Rock Platform

Bouddi Point nsw289RPc 4* Rock Platform


Page 22 of 88

Location Name Absamp No. Absamp Rating Absamp Type

Maitland Bay nsw290 3 Reflective

Gerrin Point nsw290RPa 4* Rock Platform

Bullimah nsw291 4 Reflective

Putty nsw292 3 Low Tide Terrace

Killcare Nsw292 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Tallow nsw293 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Little Tallow nsw294 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Box Head nsw294RPa 5* Rock Platform

Iron Ladder nsw295 3 Reflective

Lobster nsw296 3 Reflective

Ocean nsw297a 4 Reflective / Low Tide Tce

Umina nsw297b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Pearl nsw298 4 Reflective

Middle Head nsw299 4 Reflective / Rocks

* Gosford City Council Local Government Area Rock Platform Ratings Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification study on rocky coasts. This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. Prof. Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) has presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform. It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a rock platform. However, in order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed an interim solution has been applied which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.

Treatment option 3.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed.


Page 23 of 88

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 Wamberal o Terrigal o Avoca o Copacabana o MacMasters o Killcare o Tallow o Little Tallow o Umina Figure 2.8.1: Transverse Bar & 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. Low Tide Terrace / Rocks o Putty o Little Figure 2.8.2: Low Tide Terrace

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

may pass right over the bar and not break until the beach face, which behaves much like a reflective beach. At spring low tide, however, the entire bar is usually exposed as a ridge or terrace running parallel to the beach and waves break by plunging heavily on the outer edge of the bar. At mid tide, waves usually break right across the shallow bar, when they are most likely to generate rip currents. The water is returned seaward, both by reflection off the beach face, especially at high tide, and via the mini rips, even if no rip channels are present. The rips, however, are usually shallow, ephemeral or transient meaning they will flow strongly for a few minutes then dissipate

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

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

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

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


Page 24 of 88

Reflective o Forresters o Terrigal Haven o Maitland Bay o Bullimah o Iron Ladder o Lobster o Pearl o Middle Head 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. Rhythmic Bar and Beach o North Avoca Figure 2.8.4: 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.


Page 25 of 88

Reflective + Low Tide Terrace o Spoon Bay o Ocean Figure 2.8.5: Reflective + Low Tide Terrace

Reflective plus low tide terrace beaches are the most common tide-modified beach occurring predominantly across northern Australia where they are exposed to short period waves averaging 0.45 m in height, with tide range averaging up to 10 times the wave height (i.e. 4.5 m). These are characterised by a relatively steep cusped reflective high tide beach, usually composed of medium sand (0.45 mm). The beach face slopes to low tide where it abruptly grades into a low gradient, usually finer sand low tide terrace, which can extend tens of metres seaward. At high tide waves pass unbroken over the terrace and

only break on reaching the high tide beach, similar to the reflective tide-dominated beach. As the tide falls, waves begin to increasingly break across the terrace and at low tide break on the outer edge producing a wide, shallow surf zone across the terrace. If rips are present, they will cut a channel across the terrace and are only active at low tide. Rock Platform o Skillion Head o Winnie Bay o Mourwaring Point o Bombi Point o Caves Bay o Bouddi Point o Gerrin Point o Box Head


Page 26 of 88

2.9 Facility Visitation Rates (FVR) The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a term, which has been developed to provide a quantitative assessment that can be used to determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location). The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes site population use and frequency of use. As the FVR calculation is used to determine aquatic recreational warning signage requirements the figures used are those of the peak period of beach usage. The following calculation is derived using: 1. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback relative to the table values outlined 2. Historical statistical data, and; 3. Utilisation of the Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) formula, where:

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

Rating Development Natural Hazards

1 Virginal bush, cleared land, no infrastructure No hazardous features

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

Sloping ground; no natural water; walking track around reserve

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

dog areas

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

than 1 metre

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

ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 metre and 3 metres

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

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 metres

Table 2.9.2: Typical development ratings for beaches.

Rating Development

1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2





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


Page 27 of 88

Table 2.9.4: Suggested Frequency of use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event in held at the facility

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

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

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

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

Table 2.9.5: Facility visitation rate calculations for the assessed locations.

Location Name Development Rating

* Population + Frequency = FVR

Forresters 2 5 4 14

Spoon Bay 2 4 4 12

Wamberal 4 5 4 24

Terrigal 3 5 5 20

Terrigal Haven 2 5 5 15

Skillion Head 3 3 4 13

North Avoca 4 5 4 24

Avoca 3 5 5 20

Winnie Bay 3 2 3 9

Copacabana 3 5 4 19

MacMasters 3 5 4 19

Mourwaring Point 3 2 3 9

Little 2 3 3 9

Bombi Point 2 3 3 9

Caves Bay 2 3 3 9

Bouddi Point 2 3 3 9

Maitland Bay 2 5 4 14

Gerrin Point 2 3 3 9

Bullimah 2 3 3 9

Putty 2 5 4 14

Killcare 3 5 4 19

Tallow 3 3 4 13

Little Tallow 3 3 4 13

Box Head 3 2 3 9

Iron Ladder 2 2 3 7

Lobster 2 5 4 14

Ocean 2 5 4 14

Umina 3 5 4 19

Pearl 2 5 4 14

Middle Head 2 2 3 7

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 15 Locations include: o Iron Ladder o Middle Head o Winnie Bay o Mourwaring Point o Little o Bombi Point o Caves Bay


Page 28 of 88

o Bouddi Point o Gerrin Point o Bullimah o Box Head o Spoon Bay o Skillion Head o Tallow o Little Tallow o Forresters o Maitland Bay o Putty o Lobster o Ocean o Pearl o Terrigal Haven This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Manager have signage and spaced no greater than 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 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

Signage should appear at all entrances provided by the Land Manager to the facility. Consideration should be given to placing signs in other areas of high use. FVR Score between 16 and 20 Locations include: o Copacabana o MacMasters o Killcare o Umina o Terrigal o Avoca This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by the Land Manager have signage and spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the beach o All ordinances that apply to the venue should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o Hazards rated from medium to high should be identified on the sign and listed in order from highest to

lowest hazardous Signage should appear at all entrances provided by Land Manager to the facility. Consideration should be given to placing signs in other areas of high use.


Page 29 of 88

FVR Score between 21 and 25 Locations include o Wamberal o North Avoca This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by the Land Manager 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 beach o All ordinances that apply to the venue should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o Hazards rated from medium to high should be identified on the sign and listed in order from highest to

lowest hazardous Signage should appear at all entrances provided by the Land Manager to the facility. Consideration should be given to placing signs in other areas of high use.

2.10 Facilities

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 Caravan parks o Art infrastructure o Rubbish bins 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 Gosford City Council LGA can be requested by the Land Manager if required.


Page 30 of 88

2.11 Beach Usage & Incident Statistics

Beach Statistics The following statistics have been taken from the lifesaving and lifeguard services operating in the Gosford City Council. All figures are the combined total statistics over the last 3 seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13). Surf Life Saving Clubs Table 2.11.1: Surf Life Saving Club statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

Season 10/11 11/12 12/13

R A FA P R A FA P R A FA P

Wamberal 21 70141 169 1934 45 82328 60 1486 23 67883 131 1885

Terrigal 159 180187 932 3920 28 238075 290 6824 53 307130 696 3789

North Avoca 47 46266 252 484 132 53687 126 1678 31 48073 166 230

Avoca 253 200758 871 2628 365 172469 97 3669 106 163658 406 1718

Copacabana 1 4660 19 31 23 33108 16 1067 1 27720 110 82

MacMasters 30 42740 287 1039 60 48249 93 1655 33 42189 208 964

Killcare 7 31423 80 276 1 640 2 0 9 57985 143 169

Ocean 78 71593 62 790 10 71613 90 907 9 89718 95 673

Umina 35 180556 121 4124 138 286105 128 8457 52 249710 159 9716

Total 631 828324 2793 15226 802 986274 902 25743 317 1054066 2114 19226

R = Rescues, A = Attendance, FA = First Aid, P = Preventative Actions Gosford City Council Lifeguards Table 2.11.2: Lifeguard statistics for 2010 to 2013 (Gosford City Council, 2013)

Season 10/11 11/12 12/13

R A FA P R A FA P R A FA P

Wamberal 299 149862 423 4697 88 108088 126 3605 74 155428 201 3057

Terrigal 121 347500 1525 5623 72 309184 391 4256 97 478556 836 7242

North Avoca 224 145651 501 3452 95 121074 188 4512 177 144394 392 5315

Ficus Tower 28 23671 40 614 7 16880 5 480 21 19300 8 630

Avoca 548 411740 1630 10435 267 327111 429 8423 408 546737 1124 11051

Copacabana 113 142130 355 3406 46 109899 235 3778 25 170400 388 2982

MacMasters 170 107645 276 2789 97 92681 167 4184 68 136655 288 3161

Killcare 11 75893 130 2343 95 77090 181 3607 68 126322 325 3015

Ocean 15 110700 161 885 7 95999 215 1246 9 153337 117 815

Umina 43 196540 153 2184 78 211584 175 4419 73 283141 302 2269

Total 1572 1711332 5194 36428 852 1469590 2112 38510 1020 2214270 3981 39537

R = Rescues, A = Attendance, FA = First Aid, P = Preventative Actions


Page 31 of 88

Table 2.11.3: Lifeguard staffing levels for 2010 to 2013 (Gosford City Council, 2013)

Season Fulltime Casuals Total

2010-2011 16 35 51

2011-2012 16 35 51

2012-21013 16 35 51

The above table is based on the figures supplied and also figures entered into the SurfGuard system. Lifeguard statistics are from Gosford City Council received July 2013. Population Statistics This table shows that over a 5 year period, population in the Gosford Local Government Area has grown by 6,283 (3.97%). Population growth in the LGA is expected to continue to increase (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Table 2.11.4: Population growth over time within the Gosford LGA (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011).

Gosford LGA Population Growth

2006 Census 2011 Census

Total persons

Males Females Persons Males Females Persons

76458 81699 158157 78326 84114 164440

Table 2.11.5: Beach side gazetted localities population

Gazetted Locality Population (Census 2011)

Forresters 2496

Wamberal 6298

Terrigal 10614

North Avoca 1953

Avoca 4319

Copacabana 2690

MacMasters 1217

Putty/Killcare 1406

Ocean Beach (Ettalong) 4628

Umina 16059

Pearl 513

Tourist Information The below information has been sourced from the ‘Destination NSW’ website. All statistics are the average four year totals to September 2011. Destination NSW breaks down the number of visitors into three categories and these include: 1. Domestic overnight travel 2. Domestic day trip travel 3. International overnight travel


Page 32 of 88

Domestic Overnight Travel Table 2.11.6: Domestic overnight travel data and visitor information for Gosford LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) % NSW %

Eat out at restaurants 393 n/a n/a

Visit friends and relatives 358 n/a n/a

Go to the beach 309 n/a n/a

Go shopping for pleasure 186 n/a n/a

General sight seeing 181 n/a n/a

Origin (‘000) % NSW %

Regional NSW 543 26.2% 35.5%

Sydney 1,143 55.1% 26.6%

Victoria 150 7.2% 13.9%

Queensland 142 6.8% 13.3%

ACT 43 2.1% 4.2%

Other Interstate 52 2.5% 6.4%

Accommodation (‘000) % NSW %

Friends or relatives 1,020 49.2% 39.1%

Hotel, resort, motel 324 15.7% 23.4%

Rented 301 14.5% 9.9%

Own Property 183 8.8% 3.9%

Caravan Park, Camping 113 5.5% 12.4

Age Group (‘000) % NSW %

15 to 24 years 96 13.3% 14.5

25 to 34 years 112 15.6% 14.0

35 to 44 years 155 21.5% 21.5

45 to 54 years 115 16.0% 19.0

55 to 64 years 117 16.3% 16.6

65 years and over 124 17.3% 14.4

In summary, Gosford beaches are the third most popular attraction for domestic overnight travellers. 55.1% of these people live in Sydney and 49.2% are most likely to stay with friends or relatives. Day Trip Travel Table 2.11.7: Day trip travel data and visitor information for Gosford LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 Activities (‘000) % NSW %

Visit Friends and Family 963 n/a 34.6%

Eat out at restaurants 858 n/a 43.9%

Go to the beach 399 n/a 10.2%

Go Shopping for Pleasure 338 n/a 21.3%

General sight seeing 286 n/a 16.8


15 to 24 years 258 13.0% 14.4

25 to 34 years 242 12.2% 13.4

35 to 44 years 395 19.9% 19.6

45 to 54 years 381 19.2% 18.1

55 to 64 years 371 18.7% 16.8

65 years and over 340 17.1% 17.7

Origin (‘000) % NSW %

Sydney 1,415 71.2% 42.0

Hunter 271 13.7% 8.6%

Central Coast 145 7.3% 5.9%

Mid North Coast 50 2.5% 6.9

South Coast 39 2.0% 7.8%


Page 33 of 88

In summary, the majority of day trippers eat out at restaurants rather than going to the beach. Going to the beach is the third most popular activity. The highest age bracket is the 35 to 44 and the 45 to 54 age group. The vast majority of visitors come from the Sydney region. International Overnight Travel Table 2.11.8: International overnight travel data and visitor information for Gosford LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Top 5 origin markets (‘000) % NSW %

United Kingdom 7 30.2% 13.3

New Zealand 5 20% 13.3

USA 2 10.2% 10.6

Germany 1 5.5% 3.8

Canada 1 3.9% 2.9


15 to 24 years 4 14.9% 18.8

25 to 34 years 5 20.3% 24.8

35 to 44 years 4 16.2% 17.4

45 to 54 years 4 15.6% 17.2

55 to 64 years 4 16.0% 14.8

65 years and over 4 16.9% 6.9

Accommodation (‘000) % NSW %

Home of Friend or Relative

264 71.3% 27.5%

Renting 52 13.9% 40.3

Hotel / Motel 13 3.5 10.2%

The highest number of international tourist’s holiday from the United Kingdom followed by New Zealand. The 25 to 34 is the highest age brackets. The majority stay at friends or relatives.


Page 34 of 88

Drowning Incidents Table 2.11.9: Coastal drowning deaths that have occurred in the Gosford City Council LGA between 1 July 2004 and 30

th June 2013 (SLSNSW Incident Reporting Database)

Date Location Time Month Age - M/F

Nationality Residential

Status

Inside Patrol Hours

Activity

7/10/04 Koolewong

Wharf 9:15 October 68 / M New Zealand

Australian Resident

No Unknown

17/12/04 Umina Beach

9:00 December 17 / M Australian Australian Resident

Yes Surfcraft (non

powered)

9/01/05 Avoca Beach 14:30 January 30 / M Korean Australian Resident

Yes Swimming

29/01/05 Spoon Bay 15:15 January 33 / M UK International

Tourist No Swimming

26/03/05 Hardy's Bay 19:40 March 74 / M Australian Australian Resident

No Boating

10/06/05 Umina Beach

Unknown

June 51 / M Australian Australian Resident

No Swimming

6/02/26 Avoca Beach 12:20 February 32 / M Unknown Australian Resident

Yes Rock Fishing

6/02/06 Avoca Beach 12:20 February 51 / M Unknown Australian Resident

Yes Rock Fishing

19/09/06 Wamberal 12:30 September 20 / M Australian Australian Resident

No Swimming

30/03/07 Macmasters

Beach 15:25 March 60 / M Hong Kong

Australian Resident

Yes Rock Fishing

19/02/10

Wynnie Bay (In between

Avoca & Copacabana)

11:00 February 28 / M Zimbabwe Australian Resident

No Rock Fishing

9/05/10 100m off Terrigal

14:00 May 46 / F Australian Australian Resident

No Diving/Snorkel

ling

18/10/10 Avoca 10:00 October 17 / M Australian Australian Resident

Yes Swimming

17/03/12 Skillion Head

Headland, Terrigal

10:45 March 35 / Unknown Australian Resident

No Diving/Snorkel

ling

12/12/12 Avoca Beach 16:45 December 27 / F Asian Australian Resident

Yes Rock Related

27/12/12 Foresters

Beach 12:50 December 65 / M Unknown Unknown Yes Swimming

12/01/13 Patonga Beach

14:34 January 62 / M Australian Australian Resident

Yes Swimming

Notes to table: o 23% of drowning deaths were a result of rock fishing o 41% of drowning deaths were a result of swimming/rip currents o The average age for drowning deaths is 41 years. o 88% of the victims were males. o 53% of drownings were during lifeguard / lifesaving hours of operation


Page 35 of 88

Environmental Risk Factors (Variable) The nature of the coastal environment in the assessment area, combined with recreational activity types and locations has identified specific location ‘black spots’ for emergency incidents and drowning deaths. While data surrounding incident location/time has been referenced, specific environmental conditions at the time of incidents have not been adequately assessed to identify causal factors and specific trends. This information exists and is held in raw format by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), including wave height/direction, tides, wind speed/direction, temperature, and visibility. Review and assessment of this data, may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions for types of localities and specific ‘black spot’ locations themselves. Improvements to Dangerous Surf Warnings and education/awareness programs may be improved as a result.

Treatment option 4.1 A review be commissioned to analyse the historical environmental conditions at the time of recorded drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors.


Page 36 of 88

Emergency Callouts There have been 84 Emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System since 1 January 2008. This system involves callout/response teams (lifesavers/lifeguards) responding to emergencies in the assessment area, at the request and under the direction/control of the NSW Police (SLSNSW State Operations Centre). Table 2.11.10: SRERS call outs within Gosford LGA since 1 January 2008 (SLSA Incident Reporting Database, 2013)

Date Location Month Season Day Time Activity

28/01/2008 Avoca Beach, near rock pool January Summer Mon 17:20 Rockfishing

23/02/2008 Umina Beach, Pearl Beach February Summer Sat 16:40 Vessel

10/06/2008 Southern end of Umina Beach June Winter Tue 14:50 Vessel

7/09/2008 Forresters Beach September Spring Sun 14:04 Vessel

19/10/2008 Spoon Bay, Gosford October Spring Sun 17:27 SurfCraft (non powered)

2/11/2008 Terrigal, Skillion Head November Spring Sun 15:45 SurfCraft (non powered)

1/01/2009 Avoca Beach January Summer Thu 18:16 Rockfishing

13/01/2009 Foresters Beach, Wamberal January Summer Tue 17:32 SurfCraft (non powered)

25/01/2009 Avoca Rocks January Summer Sun 13:30 Rock Related

31/01/2009 60 mts offshore Terrigal Beach January Summer Sat 12:54 Swimming

30/03/2009 Avoca Beach, Southern Headland March Autumn Mon 7:43 Rockfishing

18/04/2009 500m Off Avoca Beach- Heading North April Autumn Sat 15:00 Vessel

18/05/2009 Copacabana Beach May Autumn Mon 16:30 SurfCraft (non powered)

2/06/2009 Avoca Rock Shelf June Winter Tue 14:25 Rockfishing

1/08/2009 Mac Masters Beach August Winter Sat 12:40 SurfCraft (non powered)

19/08/2009 Patonga, Central Coast August Winter Wed 19:11 Rockfishing

25/08/2009 Winnie Bay, Sth Avoca August Winter Tue 17:17 Rock Related

20/09/2009 Wamberal September Spring Sun 13:20 Suicide

29/09/2009 Killcare Beach September Spring Tue 9:56 Vessel

21/12/2009 Ettalong Beach December Summer Mon 15:48 SurfCraft (non powered)

26/12/2009 Avoca December Summer Sat 11:00 Shark Sighting

12/01/2010 1.5 - 2.0 Nautical miles off Terrigal January Summer Tue 17:08 Vessel

17/01/2010 Foresters Beach January Summer Sun 7:28 Vessel

6/02/2010 Wamberal February Summer Sat 16:55 Swimming

19/02/2010 Copacabana February Summer Fri 11:58 Rockfishing

21/03/2010 Avoca Beach March Autumn Sun 17:43 Suicide

26/04/2010 Between Boxhead & Putty Beach April Autumn Mon 10:50 Swimming

2/05/2010 Avoca Beach May Autumn Sun 15:22 SurfCraft (non powered)

6/06/2010 Copacabana Beach June Winter Sun 14:18 SurfCraft (non powered)

10/08/2010 Sth Avoca Headland August Winter Tue 12:53 SurfCraft (non powered)


Page 37 of 88


27/08/2010 Little Beach, Gosford August Winter Fri 11:25 Vessel

24/09/2010 Terrigal September Spring Fri 18:38 Suicide

2/01/2011 Umina Beach January Summer Sun 18:32 Vessel

5/01/2011 Wamberal January Summer Wed 12:26 Swimming

5/01/2011 Avoca January Summer Wed 13:00 Suicide

22/03/2011 Terrigal March Autumn Tue 16:49 Swimming

4/07/2011 Avoca Beach July Winter Mon 8:46 Rockfishing

19/11/2011 Pretty Beach November Spring Sat 19:00 Swimming

1/01/2012 Copacabana January Summer Sun 18:09 Swimming

4/01/2012 Little Beach, CCoast January Summer Wed 18:34 Diving/Snorkelling

13/01/2012 Ettalong Beach January Summer Fri 13:11 Swimming

18/01/2012 Box Head January Summer Wed 13:43 Vessel

7/02/2012 Berowra Waters February Summer Tue 21:52 Vessel

11/03/2012 McMasters March Autumn Sun 17:37 Swimming

17/03/2012 Terrigal March Autumn Sat 10:49 Diving/Snorkelling

20/04/2012 Terrigal April Autumn Fri 12:38 Swimming

1/06/2012 Umina June Winter Fri 15:37 Other

29/07/2012 North Avoca July Winter Sun 13:12 Swimming

14/08/2012 Terrigal August Winter Tue 9:00 Other

2/09/2012 Terrigal September Spring Sun 14:05 Vessel

10/09/2012 Terrigal Haven September Spring Mon 12:18 Diving/Snorkelling

18/10/2012 Patonga October Spring Thu 18:46 Swimming

21/10/2012 Umina October Spring Sun 16:22 Suicide/Self Harm

22/10/2012 Point Clare, Brisbane Waters October Spring Mon 17:08 Vessel

8/12/2012 Spoon Bay, Gosford December Summer Sat 17:15 SurfCraft (non powered)

12/12/2012 Winney Bay December Summer Wed 16:43 Rock Related

16/12/2012 Terrigal Haven December Summer Sun 16:41 Shark Sighting

23/12/2012 North Avoca Headland December Summer Sun 9:38 Rock Related

26/12/2012 Avoca December Summer Wed 11:51 Swimming

27/12/2012 Forresters Beach December Summer Thu 12:50 Vessel

27/12/2012 Avoca Beach December Summer Thu 13:57 Swimming

28/12/2012 Lobsters Beach December Summer Fri 14:36 Vessel

30/12/2012 Spoon Bay, Gosford December Summer Sun 15:50 Vessel

12/01/2013 Patonga January Summer Sat 14:34 Swimming

12/01/2010 2.0 Nm off Terrigal January Summer Tue 17:08 Vessel

17/01/2010 Foresters Beach January Summer Sun 7:28 Vessel

2/01/2011 Umina Beach January Summer Sun 18:32 Vessel

5/01/2011 Wamberal January Summer Wed 12:26 Swimming

5/01/2011 Avoca January Summer Wed 13:00 Suicide

1/01/2012 Copacabana January Summer Sun 18:09 Swimming

4/01/2012 Little Beach, CCoast January Summer Wed 18:34 Diving/Snorkelling

13/01/2012 Ettalong Beach January Summer Fri 13:11 Swimming

18/01/2012 Box Head January Summer Wed 13:43 Vessel


Page 38 of 88


2/02/2013 Terrigal February Summer Sat 19:27 Vessel

11/02/2013 Foresters Beach February Summer Mon 19:38 SurfCraft (non powered)

16/03/2013 Pearl Beach March Autumn Sat 11:31 SurfCraft (non powered)

16/03/2013 Spoon Bay, Gosford March Autumn Sat 14:20 SurfCraft (non powered)

16/03/2013 Forrester Beach March Autumn Sat 17:16 Swimming

20/03/2013 150m SE of Lion Island March Autumn Wed 18:07 SurfCraft (non powered)

24/03/2013 Tallows Beach, CC March Autumn Sun 15:30 Vessel

24/04/2013 Terrigal April Autumn Wed 17:22 Rock Related

14/05/2013 Terrigal Haven Rock Platform May Winter Tue 11:45 Rock Related

3/06/2013 Ocean Beach June Winter Mon 16:12 Vessel

13/06/2013 Avoca June Winter Thu 11:47 Other

Notes to table: o 49% Summer, 19% Autumn, 18% Winter, 14% Spring o 39% of call outs were a result of surfcraft / swimming o 35% of incidents occurred in 2012, 2009 has the second highest number of incidents at 15% o The most incidents occurred at Avoca (18%), at least 4% more than any other area. o 36% of incidents occurred on a weekend. o 81% of incidents occurred after midday (12:00) o 49% of incidents occurred between 12pm and 5pm

Treatment option 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.


Page 39 of 88

2.12 Communication and Consultation

Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance plays a central role in the risk management process. During the onsite visit consultation with a number of stakeholders was undertaken to ensure the report process was transparent and to gain local knowledge, background and evidence based data on the areas inspected. Stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Anthony Burling, Coordinator Leisure & Lifestyle, Gosford City Council. o Michael Tattoli, Risk Manager, Gosford City Council o Chris Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Surf Life Saving Central Coast o Jake McDonald, Support Officer, Surf Life Saving Central Coast The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops o Print, Radio and Television media announcements of workshops and consultation o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops o Use of social media - Twitter o Web based surveys o Web based information submissions o On-site communication and distribution of flyers o On-site one-to-one surveying o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council

Figure 2.12.1: Project Blueprint flyer

Beach Safety Committee Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast meet 4 times per year to discuss lifesaving issues in the Gosford LGA. This meeting is an effective working group and includes the following stakeholders: o Chris Parker, CEO Surf Life Saving Central Coast o Jake McDonald, Support Officer, Surf Life saving Central Coast o Brett Beswick, Director of Life Saving, Surf Life Saving Central Coast o Anthony Burling , Coordinator Leisure & Lifestyle, Gosford City Council o Craig Healy, Lifeguard Supervisor, Gosford City Council

The committee reviews recent incidents, issues and opportunities relating to coastal public safety.


Page 40 of 88

Consultation workshop A public forum was held on Tuesday 23

rd April 2013 in the Wamberal SLSC to discuss drowning prevention. This

public forum was advertised in local print media and through pre-identified stakeholders (via email and letter). Public forums were open to any member of the public such as surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups, surfing associations, and emergency services personnel. The public forum was attended by Brett Beswick Avoca SLSC / SLSNSW State Duty Officer Malcolm Poole RFA NSW 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. Survey 1 The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. Survey Questions: o In your opinion, what are the (top three) factors contributing to drowning / coastal related incidents at this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minutes)?


Page 41 of 88

Treatment option 1.2, 2.2 & 5.1 Gosford City Council, Surf Life Saving Central Coast & National Parks and Wildleife Service should continue to hold regularly scheduled surf liaison meetings as an effective forum to raise safety issues and implement strategies in the Gosford 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.


Page 42 of 88

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 49 & 50, is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritisation risk mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. For the purpose of Section 3 of this report, the individual components of the Action Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total score for the Action Planning Priority Index. 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 & Aquatic Management Program Rating (ABSAMP Rating) 2. Local Population Rating (LPR) 3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) 4. Access Rating (AR)


Page 43 of 88

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety & Aquatic Management Program Rating (ABSAMP Rating) Table 3.1.2.1: ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Forresters nsw283 4 Reflective

Spoon Bay nsw284 4 Reflective / Low Tide Tce

Wamberal nsw285a 7 Transverse Bar Rip

Terrigal nsw285b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Terrigal Haven nsw286 3 Reflective

Skillion Head nsw286RPa 5* Rock Platform

North Avoca nsw287a 7 Rhythmic Bar Beach

Avoca nsw287b 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Winnie Bay nsw287RPa 6* Rock Platform

Copacabana nsw288a 6 Transverse Bar Rip

MacMasters nsw288b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Mourwaring Point nsw288RPa 5* Rock Platform

Little nsw289 4 Low Tide Terrace / Rocks

Bombi Point nsw289RPa 4* Rock Platform

Caves Bay nsw289RPb 4* Rock Platform

Bouddi Point nsw289RPc 4* Rock Platform

Maitland Bay nsw290 3 Reflective

Gerrin Point nsw290RPa 4* Rock Platform

Bullimah nsw291 4 Reflective

Putty nsw292 3 Low Tide Terrace

Killcare nsw292 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Tallow nsw293 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Little Tallow nsw294 6 Transverse Bar Rip

Box Head nsw294RPa 5* Rock Platform

Iron Ladder nsw295 3 Reflective

Lobster nsw296 3 Reflective

Ocean nsw297a 4 Reflective / Low Tide Tce

Umina nsw297b 5 Transverse Bar Rip

Pearl nsw298 4 Reflective

Middle Head nsw299 4 Reflective / Rocks

* Gosford Local Government Area Rock Platform Ratings Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification study on rocky coasts. This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. Prof. Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012).


Page 44 of 88

As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform. It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a rock platform. However, in order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed an interim solution has been applied which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.


Page 45 of 88

3.1.3 Local Population Rating

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

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

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

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



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

Table 3.1.3.2: Local population ratings applied to assessed locations

Location LPR Total

Forresters 5

Spoon Bay 5

Wamberal 5

Terrigal 5

Terrigal Haven 5

Skillion Head 5

North Avoca 5

Avoca 5

Winnie Bay 5

Copacabana 5

MacMasters 5

Mourwaring Point 4

Little 4

Bombi Point 4

Caves Bay 4

Bouddi Point 4

Maitland Bay 4

Gerrin Point 4

Bullimah 4

Putty 4

Killcare 4

Tallow 4

Little Tallow 4

Box Head 4

Iron Ladder 4

Lobster 4

Ocean 5

Umina 5

Pearl 5

Middle Head 4


Page 46 of 88

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

Forresters 4 1 2 1 8

Spoon Bay 4 1 2 1 8

Wamberal 5 2 3 2 12

Terrigal 5 2 4 2 13

Terrigal Haven 3 2 2 2 9

Skillion Head 1 1 1 1 4

North Avoca 5 2 4 2 13

Avoca 5 2 5 2 14

Winnie Bay 1 1 1 1 4

Copacabana 5 2 4 2 13

MacMasters 5 2 4 2 13

Mourwaring Point 1 1 1 1 4

Little 1 1 1 1 4

Bombi Point 1 1 1 1 4

Caves Bay 1 1 1 1 4

Bouddi Point 1 1 1 1 4

Maitland Bay 1 1 1 1 4

Gerrin Point 1 1 1 1 4

Bullimah 1 1 1 1 4

Putty 5 2 4 2 13

Killcare 5 2 4 2 13

Tallow 1 1 1 1 4

Little Tallow 1 1 1 1 4

Box Head 1 1 1 1 4

Iron Ladder 1 1 1 1 4

Lobster 5 2 3 2 12

Ocean 5 2 5 2 14

Umina 5 2 5 2 14

Pearl 5 2 4 2 13

Middle Head 1 1 1 1 4


Page 47 of 88

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 location. This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury and should be assessed as part of a wider risk assessment. Table 3.1.5.1: Access rating descriptors

Table 3.1.5.2: Access ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Access Rating

Forresters 5

Spoon Bay 5

Wamberal 5

Terrigal 5

Terrigal Haven 5

Skillion Head 5

North Avoca 5

Avoca 5

Winnie Bay 5

Copacabana 5

MacMasters 5

Mourwaring Point 4

Little 4

Bombi Point 4

Caves Bay 4

Bouddi Point 4

Maitland Bay 4

Gerrin Point 2

Bullimah 4

Putty 5

Killcare 5

Tallow 4

Little Tallow 4

Box Head 4

Iron Ladder 2

Lobster 5

Ocean 5

Umina 5

Access Rating Qualifying Description

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

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

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

public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking

4 Access via maintained tracks with clearly identified parking area AND/OR provision of basic facilities (i.e. public toilets, public shower/ wash down area) AND/OR within 10km of

moderate sized town or city (population greater than 5,000)

5 Clearly evident, marked or signposted and maintained access points AND/OR within 10km of major town or city (population greater than 25,000) AND / OR car parking for 50 or

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


Page 48 of 88

Location Access Rating

Pearl 5

Middle Head 2


Page 49 of 88

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)

Forresters 8 10 8 10 36

Spoon Bay 8 10 8 10 36

Wamberal 14 10 12 10 46

Terrigal 10 10 13 10 43

Terrigal Haven 6 10 9 10 35

Skillion Head 10 10 4 10 34

North Avoca 14 10 13 10 47

Avoca 12 10 14 10 46

Winnie Bay 12 10 4 10 36

Copacabana 12 10 13 10 45

MacMasters 10 10 13 10 43

Mourwaring Point 10 8 4 8 30

Little 8 8 4 8 28

Bombi Point 8 8 4 8 28

Caves Bay 8 8 4 8 28

Bouddi Point 8 8 4 8 28

Maitland Bay 6 8 4 8 26

Gerrin Point 8 8 4 4 24

Bullimah 8 8 4 8 28

Putty 6 8 13 10 37

Killcare 10 8 13 10 41

Tallow 12 8 4 8 32

Little Tallow 12 8 4 8 32

Box Head 10 8 4 8 30

Iron Ladder 6 8 4 4 22

Lobster 6 8 12 10 36

Ocean 8 10 14 10 42

Umina 10 10 14 10 44

Pearl 8 10 13 10 41

Middle Head 8 8 4 4 24

Ten beaches have an action planning priority score greater than 40. Scores of 41 or higher indicate a high overall level of 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 (see next page).


Page 50 of 88

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

North Avoca 47

High – this location should be considered as a priority for

implementation of identified risk treatment options

2

Wamberal 46



2

Avoca 46



4

Copacabana 45



5

Umina 44



6

Terrigal 43



6

MacMasters 43



8

Ocean 42



9

Killcare 41



9

Pearl 41



10 Putty 37

Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of

identified risk treatment options after locations rated as high or as funding

becomes available

11

Forresters 36



becomes available

11

Spoon Bay 36 Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of


Page 51 of 88

Priority

Priority Location


Comments


becomes available

11

Winnie Bay 36



becomes available

11

Lobster 36



becomes available

15

Terrigal Haven 35



becomes available

16

Skillion Head 34



becomes available

17 Tallow 32



becomes available

17 Little Tallow 32



becomes available

19 Mourwaring Point 30

Low – this location should be considered for implementation of

identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as funding

becomes available

19 Box Head 30



becomes available

21 Little 28



becomes available

21 Bombi Point 28



becomes available


Page 52 of 88

Priority

Priority Location


Comments

21 Caves Bay 28



becomes available

21 Bouddi Point 28



becomes available

21 Bullimah 28



becomes available

26 Maitland Bay 26



becomes available

27 Gerrin Point 24



becomes available

27 Middle Head 24



becomes available

29 Iron Ladder 22



becomes available

Key to Action

Planning Priority High 41+ 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


Page 53 of 88

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 (Appendix B). The solutions outlined endeavour to provide specific and detailed information relative to the beach locations; however due to the diverse nature of location characteristics, Recommendations are at times mainly generic in nature. Land Managers should endeavour to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments expanded on below.


Page 54 of 88

3.2.3 Educate and Awareness Programmes

Public education and awareness initiatives are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and target both 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 were made aware of various education and awareness programmes that are currently, or have been previously in place to educate and inform the public. These initiatives include: 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 Nipper/surf groms programmes encouraging local children to be active, providing the fundamentals of surf

safety. o Surf Life saving Central Coast provides surf education to schools when requested. (e.g. Beach Surfun Day,

School Beach Smart, Surf Survival Certificate) o Media and promotional opportunities to deliver key safety messages and dangerous surf warnings i.e. local

newspapers, local radio and local television networks. o ANSA (NSW) & RFA NSW education campaigns targeting rock fishers, running workshops and handing out

lifejackets on the rock platforms. o Surfing NSW with support of the NSW Government are giving all surfers in NSW the opportunity to do a

free CPR and Board Rescue Course - "Surfers Rescue 24/7". Public education and safety awareness programmes outlining known and commonly occurring hazards within and around the Gosford LGA should continue to be developed, implemented and reviewed. 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 Expanding on the distribution of public education resources to coastal accommodation providers, there is an opportunity to display posters which promote water safety at public amenity blocks located at coastal beaches. Similar types of posters have been used in other coastal councils. Coastal Accommodation According to NSW Tourism, Gosford attracts 2.7 million visitors per annum. 43% of overnight visitors went to the beach. The distribution of surf safety information to coastal accommodation providers should be continued and expanded. School Education Surf safety 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 local schools. Surf education (theory and application) can be very beneficial in coastal towns. 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

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


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


Page 55 of 88

Surf Life Saving Central Coast has had in the past a full time education officer. The education officer taught school children surf education. This role has been discontinued due to funding shortages. SLSCC should explore further opportunities, with the assistance of GCC, to renew this role and expand on surf education to schools. Learn to Swim: Swim and Survive is a comprehensive swimming and water safety initiative of Royal Life Saving that seeks to increase the swimming and water safety skills of all Australian children in order to prevent drowning and increase participation in safe aquatic activity. Learn to swim, swimming lessons and infant aquatics are all terms commonly used across the aquatic industry for programs that seek to build swimming skills. Swim and Survive is all of these, but most importantly it ensures that the essential components of personal survival and water safety are provided, in addition to a process of developing strong and effective swimming technique. Swim and Survive is delivered in pools, schools and other aquatic locations across the country by qualified swimming and water safety instructors. SurfGroms: ‘Vegemite SurfGroms’ is a national junior development program for 5-12yr olds that encourages kids to get involved in surfing all around Australia. The program is available exclusively through licensed Surfing Australia Surf Schools. SurfGroms consists of a series of surf lessons, encompassing 8-12 hours of coaching in total. Surfers Rescue 24/7 Surfing NSW with support of the NSW Government are giving all surfers in NSW the opportunity to do a free CPR and Board Rescue Course - "Surfers Rescue 24/7". The short and to the point course will educate and provide a skill set, that hopefully you will never have to use, but if found in a tough situation, may just save a life. Surfing has been part of the Australian society since the late 50's and during this time, recreational surfers from all walks of life have been instrumental in helping to keep our beaches safe. These board riders have conducted and assisted in thousands of rescues, the majority of which go unheralded. Be it a patrolled or unpatrolled beach across NSW, all recreational Surfers are on the beach from dawn until dusk, 365 days a year. A lot of them are responsible for hundreds of thousands of unsung rescues. In conjunction with pro-surfers who are currently working as lifeguards, Surfing NSW identified board rescue techniques that may prove to be crucial in times of need. Overall Surfing NSW will be rolling out the free course for all surfers educating on certain situations, which could benefit themselves, family, friends and fellow surfers throughout their lifetime. Online During the course of the assessment, Australian CoastSafe were made aware that non English speaking websites (e.g. Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese) exist amongst ethnic groups which promote rock fishing specifically in the Gosford LGA. Further investigation of these websites could provide an opportunity to engage a targeted educational campaign to specific user groups. Centralised coastal safety websites of peak water safety agencies should be utilised and referenced in all relevant resources and initiatives. The SLSA national beachsafe website, www.beachsafe.org.au is recommended as the optimal portal due to its national coverage, overarching coastal safety focus (e.g. rips, rock-fishing), multi-lingual options, rocky-coast hazard rating (in development), real-time daily information provision, smart-phone app options and a direct internal link to the ‘safe-fishing’ website.



Page 56 of 88

Personal Protective Equipment Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman. Educational and awareness programmes in the Godford Local Government Area should also promote and encourage fisherman to wear lifejackets. This could also be included in school based education programmes, reinforcing the message in children. Education Summary The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programmes that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Gosford 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 AUSTSWIM accredited swim schools

Nippers Local children All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. All ages All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

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

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 Bar crossings Roads & Maritime Services

QR codes

The use of QR codes on signage and other infrastructure to link to location based beach safety information.

All locations Gosford City Council

Marine Education Centre Schools All locations Marine Teachers Association


Page 57 of 88

Examples of education collateral can be found below. Figure 3.2.3.3: Beach safety for tourists/migrants

Figure 3.2.3.4: Survive a rip current

Figure 3.2.3.5: Don’t put our life on the line

Figure 3.2.3.5: Swim between flags

Treatment Option 4.2 Develop relationships with tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network program with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures, flyers, and pamphlets). to all coastal accommodation providers in the Gosford Local Government Area.

Treatment Option 1.4 Education and awareness programmes within the Gosford Local Government Area should continue to be implemented and developed.

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

Treatment Option 1.7 & 2.4 Display safety information (eg. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access.

Treatment Option 1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community groups upon request. It is recommended that Gosford City Council work with these agencies to promote these programmes and encourage enhanced participation at a local level.

Treatment Option 4.3 Identify the relevant user groups and related resources/websites (including non-english) that promote rock fishing in the Gosford Local Government Area, and target safety messaging to those groups/resources. This research may also provide the opportunity for targeted education campaigns.

Treatment Option 1.6 & 5.2 Explore funding options to assist Surf Life Saving Central Coast engage an Education Officer to facilitate school education programs within the Gosford Local Government Area.

Treatment Option 1.9 & 2.5 Land Managers and key stakeholders should continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen to wear lifejackets.


Page 58 of 88

3.2.4 Safety Signage

Safety signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and targets the in-transit and on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location. Key factors relating to effective safety signage includes: o A risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display o Alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (ANZS 2416:2010) 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 optimise exposure to the members of the public,

prior to arriving in a hazardous location 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. Gosford City Council does not have a system of aquatic and recreational safety signage at any of the access points in the assessed area (Appendix A). Safety warning signage used in the Gosford LGA appears only to be present when lifeguards are on duty and is only present in the general vicinity of the flagged area (see Figure 3.2.4.1 below). Image 3.2.4.1: An example of the safety signage implemented throughout the Gosford LGA in the vicinity of the flagged area.

Appendix A provides a list of current standard warning symbols.


Page 59 of 88

NPWS has a system of aquatic and recreational safety signage most of the access points in the assessed area (Appendix A). Signage meets the style/layout recommended in the ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’ Further guidance on signage style can be found in the below in an excerpt from the National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006 detailing sign content and layout. 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). A staged/prioritisation approach is recommended as 102 additional signs have been proposed throughout the Gosford LGA. These locations provide a list of associated hazards and the GPS position of where the sign should be placed. Table 3.2.4.1: Summary table of existing and proposed signage for assessed locations:

Combined Beach Locations Existing Signs

Possible Consolidation

Proposed Level 2

Proposed Level 3

Total Proposed

Signs

Net Signage

Forresters 23 4 0 2 2 -2

Spoon Bay 7 3 0 0 0 -3

Wamberal 27 2 0 8 8 6

Terrigal 40 10 0 6 6 -4

Terrigal Haven 31 0 0 2 2 2

Skillion Head 1 0 0 2 2 2

North Avoca 28 17 0 8 8 -9

Avoca 35 8 1 7 8 0

Winnie Bay 8 1 0 1 1 0

Copacabana 29 3 0 10 10 7

MacMasters 34 12 0 10 10 -2

Mourwaring Point 9 0 0 0 0 0

Little 24 1 0 1 1 0

Bombi Point 7 0 0 0 0 0

Caves Bay 3 0 0 0 0 0

Bouddi Point 2 0 0 0 0 0

Maitland Bay 14 3 0 2 2 -1

Gerrin Point 1 0 0 0 0 0

Bullimah 3 0 0 1 1 1

Putty 31 0 0 1 1 1

Killcare 18 2 0 10 10 8

Tallow 15 4 0 0 0 -4

Little Tallow 0 0 0 1 1 1

Box Head 1 0 0 0 0 0

Iron Ladder 1 0 0 0 0 0

Lobster 17 1 0 0 0 -1

Ocean 24 8 0 10 10 2

Umina 19 7 0 13 13 6

Pearl 37 12 0 9 9 -3

Middle Head 2 0 0 1 1 1

Total 491 98 1 105 106 8

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated signage. For example, even though 106 signs have been proposed in the Gosford LGA, 98 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated, leaving a net change to overall signage of 8 additional signs. 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


Page 60 of 88

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

Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign) This type of signage can be an option for the Land Manager to be places 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. Image 3.2.4.2: An example of a Level 2 – Car Park style sign.


Page 61 of 88

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 are included on signage (i.e. a sticker) and linked to specific water related safety information, with the potential for multilingual messages. There are numerous online providers that allow for the creation of a QR code. This stage of the process is cost effective and the only expense is printing. Certain online providers also allow customers to be able to track the number of people who have scanned the QR code. Temporary Signage Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature. In the context of this assessment individual temporary hazard signs have been identified for possible use at locations where the hazards of debris, erosion and dangerous access are at a high risk. These locations should be monitored and necessary appropriate warnings put in place. Temporary warning signage has been recommended for use to address the following hazards: (Appendix A) o Debris o Pollution o Beach closed o Beach information Image 3.2.4.3: Terrigal - pollution from storm water Image 3.2.4.4: MacMasters – Rescue craft sign

Treatment option 1.10 & 2.6 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented by Land Managers at the locations listed in Appendix A. This may include 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.


Page 62 of 88

3.2.5 Emergency Marker System

When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space parkland, walking trails, beaches or rocks (where no cross-street or other reference point is available) it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response. Emergency location markers enable triple zero call takers to immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero call (through existing ‘Computer Aided Dispatch Systems’ - CAD). Below is an example template of an emergency marker sign. 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. For an optimal emergency marker system to be effective a standardised state-wide program is required, currently no such program exists in NSW. The Gosford City Council does not currently have an emergency marker system in place as such. There is a need for a consistent state wide approach (picture below indicates). Existing signs can be easily modified by placing a sticker on the sign. Figure 3.2.5.2: An example of aquatic safety warning signage with interim emergency maker information located in Wollongong.

Australian Coastsafe will work with key government and emergency service stakeholders in the coming months to develop a best practice approach which can be rolled out on a state wide basis into the various triple zero CAD systems – to improve emergency response.


Page 63 of 88

Treatment option 4.4 In consultation with the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Land Managers should implement a state-aligned emergency marker program at all identified access locations (incl. safety signage) once such a program is established.


Page 64 of 88

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. In the Gosford LGA the majority of formal access tracks are well maintained. Periodic inspections take place due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts. A number of informal access tracks also exist. Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer ‘track’, effectively exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quality of signage required and enhancing emergency reporting/location identification. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/unstable ground), may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting and response difficult (location awareness). Options for formalising/redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers, vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations/situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or discourage the use of informal access. Figure 3.2.6.1: Formal access at Wamberal Figure 3.2.6.2: Informal access at Box Head

In the Gosford LGA the majority of formal access tracks are well maintained. Periodic inspections take place due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts. In regards to informal access, those that are no longer in use, are unnecessary or lead people to high risk locations should either be formalised with appropriate capital works/maintenance, or consolidate.


Page 65 of 88

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

Forresters 0 6 0 2 0 8

Spoon Bay 0 1 0 0 0 1

Wamberal 0 13 0 1 0 14

Terrigal 1 6 0 0 0 7

Terrigal Haven 0 3 1 1 0 5

Skillion Head 0 1 0 1 0 2

North Avoca 0 11 0 0 0 11

Avoca 0 11 0 1 0 12

Winnie Bay 0 1 1 0 0 2

Copacabana 0 9 1 0 0 10

MacMasters 0 11 0 1 0 12

Mourwaring Point 0 4 0 1 0 5

Little 0 5 0 0 0 5

Bombi Point 0 3 0 0 0 3

Caves Bay 0 1 0 1 0 2

Bouddi Point 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maitland Bay 0 5 0 0 0 5

Gerrin Point 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bullimah 0 1 0 0 0 1

Putty 0 6 1 0 0 7

Killcare 0 9 0 0 0 9

Tallow 0 5 0 0 0 5

Little Tallow 0 1 0 1 0 2

Box Head 0 1 0 0 0 1

Iron Ladder 0 2 0 0 0 2

Lobster 0 3 0 0 0 3

Ocean 0 11 0 0 0 11

Umina 0 16 0 2 0 18

Pearl 0 10 1 1 0 12

Middle Head 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 1 153 5 15 0 174

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.


Page 66 of 88

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

PRE Type Morphology of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages Extensive Training Required

Recommended uses in NSW

Rescue Tube Sandy beaches and rock pools

Can be thrown short distances

Requires the patient to enter the water themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of deployment

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

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

Throw Sticks (Stormy grenades)

Personal device (mobile)

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

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

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

Life Ring (Angel ring)

Steep rampart rock platforms

Ease of use. Rugged design. Awareness campaign established.

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

No Steep (>1:1) rampart rock platforms

Silent Sentry Sloping platforms

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

EPIRB units were vulnerable to vandalism and disabled

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

Life Rings Through the implementation of the ‘Angel Ring Project’™

2, 116 life rings have been installed in NSW and 47

rescues have been confirmed as of August 2012. (Australian National Sports Fishing Association) Life rings are an instantly recognised and international life saving mechanism and are easily understood by the vast majority of people, both as a rescuer and as the casualty. There are currently no life rings in the Gosford City Council. The locations of proposed life rings are below:

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


Page 67 of 88

Table 3.2.7.2: Locations of proposed life rings.

Priority Location Responsible Authority

1 Avoca ANSA

2 Terrigal Haven ANSA

3 Skillion Head ANSA

According to a document

3 published on the Angel Ring Project

4 website the following sites are currently under

investigation by ANSA NSW for life ring installations. o No installations scheduled for Gosford LGA Also published

5 on the Angel Ring Project

6 website the following sites which have been approved for the

installation of life rings: o No approvals currently for Gosford LGA 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 4.5 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these rock fishing associations.

3 http:// http://www.angelrings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingLocationsUnderInvestigationJan2012.pdf

(accessed May, 2013) 4 Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.

5 http://www.angelrings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingApprovalsApplicationsJan2012.pdf (accessed May,

2013) 6 Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.

http://www.angelrings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingLocationsUnderInvestigationJan2012.pdf

http://www.angelrings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingApprovalsApplicationsJan2012.pdf


Page 68 of 88

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 Gosford City 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 o Public perception is that a service be provided There are a range of aquatic supervisory services that should be considered, as it is not “one size fits all”. They include: o Full time comprehensive lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, fixed and

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

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

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

are most needed. o Surveillance cameras. o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access. Gosford City Council Lifeguard Service The Gosford City Council has a commendable lifeguard service. The following section examines the lifeguard services at each location within the Gosford City Council. The recommendations outlined may be useful to council when seeking advice for future lifeguard needs. Gosford City Council Lifeguard Service Table 3.2.8.1: Current Gosford City Council Lifeguards hours of operation.

Non daylight saving

Daylight saving

Dec/Jan School Holidays April to October

Wamberal 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

Terrigal 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 7am - 7pm No patrols

North Avoca 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

Avoca 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 7am - 7pm No patrols

Copacabana 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

MacMasters 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

Killcare 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

Ocean Beach 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 9am - 6pm No patrols

Umina 9am - 6pm 9am - 7pm 7am - 7pm No patrols


Page 69 of 88

Surf Life saving Central Coast Branch The table below shows the current volunteer lifesaving service dates and times for season 2012-2013. Table 3.2.8.2: Current SLSC patrol hours and season dates.

Club / Service Season 2012-13 Saturday Sunday & PH

Wamberal

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Terrigal

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 8am - 7pm 8am - 7pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

North Avoca

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Avoca

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 8am - 7pm 8am - 7pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Copacabana

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

MacMasters

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Killcare

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Ocean Beach

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

Umina

22/09/12 to 16/12/12 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

22/12/12 to 28/01/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 28/04/13 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

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

7. Lifeguards/lifesavers throughout the world

are called upon to provide safety services at a range of water environments that include swimming pools, beaches, lakes, river front and other waterfronts. In providing these aquatic safety services, it is important that the people using these environments for aquatic activity can readily identify the lifeguards for:

o Guidance on safety issues, and o Assistance in times of need

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

7 Lifesaving Position Statement - LPS 05 - Lifesaver And Lifeguard Uniforms


Page 70 of 88

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. The flags used in Gosford City Council comply with ‘ANZS 2416.2:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags. Part 2: Specifications for beach safety flags – Colour shape meaning and performance (ISO 20712-2:2007, MOD)’ 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.50-52) 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/ratings. The scores are not absolute and are to be used as a guide in determining the actual levels. Table 3.2.8.3: 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 e.g. Aquatic & Recreational Signage Style Guide

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.

Where the number of people in the patrolled area is over 1,000 the lifesaving service provider should increase the number of lifesaving personnel in line with the following table.


Page 71 of 88

Table 3.2.8.4: Impact of beach attendance on lifesaving service levels

No. of People on Beach No. of additional lifeguards

1,000 - 5,000 2

5,000 - 10,000 4

> 10,000 6

Crowds can become in themselves hazardous as a result of difficulties of surveillance and heightened crowd interaction Reference Tables: The tables below provide definitions for the scores used in the Lifesaving Service Level Calculator. The definitions are range based to allow for a margin of error where detailed recorded data may be lacking. In such cases information has been gathered through consultation with local experts and beach users. Table 3.2.8.5: Visitation Rating - visitation levels can be determined by (but not limited to) SLS patrol log books, tourism visitation statistics, local knowledge of the area (interviews with users and stakeholders)

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3.2.8.6: Frequency Rating – relating to the frequency with which the visitation rating (Table 3.2.8.3) occurs

Rating Description

1 Peak visitation occurs once in a month

2 Peak visitation levels occur once a week

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

4 Peak visitation levels occur every day

5 Peak visitation levels continuously every day

Table 3.2.8.7: Type of User – Residency Rating (>10% of the peak visitation)

Rating Beach visitor residency and assumed level of beach safety knowledge

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

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

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

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

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


Page 72 of 88

Table 3.2.8.8: Incident History Rating – for beaches where there is not currently a service. Consideration should be given to incidents occurring over the previous 5 years.

Rating Description

1 Less than 5 minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

2 5 or more minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

3 Less than 3 major incidents/first aid treatments reported

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

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

Table 3.2.8.9: Incident History Rating - for beaches where there is currently a service. Consideration should be given to incidents occurring over the previous 12 months / 1 year.

Rating Description

1 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

2 More than 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

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

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

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

Table 3.2.8.10: Remoteness Rating – an indication of the proximity of support when responding to an incident in the water. This support could be from a neighbouring lifesaving/lifeguard service or a local emergency service such as Police, Fire or Ambulance.

Rating Description

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

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



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

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator The tables and information below provide guidance on the appropriate level of lifesaving service required at Ballina LGA beaches once a decision to provide lifesaving / lifeguarding service has been made. The decision to provide a lifesaving/lifeguarding service is not dependant upon the outcome of the lifesaving service level calculations in the table below. Table 3.2.8.11: Forresters: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating

Incident History Rating

Remoteness Rating

Total LSSL Score New Existing

Summer 4 3 2 1 3 0 3 16

Autumn 4 2 2 1 3 0 3 15

Winter 4 2 2 1 3 0 4 16

Spring 4 3 2 1 3 0 3 16

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer, spring, autumn and 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 and the use of a roving patrol service covering this location (see notes on roving patrols – p.77).


Page 73 of 88

Table 3.2.8.12: Spoon Bay: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 2 2 1 3 0 3 15

Autumn 4 2 2 1 3 0 3 15

Winter 4 2 2 1 3 0 4 16

Spring 4 2 2 1 3 0 3 15

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer, spring, autumn and 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 and the use of a roving patrol service covering this location (see notes on roving patrols – p.77). Table 3.2.8.13: Wamberal: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 7 4 3 1 0 3 2 20

Autumn 7 2 2 1 0 3 2 17

Winter 7 2 2 1 0 3 4 19

Spring 7 3 2 1 0 3 2 18

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.14: Terrigal: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 5 5 5 2 0 4 2 23

Autumn 5 4 4 2 0 4 2 21

Winter 5 3 4 2 0 3 2 19

Spring 5 4 4 2 0 4 2 21

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.15: Terrigal Haven: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 3 3 4 2 3 0 2 17

Autumn 3 3 3 2 3 0 2 16

Winter 3 2 2 2 3 0 2 14

Spring 3 3 3 2 3 0 2 16


Page 74 of 88

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard over summer, spring, and autumn 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 and the use of a roving patrol service covering this location (see notes on roving patrols – p.77). Table 3.2.8.16: North Avoca: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 7 4 4 1 0 4 2 22

Autumn 7 3 3 1 0 4 2 20

Winter 7 2 2 1 0 3 4 19

Spring 7 3 3 1 0 4 2 20

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.17: Avoca: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 6 5 5 2 0 5 2 25

Autumn 6 4 3 1 0 4 2 20

Winter 6 3 3 1 0 3 4 20

Spring 6 4 4 2 0 4 2 22

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.18: Copacabana: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 6 4 3 1 0 4 2 20

Autumn 6 3 2 1 0 3 2 17

Winter 6 2 2 1 0 3 4 18

Spring 6 3 2 1 0 4 2 19

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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.


Page 75 of 88

Table 3.2.8.19: Macmasters: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 5 4 3 1 0 4 2 19

Autumn 5 3 2 1 0 3 2 16

Winter 5 2 2 1 0 3 4 17

Spring 5 3 2 1 0 4 2 17

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.20: Little: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

Autumn 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

Spring 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.21: Maitland Bay: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 3 3 3 1 1 0 4 15

Autumn 3 2 2 1 1 0 4 13

Winter 3 1 2 1 1 0 4 12

Spring 3 2 2 1 1 0 4 13

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer should be considered, if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to visitation numbers, incident history and roving patrols. (see notes on roving patrols) Table 3.2.8.22: Bullimah: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

Autumn 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 12

Winter 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 12

Spring 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 12

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time.


Page 76 of 88

Table 3.2.8.23: Putty: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 3 4 3 1 1 0 1 13

Autumn 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 11

Winter 3 2 2 1 1 0 3 12

Spring 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 11

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.24: Killcare: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 5 4 3 1 0 4 2 19

Autumn 5 3 2 1 0 3 2 16

Winter 5 2 2 1 0 3 4 17

Spring 5 3 2 1 0 4 2 17

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.25: Tallow: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 6 2 2 1 1 0 4 16

Autumn 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

Winter 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

Spring 6 1 2 1 1 0 4 15

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over spring & summer 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. Table 3.2.8.26: Little Tallow: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

Autumn 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

Winter 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

Spring 6 1 1 1 1 0 4 14

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time.


Page 77 of 88

Table 3.2.8.27: Iron Ladder: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 11

Autumn 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 11

Winter 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 11

Spring 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 11

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.28: Lobster: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 3 3 3 1 1 0 3 14

Autumn 3 2 2 1 1 0 3 12

Winter 3 2 2 1 1 0 3 12

Spring 3 2 3 1 1 0 3 13

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. Table 3.2.8.29: Ocean Beach: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 5 5 2 0 5 2 23

Autumn 4 4 3 1 0 4 2 18

Winter 4 3 2 1 0 3 4 17

Spring 4 3 3 2 0 4 2 18

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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. Table 3.2.8.30: Umina: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 5 5 5 2 0 5 2 24

Autumn 5 4 3 1 0 4 2 19

Winter 5 3 2 1 0 3 4 18

Spring 5 4 3 2 0 4 2 20

These calculations support the current service level provided. Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards 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.


Page 78 of 88

Table 3.2.8.31: Pearl: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 3 3 1 1 0 3 15

Autumn 4 2 2 1 1 0 3 13

Winter 4 2 2 1 1 0 4 14

Spring 4 3 2 1 1 0 3 14

Even though the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards over summer should be considered, if a lifeguard service were to be provided during this period, a service has not been recommended due to visitation number, incident history & roving patrols. (see notes on roving patrols – p.78) Table 3.2.8.32: Middle Head: Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

Dates ABSAMP Rating

Visitation Rating

Frequency Rating

Residency Rating


Remoteness Rating


Summer 4 1 2 1 1 0 3 12

Autumn 4 1 2 1 1 0 3 12

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 13

Spring 4 1 2 1 1 0 3 12

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. It should be noted that Gosford City Council meet or exceed the recommended level based upon the life saving service level calculations for beaches where services are currently provided. Based on these calculations no additional lifeguard services have been recommended at beaches where there is an existing lifeguard service. The following locations have a LSSLC of 15 or above but do not currently have a lifeguard / lifesaving service in place. o Forresters o Spoon Bay o Terrigal Haven o Maitland Bay o Tallow o Pearl Due to the proximity of rescue services and / or mobile patrols it is Australian CoastSafe’s opinion that a lifeguard service in these locations is either impracticable or not required. Mobile / Roving Patrols Gosford City Council is able to respond to aquatic emergencies in more remote locations with RWC’s situated at Terrigal, Avoca and Killcare beaches. In the event of the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System being activated, mid week during lifeguard hours of operation, these RWC’s will respond accordingly. Gosford City Council has policies in place for roving / mobile patrols. These can be found in Gosford City Council Beach Management Policy – Public Beach Reserves. Surf Life Saving Central Coast has 4 RWC’s based at Terrigal, Avoca, Killcare & Umina. The RWC’s operate from 8.30am to 6.30pm during patrolling months. The patrol area is from Forresters Beach to Pearl Beach. Support operations are in constant radio communication with surfcom relaying information as required.


Page 79 of 88

Treatment option 1.12 & 5.3 The level of lifesaving / lifeguarding service (staffing levels, operational dates, and operational hours) provided by Gosford City Council and Surf Life Saving Central Coast should be reviewed regularly to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.

Treatment option 5.4 Surf Life Saving Central Coast Support Operations (e.g. RWC and Duty Officer) resources could be used to formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations and report that information back to SurfCom or the Local Lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond.


Page 80 of 88

4. Emergency Response The relatively high rate of critical emergency incidents in the Gosford LGA in the past 10 years makes consideration of issues in relation to emergency response extremely relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the area. Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to: Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000) Emergency service response Location identification Emergency service site access Emergency service communications (internal and joint service) Gosford City Council currently has in place formal procedures for lifeguards & staff regarding emergency reporting and response. These should be reviewed and updated to reflect any changes/improvements as a result of this risk assessment.

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) remains and 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. Due to the prevalence of mobile telephones across all demographics of society, additional emergency communications devices (beacons/radio phones/alarms) are less relevant where adequate mobile phone coverage exists. In any emergency the correct number to call is Triple Zero (000) and ask for Police so as to put in action the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW). This area is addressed in section 4.4 of this report.

4.2 Emergency Response Beacons

Emergency response beacons are a mobile or fixed unit capable of providing emergency communications to high risk remote localities where deaths have occurred. In such locations the time taken to raise the alarm and achieve a response of emergency services is a contributing factor to the chance of survival. This unit (pictured below) is capable of communicating over the two way radio network or the mobile telephone network. There are two main types of Emergency Response Beacons: Mobile: A movable unit which is employed for use within a patrolling system. Placed at a designated location during patrol hours and recovered at the end of patrol. They complement an existing on-beach service within that services coverage area. Fixed: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned at a location, and provides 24/7 capacity. Fits within a coordinated SLS emergency response system, whereby the unit is monitored and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies. Emergency Response Beacons are positioned in high use / high risk areas. They are highly visible and once activated, link via radio to lifesaving services. They aim to improve the response time of SLS services to an incident within their coverage area. Mobile Emergency Response Beacons are positioned at suitable locations within a SLS services coverage area at the start of patrol and are to be used in conjunction with lifeguard and volunteer lifesavers. These will commonly be back-beaches, at adjacent usage/access point on long-stretches of beach, coastal pools. They will be linked via radio to the service patrol (ideally on simplex channel) and/or monitored by Surfcom/Duty


Page 81 of 88

Officers. They are removed at the conclusion of patrol and returned to the club/service base for recharge and cleaning. Fixed Emergency Response Beacons which would operate outside of patrol hours should only be considered for use in a high risk location, where no/limited mobile/cell phone coverage exists and where a SLS service can ensure, show and maintain 100% coverage/monitoring of the beacon and have in place a consistent process of equipment checking/testing year round. There are no recommended emergency response beacons recommended for Gosford LGA due to there being no areas in a remote location that had the visitation frequency warranting an ERB. Image 4.2.1: A mobile Emergency Response Beacon in place at a beach.


Page 82 of 88

4.3 Emergency Service Response

The relatively high rate of coastal emergency incidents in the Gosford LGA compared with other coastal councils in NSW makes consideration of issues in relation to emergency response extremely 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 Gosford LGA. Resources that may respond include: o Police (including Water Police) o Ambulance (including the CHC Helicopter) o Gosford City Council Lifeguards o Surf Life saving Central Coast (Branch Callout Teams & SLSCs) o State Emergency Service (SES) o Marine Rescue NSW o Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Below is a summary of the emergency services located in the Gosford LGA. Table 4.3.1: Summary of Emergency services locations in Gosford LGA

Emergency Services - Gosford City Council

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb Phone Number

NSW Police Force LAC Level 3, 9-11 Mann St Gosford 4323 5599

NSW Police Force Level 1, 9-11 Mann St Gosford 4323 5599

NSW Police Force 13 Church St Terrigal 4384 4822

NSW Police Force 49 Blackwall Rd Woy Woy 4379 7399

NSW Ambulance Station Oceanview Rd Ettalong 131 233

NSW Ambulance Station Brisbane Water Dr Point Clare 131 233

NSW Ambulance Station Terrigal Dr Terrigal 131 233

NSW Fire Brigade Station 12 Brougham St Gosford 4325 1888

NSW Fire Brigade Station Terrigal Dr Terrigal 4385 3072

NSW Fire Brigade Station Trafalgar Ave Umina 4344 6293

Marine Rescue Terrigal Haven Terrigal 4325 7929

Westpac Life Saver Helicopter

Cape Banks Road, Botany Bay National Park

La Perouse 9311 3499

SES PO Box 4117 East Gosford 132 500


Page 83 of 88

Emergency Service Communications (internal / joint) Radio coverage for surf life saving communications is strong within Gosford City Council however there are a few locations where radio coverage is limited/average (maps below). The map is of coverage from the Avoca Ridge repeater. This is the main repeater used throughout Gosford LGA. Areas of limited coverage have been addressed by additional repeaters being installed. Figure 4.3.1: Avoca repeater coverage.

Figure 4.3.2: Copacabana repeater coverage.


Page 84 of 88

Figure 4.3.2: Killcare repeater coverage.

Key:

No coverage

(black spot)

Signal strength

(limited)

Signal strength

(average)

Signal strength

(strong)

Treatment Option 3.2 Radio tests within the assessment area should be conducted by surf life saving to analyse the need for upgrades in radio infrastructure

Gated access to NPWS land There are numerous gated entry points within the Gosford LGA. These entry points can act as fire trails, walking tracks and emergency access to beaches. Park Rangers and some lifeguard personnel hold keys to unlock main access and fire-trail gates, however feedback suggests that emergency service keys may be misplaced and on occasion emergency services wait for the park rangers to unlock gates. Surf Life Saving Central Coast lifesaving services (who may often be the first responders) do not currently hold keys for any gates.

Treatment Option 2.8 Surf Life Saving Support Services (Central Coast) and Gosford City Council Lifeguard Supervisors should be issued gate access keys to access NPWS land for use in the event of an emergency (for identified gates). This should be implemented under an appropriately authorised and administered system.


Page 85 of 88

4.4 Central Coast Emergency Tasking

Surf rescue agencies in the often work together when emergency incidents occur. There is an opportunity for these agencies to improve relations and these improvements relate to information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures. Surf Rescue Emergency Response System The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW) was established in January 2008 and provides a single point of contact for emergency services when there is a need to utilise surf rescue assets in coastal incidents. The emergency number can be contacted 24/7 and operators (State Duty Officers) can task/notify any surf rescue asset in NSW. The following page lists the calls in order for an emergency response. The procedures laid out on the following pages are for Surf Life Saving Central Coast Branch and may contain some information not relevant to the Gosford LGA. Table 4.4.1: Branch call out list

BRANCH CALLOUT LIST

Priority Call Point of Call Mobile Other Call Sign

1st Call SurfCom Avoca - N/A SurfCom Avoca

2nd Call Branch Emergency Phone - N/A N/A

3rd Call Brett Beswick - N/A Central Coast 11

4th Call Greg Collins - N/A Central Coast 12

5th Call Stuart Harvey - N/A Central Coast 20

Table 4.4.2: Other branch duty officers

OTHER BRANCH DUTY OFFICERS


Central Coast

Simon Cuasck - N/A Central Coast 13

Tony Jennar - N/A Central Coast 14

Matt Neale - N/A Central Coast 15

Aaron Camp - N/A Central Coast 16

Darren Jameson - N/A Central Coast 17

Katie Dixon - N/A Central Coast 18

Mark Davis - N/A Central Coast 19

Table 4.4.3: Lifeguard contacts

LIFEGUARD CONTACTS

Gosford Council – (Wamberal to Umina) – CALL 24/7


1st Call Craig Healy - Gosford 1

Table 4.4.4: Support operations

SUPPORT OPERATIONS

Support Operation Service Contact Call Sign

Avoca SurfCom 4382 1100 SurfCom

Hunter Westpac Helicopter 4952 0022 Westpac 3

Sydney Westpac Helicopter 9661 1020 Lifesaver 1

RWC Service - Brett Beswick - Wyong / Gosford Support 1


Page 86 of 88

Table 4.4.5: Water Police / Marine Rescue WATER POLICE /MARINE RESCUE

Emergency Service Type Contact Call Sign

Broken Bay Water Police 9910 7899 Broken Bay Water Police

MR Norah Head 4396 6162 Marine Rescue Norah Head

MR Terrigal 4384 5577 Marine Rescue Terrigal

MR Central Coast 4325 7929 Marine Rescue Central Coast

MR The Entrance 4332 3055 Marine Rescue The Entrance

MR Hawkesbury 9985 9012 Marine Rescue Hawkesbury

Table 4.4.6: Club after hour contacts

CLUB AFTER HOUR CONTACTS

Club Member Mobile Other

Avoca Beach Brad Scott - -

Copacabana Anthony Higgs - -

Killcare John Burke - -

MacMasters Beach Corey Myers - -

North Avoca John Roderick -

Ocean Beach Nigel Fitzgibbon - -

Terrigal Glenn Bowles - -

Umina Richard Boylan - -

Wamberal Craig Adams - -

Please note all personal phone numbers have been removed for privacy reasons. Emergency Action Plans Coastal emergencies can vary between land and water, and can be the result of natural processes or human action. A well planned and rehearsed emergency action plan (EAP) can greatly minimise the extent of injury and damage if an incident does occur. It was noted the Gosford City Council has well developed standard operating procedures in place for its Lifeguard operations. SOP’s, safe work practices and situational management are all contained within Council’s Beach Management Policy 2006. Surf Life saving Central Coast should work together with Gosford lifeguards to further develop procedures for emergencies. By having set protocols and reviewing these on a regular basis an improved response should be achieved by all emergency responders.

Treatment Option 1.13 & 5.5 Surf emergency response procedures to be further reviewed to promote a faster and more coordinated response to aquatic emergencies


Page 87 of 88

5 Monitor and Review The monitor and review 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 process of regular review is in place for the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This should include the collection of data regarding any incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed as well as the use of public rescue equipment. It is acknowledged that the NPWS already have a system of monitor and review built into the ‘NPWS Visitor Safety Regional Risk Register User Guide’. Land Managers may determine to further engage service providers such as Australian Coast Safe to assist with or even lead this task.

Treatment Options 1.14 & 2.9 Gosford City Council in partnership with other stakeholders (where appropriate) should review the effectiveness of any risk treatment plans and initiatives that have been implemented, on at least an annual basis.

Treatment Options 1.15 & 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


Page 88 of 88

6. 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 Angel Ring Project, Locations, Angel Ring Locations under investigation January 2012, (accessed May, 2013) http://www.angelrings.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingLocationsUnderInvestigationJ an2012.pdf Angel Ring Project, Locations, Angel Ring Approvals & Applications, (accessed May, 2013) http://www.angelrings.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/AngelRingApprovalsApplicationsJan201 2.pdf Barns, R 2012, ‘NSW Councils Beach Safety Information Signage’, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Bradstreet A, Sherker S, Brighton B, Weir A, Thompson, M 2012, ‘Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales’, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney. Census Data, 2011, ‘Quick Stats –Gosford Local Government Area’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, viewed on 29

th May, 2013,

International Life Saving Federation, 2008, ‘Drowning Prevention Strategies A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving’, 8

th edition, The

International Life Saving Federation, Belgium Life Saving Victoria, 2006, ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual’, 3rd edition, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne 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 Statewide Mutual, 2007, ‘Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision’, V.3, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2010, ‘The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines’, 2nd edition, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2011, ‘Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessor Learner Guide’, V.3, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney