Richmond Local Government Area - Water Safety NSW Public Safety Risk Assessment: Richmond Valley Local Government Area Page iv 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS 75

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 Richmond Local Government Area

February 2015

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Richmond Valley Local Government Area

Page ii

© Surf Life Saving New South Wales, Belrose 2014 All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer This work is copyright. However, material form this publication may be copied or published by State Government agencies without the permission of SLSNSW on the condition that the meaning of the material is not altered and SLSNSW is acknowledged as the source of the material. Any other persons or bodies wishing to use the material must seek permission. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.

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


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. VII 1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 PROJECT TEAM / AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................ 7

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 11 2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 13 2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS .................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .................................................................... 16

2.6.1 Rhythmic Bar and Beach ............................................................................................................... 16 2.6.2 Transverse Bar and Rip ................................................................................................................. 16 2.6.3 Low Tide Terrace ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.6.4 Rock Platforms and Rocky Coasts ................................................................................................. 18

2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ................................................................................................................ 19 2.7.1 Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables ......................................................................... 20

2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT ....................................................................................................................................... 23 2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM................................................................................................... 24

2.9.1 Population Statistics ..................................................................................................................... 24 2.9.2 Development Plans in Richmond Valley ........................................................................................ 24 2.9.3 Tourism Information ..................................................................................................................... 25

2.10 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 27 2.10.1 Beach Usage Statistics .................................................................................................................. 27 2.10.2 Drowning Incidents ....................................................................................................................... 32 2.10.3 Emergency Callouts ....................................................................................................................... 32

2.11 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................... 34 3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 37

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ...................................................................................... 37 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ....................................................................................................... 37 3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program ................................................................... 38 3.1.3 Local Population Rating ................................................................................................................ 39 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ............................................................................................... 40 3.1.5 Access Rating ................................................................................................................................ 41 3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ....................................................................................................... 42

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ................................................................................................... 45 3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) ....................................................................................... 45 3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programs ............................................................................................ 46 3.2.4 Safety Signage .............................................................................................................................. 55 3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ........................................................................................................... 63 3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs ................................ 64 3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment .............................................................................................................. 68 3.2.8 System of Supervision ................................................................................................................... 70

4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE ......................................................................................................................... 74

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) ..................................................................... 74


Page iv

4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ................................................................................................................. 75 4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ................................................................................................................... 76 4.4 COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 79 4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) ............................................................................ 81

5 MONITOR AND REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 82 6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Access and Signage Schedule APPENDIX B - Risk Register and Treatment Plan APPENDIX C - Public Rescue Equipment APPENDIX D - Facilities Audit APPENDIX E - Coverage Maps APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Engagement APPENDIX G - Life Saving Service Level Calculator APPENDIX H - Data Collection


Page v

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1.1 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN. ............................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2.2.1: RICHMOND VALLEY LGA – ASSESSED LOCATIONS SITE INSPECTION............................................................................. 9 FIGURE 2.3.1: RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS (STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, 2009). ............................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2.6.1: ILLUSTRATION OF A RHYTHMIC BAR & BEACH BEACH. ............................................................................................ 16 FIGURE 2.6.2: ILLUSTRATION OF A TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP BEACH. ........................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2.6.3: ILLUSTRATION OF A LOW TIDE TERRACE BEACH. .................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 2.10.1 AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY EVANS HEAD SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB VOLUNTEERS (JULY 2008 TO

JUNE 2014). ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 FIGURE 2.10.2: AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS RECORDED BY EVANS HEAD LIFEGUARD SERVICE (JULY 2008 TO JUNE 2014). .... 28 FIGURE 2.10.3EVANS HEAD VOLUNTEER SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB TOTAL RESCUES, PREVENTIONS AND FIRST AID STATISTICS FROM JULY 2008 TO

JUNE 2014. .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 2.10.4 EVANS HEAD LIFEGUARD SERVICE TOTAL RESCUES, PREVENTIONS AND FIRST AID STATISTICS FROM JULY 2008 TO JUNE 2014.

.............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 2.11.1: PROJECT BLUEPRINT FLYER ............................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 3.2.1 PHOTO OF EVANS HEAD MAIN BEACH ON A BUSY DAY. ........................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 3.2.2: EXAMPLE OF A SURF SAFETY INFORMATION POSTER AT TATHRA BEACH. .................................................................... 48 FIGURE 3.2.3: EXAMPLE OF A NATIONAL PARKS VISITOR INFORMATION BOARD WHERE WATER SAFETY INFORMATION COULD BE DISPLAYED BY

THE USE OF A QR CODE. .............................................................................................................................................. 48 FIGURE 3.2.4 EXAMPLE OF QR CODE USE ON PUBLIC WARNING SIGNAGE IN THE EVANS HEAD AIR WEAPONS RANGE. ............................ 49 FIGURE 3.2.5 EMPTY FLYER DISTRIBUTION BOX THAT COULD BE USED TO CONTAIN SURF SAFETY INFORMATION IN THE DIRAWONG RESERVE. 49 FIGURE 3.2.6: EXAMPLE OF HOW A HIGHWAY BILLBOARD COULD LOOK PROMOTING SURF SAFETY IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY. .................. 50 FIGURE 3.2.7 SURF SAFETY PRESENTATION AT NEWPORT BEACH (PITTWATER LGA)........................................................................ 51 FIGURE 3.2.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE ROCK FISHING SCHOOL. ....................................................................................... 52 FIGURE 3.2.9: DON’T PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE. .................................................................................................................... 53 FIGURE 3.2.10: SURVIVE A RIP CURRENT. ................................................................................................................................ 53 FIGURE 3.2.11: BEACH SAFETY FOR TOURISTS / MIGRANTS. ........................................................................................................ 53 FIGURE 3.2.12: SWIM BETWEEN THE FLAGS. ........................................................................................................................... 53 FIGURE 3.2.13: BEACH DRIVING REGULATIONS AND SAFETY SIGNAGE. ......................................................................................... 55 FIGURE 3.2.14: CAUTION SNAKES. ........................................................................................................................................ 55 FIGURE 3.2.15: SAFETY SIGNAGE IN NATIONAL PARKS. .............................................................................................................. 56 FIGURE 3.2.16 WARNING SIGNAGE AT UNSTABLE CLIFF EDGES. .................................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 3.2.17: SAFETY SIGNAGE AT THE AIR WEAPONS RANGE. ................................................................................................. 56 FIGURE 3.2.18: BREAKWATER SAFETY SIGNAGE. ....................................................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 3.2.19 SECTION OF A LEVEL TWO CAR PARK SIGN AT HUNGRY HEAD NORTH (BELLINGEN LGA) CONTAINING BEACH DRIVING

INFORMATION AND REGULATIONS. ................................................................................................................................. 58 FIGURE 3.2.20: SECTION OF A LEVEL THREE ACCESS SIGN AT NORTH BEACH (BELLINGEN LGA) WHICH CAUTIONS PEDESTRIANS OF THE

PRESENCE OF VEHICLES. ............................................................................................................................................... 58 FIGURE 3.2.21 MULTIPLE REGULATORY SIGNS THAT COULD BE CONSOLIDATED INTO A SINGLE SIGN. .................................................... 59 FIGURE 3.2.22: AN EXAMPLE OF A SET OF LIGHTS USED BY THE ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUATION FOR SAFETY REASONS IN REGARDS

TO TIDAL CHANGES. .................................................................................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 3.2.23: EXAMPLE OF EMERGENCY MARKER SIGN. ........................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 3.2.24: FORMAL ACCESS AT AIRFORCE BEACH. .............................................................................................................. 64 FIGURE 3.2.25: INFORMAL ACCESS AT SNAPPER ROCKS. ............................................................................................................ 64 FIGURE 3.2.26 EVANS HEAD AIR WEAPONS RANGE LAND AND SEA BOUNDARIES ........................................................................... 65 FIGURE 3.2.27 RESTRICTED ACCESS DUE TO FLOODING ALONG THE JERUSALEM CREEK TRAIL. ............................................................. 66 FIGURE 3.2.28 RESTRICTED ACCESS AROUND THE EVANS HEAD AIR WEAPONS RANGE. .................................................................... 66 FIGURE 4.1.1: SUGGESTED EMERGENCY 'TRIPLE ZERO' INFORMATION FOR SIGNAGE. ........................................................................ 74 FIGURE 4.2.1: EXAMPLE OF A MOBILE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACON ON A BEACH. ........................................................................ 75 FIGURE 4.3.1 EMERGENCY HELICOPTER LANDING PAD AT BLACK ROCKS CAMP GROUND. .................................................................. 77 FIGURE 4.3.2: EMERGENCY SERVICES WITHIN 25KM OF THE COAST IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. ................................................... 78 FIGURE 4.4.1: SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE EVANS HEAD REPEATER FROM BROADWATER TO NEW ZEALAND BEACHES. .............................. 79 FIGURE 4.4.2 SIGNAL STRENGTH OF THE YAMBA REPEATER ON TEN MILE BEACH. ........................................................................... 79 FIGURE 4.4.3 RIVER BAR CROSSING AT EVANS HEAD. ................................................................................................................ 80


Page vi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.4.1: DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS. ................................................................................................................................. 5 TABLE 2.2.1: ASSESSED LOCATIONS AND ASSESSMENT DATES. ..................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2.4.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS. ................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 2.4.2: BEACH HAZARD RATING CALCULATION MATRICES FOR WAVE DOMINATE BEACHES. ......................................................... 13 TABLE 2.5.1: ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS – RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. .............................................................................. 14 TABLE 2.7.1: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL HAZARDS RATING FOR RESERVES – NON BEACH ENVIRONMENTS. ........................... 20 TABLE 2.7.2: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT RATINGS FOR BEACHES. ...................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 2.7.3: TYPICAL POPULATION USE RATING FOR A FACILITY. .................................................................................................. 20 TABLE 2.7.4 SUGGESTED FREQUENCY USE RATING FOR A FACILITY ................................................................................................ 20 TABLE 2.7.5: FACILITY VISITATION RATES – FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ......................................................................................... 21 TABLE 2.8.1: THE 15 MOST COMMON FACILITIES ALONG THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA COASTLINE. ..................................................... 23 TABLE 2.8.2: THE TOP LOCATIONS FOR FACILITIES WITHIN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. ................................................................... 23 TABLE 2.9.1 RICHMOND VALLEY POPULATION DATA (ABS, 2011). .............................................................................................. 24 TABLE 2.9.2 POPULATION COUNT OF COASTAL STATE SUBURBS IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA (ABS, 2011). ..................................... 24 TABLE 2.9.3 TOURISM DATA AND VISITOR INFORMATION FOR RICHMOND VALLEY LGA (‘DESTINATION NSW’, 2014) ........................... 25 TABLE 2.9.4 DOMESTIC OVERNIGHT TRAVEL DATA AND VISITOR INFORMATION FOR RICHMOND VALLEY LGA (DESTINATION NSW, 2014) . 25 TABLE 2.9.5 ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS WITH DIRECT COASTAL ACCESS IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. ........................................ 26 TABLE 2.10.1 EVANS HEAD VOLUNTEER SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB PREVENTIONS AND RESCUES AND CONSEQUENT RATIO FOR EACH PATROLLING

SEASON. ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 TABLE 2.10.2 EVANS HEAD LIFEGUARDS PREVENTIONS AND RESCUES AND CONSEQUENT RATIO FOR EACH PATROLLING SEASON. ................ 31 TABLE 2.10.3 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS THROUGH THE SRES FROM 01/01/08 TO 30/06/14 IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA ................. 32 TABLE 3.1.1 ABSAMP AND INDICATIVE RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ........................................................................ 38 TABLE 3.1.2 LOCAL POPULATION RATING DESCRIPTORS. ............................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. .................................................................................. 39 TABLE 3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION DESCRIPTORS. ....................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 3.1.5 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. ................................................................. 40 TABLE 3.1.6 ACCESS RATING DESCRIPTORS. ............................................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 3.1.7 ACCESS RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS. .................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 3.1.8 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY CALCULATIONS FOR EACH ASSESSED LOCATION. ............................................... 42 TABLE 3.1.9: LAND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. ...................................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 3.1.10: ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORES FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS. .............................................................................. 43 TABLE 3.2.1 EXAMPLES OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS. .......................................................................................... 53 TABLE 3.2.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA ............. 60 TABLE 3.2.3 ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN ASSESSED LOCATIONS IN RICHMOND VALLEY. ...................................................................... 66 TABLE 3.2.4 AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT (PRE) (BRADSTREET, ET AL., 2012). ...................................................... 68 TABLE 3.2.5 VOLUNTEER LIFESAVING SERVICES IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. ............................................................................ 71 TABLE 3.2.6 PAID LIFEGUARD SERVICES IN THE RICHMOND VALLEY LGA. ...................................................................................... 72 TABLE 4.3.1 COASTAL EMERGENCY SERVICE LOCATIONS FOR RICHMOND VALLEY LGA (<25KM FROM THE COAST) ................................ 76


Page vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains findings and treatment options which align with current International and Australian

standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific

to locations under the authority of Richmond Valley Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the

Department of Defence (Federal Government) and the Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve which

includes the Dirawong Reserve Trust and the Silver Sands Holiday Park

These locations include (north to south):

1. Broadwater Beach

2. Airforce Beach

3. Evans Head

4. Razorback/Shark Bay/Little

5. Half Tide Rocks

6. Joggly Point

7. Red Hill Beach

8. Chinaman’s North

9. Chinaman’s South

10. New Zealand Beach

11. Snapper Rocks

12. Ten Mile Beach

Activities/Facilities

The Richmond Valley Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public

usage and recreational activity, including swimming, surfing (including all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving,

boating, and walking.

A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and beach

access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, coastal walks, a number of public amenity blocks, BBQ’s, and picnic

tables.

Hazards/Risks

The Richmond Valley LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of

the area. These are outlined in detail in the report body and Appendix B.

Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, the following hazards that have been rated with the greatest

inherent risk for the Richmond Valley LGA:

Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type

Waves/waves overwashing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells

Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type

Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action

Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type

Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement

Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography

Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction


Page viii

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

Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users

Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users

Inshore holes/drop off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen

Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users

Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users

Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen

Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers

Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters

Existing Risk Treatments

Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the following risk

treatment initiatives within the Richmond Valley LGA:

o System of supervision

o Education and awareness programs

o Safety signage

o Public rescue equipment


Page ix

Summary of Recommendations

Please note:

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

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

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

o Some treatment options may be relevant for two or more agencies

Recommendation 1

Richmond Valley Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Strategic Coordination:

1.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Richmond Valley Local Government

Area, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options

such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision. (p.24)

1.2 Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard

statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk

treatments for coastal safety. (p.32)

1.3 Land Managers in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Far

North Coast as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies.

It is encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting.

After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after

the surf life saving season. (p.36)

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

a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.44)

Education:

1.5 Education and awareness programs within the Richmond Valley Local Government Area should

continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups

who may not have the expertise to implement educational programs should work with peak water

safety organisations to assist in delivery. (p.54)

1.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic industry - http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/resources/reports.html

(p.54)

1.7 Develop relationships with tourism agencies and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim

of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal

accommodation providers in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area. (p.54)

1.8 Peak coastal water safety agencies currently provide surf education to local schools and community

groups upon request. Richmond Valley Shire Council should continue to work with these agencies to

promote these programmes and encourage enhanced participation at a local level. (p.54)


Page x

1.9 Businesses within the Richmond Local Government Area that hire out surfcraft should be aware of the

daily beach conditions, and inform customers about local characteristics and hazards. These

businesses should not hire out surfcraft when conditions warrant the closing of a beach. (p.54)

1.10 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations.

Specific examples can be referenced in the report. (p.54)

1.11 Richmond Valley Council in conjunction with peak water safety organisations have the opportunity to

advertise surf safety messages on roadside billboards, particular along the main highway through

Broadwater. (p.54)

1.12 Richmond Valley Council in conjunction with peak water safety organisations should organise an

education day with the guests of the Silver Sands Holiday Park to learn about basic surf safety

awareness. (p.54)

1.13 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.

54)

Safety Signage:

1.14 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should

be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and

upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing

signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.61)

1.15 Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the Silver Sands Holiday Park to

inform guests of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to

alert park operators when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory

process. (p.61)

Access:

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

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

informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage

needed. (p.67)

1.17 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation,

in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.67)

Supervision/Surveillance:

1.18 Explore the means to fund an extension of the service at Evans Head to cover the QLD school holiday

periods during summer spring and autumn. (p.73)

1.19 The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and

locations) should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is

provided. (p.73)


Page xi

Emergency Response:

1.20 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Far North Coast Branch Duty

Officers/Support Operations, senior Richmond Valley Lifeguards and the local emergency services

once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.81)

Monitor & Review:

1.21 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure

the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been

implemented and where future funding opportunities can be directed. (p.82)

1.22 All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the

relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management

area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.82)

Recommendation 2

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




such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision. (p.24)



treatments for coastal safety. (p.32)





the surf life saving season.(p.36)


a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.44)

Education:




safety organisations to assist in delivery. (p.54)




Page xii

(p. 54)



2.8 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.

54)

Safety Signage:





Access:




needed. (p.67)



Monitor & Review:







Recommendation 3

The Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve – Crown Lands should consider implementing the following

risk treatment options:




such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision. (p. 24)



treatments for coastal safety. (p. 32)


Page xiii





the surf life saving season. (p. 36)


a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p. 44)

Education:




safety organisations to assist in delivery. (p. 54)



(p.54)



Safety Signage:





Access:




needed. (p.67)




Page xiv


3.11 The Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve – Crown Lands should explore the means to fund a trial

lifeguard service at Chainman’s South Beach during the peak summer school holiday period (2 week

service) starting on Boxing Day. (p.73)

Monitor & Review:







Recommendation 4

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

Education:

4.1 Develop relationships with tourism agencies and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim

of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal

accommodation providers in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area. (p.54)

Emergency Marker Signage:

4.2 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property

Information, a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be

considered. (p.63)

Public Rescue Equipment:

4.3 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in

consultation with the relevant fishing associations and Land Managers at the locations outlined in

‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations. (p.69)

Recommendation 5

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


5.1 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.15)


Page xv





the surf life saving season. (p. 36)

5.3 To ensure beach usage statistics are complete and veracious, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast and the

Australian Lifeguard Service should collaborate to devise and implement a consistent method for

collecting beach visitation data. (p. 33)

Education:

5.4 Explore the means to expand upon the Surf Life Saving NSW’s ‘Surf School’ project to target schools

within the New England area. Such a program could be delivered by qualified lifeguards that deliver

services along the proximate coastline. (p.54)

5.5 The Evans Head-Casino Surf Life Saving Club should participate in the annual Rip Current Awareness

Day.(p.54)

5.6 Surf Life Saving NSW should consider establishing a network for coastal aquatic equipment hire

providers, similar to the coastal accommodation network. (p.54)

Safety Signage:

5.7 Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the Silver Sands Holiday Park to

inform guests of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to

alert park operators when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory

process. (p.61)

5.8 Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct

patrons to a supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary

hazards such as strong currents, creek openings and pollution. (p.62)


5.9 Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular

basis to cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled. (p.73)

Emergency Response:

5.10 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Far North Coast to raise

any current issues and opportunities which could see further radio infrastructure installed to improve

communication. (p.80)

5.11 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Far North Coast Branch Duty

Officers/Support Operations, senior Richmond Valley Lifeguards and the local emergency services

once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.81)


Page xvi

5.12 Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Iluka/Yamba

Marine Rescue Unit. (p.81)

Recommendation 6

Marine Rescue NSW should consider implementing the following risk treatment options:

Emergency Response:

6.1 Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate

possible options to warn boat uses when crossing river bars. (p.62)

6.2 Marine Rescue NSW should investigate the feasibility of recreational and commercial boat users

notifying them before commencing bar crossings and after they have safely completed the crossing. A

targeted educational and awareness campaign would have to be aligned to this procedure. (p.80)


Page 1 of 84

1 INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Project Background

Surf Life Saving New South Wales (SLSNSW) is undertaking a significant state-wide drowning prevention

project, known as Project Blueprint. As a core component of the project, every accessible coastal beach and

rock platform in New South Wales (NSW) are being assessed using industry leading systems and processes. The

outcomes will include evidence based drowning prevention treatment options to stakeholders and

government, both at a local, regional and state level.

Project Blueprint is being delivered by Australian CoastSafe, as the leading coastal public safety risk

management authority in Australia. Australian CoastSafe is the strategic and intelligence beach safety unit of

Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) – visit www.coastsafe.org.au for more information.

This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related

issues identified at every accessible beach/rock platform located on the coast of the Richmond Valley LGA. The

Land Managers of this area include Richmond Valley City Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service

(NPWS) – Office of Environment and Heritage, Crown Lands, Dirawong Reserve Trust and the Department of

Defence.

The Drowning Issue

Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 30 June 2014, there have

been 365 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 20041. The vast majority of these can be attributed to

swimming/rip-currents and rock-fishing, with a high majority occurring at unpatrolled locations/times, where

no expert assistance is immediately available.

Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of

factors known as the ‘drowning chain’ and these are:

o Lack of knowledge, disregard or misunderstanding of the hazard

o Uninformed or unrestricted access to the hazard

o Lack of supervision or surveillance

o An inability to cope once in difficulty

The strategies that have been identified to address the drowning chain are:

o Education and information

o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings

o Provision of supervision

o Acquisition of survival skills

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database

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


Page 2 of 84

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

Treatment Options

This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and

long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with

clear supporting evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders, and the application of effective risk

mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required.

It is acknowledged that Land Managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land Managers

should balance water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide

services and facilities to meet the current future needs of their local communities as a whole, all within a

limited budget.

This report recognises that there are many inherent risks associated with the NSW coastline and that in most

instances these risks associated with the NSW coastline cannot be eliminated and can only be managed within

the operations contexts of the land manager, taking into account all of their responsibilities and available

resources. This report also recognises that visitors to these areas also have a personal responsibility for their

own safety and those they are responsible for.

The treatment options found in the report are representative of Australian CoastSafe’s opinion in relation to

risk management at the locations assessed.


Page 3 of 84

1.2 CONTEXT AND SCOPE

Context

SLSNSW recently received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water

Safety Black Spots Fund to commence coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches

and rock platforms). The program will be staged over several years with phase three to include the Richmond

Valley, Clarence, Bellingen, Nambucca, Shellharbour, Kiama and Eurobodalla LGAs.

The report provides risk treatment options about how to improve risk and safety management in line with

current industry standards:

o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines,

o AS/NZS2416.1:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags,

o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols – Public information symbols,

o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic

Signs, and

o ISO9001:2008 Quality Management Systems – Requirements.

Scope

This coastal risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment

undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Richmond Valley LGA which commenced on Tuesday 17th June and

concluded on Thursday 19th June, 2014.

The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment, including but not

limited to; signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user

groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people

to visit the location.

The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of

the Richmond Valley LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in

this report.

Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in

nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the

coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating may occur in these waters the

detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this

report. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au

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

assessment.

Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail:

o Access locations, classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment

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

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

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

equipment Appendix C.

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


Page 4 of 84

o Facilities and points of interest that may attract members of the public to coastal locations Appendix D.

Other appendices include:

o Coverage maps of assessed locations Appendix E.

o Stakeholder Engagement Appendix F.

o Life Saving Service Level Calculator Appendix G.

o Data Collection Appendix H.

At no time during the inspection was the water entered. The assessments were performed from the land,

along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.

1.3 LIMITATIONS

The following are acknowledged as limitations of this coastal public safety risk assessment.

o The absence of an agreed and recognised methodology for rating the hazardousness of rock platforms.

o Difficulty in gaining feedback from all identified stakeholders.

o Limited timeframes allowed for stakeholders to provide feedback on consultative draft versions of the

main report and appendices as a result of the project timeframes.


Page 5 of 84

1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS

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

Table 1.4.1: Definitions of key terms.

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety and Management Program

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

daily basis

ATV All-terrain vehicle

CALD Culturally And Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities

Coastal The foreshore, seabed, coastal water, and airspace above a large body of water

(harbour/bay/inlet), including areas up to 2NM offshore and of which the

landward boundary is the line of mean high water, except that where that line

crosses a river/inlet, the landward boundary at that point shall be the point

upstream that is calculated by multiplying the width of the river/inlet mouth by 5

(Adapted from the Resource Management Amendment Act 1991 – New Zealand).

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

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event

Control An existing process, policy, device, practice or other action that acts to minimise

negative risk or enhance positive opportunities

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

First Aid A lifesaver/lifeguard treating either a minor or major first aid incident, which may

require further assistance from NSW Ambulance e.g. broken bones or stings/bites

Formal Access Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating

the use of a generally safer ‘track’, effectively exposing people to the relevant

safety signage/information, reducing the quality of signage required and

enhancing emergency reporting/location identification.

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

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

Hazard A source of potential harm

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

safety sign

Inaccessible A location that is not able to be accessed from land by standard reasoning and/or

entry is prohibited by private access


Page 6 of 84

Informal Access Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven

ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/sink-holes),

may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make

emergency location reporting difficult (location awareness).

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

in place.

IRB Inflatable Rescue Boat.

LGA Local Government Area – for the purposes of this report this area is used to

determine the scope of the assessment (i.e. the coastal boundary of the Local

Government Area). This may include lands managed by Councils, Crown and

National Parks and Wildlife Service.

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

volunteer lifesavers and appropriate rescue and first aid equipment supported by

a coordinated backup team.

Likelihood Used as a general description of probability or frequency.

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

Monitor To check, supervise, observe critically or measure the progress of an activity,

action or system on a regular basis in order to identify change from the

performance level required or expected.

Peak Water Safety

Agencies

A peak body is defined as a state, territory or national non-profit organisation

established to cater for the needs, interests and aspirations of its members.

Members may include individuals or organisations, but they will all have a

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

such as Surf Life Saving, Royal Life Saving, Surf Educators Australia, Austswim,

Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguard Association, Surfing NSW and the Office

of Boating Safety who represent the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council as a

committee member.

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

Preventative Action /

Prevention

A lifesaver/lifeguard simply providing proactive direction or advice to beachgoers

in a ‘preventative action’ for the beachgoer to avoid finding themselves in a

position beyond their capability.

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

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

water.

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments.


Page 7 of 84

Rip Current Channelled currents of water flowing away from shore, typically extending from

the shoreline, through the surf zone, and past the line of breaking waves.

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

31000:2009).

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

Risk Assessment Standards Australia defines a risk assessment as the overall process of risk

identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation (AS/NZS 31000:2009).

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

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

happen.

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

and control an organisation with regard to risk (AS/NZS 31000:2009).

Risk Register A table summarising the identified risks, the location, why it has been identified as

a risk, and what current treatments are in place to lessen the risk and an overall

hazard rating.

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

Risk Treatment Plan A table summarising how to deal with the identified risks, including a list of

potential risk treatments, the risk treatments currently and any residual risk.

RWC Rescue water craft (jet ski).

SLS Branch Surf Life Saving Branch, a regional body of Surf Life Saving formed to further the

objects of surf lifesaving in a particular geographic area.

Stakeholders Those people and organisations who may affect, be affected, or perceive

themselves to be affected by a decision, activity or risk.

1.5 PROJECT TEAM / AUTHORS

Project Team:

Adam Weir, Coastal Risk Manager

Camilla Green, Coastal Risk Officer

Luke Stigter, Coastal Risk Officer

Chris Twine, Coastal Administration Officer

Australian CoastSafe

Surf Life Saving New South Wales

Ph: 02-9471 8000 | F: 02-9471 8001

W: www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint

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


Page 8 of 84

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The methodology included site identification, site inspection, hazard identification, data analysis, beach hazard

ratings, beach identification, facility visitation ratings, facilities, beach usage, tourism data, incident data,

communication and consultation.

2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION

The map in Figure 2.2.1 provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the

Richmond Valley LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in

Appendix E. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed approximately 37km of coastline in the

Richmond Valley LGA.

The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of:

o Richmond Valley Council

o National Parks and Wildlife Service

o Department of Defence

o Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve – Dirawong Reserve Trust and the Silver Sands Holiday 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 scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of

the Richmond Valley LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in

this report.

Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in

nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the

coastal aquatic environment.


Page 9 of 84

Figure 2.2.1: Richmond Valley LGA – Assessed Locations Site Inspection.


Page 10 of 84

Table 2.2.1: Assessed locations and assessment dates.

Location Land Management Authority Date

Broadwater Beach National Parks and Wildlife Service Tuesday 17th June, 2014

Airforce Beach Richmond Valley Council Tuesday 17th June, 2014

Evans Head Richmond Valley Council Tuesday 17th June, 2014

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little Richmond Valley Council Tuesday 17th June, 2014

Half Tide Rocks Dirawong Reserve Trust Tuesday 17th June, 2014

Joggly Point Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

Red Hill Beach Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

Chinaman’s North Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

Chinaman’s South Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

New Zealand Beach Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

Snapper Rocks Dirawong Reserve Trust Wednesday 18th June, 2014

Ten Mile Beach Department of Defence / National Parks and

Wildlife Service Thursday 19th June, 2014


Page 11 of 84

2.3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

During the site inspection hazards were identified within the area inspected and assessed in terms of their

individual risk to public safety (extreme, high, medium, low) using a risk assessment matrix Appendix B.

The risk assessment matrix considers both the type of harm that could be sustained as a result of an individual

hazard and the likelihood of this harm actually occurring.

Hazards/Risks

The Richmond Valley LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of

the beaches in the area.

Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, the following hazards that have been rated with the greatest

inherent risk for the Richmond Valley LGA:

Strong currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type

Waves/waves over washing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells

Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type

Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action

Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type

Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement

Cliffs/dangerous access: As a result of coastal geography

Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction

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

Strong currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users

Waves/waves over washing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users

Inshore holes/drop-off/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen

Slippery rocks/uneven surfaces: Fishermen, rock platform users

Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users

Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen

Cliffs/dangerous access: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers

Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters

This coastal public safety risk assessment aligns with the international standard of risk management ‘AS/NZS

ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’ (Standards Australia, 2009).


Page 12 of 84

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


Page 13 of 84

2.4 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW

The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Program) was developed by Professor Andrew Short

from the University of Sydney Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The program

has identified coastal hazards that affect bathers and rates the safety of the beach on a scale of one to ten,

where one (1) is the least hazardous and ten (10) is the most hazardous. The beach hazard ratings and

definitions are provided in the following table. Table 2.4.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings.

The beach hazard rating is calculated by determining the beach type and wave height. This can be done under

either modal (average) or prevailing (current) conditions. The beach hazard rating is then calculated by using

the following table. Table 2.4.2: Beach hazard rating calculation matrices for wave dominate beaches.

Wave Height

Beach Type

< 0.5 (m)

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

Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10

Long Shore Bar Trough

4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10

Rhythmic Bar Beach

4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10

Transverse Bar Rip

4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low Tide Terrace 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Reflective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

The beach hazard ratings used in risk based calculation throughout the report relate to modal beach

conditions and as such the hazard rating of a beach may increase when conditions alter e.g. with increasing

wave height, winds, strong tides and high tide. Furthermore, a hazard rating is also applied to an average

person and therefore the hazard may in fact be greater or less, depending upon an individual's own skill, and

understanding and competence in relation to a certain area. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected

areas of the Richmond Valley LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.

Hazard Rating Details

1 - 3

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

4 - 6

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

7 - 8

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

9 - 10

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


Page 14 of 84

2.5 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS

The ABSAMP Hazard Rating for the assessed locations listed in Table 2.5.1 below. The table provides both a

modal and a prevailing ABSAMP rating. The modal ABSAMP rating represents the average conditions for each

location, which has been extracted from the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. The prevailing

ABSAMP rating represents the conditions observed by Australian CoastSafe on the day each audit took place. Table 2.5.1: ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Richmond Valley LGA.

Location Name ABSAMP

No.

ABSAMP Rating

(Modal)

ABSAMP Type (Modal)

ABSAMP Rating

(Prevailing)

ABSAMP Type (Prevailing)

Broadwater Beach

nsw029e 6 Transverse Bar and

Rip/ Rhythmic Bar and Beach

7 Rhythmic Bar and

Beach

Airforce Beach nsw029f 6 Transverse Bar and


6 Transverse Bar

and Rip

Evans Head nsw029g 6 Transverse Bar and


7 Transverse Bar

and Rip

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little

nsw030 6 Low Tide Terrace /

Transverse Bar and Rip 6

Transverse Bar and Rip

Half Tide Rocks nsw030s 5 Low Tide Terrace +

Rocks 4

Low Tide Terrace + Rocks

Joggly Point nsw030sRPa 6* Rock Platforms 5* Rock Platforms

Red Hill Beach nsw031 6 Transverse Bar and Rip 6 Transverse Bar

and Rip

Chinaman’s North nsw032 6 Transverse Bar and Rip 6 Transverse Bar

and Rip

Chinaman’s South nsw033 6 Transverse Bar and Rip 6 Transverse Bar

and Rip

New Zealand Beach

nsw034 5 Low Tide Terrace /

Transverse Bar and Rip 5

Low Tide Terrace / Transverse Bar

and Rip

Snapper Rocks nsw034RPa 6* Rock Platforms 6* Rock Platforms

Ten Mile Beach nsw035 6 Transverse Bar and


7 Transverse Bar

and Rip/ Rhythmic Bar and Beach

* Richmond Valley LGA Rock Platform Ratings

Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the

ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy

has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification

study on rocky coasts (Kennedy, et al., 2013). This research has now received funding under an Australian

Research Council linkage grant. Professor Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) presented the

methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). An update of this

research was provided by Dr. David Kennedy at the NSW Coastal Conference in Ulladulla (November, 2014).

As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach

hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches


Page 15 of 84

on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather

conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated

hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the

potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform.

It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a

rock platform. In order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed the interim solution,

which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology detailed above, has been applied. Once the

research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these

calculations should be revisited.

Treatment Option 5.1

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 16 of 84

2.6 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS

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

2.6.1 RHYTHMIC BAR AND BEACH

Rhythmic bar and beach type commonly occurs

around the southern Australian coast. They

usually consist of relatively fine-medium (0.3

mm) sand and exposure to waves averaging

more than 1.5 m. They are characterised by an

outer bar which is separated from the beach by

a deep trough, however unlike the longshore

bar and trough type, the bar varies in width and

elevation alongshore, and it is rhythmic.

Waves break more heavily on the shoreward-

protruding rhythmic bar sections with the

broken wave and white water flowing

shoreward as a wave bore. The bore then flows off the bar into the deeper tough, where it moves shoreward

and longshore as a rip feeder current. Part of the wave reforms in the trough and breaks again on the shore.

The water from both the wave bore and the swash piles up in the rip feeder channel and moves sideways

toward the adjacent rip embayment. The converging feeder currents turn and flow seaward as a rip current

through the trough and across the deeper seaward-protruding sections of the rhythmic bar.

The following beaches within the Richmond Valley LGA are classified as rhythmic bar and beach:

2.6.2 TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP

Transverse bar and rip (TBR) type is the most

common and extensive of Australia’s wave-

dominated beach types. They occur primarily on

beaches composed of fine to medium sand (0.3

mm) and exposed to waves averaging 1.5 m.

This beach type received its name from the fact

that the bars are transverse or perpendicular to

and attached to the beach, separated by deeper

rip channels.

The bars and rips are usually regularly spaced

and range from 150 m on the lower energy sea-

dominated northern Australian beaches to 250

Figure 2.6.1: Illustration of a Rhythmic Bar & Beach beach.

o Broadwater Beach

o Airforce Beach

o Evans Head

o Ten Mile Beach

Figure 2.6.2: Illustration of a Transverse Bar and Rip beach.


Page 17 of 84

m along the higher energy southeast coast and 350 m along the exposed southern coast. Waves break heavily

on the shallower bars and less in the deeper rip channels resulting in lower energy swash in lee of the bars and

higher energy swash/shore break in lee of the rips. The shoreline is rhythmic building a few metres seaward

behind the attached bars as deposition occurs forming the mega cusp horns and being scoured out and often

scarped in lee of the rips forming the embayments. The surf zone has a cellular circulation pattern. Waves tend

to break more on the bars and move shoreward as wave bores. This water flows both directly into the adjacent

rip channel and, closer to the beach, into the rip feeder channels located at the base of the beach. The water in

the rip feeders converge and return seaward as a strong rip current.

The following beaches within the Richmond Valley LGA are classified as transverse bar and rip:

o Broadwater Beach

o Airforce Beach

o Evans Head

o Razorback/Shark Bay/Little

o Red Hill Beach

o Chinaman’s North

o Chinaman’s South

o New Zealand Beach

o Ten Mile Beach

2.6.3 LOW TIDE TERRACE

Low tide terrace beaches tend to occur when

waves average about 1m and sand is fine to

medium. They are characterised by a moderately

steep beach face, which is joined at the low tide

level to an attached bar or terrace, hence the

name - low tide terrace. The bar usually extends

between 20-50m seaward and continues

alongshore, attached to the beach. It may be flat

and featureless, have a slight central crest, called

a ridge, and may be cut every several tens of

metres by small shallow rip channels, called mini

rips.

At high tide when waves are less than 1m, they may pass right over the bar and not break until the beach face,

which behaves much like a reflective beach. At spring low tide, however, the entire bar is usually exposed as a

ridge or terrace running parallel to the beach and waves break by plunging heavily on the outer edge of the

bar.

At mid tide, waves usually break right across the shallow bar, when they are most likely to generate rip

currents. The water is returned seaward, both by reflection off the beach face, especially at high tide, and via

the mini rips, even if no rip channels are present. The rips, however, are usually shallow, ephemeral or

transient meaning they will flow strongly for a few minutes then dissipate.

The following beach within the Richmond Valley LGA is classified as low tide terrace:

Figure 2.6.3: Illustration of a Low Tide Terrace beach.

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

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

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

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

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


Page 18 of 84

o Razorback/Shark Bay/Little

o Half Tide Rocks

o New Zealand Beach

2.6.4 ROCK PLATFORMS AND ROCKY COASTS

Rock platforms and rocky coasts are wave eroded regions that exist at the base of rocky cliffs and headlands.

They are typically influenced by tides and waves. For coastal hazards, rocky coasts can therefore be considered

static features unable to adjust their morphology during storms unlike sandy beaches (Kennedy, et al., 2013).

The following regions within the Richmond Valley LGA are classified as Rock Platforms or Rocky Coast:

o Joggly Point

o Half Tide Rocks

o Snapper Rocks


Page 19 of 84

2.7 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR)

The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a quantitative assessment system developed by State-wide Mutual as ‘Best

Practice’ for Signage As Remote Supervision (2007). The FVR can be used by NSW Local Government to

determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location).

The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes site population use and

frequency of use. Since the FVR calculation is used to determine aquatic recreational warning signage

requirements, the figures used are those of the peak period of beach usage.

The following information is used to calculate the FVR:

1. Observational data collected during the site assessment; (only during peak summer periods do we rely on

observational data)

2. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback; and,

3. Historical statistical data

The Facility Visitation Rate is calculated using the following formula:

FVR = (Development x Population) + Frequency

Where:

Development* = The level of facilities and infrastructure that exist within or about the facility

Population = The average number of people that use the facility at any point in time

Frequency = The number of times that the facility is used by patrons

* Note: Development ratings were calculated with reference to 2.7.2


Page 20 of 84

2.7.1 FACILITY VISITATION RATING (FVR) REFERENCE TABLES

Table 2.7.1 provides the development ratings that apply to a reserve or other non-coastal environments

provided by Land Managers. Table 2.7.2 provides the equivalent AMSAMP hazard rating for each development

rating. The Population and Frequency rating classifications are provided in Table 2.7.3 and Table 2.7.4,

respectively. Table 2.7.1: Typical Development and Natural Hazards Rating for Reserves – non beach environments.

Rating Development Natural Hazards

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

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

Sloping ground; no natural water; walking track around reserve

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

areas

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

than 1 meter

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

ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 meter and 3 meters

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

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 meters

Table 2.7.2: Typical development ratings for beaches.

Rating ABSAMP Beach Rating

1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2




5 Beach hazard rating 9 and 10 Table 2.7.3: Typical population use rating for a facility.

Rating Population Use

1 Less than 5 people at a time

2 5 to 50 people at a time



5 Greater than 500 people at a time

Table 2.7.4 Suggested Frequency use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event is held at the facility

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

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

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

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

The FVR values for assessed locations in the Richmond Valley LGA are provided in Table 2.7.5.


Page 21 of 84

Table 2.7.5: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations.

LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT RATING

* POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR

Broadwater Beach 3 * 4 + 3 = 15

Airforce Beach 3 * 4 + 4 = 16

Evans Head 3 * 5 + 4 = 19

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little 3 * 2 + 5 = 11

Half Tide Rocks 3 * 2 + 4 = 10

Joggly Point 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

Red Hill Beach 3 * 1 + 3 = 6

Chinaman’s North 3 * 2 + 4 = 10

Chinaman’s South 3 * 3 + 4 = 13

New Zealand Beach 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

Snapper Rocks 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

Ten Mile Beach 3 * 4 + 4 = 16

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

listed below.

FVR Score between 4 and 6

Locations include:

Red Hill Beach

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided

by Land Manager have signage and spaced no greater than 1000 metres apart around the beach perimeter.

Additionally the signage should contain the following:

o The name of the facility,

o A general warning message,

o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms, and

o Any information symbols relevant to the facility.

NB: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols


Locations include:

Half Tide Rocks

Joggly Point

Chinaman’s North

New Zealand Beach

Snapper Rocks


by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter.





Page 22 of 84

o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms,

o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top hazard should appear, and



Locations include:

Broadwater beach

Razorback / Shark Bay / Little

Chinaman’s South








as warning symbols. If no highs then the top two hazards should appear, and



Locations include:

Airforce beach

Evan’s Head







as warning symbols. If no highs then the top three hazards should appear, and



Page 23 of 84

2.8 FACILITIES AUDIT

Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the

beach/access. The 15 most common coastal facilities along the Richmond Valley LGA coastline are shown in

the table below.

Table 2.8.1: The 15 most common facilities along the Richmond Valley LGA coastline.

Rank Facility Type Count

1 Picnic Table 19

2 Rubbish Bins 15

3 Car Park 12

4 Sheltered Picnic Table 11

5 Viewing Platform 7

6 Amenities 6

7 Barbecue Area 5

8 Shower 5

9 Bench 4

10 Navigational Marker 3

11 Water Tap 3

12 Accommodation 2

13 Dog Tidy Bags 2

14 Memorial 2

15 Monument 2

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.

Table 2.8.2: The top locations for facilities within the Richmond Valley LGA.

Rank Location Count

1 Evans Head 36

2 Razorback / Shark Bay / Little 34

3 Chinaman’s South 13

4 Broadwater Beach 8

5 Airforce Beach 8

6 Ten Mile Beach 5

7 Joggly Point 3

8 Half Tide Rocks 1

Refer to Appendix D for a further breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Richmond Valley

LGA.


Page 24 of 84

2.9 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM

Population growth is an important consideration when evaluating and predicting beach usage trends.

Increasing beach usage due to population growth relates to an increase in the probability of an event

occurring. Tourism operations and development proposals are also associated with population growth, and

these should also be considered when determining suitable risk treatment options.

2.9.1 POPULATION STATISTICS

The 2011 census recorded that a population count of 22,037 in the Richmond Valley LGA. Over the last 10

years, the population has increased by 1,711 people (8.4% growth). Table 2.9.1 lists the male, female and total

population in the Richmond Valley LGA for the last three Census counts. Table 2.9.1 Richmond Valley population data (ABS, 2011).

Table 2.9.2 lists the 2011 population of the 3 State Suburbs that are situated along the coast of the Richmond Valley LGA. Table 2.9.2 Population count of coastal state suburbs in the Richmond Valley LGA (ABS, 2011).

State Suburb Males Females Total Population

Evans Head 1,342 1,388 2,730

New Italy 153 142 295

Rileys Hill 113 114 227

2.9.2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN RICHMOND VALLEY

Currently there are no major development works scheduled to commence within coastal areas of the

Richmond Valley LGA. However, future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the

Richmond Valley LGA should continue to consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible

treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision. Consideration should be given to

the placement of facilities with respect to identified hazards and risks and lifesaving services. Foreshore BBQ,

playground/s, car parks and service amenities, all subsequently attract large numbers of people (residents and

tourists).

Treatment Option 1.1, 2.1 & 3.1 Existing and future coastal development plans scheduled for the Richmond Valley Local Government Area, should consider the impact of increased coastal usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, access, public rescue equipment and supervision.

Richmond Valley Local Government Area – Population

Year Males Females Total

2011 10,905 11,132 22,037

2006 10,507 10,806 21,313

2001 10,080 10,246 20,326


Page 25 of 84

2.9.3 TOURISM INFORMATION

The following table shows the number of international visitors, domestic overnight visitors and domestic day

trippers over a four year annual average to the year ending September 2013 (Destination NSW, 2014). Table 2.9.3 Tourism data and visitor information for Richmond Valley LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2014)

Overall Tourist Figures (‘000)

Domestic Overnight 108

Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 204

International Overnight 3

The following table outlines key characterises of domestic overnight visitors to Richmond Valley with

benchmarks for NSW presented for comparison (Destination NSW, 2014). Table 2.9.4 Domestic overnight travel data and visitor information for Richmond Valley LGA (Destination NSW, 2014)

Activities (‘000) Richmond Valley % NSW %

Visit friends and relatives 44 46.3 47.0

Eat out at restaurants 37 38.9 56.3

Pubs clubs discos 32 33.1 22.0

Go to the beach 29 30.3 22.4

General site seeing 21 22.3 26.6

Origin (‘000) Richmond Valley % NSW %

Regional NSW 42 43.7 39.7

Queensland 35 36.4 11.0

Sydney 13 13.4 28.6

Accommodation (‘000) Richmond Valley % NSW %

Friends or relatives property 140 40.0 39.1

Caravan park or commercial camping ground 124 35.2 12.4

Rented house, apartment, flat or unit 32 9.1 9.9

Hotel, resort, motel or motor inn 28 8.0 23.4

Camping near road on private road 23 6.5 4.0

Age (‘000) Richmond Valley % NSW %

15-24 years 14 14.1 14.5

25 – 35 years 10 10.2 14.0

35 – 44 years 22 23.0 21.5

45 – 54 years 19 20.1 19.0

55 – 64 years 16 16.5 16.6

65 years and over 16 16.2 14.4

In summary, beaches in the Richmond Valley LGA are not the main visitor attraction, however 30% of domestic

overnight travellers still use the coastline. This is higher than the NSW average of 22.4%. As the Richmond

Valley LGA is in northern NSW, the majority of visitors come from Regional NSW (particularly New England)

and Queensland. 40% of people stay at a friends or relatives property and 35.2% stay at a caravan park or

commercial camping ground. This 35.2% is much higher than the NSW average of 12.4%, meaning that the

Richmond Valley LGA is a popular destination for caravan parks and camping grounds. The highest age bracket

of visitors is 35 – 44 years with 23.0% and the lowest age bracket is 25 – 35 years with 10.2%.


Page 26 of 84

Local Accommodation Providers

Local accommodation providers also attract beach users to the coast especially during school holiday periods.

The beachside suburbs of the Richmond Valley LGA are largely occupied with holiday apartments/houses,

caravan parks/camping grounds and hotels/motels. The accommodation providers that have direct access to

coastal waters (caravan parks and camp sites) are listed below: Table 2.9.5 Accommodation providers with direct coastal access in the Richmond Valley LGA.

Tourist parks and camping grounds that have direct access to coastal waters are of significance when

determining the level of risk at a certain location. The Silver Sands Holiday Park is the largest caravan park in

terms of the number of sites along the NSW coastline (Silver Sands Holiday Park, 2014). The majority of

patrons are domestic or international visitors whom do not possess the level of knowledge of the local beach

conditions and the role of lifeguards and lifesavers as a local resident (for example) may possess. Thus, there is

a greater chance of visitors to these parks getting into difficulty in nearby coastal waters. It is therefore

important that upon check-in, all guests are informed of the local beach conditions and when (or if) the beach

is supervised (see section 3.2.3 – Education and Awareness Programs).

Venue Type Location Park Owner Approx.

Max Capacity

Silver Sands Holiday Park Cabins, caravans and

camping Evans Head

NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust

4200

Koinonia Baptist Youth Camp

Cabins, camping Airforce Beach Private (Koinonia) 250

Black Rocks Campground Camping Ten Mile Beach

(Black Rocks) National Parks & Wildlife Service

200


Page 27 of 84

2.10 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS

2.10.1 BEACH USAGE STATISTICS

The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving (volunteer) and lifeguard (paid) services operating

at Evans Head main beach in the Richmond Valley LGA. Figures for both services are over six patrolling seasons

(2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14). Statistics for lifesavers and lifeguards have been

sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’.

Attendances:

The two graphs below provide the average daily attendances as recorded by lifesavers (weekends and public

holidays) and lifeguards (weekdays) for Evans Head main beach.

Figure 2.10.1 Average daily attendance statistics recorded by Evans Head Surf Life Saving Club volunteers (July 2008 to June 2014).

Notes to graph:

o The above graph is incomplete as data has not been recorded by volunteer surf life savers for every patrol

day and therefore these are unreliable average daily attendance statistics and do not reflect the average

daily attendance statistics recorded by lifeguards.

o The season with the highest average daily attendance figures at Evans Head was 2012/13.

o There was a steady decline in attendances from 2009/10 to 2011/12, when the lowest figures were

recorded.

o Almost equal average daily attendances were recorded by volunteer surf life savers in 2009/10 and

2013/14.


Page 28 of 84

Figure 2.10.2: Average daily attendance statistics recorded by Evans Head Lifeguard Service (July 2008 to June 2014).

Notes to graph:

o Average daily attendance figures recorded by paid lifeguards are significantly higher than those recorded

by the volunteers.

o A substantial decline in beach attendance occurred between 2009/10 and 2010/11, when the lowest figure

was recorded.

o The graph shows a steady increase in attendances from 2010/11 to 2013/14.

o The season with the highest average daily attendance figures at Evans Head was 2013/2014.


Page 29 of 84

Rescues, Preventions and First Aid:

The two graphs below display the rescue, prevention and first aid statistics for lifesavers (weekends and public

holidays) and lifeguards (weekdays).

Preventions may include:

o Swimmers advised/warned

o Craft users advised/warned

o Beach users advised/warned

o Warning signs erected

o Shark alarm

o Searches/lost children

First Aid cases may include:

o Minor injuries/first aid

o Major injures/hospitalisation

o Marine stings

o Spinal injuries

o Shock

Figure 2.10.3Evans Head volunteer surf life saving club total rescues, preventions and first aid statistics from July 2008 to June 2014.

Notes to graph:

o While volunteer surf life savers recorded the lowest average daily attendance figures in 2011/12, the

greatest number of rescues was performed over that period; while the fewest number of preventative

actions and first aid cases occurred.

o The fewest number of rescues occurred during 2012/13 (4 rescues), followed by 2013/14 (8 rescues). This

is an interesting observation as the greatest attendance figures were recorded over these same two

seasons.

o The greatest number of preventions occurred over the 2013/14 season, which was also a season for few

rescues.

o The greatest number of first aid cases occurred during 2009/10, almost three times the amount of the next

highest season (2008/09).


Page 30 of 84

Figure 2.10.4 Evans Head Lifeguard Service total rescues, preventions and first aid statistics from July 2008 to June 2014.

Notes to graph:

o Lifeguards conducted far more preventative actions and fewer rescues than volunteer lifesavers over all six

seasons.

o The greatest number of preventative actions and rescues were conducted during the 2013/14 season,

which is also when the highest average daily attendance figures were recorded.

o The fewest number of rescues (1 rescue) occurred during the 2012/13 season. This was also the season

where the greatest number of first aid (43 cases) was attended to.

o The fewest preventative actions were actioned during the 2010/11 season, a record which is still nearly 100

more than the greatest number of preventions actioned by the volunteers.

o The greatest number of preventative actions actioned by the lifeguards is more than four times the

greatest number performed by the volunteers.


Page 31 of 84

Rescues/Preventative Actions:

The following tables show the statistics for both preventative actions and rescues which are then used to

determine the preventative actions: rescues ratio. In theory, the more preventative actions that a club/service

makes, the number of rescues that are required to be conducted will typically decrease. For example, during

the 2013/14 patrolling season, Evans Head lifeguards made 1082 preventative actions before having to

conduct a single rescue. These statistics may highlight opportunities for services to be more proactive in

carrying out preventative actions with the aim of reducing the number of rescues that need to be performed.

Table 2.10.1 Evans Head volunteer surf life saving club preventions and rescues and consequent ratio for each patrolling season.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Total Preventions 449 450 494 372 467 761

Total Rescues 50 15 25 59 4 8

Preventions /

Rescues Ratio 9:1 30:1 20:1 6:1 117:1 95:1

Table 2.10.2 Evans Head lifeguards preventions and rescues and consequent ratio for each patrolling season.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Total Preventions 1446 940 857 880 1082 3207

Total Rescues 6 11 5 5 1 13

Preventions /

Rescues Ratio 241:1 85:1 171:1 176:1 1082:1 247:1

Notes to tables:

o The highest ratio recorded by the volunteers occurred during the 2012/13 season, while the lowest was

recorded during the previous year.

o The highest ratio recorded by the lifeguards also occurred during the 2012/13 season. This ratio is

exceptionally high as only 1 rescue was conducted, while more than 1000 preventions were carried out.

o The lifeguards recorded a relatively low ratio during 2009/10.

o Overall, it is evident that the volunteers are carrying out far less preventions than the lifeguards, while also

performing far more rescues.


Page 32 of 84

2.10.2 DROWNING INCIDENTS

Since July 2004, there have been no recorded drowning incidents in the Richmond Valley LGA. The last

recorded drowning incident occurred in 2001, when two females drowned due to a boating incident 3km

south east of Evans Head.

2.10.3 EMERGENCY CALLOUTS

There have been 8 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from 1st

January 2008 to 30th

June 2014 in the Richmond Valley LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams

(lifesavers/lifeguards), including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police.

As a result of the 8 callouts, 1 person was rescued by Surf Life Saving resources. Six callouts resulted in ‘no

further action’ or ‘stood down before response’ meaning Surf Life Saving resources were ultimately not

required. Such cases include self rescue, rescue by another member of the public, rescue by another

emergency response organisation, and false alarms. Unfortunately, 1 of these callouts resulted in coastal

death.

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

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

Table 2.10.3 Emergency Callouts through the SRES from 01/01/08 to 30/06/14 in the Richmond Valley LGA

Date Incident

Location Month Season Day Time Job Type

Summary

Outcome

18/02/2011 Airforce Beach February Summer Fri 17:40 SurfCraft No Further Action

14/05/2011 Goanna

Headland May Autumn Sat 11:40 Rockfishing Coastal Death

13/02/2012 Evans Head River

Entrance February Summer Mon 2:55 Swimming No Further Action

26/03/2012 Evans Head March Autumn Mon 19:12 Self Harm Rescued

9/09/2012 Evans Head September Spring Sun 15:30 Self Harm No Further Action


Entrance January Summer Sun 5:39 Vessel Other


Entrance January Summer Wed 13:50 Vessel No Further Action


(Marina) October Spring Wed 15:43 Swimming

Rescued By

Others

Notes to table:

o All but one of the callouts occurred around Evans Head main beach (including 1 at Airforce Beach).

o Half of the callouts occurred during summer, while two occurred in each spring and autumn.

Treatment Option 1.2, 2.2 & 3.2

Coastal usage and incident data (e.g. drowning incidents, emergency callouts, lifesaving and lifeguard

statistics) should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for

coastal safety.


Page 33 of 84


To ensure beach usage statistics are complete and veracious, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast and the

Australian Lifeguard Service should collaborate to devise and implement a consistent method for collecting

beach visitation data.


Page 34 of 84

2.11 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is a core component of the risk

assessment and management process.

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key

stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in

place, risk management issues and opportunities that may exist.

Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with:

o Derek Swanborough, Executive Manager – Corporate and Community, Richmond Valley Council,

o Gary Murphy, Executive Manager – Infrastructure and Environment, Richmond Valley Council,

o Deborah McLean, Manager Governance, Corporate Risk & Community, Richmond Valley Council,

o Mark Pittavino, Area Manager – Northern Rivers, National Parks and Wildlife Service,

o Scott McCartney, Northern Region Lifeguard Coordinator, Australian Lifeguard Service, and

o Ben Redman, Far North Coast Director of Lifesaving, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast.

The consultation process has been aided in the following ways:

o Open community forums and workshops,

o Print and radio media announcements of workshops and consultation,

o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops,

o Use of social media – Twitter,

o Web based surveys,

o Web based information submissions,

o On-site communication and distribution of flyers,

o On-site one-to-one surveying, and

o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.

Consultation Workshop

A public forum was held in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area to engage with the local community.

This was advertised in local media and pre-identified stakeholders were notified via email and follow up phone

calls. The public forum was open to any member of the public including surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing

groups, surfing associations, emergency services personnel, boaters, residents, etc.

The public forum was held at the Evans Head Surf Life Saving Club on Monday 28 July, 2014 and was attended

by:

o George Henderson, Dirawong Trust

o Trevor Walsh, Dirawong Trust

o Karin Brown, Marine Rescue

o Ralph Lohse, Evans Head Fire and Rescue

Some of the key points discussed included:

o The high visitation of Chinamans beach during holiday periods,

o High usage of rock fishing around Goanna Headland, however these people are mostly locals,

o Lots of beach fishermen at Airforce beach,

o The need for standardised signage,

o The importance of lifejackets for rock fishermen,


Page 35 of 84

o Parasailing becoming more popular of Razorback lookout,

o User groups are families with young children,

o Recreational activity e.g. kayaking and boating crossing the Evans Head River Entrance,

o Alcohol use with teenagers can be an issue in the area.

Figure 2.11.1: Project Blueprint Flyer

Consultation Survey

The consultation process has also involved the introduction of two online surveys which has been useful to

capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. The first survey was sent to both

internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. The second

survey was sent to internal stakeholders only e.g. lifesavers and lifeguards. Questions focused on visitation

numbers and incidents. Specific questions and answers can be referenced in Appendix F.

Stakeholder communication

The process of communicating risk estimates from the assessment process to decision-makers and ultimately

to the public, sometimes referred to as risk education, is only one part of the communication process. In

getting those affected by risk to accept risk mitigation measures, and in providing decision-makers and

communities with the information they need to tolerate and deal with risks, there needs to be two-way

communications that includes those affected by risk, the public, into the decision-making process.

A representative from Richmond Valley Council, the National Parks & Wildlife Service, the Dirawong Reserve

Trust and Surf Life Saving Far North Coast should hold regular liaison meetings as an effective engagement

forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Richmond Valley LGA. It is

acknowledged that this concept would need the establishment of a ‘terms of reference’ with clear structural

and governance arrangements. It is recommended that the committee could have a standing item on all future

meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in

this report can then be addressed in this agenda item. After an initial meeting, participants are encouraged to

meet at least twice a year (before and after) the surf life saving season. The National Parks and Wildlife Service


Page 36 of 84

and the Dirawong Nature Reserve are currently not represented at the Local Emergency Management

Committee so this forum will benefit them to ensure that any concerns or opportunities along the Richmond

coastline can be addressed.

The Local Emergency Management Committee is another effective group in the Richmond Valley LGA which

discuss emergency management processes, opportunities and issues (including coastal). The group is made up

of representatives from NSW Police, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Ambulance Service,

State Emergency Service, Marine Rescue, Richmond Valley City Council, Surf Life Saving Far North Coast and

Essential Energy.

Treatment Option 1.3, 2.3, 3.3 & 5.2

Land Managers in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area should meet with Surf Life Saving Far North

Coast as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies. It is

encouraged that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of this meeting. After an

initial meeting, participants are encouraged to meet at least twice a year, before and after the surf life saving

season.


Page 37 of 84

3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK)

3.1.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY INDEX

The Action Planning Priority Index can be viewed as the gross risk score for a beach. The index seeks to identify

the risks associated with the broader coastal environment under assessment, rather than specific hazards and

risks present at a particular location or site. The majority of information detailed in this section of the report

will be identified through pre-existing data (where available), with new data sourced where gaps are present

or the data is not reliable.

The total score for the Action Planning Priority Index is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk

mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action

Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in Table 3.1.8. The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s). The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information:

1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP) Rating

2. Local Population Rating (LPR)

3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR)

4. Access Rating (AR)


Page 38 of 84

3.1.2 AUSTRALIAN BEACH SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Table 3.1.1 ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Broadwater Beach nsw029e 6 Transverse Bar and Rip /

Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Airforce Beach nsw029f 6 Transverse Bar and Rip /


Evans Head nsw029g 6 Transverse Bar and Rip /


Razorback/Shark Bay/Little nsw030 6 Low Tide Terrace / Transverse Bar

and Rip

Half Tide Rocks nsw030s 5 Low Tide Terrace + Rocks

Joggly Point nsw030sRPa 6* Rock Platforms

Red Hill Beach nsw031 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Chinaman’s North nsw032 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Chinaman’s South nsw033 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

New Zealand Beach nsw034 5 Low Tide Terrace / Transverse Bar

and Rip

Snapper Rocks nsw034RPa 6* Rock Platforms

Ten Mile Beach nsw035 6 Transverse Bar and Rip /


* Richmond Valley LGA Rock Platform Ratings


Page 39 of 84

3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATING

The Local Population Rating (LPR) expands on the information obtained from the Facility Visitation Rating. This

additional population rating identifies the population of residents and/or non-residents located within 2km’s

of a coastal location under assessment. The highest figure (resident or non-resident) will be recorded.

Table 3.1.2 Local population rating descriptors.

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

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

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



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

Table 3.1.3 Local population ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location LPR Total

Broadwater Beach 2

Airforce Beach 3

Evans Head 4

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little 4

Half Tide Rocks 3

Joggly Point 3

Red Hill Beach 3

Chinaman’s North 3

Chinaman’s South 3

New Zealand Beach 1

Snapper Rocks 1

Ten Mile Beach 3


Page 40 of 84

3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATING

The Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) identifies any conflicts present at the coastal environment

between the number of people and activities taking place. Activities include both those in the water and those

on the beach.

Table 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction descriptors.

Population

(in-water)

Conflicting activities Population

(on beach)

Conflicting activities

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3.1.5 Human/Activity Interaction ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Population

(in water)

Conflict Population

(on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

Broadwater Beach 2 1 1 3 7

Airforce Beach 4 2 1 3 10

Evans Head 5 2 2 2 11

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little 2 2 1 2 7

Half Tide Rocks 1 1 1 1 4

Joggly Point 1 1 1 1 4

Red Hill Beach 1 1 1 1 4

Chinaman’s North 2 1 1 1 5

Chinaman’s South 4 2 1 2 9

New Zealand Beach 2 2 1 1 6

Snapper Rocks 1 1 1 1 4

Ten Mile Beach 3 2 2 3 10


Page 41 of 84

3.1.5 ACCESS RATING

Beaches or coastal environments that have increased accessibility (i.e. near major roads, cities, public

transport, car parks, boat ramps, maintained access paths etc.) increase the likelihood of users at that beach.

This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury.

Table 3.1.6 Access rating descriptors.

Table 3.1.7 Access ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Access Rating

Broadwater Beach 3

Airforce Beach 3

Evans Head 3

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little 3

Half Tide Rocks 2

Joggly Point 2

Red Hill Beach 2

Chinaman’s North 2

Chinaman’s South 3

New Zealand Beach 2

Snapper Rocks 2

Ten Mile Beach 3

Access Rating Qualifying Description

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

points

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

3 Access via any form of track or walkway (either maintained or un-maintained) AND any

provision of facilities or services including (but not limited to) public transport, shower,

public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking

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

basic facilities (i.e. public toilets, public shower/ wash down area) AND/OR within 10km

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

5 Clearly evident, marked or signposted and maintained access points AND/OR within

10km of major town or city (population greater than 25,000) AND / OR car parking for

50 or more vehicles/boat trailers. Public transport provided within 250m of a beach

access point


Page 42 of 84

3.1.6 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORE

The action planning priority score provides an indicator for the overall level of risk of the location. The scores

range from 0 to 60. These scores can be used to prioritise the order in which risk treatments described in the

next section of this report are implemented.

Table 3.1.8 Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location.

Location

AMSAMP

X 2

(Out of 20)

Population

Support

X 2

(Out of 10)

Human

Activity/

Interaction

(Out of 20)

Access

X 2

(Out of 10)

Total Score

(Out of 60)

Broadwater Beach 12 4 7 6 29

Airforce Beach 12 6 10 6 34

Evans Head 12 8 11 6 37

Razorback/Shark Bay/Little 12 8 7 6 33

Half Tide Rocks 10 6 4 4 24

Joggly Point 12 6 4 4 26

Red Hill Beach 12 6 4 4 26

Chinaman’s North 12 6 5 4 27

Chinaman’s South 12 6 9 6 33

New Zealand Beach 10 2 6 4 22

Snapper Rocks 12 2 4 4 22

Ten Mile Beach 12 6 10 6 34

Where limited resources prohibit the implementation of all risk treatments recommended in this report, those

beaches that have received a high action planning priority score should be treated first, then beaches with a

medium, low and very low score.


Page 43 of 84

Table 3.1.9: Land Management Authority.

Council Managed NPWS Managed Shared NPWS, Council, Crown Land or Department of Defence

Crown Lands/Dirawong Nature Reserve

Table 3.1.10: Action Planning Priority scores for assessed locations.

Priority Priority location Priority Action & Total Score Comments

1 Evans Head 37

Medium – this location should be considered for implementation of

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

becomes available

2 Airforce Beach 34



becomes available

2 Ten Mile Beach 34



becomes available

4 Chinaman’s South 33



becomes available

4 Razorback / Shark

Bay/ Little 33



becomes available

6 Broadwater 29

Low – this location should be considered for implementation of

identified risk treatment options after locations rated as medium or as

funding becomes available

7 Joggly Point 26




8 Chinaman’s North 25




9 Half Tide Rocks 24





Page 44 of 84

Priority Priority location Priority Action & Total Score Comments

9 Red Hill Beach 24




11 New Zealand Beach 22




11 Snapper Rocks 22



funding becomes available Key to Action

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

Treatment Option 1.4, 2.4 & 3.4 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.


Page 45 of 84

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

There are a range of risk treatment options that can be considered in the context of coastal risk management.

The selection of the most appropriate option involves balancing the financial, social and environmental

impacts of implementing each against the benefits derived from each. These may include any combination of

the following:

o Spread (share) risk – insurance,

o Engineer (structural and technological) risk treatment – include modified practices,

o Regulatory and institutional – change through revised regulations and planning,

o Avoid – isolate the risk, move people away,

o Research to better understand,

o Educate and inform stakeholders.

3.2.2 HIERARCHY OF RISK TREATMENTS (CONTROLS)

In determining the most appropriate and cost effective option, it is important to consider the hierarchy of risk

treatments (controls). The hierarchy is a sequence of options which offer a number of ways to approach the

hazard control process.

o Hard controls deal with the tangible such as:

Eliminate the hazard which in a coastal context is often difficult to achieve.

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

environmental and weather conditions.

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

revegetation.

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

practices and procedures.

Use of personal protective equipment such as lifejackets and public rescue equipment.

o Soft controls deal with human behaviour such as:

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

Education

Outlined below are principal risk treatment solutions that expand upon those listed within the Risk Register

and Treatment Plan in Appendix B. The solutions outlined endeavour to provide specific and detailed

information relative to the beach locations; however due to the diverse nature of location characteristics,

recommendations are at times mainly generic in nature.

Land Managers should plan to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations

capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are outlined on the

following pages.


Page 46 of 84

3.2.3 EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS

Public education and awareness programs are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy,

and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (prior to hazard exposure).

Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programs include:

o Consistency in safety messaging (elimination of confusing/unclear or dissipative information).

o Consistency in the method of provision (ongoing information provided at regular locations/times).

o Longevity in the provision of information (ongoing, not a one-off).

Existing Controls:

During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe were

made aware of various beach safety information sources and education programs that are currently in place to

educate and inform the public at a local level. These programs as well as any other initiatives within and

around the Richmond Valley LGA should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported by Land

Managers and key stakeholder groups.

It is acknowledged that Land Managers or key stakeholder groups may not have the capacity or expertise to

implement surf education programs, and where this is the case should work with peak water safety

organisations to enhance the delivery of education programs within these areas.

Existing controls include:

Online Education:

National Parks Website:

The National Parks and Wildlife website provides a list of tips for staying safe in the coastal aquatic

environment, such as watching out for rips, avoiding swimming in dangerous conditions, swimming during

daylight hours and in the company of others (NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, 2014). The site also

provides a link to the Water Safety NSW website, where additional information regarding beach safety can be

found.

Richmond Valley Council Website:

No online education was found on the Richmond Valley Council website.

Camp Koinonia Website:

Camp Koinonia is an accommodation provider for school and community youth groups located near Airforce

beach. The Koinonia website features extensive information about beach safety, rip currents, rock fishing

safety and dangerous marine life (Koinonia, 2014). The site also features a direct link to the Beachsafe website

(Koinonia, 2014; Surf Life Saving Australia, 2014) as well as the Surf Life Saving NSW Beach Safety page

(Koinonia, 2014; Surf Life Saving NSW, 2014).

Evans Head Online Visitor Information Website:

The Evans Head Visitor Information Website provides basic information about activities and attractions for

visitors to Evans Head (Evans Head Visitor Information, 2013). The site features basic information about

staying safe while swimming at beaches, and urges visitors to swim only at the main Evans Head beach in the

patrolled area. The page also provides a web link to Evans Head beach on the Beachsafe website (Evans Head

Visitor Information, 2013; Surf Life Saving Australia, 2014).


Page 47 of 84

Evans Head – Casino SLSC Website:

The Evans Head Surf Life Saving Club website provides a brief synopsis of the typical conditions of the most

popular beaches within the Richmond Valley LGA. The page states that main beach is the only patrolled

location within the LGA and also warns of the most prevalent hazards at nearby locations, some of which may

not be recognisable to visitors or inexperienced swimmers (Evans Head Casino SLSC, 2014).

Figure 3.2.1 Photo of Evans Head Main Beach on a busy day.

Source: Evans Head Visitor Information (2013)

Community Education

Evans Head Surf Shack:

The Evans Head Surf Shack offers surfing lessons to people of any age and surfing ability. The school is

accredited by the Academy of Surfing Instructors (ASI) and lessons include aspects of water safety, basic surf

awareness and ocean knowledge (Evans Head Surf Shack, 2007).

Summerland Surf School:

The Summerland Surf School is a Surfing Australia accredited surf school and has been conducting regular

surfing lessons at Evans Head since 1997 (Summerland Surf School, 2014). Lessons are tailored to all ages and

levels of surfing ability and cover surf safety surf awareness, and using the ocean safely.

Telstra Beach to Bush Program:

Telstra Beach to Bush program targets school aged children living in regional areas of the country, teaching

them vital water safety skills. The program, which is presented by surf life savers, targets different areas each

year with the aim of revisiting each area every three to four years. Many areas in the New England region

participate in this program, including Moree, Inverell, Glen Innes and Armidale. This is a valuable initiative

since the largest percentage of domestic travellers to the Richmond Valley LGA originates from regional NSW

(43.7%). The program has reached more than 250,000 primary school students since it began in 2004 (Surf Life

Saving NSW, 2013).

Media:

Throughout the surf life saving season, radio and print media within the Richmond Valley play a key role in

delivering key safety messages as well as informing the public when dangerous surf warnings are in place.


Page 48 of 84

Recommended Controls:

Educational Messages:

Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programs which include standardised

key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agencies. The NSW Water Safety

Advisory Council has published consistent water safety messages covering a range of activities and includes

general water safety messages for swimming, rock fishing and boating –

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/resources/reports.html.

Water Safety Information:

Displaying posters which promote water safety at locations such as public amenity blocks, Surf Life Saving

Clubs and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access is a great opportunity for

the exposure of messages. Figure 3.2.2 provides an example of a poster from Tathra Beach Surf Life Saving Club.

In National Parks, this information could be displayed on the visitor information noticeboards (Figure 3.2.3)

through the use of QR codes. QR codes involve the use of smart phone technology to provide location based

safety messaging. They also allow for the embedding of additional detailed information for beach users that

are interested in knowing more, without competing with other relevant information in visitor information

boards. The system works by scanning a smart phone over the QR Code. These codes can be linked to specific

water related safety information about a specific location, with the potential for multilingual messages.

Information may also be able to include when dangerous surf warnings occur.

Figure 3.2.2: Example of a Surf Safety Information Poster at Tathra beach.

Figure 3.2.3: Example of a National Parks visitor information board where water safety information could be displayed by the use of a QR code.

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/resources/reports.html


Page 49 of 84

Figure 3.2.4 Example of QR code use on public

warning signage in the Evans Head Air Weapons

Range.

Figure 3.2.5 Empty flyer distribution box that could be used to contain

surf safety information in the Dirawong Reserve.

QR codes are currently in use on public warning signage at access points to the Evans Head Air Weapons Range

to provide the public with additional information about aircraft noise (managed by the Department of Defence

– see Figure 3.2.4).

There is a similar opportunity to distribute surf safety information using existing infrastructure in the Dirawong

reserve. There are several pamphlet holding boxes within the reserve, one of which currently contains no

informative material for public perusal (Figure 3.2.5). These could instead be used to distribute flyers that

promote water safety and surf awareness on the beach and rocky coast locations within the reserve.

Educational posters/signage and information boards should not be placed in positions where they would

compete with formal aquatic and recreational safety signage which is usually placed around formal access

points and high traffic areas (see Section 3.2.4 Safety Signage).

With regard to online education, Richmond Valley Shire Council has the opportunity to provide water safety

information as well as promote usage of the main beach at Evans Head which is supervised during certain

periods of the year. The website could also be used to inform visitors and the general public of patrol dates

and times.


Page 50 of 84

Highway Billboards:

Many domestic tourists travel to the

Richmond Valley via road. Surf safety

messages could be promoted on the

large highway and freeway billboards

targeting these visitors. Such surf

safety messaging would be best

positioned along the highway in the

Woodburn township and Broadwater

National Park as these areas are

adjacent to the turn off to the main

Evans Head beach which is patrolled.

In addition to this, the use of level 1

road signage can direct people

traveling via road to patrolled

beaches in the Richmond Valley (see

section 3.2.4 – Safety Signage).

Education Collateral:

The Richmond Valley LGA is a popular destination for domestic travellers, especially through the school holiday

periods. The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation

providers (including holiday rental real estate organisations) in the Richmond Valley LGA should be

implemented on an ongoing basis. Brochures and flyers about surf safety should also be made available at the

Visitor Information Centre in Evans Head.

Tourists and Visitors:

Surfcraft Hire:

There are several businesses within the Richmond Valley LGA that hire surfboards and surf craft for public use.

Surf craft hire merchants should be aware of the daily beach conditions, and inform customers of optimal

surfing locations (dependent on ability). These businesses should not hire surf craft to the public the beach has

been closed or conditions are dangerous.

Surf Life Saving NSW should consider establishing a network for coastal aquatic equipment hire providers,

similar to the coastal accommodation network. This network would include sourcing contact details for all surf

craft hire businesses in NSW to be able to issue key information such as notifications of when dangerous surf

warnings are present, guidance for the hiring of equipment to inexperienced users, how staff can inform

customers of the risks associated with the activity and what could be done to minimise these risks.

Educational collateral could also be provided upon hiring the surfcraft as well as any personal protective

equipment such as lifejackets.

Tourist Parks:

The Silver Sands Holiday Park in Evans Head has near direct coastal access. While Evans Head main beach is

patrolled during summer and school holiday periods, the beach is not patrolled year round. It is therefore

important to ensure that guests of the holiday park have some understanding of beach safety. There is an

opportunity for Richmond Valley Council to work with peak water safety organisations and the Silver Sands

Holiday Park to provide a basic surf safety and awareness program to park guests.

Figure 3.2.6: Example of how a highway billboard could look promoting surf safety in the Richmond Valley.

Welcome to the Richmond Valley


Page 51 of 84

Programs should be facilitated by a qualified person (such as a surf rescue certificate instructor, surf school

teacher or Lifeguard), with accredited teaching certification as well as hold a bronze medallion and senior first

aid as a minimum. Key learning outcomes could include (but are not limited to):

o Basic survival skills

o Rip identification

o Surf awareness: ‘Reading’ the surf

o Surf negation and body surfing

o Self rescue skills

Upon check in, Tourist Park owners and staff should inform all guests where and when the beach is patrolled

and provide all guests with surf safety pamphlets containing information specific to the adjoining beach.

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

Community Education

School Programs – New England and Regional NSW

The Surf Life Saving NSW’s ‘Surf School’ project, which is funded by the Water Safety Black Spots Fund, delivers

surf safety education to students in schools at key residential black spot locations in Western Sydney. The

project aims to modify the behaviour of young people when using the coastline before they reach the critical

age of 18. There is the opportunity to expand this project to target more black spot areas in regional NSW

including schools within the northern New England area. The program could be delivered by qualified

lifeguards that deliver services along the coastline, such as the Evans Head lifeguards.

Rip Current Awareness Day

Over the past few years, Surf Life Saving Clubs have participated in an annual day to raise awareness about rip

currents through an educational and visual demonstration. As part of these scheduled events, coloured dye is

released by club members at various beaches around Australia to show the speed and distance of which a rip

current can flow. Surf clubs can organise to participate in these educational demonstrations. Surf Life Saving

Australia can provide the necessary resources to branches and clubs upon request.


Page 52 of 84

Personal Protective Equipment:

Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman and recreational boaters.

Educational and awareness programs in the Richmond Valley LGA should also promote and encourage these

user groups to wear lifejackets. These messages could be included in community based education programs or

the use of educational signage at well-known rock fishing locations.

The NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services has prepared a report on behalf of the Water Safety

Advisory Committee on the outcome of consultation undertaken in 2013 on the wearing of lifejackets by rock

fishers. The report, which includes a number of options to increase the wearing of lifejackets by rock fishers,

has been submitted to the NSW Government for consideration and will be made publicly available.

Recreational Fishing Alliance:

The Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW has produced the Safe Fishing website, which also provides

multilingual information and resources to promote safer recreational rock fishing (Recreational Fishing

Alliance, 2011). Part of this initiative has been the provision of multilingual flyers and DVDs to promote rock

fishing safety.

Education days are also organised for rock fishers to provide educational learning and fishing techniques that

will provide rock fishers with more information to make an informed decision about where they decide to fish

as well as communicating key safety messages. One of these education days has also been filmed and is

available through the YouTube channel ‘ACFishing’.

Figure 3.2.8 Recreational Fishing Alliance rock fishing school.

Education Summary:

The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programs that can be adopted by Land

Managers within the Richmond Valley LGA. Table 3.2.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all

education and awareness programs available to Land Managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range

of programs that are available and delivered within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land Managers are

not limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider

engaged to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified and insured.


Page 53 of 84

Table 3.2.1 Examples of Education and Awareness programs.

Program Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

School based water safety programs

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

Migration 2 Surf Migrants 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

Corp Surf 18 years + All Locations Surf Educate Australia

Get hooked – it’s fun to fish

Schools All Locations NSW DPI (Fisheries)

Rock fishing safety information

Rock fishers

Rock Platforms

Peak water safety agencies

Boating safety information

Boaters Richmond

Valley RMS

QR codes

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

location based beach safety information.

All Locations Richmond Valley Council & National Parks and Wildlife

Service

The figures below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral

available to Land Managers, rather to provide examples of a range of collateral that are available and can be

provided to Land Managers upon request. Land Managers are not limited to the education collateral shown in

the figures below, however they should ensure that any education collateral distributed or displayed is aligned

to the key water safety messages promoted by the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council.

Figure 3.2.9: Don’t put your life

on the line.

Figure 3.2.10: Survive a rip

current.

Figure 3.2.11: Beach safety for

tourists / migrants. Figure 3.2.12: Swim between

the flags.


Page 54 of 84

Treatment Option 1.5, 2.5 & 3.5 Education and awareness programs within the Richmond Valley Local Government Area should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. Land Managers and key stakeholder groups who may not have the expertise to implement educational programs should work with peak water safety organisations to assist in delivery.

Treatment Option 1.6, 2.6 & 3.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry - http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/resources/reports.html

Treatment Option 1.7 & 4.1 Develop relationships with tourism agencies and holiday rental real estate organisations with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area.

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

Treatment Option 1.9 Businesses within the Richmond Local Government Area that hire out surfcraft should be aware of the daily beach conditions, and inform customers about local characteristics and hazards. These businesses should not hire out surfcraft when conditions warrant the closing of a beach.

Treatment Option 1.10, 2.7 & 3.7 Surf safety information, should be strategically placed in visual form at various coastal locations. Specific examples can be referenced in the report.

Treatment Option 1.11 Richmond Valley Council in conjunction with peak water safety organisations have the opportunity to advertise surf safety messages on roadside billboards, particular along the main highway through Broadwater.

Treatment Option 1.12 Richmond Valley Council in conjunction with peak water safety organisations should organise an education day with the guests of the Silver Sands Holiday Park to learn about basic surf safety awareness.

Treatment Option 1.13 & 2.8 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.

Treatment Option 5.4 Explore the means to expand upon the Surf Life Saving NSW’s ‘Surf School’ project to target schools within the New England area. Such a program could be delivered by qualified lifeguards that deliver services along the proximate coastline.

Treatment Option 5.5 The Evans Head-Casino Surf Life Saving Club should participate in the annual Rip Current Awareness Day.


Surf Life Saving NSW should consider establishing a network for coastal aquatic equipment hire providers,

similar to the coastal accommodation network.

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/resources/reports.html


Page 55 of 84

3.2.4 SAFETY SIGNAGE

Safety signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy and targets the in-transit and

on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location.

Key factors relating to effective safety signage include:

o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display,

o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (AS/NZS2416:2010),

o consistency in signage layout/display (Australian Water Safety Council, 2006),

o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to maximise exposure to the public prior to arriving

in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs, and

o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the Land Managers annual planning.

Existing safety signage within the Richmond Valley LGA in regards to coastal safety is below and includes:

o warning signage at coastal access points,

o warning signage at popular rock shelf fishing / cliff edge locations,

o warning signage at breakwater locations,

o warning signage on coastal walks, and

o temporary signage in place when lifesavers and lifeguards are on duty.

Richmond Valley Council

Figure 3.2.13: Beach Driving Regulations and Safety Signage.

Figure 3.2.14: Caution Snakes.


Page 56 of 84

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Figure 3.2.15: Safety signage in National Parks. Figure 3.2.16 Warning signage at unstable cliff edges.

Department of Defence

Figure 3.2.17: Safety Signage at the Air Weapons Range.

Department of Lands (Crown Lands)

Figure 3.2.18: Breakwater safety signage.


Page 57 of 84

Recommended Controls:

Land Managers in the Richmond Valley LGA should be commended for implementing safety signage at

numerous locations along the coastline. Appendix A lists further locations where signage could be

implemented as funding becomes available. The Action Planning Priority Index (p.42) should be used to assist

in prioritisation: land managers should implement signage at high and medium ranked locations before lower

ranked locations.

Signage Types (National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual)

Level 1 Road Signs: Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the closest intersection

location for directional purposes.

Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign): Land Managers have the option to place this type of signage at the

main entrance/car park to an aquatic environment. The recommended content includes location name,

emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.

Level 3 Access Signs (Secondary access sign): Land Managers can place this type of sign at access points or

pathways that lead to the aquatic environment (beach, rock pool or rock platform). Level 3 access signs follow

the same principles as those of Level 2 car park signs and typically display the location name, emergency

contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information.

Level 4 Individual Hazard and Regulation sign: Land Managers have the option to us this sign where a hazard is

localised and has been identified at a level of risk that warrants sign posting.

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

Consistent Signage

It is the view of Australian CoastSafe that a consistent strategy of signage should be implemented within an

LGA. Consistent signs are encouraged to avoid confusion and give a clear and consistent message. Below is an

excerpt from AS 2416:2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags, Part 3, Guidance for Use (p.iv).

The standard states that “a standardized method of signing with the use of appropriate supplementary text

throughout the working and public environment assists the process of education and instruction on the

meaning of water safety signs and beach safety flags, and the appropriate actions to take.” The intention of

AS2416:2010 Part 3 is “to ensure a uniformity of application of water safety signs and beach safety flags which

leads to increased familiarity, and therefore improved safety, for the users including visitors and for the

general public.”

The above examples of current signage demonstrate the diverse range of signs which appear under the same

LGA. It is recognised that implementing consistent signage throughout the entire Richmond Valley LGA may be

challenging, however a consistent style should be adopted by all land management authorities as a minimum.

Signs which do not meet a consistent style should be replaced through natural attrition or removed.

Safety Symbols

As outlined in the Facilitation Visitation Rating (Section 2.7, p.19) all potential hazards identified within the

facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. There are some instances

in the Richmond Valley Local Government Area where existing signs have an insufficient number of hazard


Page 58 of 84

symbols when compared to the Risk Register and Treatment Plan – ‘Appendix B’. This information may be of

assistance in determining which hazards should be included on signage. It is recommended that the required

hazard symbols are updated on these signs through the use of stickers or natural attrition.

Beach Driving Restrictions and Information

The driving of vehicles is permitted on Airforce and Broadwater beaches, with formal vehicle access to both

located at Airforce beach. It is recommended that the proposed Level Two car park sign at this location (refer

to Appendix A) include information and restrictions for persons operating a vehicle on the beach such as

speed limits and driving rules. It is additionally recommended that all proposed Level Three access signs at

Airforce and Broadwater caution pedestrians of the presence of vehicles on the beach. The below signs

provide examples of both Level Two and Level Three signs that specify beach driving regulations and warn

pedestrians that the beach is a shared zone. Note that a combination of symbols and text are used to convey

the warnings and regulations.

Figure 3.2.19 Section of a Level Two car park sign at Hungry Head North (Bellingen LGA) containing beach driving information and regulations.

Figure 3.2.20: Section of a Level Three access sign at North Beach (Bellingen LGA) which cautions pedestrians of the presence of vehicles.

Signage Consolidation

It is important to note that at most locations, an improved safety signage system usually results in an overall

reduction in the quantity of signage due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the

consolidation of key information into other signs. Excessive signage at coastal access points can cause people

to become desensitised to the information presented to them and have the opposite effect of their intended

purpose. Signage consolidation may see a reduction in the implementation and maintenance costs related to

signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site.

Below is an example of regulatory signs near an access in the Dirawong Reserve that could be consolidated

into a single sign. ‘Appendix A’ references those signs that have the opportunity to be consolidated by natural

attrition.


Page 59 of 84

Figure 3.2.21 Multiple regulatory signs that could be consolidated into a single sign.

Bar Crossing Signage

As highlighted in section 2.10.3, 38% of all emergency incidents within the Richmond Valley LGA occur at the

Evans Head River Mouth. This is a result of vessels and swimmers who are in need of assistance.

A similar sign to the example below could be implemented at boat ramps or break wall locations to determine

the safety level of river bar crossings e.g. during calm conditions a green light may be displayed, an orange

light during moderate conditions, and during high conditions a red light could be displayed.

An advantage of the below example is that the sign can be controlled from a central location i.e. an operations

centre or headquarters, meaning that specific personnel would not have to manually change the safety rating

on a daily basis.

Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options to

warn boat uses when crossing river bars.

Figure 3.2.22: An example of a set of lights used by the Royal

National Lifeboat Instituation for safety reasons in regards to

tidal changes.

Temporary Signage

Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of

risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature.

Temporary hazards signs can be utilised in the following ways:


Page 60 of 84

1. Where there is a higher risk of injury from temporary hazards

2. Where a hazard may exist at a patrolled beach either side of the flags

3. To direct patrons to a flagged area

4. When the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) release a dangerous surf warning once the swell reaches a certain

height and wave period. Dangerous surf warnings will appear on the official BOM weather forecast.

Tourist Parks:

The Silver Sands Holiday Park is well positioned as the beach immediately in front of the park (where guests

are most likely to swim) is patrolled during summer and Easter school holiday periods. Outside of the patrolling

season however, temporary signage should be used to inform people of when beach conditions warrant the

‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to inform park managers of when dangerous swell events

are occurring through a media release. A temporary sign could be positioned in front of the main access paths.

Signage Summary

Table 3.2.2 Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for the Richmond Valley LGA

Locations Existing

Signs

Maintenance

Required

Possible

Consolidate

/Remove

Proposed

Level 2 Car

Park/Open

Proposed

Level 3

Access

Proposed

Level 4

Individual

Total

Proposed

Signs

Net

Signage

Broadwater

Beach 29 0 2 0 1 0 1 -1

Airforce Beach 15 0 3 1 4 0 5 2

Evans Head 38 0 9 0 5 0 5 -4

Razorback/

Shark Bay/Little 7 0 2 0 1 1 2 0

Half Tide Rocks 6 1 4 0 1 0 1 -3

Joggly Point 9 0 3 0 1 0 1 -2

Red Hill Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chinaman’s

North 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chinaman’s

South 9 1 4 1 1 0 2 -2

New Zealand

Beach 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Snapper Rocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ten Mile Beach 33 0 1 0 2 0 2 1

Totals 148 2 28 2 17 1 20 -8

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated or removed signage. So, 20 signs have been

proposed in the Richmond Valley LGA however 28 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated or

removed, leaving a net sum of minus eight signs.

When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended:

1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water

Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags’, and align signage style/layout with the ‘National Aquatic and

Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’ or the State-wide Mutual guide. It is the

recommendation of this report that style is aligned to the former.


Page 61 of 84

2. Signage layout (top-down order) consists of the following:

a) Location name and emergency marker (if/when applicable) or street address

b) Hazards and warnings within the designated area

c) Safety information or general location/area details

d) Regulations

e) Facility / Land Manager

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

safety signs and beach safety flags’.

4. ‘Diamond’ hazard symbols should be utilised (not triangle). Context: AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 provides for the

use of either ‘diamond’ or ‘triangle’ hazard symbols. For consistency with existing signage and across local

government areas the more effective diamond symbols should be utilised.

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

underestimated. Location, height and existing visual distractions are major factors which contribute to

the effectiveness of a sign when installed.

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

not obscure the sign.

7. Signs that are positioned in relation to open access areas should be spaced at regular intervals, with the

distance between individual signs dependent upon the calculated Facility Visitation Rate (FVR).

8. Signs that are positioned in relation to defined access points should be sited as close as practical to the

access point, or other appropriate location, and need to be consistently applied where possible e.g. on the

left of the track entrance.

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

result of too many signs. Repetitive and/or unnecessary information and signs should be removed.

Further, any non-essential signage (not related to location, safety, hazard, prohibition information) that is

present at a location should be considered for removal or re-located as appropriate so as not to impact on

the recognition of the safety orientated priority signage.


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

implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing

signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less

signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage.

Treatment Option 1.15 & 5.7

Temporary signage should be used at coastal access points from the Silver Sands Holiday Park to inform guests

of when conditions warrant the ‘closing of a beach’. Surf Life Saving NSW will be able to alert park operators

when dangerous swell events are predicted through the dangerous surf advisory process.


Page 62 of 84


Temporary signage should continue to be used at access locations near patrolled areas to direct patrons to a

supervised swimming area and where here is a higher risk of injury due to temporary hazards such as strong

currents, creek openings and pollution.


Marine Rescue NSW in conjunction with NSW Roads and Maritime Services should investigate possible options

to warn boat uses when crossing river bars.


Page 63 of 84

3.2.5 EMERGENCY MARKER SYSTEM

When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify

the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space

parkland, walking trails, beaches or rock platforms (where no cross-street or other reference point is available)

it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response.

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

an emergency triple zero call.

Figure 3.2.23: Example of emergency marker sign.

Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety

signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage.

For an emergency marker system to be effective, a standardised state-wide program is required, that engages

Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current

program exists in NSW.

Australian CoastSafe is currently working with key government departments and emergency services to

develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near

future.


With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information, a

state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered.


Page 64 of 84

3.2.6 ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONGOING CAPITAL WORKS/MAINTENANCE

PROGRAMS

The way the coast is accessed is a significant factor in the management of coastal risk. While preventing public

access/use to the coastal environment is not desired, a number of options exist to minimise the risks

associated with the access way itself and the hazards that may be encountered on the coast (via that access

way).

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

informal (undefined) access.

Access issues are interrelated to other risk management initiatives/options such as water safety signage,

emergency access numbering/reporting, supervision (lifeguard) information and public rescue equipment. An

effective access plan for an area may optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of other initiatives.

Figure 3.2.24: Formal access at Airforce Beach. Figure 3.2.25: Informal access at Snapper Rocks.

Formal Acces

The majority of formal access tracks in the Richmond Valley LGA are well maintained. Land managers conduct

inspections due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts when required.

Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer

‘track’, exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quantity of signage required

and enhancing emergency access, reporting and location identification.

Informal Access

A number of informal access tracks also exist. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use

(uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/unstable and uneven surfaces),

may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting

difficult (location awareness).

Options for formalising, redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers,

vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations and situations it may be difficult to

formalise access and/or restrict the use of informal access.


Page 65 of 84

Four Wheel Drive Access

The Richmond Valley LGA have a number of vehicle entry points for four wheel driving, see (Appendix A) for

specific locations. A list of key regulations are detailed on the Richmond Valley Council website:

o Motor vehicles and users are to comply with the Australian road rules at all times.

o A maximum of 30km/h apples. All vehicles are required to slow to a speed of not more than 15km/h when

approaching horses, pedestrians and pied oyster catcher breeding areas.

o Beach users have right-of-way over motor vehicles at all times and not motor vehicle is permitted to be

driven closer than 15 metres to any pedestrian beach user.

o Motor vehicles are prohibited from travelling above the high water mark, except when crossing the beach

to and from the vehicle access.

Restricted Access

During the course of the assessment Australian CoastSafe endeavoured to reach every accessible beach and

rock platform within the Richmond Valley LGA. However, the Department of Defence Evans Head Air Weapons

Range is situated along the northern end of Ten Mile beach, and public access to this section of the coast is

strictly prohibited due to live firing and the presence of unexploded ordinances. Coastal risk assessors were

therefore unable to conduct the risk assessment in this area.

Figure 3.2.26 Evans Head Air Weapons Range Land and Sea boundaries Source: Department of Defence (2014).

The Jerusalem Creek Walking track is a 4km walk which commences at the Black Rocks camping ground and

ends at the Jerusalem Creek mouth on Ten Mile beach. At the time of the assessment the Creek had flooded


Page 66 of 84

over the track from 1km from the start of the walk due to prolonged rainfall. The majority of this track was

therefore inaccessible to Coastal Risk Officers. The end of the track was subsequently accessed via the beach.

Access Summary

Table 3.2.3 Access provision within assessed locations in Richmond Valley.

Location Open

Access

Formal

Pedestrian

Vehicle

Access

Informal /

Old Access

Private /

Restricted

Access

Total

Access

Possible

Redirection

Net

Access

Broadwater

Beach 0 3 0 1 1 5 1 4

Airforce Beach 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 5

Evans Head 0 6 0 0 0 6 1 5

Razorback /

Shark Bay /Little 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Half Tide Rocks 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1

Joggly Point 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 3

Red Hill Beach 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2

Chinaman’s

North 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

Chinaman’s

South 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

New Zealand

Beach 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Snapper Rocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ten Mile Beach 0 6 0 2 5 13 2 11

Totals 1 27 1 6 6 41 6 35

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. In other words, 41

access points have been located in the Richmond Valley LGA, however 6 of these access points have the

opportunity to be redirected, leaving a net access of 35.

Figure 3.2.27 Restricted access due to flooding along the Jerusalem Creek trail.

Figure 3.2.28 Restricted access around the Evans Head Air Weapons Range.


Page 67 of 84

Treatment Option 1.16, 2.10 & 3.9 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.

Treatment Option 1.17, 2.11 & 3.10 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.


Page 68 of 84

3.2.7 PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT

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

Australia.

Table 3.2.4 An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Bradstreet, et al., 2012).

PRE Type

Morphology

of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages

Extensive

Training

Required

Recommended

uses in NSW

Rescue Tube

Sandy

beaches and

rock pools

Can be thrown

short distances

Requires the rescuer

to enter the water

themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of

deployment

Risk of theft, risk of

using the line to

return the patient

towards the rocks,

not strong/tough

enough to be

resilient from

environmental

conditions

No

May be used on a

case by case basis.

Further

effectiveness

investigation

required.

Throw Sticks

(Stormy

grenades)

Personal

device

(mobile)

Mobility – easily

deployed to

incident locations

Effective mid-range

(thrown)

Requires 2 to off-set

‘miss-throw’ of the

first

No

Yes. Relevant

personnel /staff

(emergency

services/SLS

/rangers)

Life Ring

(Angel ring)

Steep

rampart rock

platforms

Ease of use.

Rugged design.

Awareness

campaign

established.

Single use device.

Distance of

deployment.

Requires rescuer to

approach the

platform edge.

Weight.

No

Steep (>1:1)

rampart rock

platforms

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.


Page 69 of 84

Life Rings (Angel Rings™2)

Life rings are an instantly recognised lifesaving mechanism and their functionality is easily understood by both

a rescuer and the casualty. The national ‘Angel Ring ™ Project’ has seen the installation of 130 rings in NSW

with 57 confirmed rescues involving their use (ANSA, 2014).

The Australian National Sportsfishing Association (ANSA) recently received additional funding for the

expansion and maintenance of the Angel Ring Project through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust.

There are currently 2 life rings situated in the Richmond Valley LGA, and no additional life rings have been

proposed. Further information can be found in Appendix C.

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

“ANSA NSW will maintain contact with the local clubs, NSW Government agencies

and individuals who have installed or agreed to manage the angel rings and

continue communication to ensure that management targets are met.

As a minimum ANSA NSW or its nominated management team must complete a

visual check at least every 2 months to determine the rings status.” (ANSA, 2013)

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS):

GPS technology is available to be used within public rescue equipment such as life rings. Recreational fishing

bodies have already trialled certain tracking devices in some areas and should be consulted with in relation to

this matter. This technology may be beneficial by the way of a daily audit that can record when a life ring has

been washed away or stolen as part of an asset management system.


Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in

consultation with the relevant fishing associations and Land Managers at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix

C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations.

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


Page 70 of 84

3.2.8 SYSTEM OF SUPERVISION

The supervision of aquatic coastal locations is often required to manage the risk of the location, whether due

to prevailing weather and beach conditions, the proximity to large population bases, or the attendance of the

beach/coastal area due to its location or attractiveness.

The primary decision to be made by Land Managers before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to

determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver

and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A

mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a

proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location.

Uncertainties may exist when deciding whether supervision at a given location is appropriate, since:

o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non-suitable location, such as when the beach

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

ABSAMP beach hazard rating;

o Such services may be deemed too expensive and therefore not provided by the responsible land manager;

o The patronage of the location is low and the assessed risk level is minimal.

There are a range of aquatic supervisory services that should be considered, as it is not “one size fits all”. They

include:

o Full time comprehensive lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, fixed and

portable facilities, equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services.

o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with appropriate levels of trained personnel, portable facilities,

equipment, craft, vehicles and links to central command and emergency services.

o Seasonal lifesaving/lifeguard service with trained personnel, portable facilities, some equipment and craft,

and links to a command centre.

o A flexible demand based service with trained personnel provision which allocates resources to where they

are most needed.

o Surveillance cameras.

o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access.

Lifesaving Service Level Calculator

The lifesaving service level calculator takes into consideration the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings, visitation

levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history and remoteness of location to determine best

practice lifesaving service levels.

The first decision that needs to be made by a Land Manager is whether or not a location should be patrolled.

The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to guide decision making on which locations are of greater

inherent risk and therefore a higher priority for a lifesaving service. The lifesaving service level calculations

should not be used in isolation to determine whether or not a lifesaving service should be provided, however

once a decision has been made to provide a service the calculations should be referred to for guidance on the

minimum service level required. Calculations for all beaches can be found in Appendix G.

International Best Practice

The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations

internationally.


Page 71 of 84

Lifeguard/lifesaving uniforms

The ILSF recommends the colours for uniforms be red & yellow3. Lifeguards/lifesavers throughout the world

are called upon to provide safety services at a range of water environments that include swimming pools,

beaches, lakes, river front and other waterfronts. In providing these aquatic safety services, it is important that

the people using these environments for aquatic activity can readily identify the lifeguards/lifesavers for:

o Guidance on safety issues, and

o Assistance in times of need

As such the lifeguards should be readily distinguishable against the many people and colours they may be

wearing while in, on or around these aquatic environments.

The red and yellow colours have been used by a number of International Lifesaving Member Federations for

many years to such an extent and with much success that red and yellow has become synonymous with

lifesavers and lifeguards in these countries.

Lifeguard uniforms within the Richmond Valley LGA are consistent with the with ISLF position statement.

Volunteer Lifesaving Service

Below are the patrol dates and hours from the 2013/2014 season over weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.5 Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Richmond Valley LGA.

Club Patrol Dates Saturdays, Sundays & Public Holidays

Start Time Finish Time

Evans Head / Casino SLSC

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am 4pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am 2pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am 5pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am 2pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am 4pm

Regular roving patrols are also encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are

incorporated into a Clubs Patrol Operation Manual. Roving patrols can be conducted by ATV, IRB/RWC or

walking and should continue to be conducted at the following location throughout a patrol.

o Evans Head/Casino SLSC: Airforce Beach (north) to Club House (south).

It is acknowledged that the Far North Coast Branch through its support services have RWCs and the Ballina Jet

Boat that can respond to coastal incidents in the Richmond Valley LGA if required.

The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter (North Coast) is also a vital service that operates along the coastline

of the Richmond Valley LGA. This service is activated through the triple zero ambulance service and can

respond to coastal incidents that may be remote for emergency services attending by road. At times, the

service can also conduct roving patrols, looking out for swimmers, surfcraft users, rock fishermen and boaters

who may be in need of assistance as well as scanning for dangerous marine life around patrolled locations.

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


Page 72 of 84

Paid Lifeguard Service - Existing

Below are the Richmond Valley lifeguard patrol dates and hours from the 2013/2014 season during weekdays.

Table 3.2.6 Paid Lifeguard Services in the Richmond Valley LGA.

Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times

Evans Head

23/09/2013 to 04/10/2013 5 days 9am - 5pm

23/12/2013 to 28/01/2014 5 days 9am - 5pm

14/04/2014 to 24/04/2014 5 days 9am - 5pm

Paid Lifeguard Service – Proposed

The lifeguard treatment options listed below are based upon the research and data contained within this

Project Blueprint coastal public safety risk assessment:

o Lifesaving service level calculator ‘Appendix G’,

o Anecdotal evidence and feedback obtained through the various methods of consultation,

o Historical drowning and emergency response incidents,

o Historical beach visitation data (where available), and

o Tourism NSW and ABS population data.

Evans Head:

Tourism statistics indicate that a large proportion of domestic visitors to the Richmond Valley LGA originate

from Queensland. During summer spring and autumn, the current lifeguard service at Evans Head commences

at the beginning of the NSW school holiday periods, which is one week later than the Queensland school

holidays. Given the consistent and relatively high beach usage trends at Evans Head it is likely that the beach is

equally as busy from the commencement of the summer, spring and autumn Queensland school holidays.

Therefore, Richmond Valley Council should explore the means to fund an extension of the existing lifeguard

service to cover these periods.

Chinaman’s South:

As highlighted in the public forum and online surveys (Appendix F), local stakeholders raised that Chinaman’s

South beach has the opportunity to be patrolled during the summer school holidays. This location attracts

many visitors to the area, particularly during the summer school holidays. Facilities such as the large car park

(with a capacity of at least 50 cars), as well as numerous other facilities such as picnic tables, amenities and

BBQs add to the overall attractiveness of the location to visitors.

In the case of an emergency, this location is also 5 minutes south of the central town of Evans Head and

therefore responding emergency services and callout teams from the Evans Head Casino SLSC will be a

delayed.

While there have been no emergency or drowning incidents in recent times, locals have advised that there

have been known rescues to occur that haven’t been recorded through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response

System (Appendix F).

This location is under the management of the Dirawong Reserve Trust. As this is a volunteer organisation, it is

acknowledged that any proposed lifeguard services will be unable to be implemented without any external

funding. Therefore it is recommended that the Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve seek external funding

to implement a trial lifeguard service for one season over the peak summer school holiday period (2 week

service).


Page 73 of 84

The outcomes of this trial would assist in determining if a lifeguard service is suitable during this period for

upcoming seasons.


Explore the means to fund an extension of the service at Evans Head to cover the QLD school holiday periods

during summer spring and autumn.


The level of lifeguarding services provided (staffing levels, operational dates, patrol hours and locations)

should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the most suitable and effective service is provided.


The Richmond Coast Regional Crown Reserve – Crown Lands should explore the means to fund a trial lifeguard

service at Chainman’s South Beach during the peak summer school holiday period (2 week service) starting on

Boxing Day.


Branch and club procedures should continue to ensure that roving patrols are performed on a regular basis to

cover a nearby beach/section of a beach that is not patrolled.


Page 74 of 84

4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Consideration of issues in relation to emergency response is extremely relevant to a drowning prevention

strategy for the Richmond Valley LGA.

Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to:

o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000),

o Emergency phones/alarms,

o Emergency response beacons,

o Emergency service response,

o Radio coverage, and

o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service).

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - 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.

The Australian Government, through the Attorney-General’s Department are currently running a national

Triple Zero (000) campaign which aims to build awareness of the Triple Zero (000) number and educate the

community about when to use the number. The campaign serves to reinforce to members of the public their

responsibilities when calling the Triple Zero (000) emergency number both in nominating the required

emergency service and identifying the location they are calling from. The campaign uses the internet,

newspapers, radio and television to promote messages of Triple Zero (000). In addition, elements of the

campaign have been translated to reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities throughout Australia.

“Triple Zero (000) should not be referred to as ‘Triple Oh’, as this can cause confusion and could result in

people incorrectly dialing 666 on some alpha-numeric keypads. If dialed within Australia, emergency calls to

666 will not be re-routed to Triple Zero (000)” (Australian Government - Attorney General's Department, 2014)

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


Page 75 of 84

4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS

Emergency Response Beacons can be positioned in high use/risk areas. They are highly visible and once

activated, link via radio to lifesaving/lifeguard services.

The two main types of ERB are:

Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight

hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach

lifesaving service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non lifesaving).

Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and

provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system,

whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those

monitoring the ERB.

Fixed ERBs are generally only considered for use in high risk locations, where:

Limited or no mobile phone coverage exists,

A service can consistently monitor the beacon, and

A daily process of equipment checking/testing is in place.

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

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


Page 76 of 84

4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE

Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the

Richmond Valley LGA (see table and figure below). Resources that may respond include:

o NSW Police (including Water Police),

o NSW Ambulance (including the Westpac Helicopter),

o NSW Fire and Rescue,

o State Emergency Service (SES),

o NSW Rural Fire Service,

o Marine Rescue NSW,

o Richmond Valley Council Lifeguards, and

o Surf Life Saving Far North Coast (Branch and Club Callout Teams)

Table 4.3.1 Coastal Emergency Service locations for Richmond Valley LGA (<25km from the coast)

Emergency Services – Richmond Valley Local Government Area

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb

NSW Police 127 Richmond Terrace Coraki

NSW Police Cedar & Teak Streets Evans Head

NSW Police 98 River Street Woodburn

NSW Marine Rescue Razorback lookout, Ocean Drive Evans Head

NSW Fire Brigade Station 16 Adam Street Coraki

NSW Fire Brigade Station 76 Woodburn Street Evans Head

Community Fire Unit Carrabeen Court Evans Head

NSW Ambulance Station 10-12 Park Street Evans Head

State Rescue Unit 14 Adam Street Coraki

State Rescue Unit 76 Woodburn Street Evans Head

State Rescue Unit Redwood Lane Woodburn

SES Unit Headquarters Broadwater Place Broadwater

SES Unit Headquarters Yabsley Street Coraki

SES Unit Headquarters Pacific Highway Woodburn

Rural Fire Service Brigade Pacific Highway Broadwater

Rural Fire Service Brigade Coraki Woodburn Road Coraki

Rural Fire Service Brigade Pacific Highway Woodburn

SLSC & Lifeguard Service Beech Street Evans Head


Page 77 of 84

Black Rocks Campground

The Black Rocks campground is situated on Ten Mile beach in the Bundjalung National Park. The facility is

almost an hour drive from the nearest populated centre, and is accessed via a 20km partially unsealed road off

the highway, making it considerably remote. The campground also fronts a highly hazardous section of the

beach where cellular reception is minimal. These factors make responding to an emergency situation here

important yet difficult. There is however an emergency helicopter landing pad which can be utilised in extreme

cases.

Figure 4.3.1 Emergency helicopter landing pad at Black Rocks Camp Ground.


Page 78 of 84

Figure 4.3.2: Emergency services within 25km of the coast in the Richmond Valley LGA.


Page 79 of 84

4.4 COMMUNICATIONS

The State Operations Centre in Belrose (SLSNSW) assist lifeguards and lifesavers during normal operations and

emergency incidents via UHF radio communication. The UHF radio signal strength on the Richmond Valley

coastline is shown below. From Broadwater Beach to New Zealand Beach, signal strength is mostly strong to

average when using the Evans Head Repeater. Ten Mile Beach receives average to limited signal strength when

using the Yamba repeater.

Figure 4.4.1: Signal strength of the Evans Head repeater from Broadwater to New Zealand Beaches.

Figure 4.4.2 Signal Strength of the Yamba Repeater on Ten Mile Beach.

Key:

No coverage (black spot)

Signal strength (limited)

Signal strength (average)

Signal strength (strong)


Page 80 of 84

Radio Communication – Bar Crossings

As highlighted in section, 38% of all emergency incidents within the Richmond Valley LGA occur at the Evans

Head River Mouth. In order to improve vessel monitoring communication and safety, recreational and

commercial boating users could notify Marine Rescue NSW before they commence crossing the bar and after

they have safely completed the crossing. If implemented this option should be accompanied by an appropriate

educational and awareness campaign.

Figure 4.4.3 River Bar Crossing at Evans Head.


Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to hold discussions with Surf Life Saving Far North Coast to raise any

current issues and opportunities which could see further radio infrastructure installed to improve

communication.


Marine Rescue NSW should investigate the feasibility of recreational and commercial boat users notifying

them before commencing bar crossings and after they have safely completed the crossing. A targeted

educational and awareness campaign would have to be aligned to this procedure.


Page 81 of 84

4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS)

Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS)

The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW) was established in January 2008 and provides a single

point of contact for emergency services when there is a need to utilise surf rescue assets in coastal incidents.

The emergency number can be contacted 24/7 and operators (State Duty Officers) can task/notify any surf

rescue asset in NSW.

Through the growth of this system the Far North Coast Branch have an effective Branch Duty Officer system

and dedicated Club Callout Teams that can respond to incidents outside of patrolled locations/after hours.

Lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many of which occur at

unpatrolled locations and/or after hours).

The most appropriate resource at the time, whether this is volunteer lifesavers, paid lifeguards or other

emergency services are notified first and activated.

Marine Rescue:

Marine Rescue are at times the most appropriate resource to respond to incidents along the coastline

(particular vessel incidents). As part of the SRERS, Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and

develop relationships with the Evans Head Marine Rescue Unit.

Emergency Scenario Training

Communications and emergency response could be enhanced by conducting an annual emergency response

scenario training day for lifesaving and lifeguarding services. Such exercises help to establish and cement the

chain of command, cooperation and adherence operational procedures in the event of a joint emergency

response with local emergency services.


An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Far North Coast Branch Duty

Officers/Support Operations, senior Richmond Valley Lifeguards and the local emergency services once a year

before the commencement of the surf life saving season.


Surf Life Saving NSW should continue to work with and develop relationships with the Iluka/Yamba Marine

Rescue Unit.


Page 82 of 84

5 MONITOR AND REVIEW

The process of monitor and review ensures that risk treatment options are meeting their objectives, new

hazards and risks are identified in a timely manner and evolving strategies are in line with community

expectations.

Land Managers are encouraged to ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any

risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This can include a process for the review of any

drowning or emergency response incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed. The treatment

options outlined in this report can also be used as a benchmark as future funding opportunities become

available and when budget preparations occur annually.

Land Managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with the monitor

and review process. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage,

education, public rescue equipment, supervision and emergency response.


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

effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented

and where future funding opportunities can be directed.


All drowning prevention strategies have the opportunity to be documented and incorporated into the relevant

strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a

structured approach to maintenance.


Page 83 of 84

6 REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT, viewed 19 June 2014,

<http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/map>

Australian National Sportsfishing Association 2014, Angel Ring Project, viewed 24 October 2014,

<http://angelrings.com.au/>

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

5 December 2014,

<http://www.triplezero.gov.au/Pages/TripleZero(000)AwarenessCampaignandpromotionalmaterial.aspx>

Australian Water Safety Council 2006, National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, State

Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

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

South Wales, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney.

Department of Defence 2014, Evans Head Air Weapons Range, viewed 22 July 2014,

<http://www.defence.gov.au/AircraftNoise/EvansHead/Default.asp>

Destination New South Wales 2014, ‘LGA Profile – Richmond Valley’, Destination New South Wales, Sydney.

Evans Head Casino Surf Life Saving Club 2014, Our Beaches, viewed 20 August 2014,

<http://www.evanssurf.org.au/>

Evans Head Surf Shack 2007, Surf School, viewed 23 July 2014,

<http://www.evansheadsurfshack.com/surf-school>

Evans Head Visitor Information 2013, Swimming at Main Beach, viewed 23 July 2014,

<http://www.hevanshead.com.au/portfolio-items/swimming-at-main-beach/>

International Life Saving Federation 2008, A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment

for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving, The International Life Saving Federation, Belgium.

Kennedy, D, Sherker, S, Brighton, B, Weir, A, Woodroffe, C 2013, ‘Rocky coast hazards and public safety:

Moving beyond the beach in coastal risk management. Ocean and Coastal Management’, Volume 82, pp. 85-

94.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlifes 2014, Staying Safe in National Parks, veiwed on 10 April 2014,

<http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety>

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

<http://www.safefishing.com.au/index.html>

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

Sydney.


Page 84 of 84

Surf Life Saving New South Wales, 2014. Incident Reporting Database, Surf Life Saving New South Wales,

Sydney.

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

Australia, Sydney.

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

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

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

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

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

use’, Standards Australia, Sydney.

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

Summerland Surf School 2014, Summerland Surf School, viewed 23 July 2014

<http://www.summerlandsurfschool.com.au/index.html>

Surf Education Australia 2013, Surf Education and Surfing Programs, viewed 26 September 2013

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

Surf Life Saving Australia 2014, Beachsafe, viewed 23 July 2014, <http://beachsafe.org.au/>

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

Australia, Sydney.

Documents

Richmond Local Government Area - Water Safety NSW Public Safety Risk Assessment: Richmond Valley Local Government Area Page iv 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS 75