Sutherland Local Government Area - Water Safety … › ... › Sutherland.pdfSutherland lifeguard...

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 Sutherland Local Government Area

July 2013

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Sutherland Local Government Area

of 89

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


of 89

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5

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

1. INTRODUCTION, SCOPE & CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 13

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 SCOPE AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 15 1.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................................................................................................................... 16 1.5 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................................................ 18

2. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 19

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 19 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 22 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 22 2.6 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................................. 23 2.7 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS .......................................................................................................................... 24 TREATMENT OPTION 5.1 ........................................................................................................................................ 25 2.8 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .......................................................................... 26 2.9 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.10 FACILITIES AUDIT ........................................................................................................................................... 32 2.11 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS ............................................................................................................ 33 2.12 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................. 40

3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 43

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ............................................................................................. 43 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index .............................................................................................................. 43 3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program .......................................................................... 44 3.1.3 Local Population Rating ....................................................................................................................... 46 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ...................................................................................................... 47 3.1.5 Access Rating ....................................................................................................................................... 48 3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score .............................................................................................................. 50

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ......................................................................................................... 54 3.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 54 3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) .............................................................................................. 54 3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes .............................................................................................. 55 3.2.4 Safety Signage ..................................................................................................................................... 59 3.2.5 Emergency Marker System .................................................................................................................. 64 3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes .................................. 65 3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment ..................................................................................................................... 67 3.2.8 System of Supervision .......................................................................................................................... 70

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

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) ........................................................................... 80 4.2 EMERGENCY PHONES ........................................................................................................................................ 81 4.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ....................................................................................................................... 82 4.4 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ......................................................................................................................... 83 4.5 RADIO COVERAGE ............................................................................................................................................ 84 4.6 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) .................................................................................. 85

5. MONITOR AND REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 88

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 89


of 89

APPENDIX A: ACCESS AND SIGNAGE SCHEDULE

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


of 89

Executive Summary This report contains findings and recommendations which align with current International and Australian standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific to locations under the authority of Sutherland Shire Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage and the Holt Group (Boat Harbour Park). These locations include (north to south): 1. Inscription Point 17. Shelly (Cronulla) 2. The Leap 18. Windy Point 3. Yena Gap/Ours 19. Oak Park 4. Cape Solander 20. Jibbon 5. Tabbagai Gap 21. Port Hacking Point 6. Blue Hole Gap 22. Shelly (Port Hacking) 7. Point Long Nose 23. The Cobblers 8. Cape Belly 24. Marley Head 9. Potter Point/Voodoo 25. Marley 10. Boat Harbour 26. Little Marley 11. Green Hills 27. Wattamolla 12. Wanda 28. Providential Head 13. Elouera 29. Curracurrang 14. North Cronulla 30. Curracurrong 15. Cronulla 31. Garie North Head 16. Blackwood’s 32. Garie Activities/Facilities The Sutherland Local Government Area (LGA) is a popular destination which sees year round public usage and recreational activity, including swimming, surfing (inc. all surfcraft), fishing, snorkelling/diving, boating, and walking. A number of facilities support coastal usage and activities including well maintained car parks and key beach access, lifeguard and lifesaving supervision, holiday accommodation options, coastal walks, a number of public toilets/changing rooms, BBQ’s and picnic tables. Hazards/Risks Though outlined in more detail within the report and Appendix B, the Sutherland LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, these are the hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Sutherland LGA:

Strong ocean currents/rip currents: As a result of wave action and beach type Waves/waves overwashing: As a result of model wave height and exposure to ocean swells Inshore holes/deep water: As a result of coastal processes, wave action and beach type Slippery rocks: As a result of coastal geography/break walls and wave action Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: As a result of coastal process, wave action and beach type Submerged rocks: As a result of coastal geography and sand movement Stingers/sharks: As a result of marine life Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Rock shelves/platforms: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction Based on risk analysis of these hazards, it has been identified that they pose risk to the following types of recreational users:

Strong ocean currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users


of 89

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

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


of 89

Summary of Recommendations Please note:

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

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

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

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

should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.39)

1.2 Sutherland Shire Council, National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park and Kamay National Park) and

Surf Life Saving Sydney should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Sutherland Local Government Area. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.42)

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

staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.53) Education: 1.4 Existing education and awareness programmes within and around the Sutherland Local Government Area

should continue to be implemented and reviewed. (p.58) 1.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.58) 1.6 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.58) 1.7 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.58) Safety Signage: 1.8 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be

implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.63)

1.9 The Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) should be used to determine signage placement and the number of warning symbols required on a sign. Refer to ‘Appendix A’ for existing signs that currently have an insufficient number of warning symbols. (p.63)

Access: 1.10 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.66)


of 89

1.11 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access. (p.66)

Supervision and Surveillance: 1.12 Explore the means to fund a lifeguard service at Greenhills Beach on the completion of development, or

as required by changing beach usage, to provide coverage over the summer school holiday period. (p.79) Emergency Response: 1.13 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf

Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers and lifeguards within the Sutherland Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures). (p.86)

1.14 Formal emergency action plans should be developed and recognised by Sutherland Shire Council for Sutherland lifeguards when responding to after hour incidents (surf rescue emergency response system) to ensure an optimum and safe response when supporting police and lifesavers with coastal emergencies. (p.86)

1.15 Club Captains from Bate Bay clubs (i.e. Wanda, Elouera, North Cronulla and Cronulla) should meet with

Sutherland lifeguard supervisors at the start of the surf life saving season to discuss guidelines and expectations that will improve the communication and coordination to work effectively together while on patrol. (p.86)

1.16 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Sydney Branch Duty Officers/Support

Operations, Sutherland lifeguard supervisors and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.86)

Monitor and Review: 1.17 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented. (p.88)

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

and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.88)

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

should be used when making informed decisions about the implementation of risk treatments for coastal safety. (p.39)

2.2 National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park and Kamay National Park), Sutherland Shire Council and Surf Life Saving Sydney should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Sutherland Local Government Area. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.42)

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

staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.53)


of 89

Education: 2.4 Existing education and awareness programmes within and around the Sutherland Local Government Area

should continue to be implemented and reviewed. (p.58)

2.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’). (p.58)

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

and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p.58)

2.7 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.58)

2.8 During the summer school holidays when vehicle visitor stations are occupied, surf safety collateral should be provided to members of the public when issued a visitor pass. (p.58)

Safety Signage: 2.9 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be


2.10 Investigate the use of temporary signage at the main vehicle entry points (Appendix A) during Bureau of

Meteorology (BOM) issued dangerous surf warnings - warning the public of large/hazardous waves. (p.63)

Access: 2.11 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.66)

2.12 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.66)

Public Rescue Equipment: 2.13 Rescue tube boxes located throughout the Kamay National Park should be removed. (p.69)

2.14 Explore the means to fund equipping all National Parks and Wildlife Service vehicles operating within the

Royal National Park and Kamay National Park with at least two throw sticks (i.e. inflatable floatation devices). (p.69)

Supervision and Surveillance: 2.15 Explore the means to fund the existing lifeguard service at Wattamolla to cover the period between

Boxing Day and the end of the first week in January, as well as the Australia Day long weekend. (p.79)

Emergency Response: 2.16 Emergency information signs that are located in the Kamay National Park (Appendix A) that promote

mobile numbers in the case of an emergency should be removed and Triple Zero (000) should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency. (p.80)

2.17 Emergency phones located in the Royal National Park (Garie and Wattamolla) should be checked for their

functionality through regular scheduled/documented maintenance. (p.81)


of 89

2.18 A key register should be developed by National Parks and Wildlife to determine which key agencies have

access to the gates in the national park areas when responding to emergency incidents. It is recommended that keys be made available to those local emergency lifesaving services that do not currently have keys. (p.87)

Monitor and Review: 2.19 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented. (p.89)

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

and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance. (p.89)

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

drowning deaths where the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is able to supply data. Such a report should identify the relevant trends and causal factors. (p.39)

Education:

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

with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. Brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Sutherland Local Government Area. (p.58)

Emergency Marker Signage: 3.3 With guidance from the NSW Government - Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and

Property Information a state-aligned emergency marker program at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a programme is established. (p.64)

Public Rescue Equipment:

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

consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these rock fishing associations. (p.69)

Recommendation 4 The Australian National Sports Fishing Association, NSW Branch (ANSA NSW) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Public Rescue Equipment: 4.1 Locations identified in ‘Appendix C’ where public rescue equipment (e.g. life rings) are missing from its

stand should be replaced and continue to be maintained and monitored. (p.69)


of 89

Recommendation 5 Australian CoastSafe should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 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.25)

Recommendation 6 Surf Life Saving (State, Branch & Club) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 6.1 Surf Life Saving Sydney, Sutherland Shire Council and National Parks and Wildlife (Kamay National Park

and Royal National Park) should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Sutherland Local Government Area. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. (p.42)

Supervision and Surveillance: 6.2 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.79)

6.3 Through the Sydney Branch Support Operations (e.g. RWC and ORB) as well as the Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter, there is the opportunity to formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations and report that information back to SurfCom and/or lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond. (p.79)

Emergency Response: 6.4 The following mobile emergency response beacons should be installed when lifeguards and lifesavers are

on duty: o Green Hills (750m north of surf club – access 6) (p.82)

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

upgrades in radio infrastructure. (p.84) 6.6 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf

Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers and lifeguards within the Sutherland Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures). (p.86)

6.7 Club Captains from Bate Bay clubs (i.e. Wanda, Elouera, North Cronulla and Cronulla) should meet with

Sutherland Lifeguard Supervisors at the start of the surf life saving season to discuss guidelines and expectations that will improve the communication and coordination to work together effectively while on patrol. (p.86)

6.8 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Sydney Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Sutherland lifeguard supervisors and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.86)


of 89

Recommendation 7 The Holt Group (private land owners at Boat Harbour) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Safety Signage: 7.1 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be



of 89

1. Introduction, Scope & Context

1.1 Introduction

This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related issues identified at every beach/rock platform located on the coast of the Sutherland Local Government Area. The Land Managers of this area include Sutherland Shire Council, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage and the Holt Group (Boat Harbour Park). Tragically, NSW accounts for 50% of the national coastal drowning toll annually. As of 30 June 2013, there have been 338 coastal drowning deaths in NSW since 1 July 2004

1. The vast majority of these can be attributed to

swimming/rip-currents and rock-fishing, with almost all occurring at unpatrolled locations/times, where no expert assistance is immediately available. Accidental drowning deaths in the coastal aquatic environment can be accounted for through a number of factors known as the ‘drowning chain’. These are:

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

o Education and information o Denial of access, improvement of infrastructure and/or provision of warnings o Provision of supervision o Acquisition of survival skills Figure 1.1.1: The International Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain (Source: ILSF Drowning Prevention Strategies, 2008)

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database


of 89

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


of 89

1.2 Scope and Context

Surf Life Saving New South Wales recently received funding as part of a NSW Government water safety initiative through the Water Safety Black Spot Fund to commence coastal public safety risk assessments on the NSW coastline (beaches and rock platforms). The program will be staged over several years with phase one to include the top ten drowning locations by (Local Government Area) in NSW. The report provides risk treatment recommendations about how to improve risk and safety management in line with current industry compliance standards: o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines o AS2416 – 2010 Water Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags o AS 2899(.1&.2) – 1986 Public Information Symbols Part 1 and 2 o ISO 7001:2007 Graphical symbols - Public information symbols o AS2342 – 1992 Development, Testing and Implementing of Information and Safety Symbols and Symbolic

Signs o ISO9001:2000 Quality Management Systems This coastal risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Sutherland LGA which commenced on Tuesday 2nd April and concluded on Friday 12 April, 2013. The assessment covered all coastal locations within the area. The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment, including but not limited to; signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people to visit the location. The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of the Sutherland LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report. Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating may occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this report. Boat ramps and bars at river mouths that fall within the assessed areas identified in Appendix D have been assessed within the framework of the coastal public safety risk assessment process. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment. Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail: o Access locations, classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment

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

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

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

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


of 89

o Survey Results Appendix E. At no time during the inspection was the water entered, they were performed from the land, along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.

1.3 Limitations

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

report as a result of the project timeframes.

1.4 Definition of Terms

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

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety And Management Program

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

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

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

Consequence Outcome or impact of an event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazards A source of potential harm

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

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).


of 89

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

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

Likelihood Used as a general description of probability or frequency

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

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

Peak Water Safety Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residual Risk Risk remaining after implementation of risk treatments

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

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

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

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

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


of 89

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Project Team

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


of 89

2. Assessment Methodology

2.1 Introduction

The methodology included site identification, site inspection, hazard identification, data analysis, beach hazard ratings, beach identification, facility visitation ratings, facilities, beach usage, incident data, communication and consultation.

2.2 Site Identification

The map on the following page provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the Sutherland LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in Appendix D. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed Approx. 30km of coastline in the Sutherland LGA. The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Sutherland Shire Council o NPWS

Kamay National Park Royal National Park

o Crown Lands o The Holt Group (Boat Harbour 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 Sutherland Local Government Area. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report. Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment.


of 89

Figure 2.2: Sutherland LGA overview of beach locations


of 89

2.3 Site Inspection

Table 2.3.1: Assessed locations and the dates of their assessment

Location Land Management Authority Date

Inscription Point National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Tuesday 2 April, 2013

The Leap National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Tuesday 2 April, 2013

Yena Gap/Ours National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Tuesday 2 April, 2013

Cape Solander National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Tuesday 2 April, 2013

Tabbagai Gap National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Monday 5 April, 2013

Blue Hole Gap National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Monday 5 April, 2013

Point Long Nose National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Monday 5 April, 2013

Cape Belly National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) Monday 5 April, 2013

Potter Point/Voodoo National Parks & Wildlife (Kamay National Park) / Sutherland Shire Council

Thursday 4 April, 2013

Boat Harbour The Holt Group (Private Land Owner) Thursday 4 April, 2013

Green Hills Sutherland Shire Council Wednesday 3 April, 2013

Wanda Sutherland Shire Council Wednesday 3 April, 2013

Elouera Sutherland Shire Council Wednesday 3 April, 2013

North Cronulla Sutherland Shire Council Wednesday 3 April, 2013

Cronulla Sutherland Shire Council Friday 4 April, 2013

Blackwood’s Sutherland Shire Council Friday 4 April, 2013

Shelly (Cronulla) Sutherland Shire Council Friday 4 April, 2013

Windy Point Sutherland Shire Council Friday 4 April, 2013

Oak Park Sutherland Shire Council Friday 4 April, 2013

Jibbon National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Tuesday 6 April, 2013

Port Hacking Point National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Tuesday 6 April, 2013

Shelly (Port Hacking) National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Tuesday 6 April, 2013

The Cobblers National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Wednesday 7 April, 2013

Marley Head National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Wednesday 7 April, 2013

Marley National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Wednesday 7 April, 2013

Little Marley National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Wednesday 7 April, 2013

Wattamolla National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Thursday 8 April, 2013

Providential Head National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Thursday 8 April, 2013

Curracurrang National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Thursday 8 April, 2013

Curracurrong National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Friday 9 April, 2013

Garie North Head National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Friday 9 April, 2013

Garie National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park) Friday 9 April, 2013


of 89

2.4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

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

2.5 Data Analysis

Data relevant to this risk assessment has been considered in the production of the report. These include: o Australian Beach Safety and Management Programme (ABSAMP) o Australian Bureau of Statistics – 2010 Census data o Australian Lifeguard Service Statistics o Beachsafe (2012) www.beachsafe.org.au o NSW Tourism Statistics o Rock Fishing Review - Bradstreet et al, (2012) – Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales. Surf

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


of 89

2.6 Beach Hazard Ratings and Overview

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

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

Wave Height

Beach Type

< 0.5 (m)

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

Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10

Long Shore Bar Trough

4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10

Rhythmic Bar Beach

4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10

Transverse Bar Rip

4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Low Tide Terrace 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Reflective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

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

Hazard Rating Details

1 - 3

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

4 - 6

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

7 - 8

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

9 - 10

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


of 89

2.7 ABSAMP Types and Ratings

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

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Inscription Point nswBoB23 3* Rock Platform

The Leap nsw333RPa 3* Rock Platform

Yena Gap/Ours nsw333RPb 3* Rock Platform

Cape Solander nsw333RPc 3* Rock Platform

Tabbagai Gap nsw333RPd 3* Rock Platform

Blue Hole Gap nsw333RPe 3* Rock Platform

Point Long Nose nsw333RPf 3* Coastal Cliff

Cape Belly nsw333RPg 3* Coastal Cliff

Potter Point nsw333RPh 3* Rock Platform

Boat Harbour nsw333 3 Reflective

Greenhills nsw334a 4 Low Tide Terrace

Wanda nsw334b 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Elouera nsw333c 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

North Cronulla nsw333d 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

Cronulla nsw335 3 Low Tide Terrace

Blackwood’s nsw336 3 Reflective + Rocks

Shelly (Cronulla) nsw337 3 Reflective + Rocks

Windy Point nsw337RPa 3* Rock Platform

Oak Park nsw338 4 Reflective + Rocks

Jibbon nsw339 2 Reflective

Port Hacking Point nsw339RPa 3* Rock Platform

Shelly (Port Hacking) nsw340 4 Reflective + Rocks

The Cobblers nsw340RPa 6* Rock Platform

Marley Head nsw340RPb 6* Rock Platform

Marley nsw341 7 Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Little Marley nsw342 4 Reflective

Wattamolla nsw343 4 Reflective

Providential Head nsw343RPa 6* Rock Platform

Curracurrang nsw343RPb 6* Rocks

Curracurrong nsw343RPc 6* Coastal Cliff

Garie North Head nsw343RPd 6* Rock Platform

Garie nsw344 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

* Sutherland 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


of 89

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

Treatment Option 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.


of 89

2.8 ABSAMP Beach Type Characteristic Overview and Hazards

Each location and their beach characteristics and associated hazards are as follows: Rhythmic Bar and Beach o Marley Figure 2.8.1: Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Rhythmic bar and beach type commonly occurs around the southern Australian coast. They usually consist of relatively fine-medium (0.3 mm) sand and exposure to waves averaging more than 1.5 m. They are characterised by an outer bar which is separated from the beach by a deep trough, however unlike the longshore bar and trough type, the bar varies in width and elevation alongshore, and it is rhythmic. Waves break more heavily on the shoreward-protruding rhythmic bar sections with the broken wave and white water flowing shoreward as a wave bore. The

bore then flows off the bar into the deeper tough, where it moves shoreward and longshore as a rip feeder current. Part of the wave reforms in the trough and breaks again on the shore. The water from both the wave bore and the swash piles up in the rip feeder channel Transverse Bar and Rip o Wanda o Elouera o North Cronulla o Garie

Figure 2.8.2: Transverse Bar and Rip

Transverse bar and rip (TBR) type is the most common and extensive of Australia’s wave-dominated beach types. They occur primarily on beaches composed of fine to medium sand (0.3 mm) and exposed to waves averaging 1.5 m. This beach type received its name from the fact that the bars are transverse or perpendicular to and attached to the beach, separated by deeper rip channels. The bars and rips are usually regularly spaced and range from 150 m on the lower energy sea-dominated northern Australian beaches to 250 m along the higher energy southeast coast and 350 m along the exposed southern coast. Waves

break heavily on the shallower bars and less in the deeper rip channels resulting in lower energy swash in lee of the bars and higher energy swash/shore break in lee of the rips. The shoreline is rhythmic building a few metres seaward behind the attached bars as deposition occurs forming the mega cusp horns and being scoured out and often scarped in lee of the rips forming the embayments. The surf zone has a cellular circulation pattern. Waves tend to break more on the bars and move shoreward as wave bores. This water flows both directly into the adjacent rip channel and, closer to the beach, into the rip feeder channels located at the base of the beach. The water in the rip feeders converge and return seaward as a strong rip current. Low Tide Terrace o Greenhills o Cronulla Figure 2.8.3: Low Tide Terrace

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

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


of 89

they may pass right over the bar and not break until the beach face, which behaves much like a reflective beach. At spring low tide, however, the entire bar is usually exposed as a ridge or terrace running parallel to the beach and waves break by plunging heavily on the outer edge of the bar. At mid tide, waves usually break right across the shallow bar, when they are most likely to generate rip currents. The water is returned seaward, both by reflection off the beach face, especially at high tide, and via the mini rips, even if no rip channels are present. The rips, however, are usually shallow, ephemeral or transient meaning they will flow strongly for a few minutes then dissipate. Reflective o Boat Harbour o Blackwood’s o Shelly (Cronulla) o Oak Park o Jibbon o Shelly (Port Hacking) o Little Marley o Wattamolla Figure 2.8.4: Reflective

Reflective sandy beaches lie at the lower energy end of the wave-dominated beach spectrum. They are characterised by relatively steep, narrow beaches usually composed of coarser sand (0.4 mm). On the open Australian coast, sandy beaches require waves to be less than 0.5 m to be reflective. For this reason they are also found inside the entrance to bays, at the lower energy end of some ocean beaches and in lee of the reefs and islets that front many beaches. Reflective beaches are Australia's most common beach type occurring in every state though they are more common around the southern half of the continent. Reflective beach

morphology consists of the steeper, narrow beach and swash zone, with beach cusps commonly present in the upper high tide swash zone. They have no bar or surf zone as waves move unbroken to the shore, where they collapse or surge up the beach face. Rocks & Rock Platform o Inscription Point o The Leap o Yena Gap/Ours o Cape Solander o Tabbagai Gap o Blue Hole Gap o Potter Point o Shelly (Cronulla) o Blackwood’s o Shelly (Port Hacking) o Windy Point o Oak Park o Port Hacking Point o The Cobblers o Marley Head o Providential Point o Curracurrang o Garie North Head Coastal Cliff o Point Long Nose o Cape Belly o Curracurrong

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

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

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

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


of 89

2.9 Facility Visitation Rates (FVR)

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

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

Rating Development Natural Hazards

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

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

Sloping ground; no natural water; walking track around reserve

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

dog areas

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

than 1 metre

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

ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 metre and 3 metres

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

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 metres

Table 2.9.2: Typical development ratings for beaches.

Rating Development

1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2





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

Rating Population Use

1 Less than 5 people at a time

2 5 to 50 people at a time



5 Greater than 500 people at a time


of 89

Table 2.9.4: Suggested Frequency of use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event in held at the facility

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

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

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

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

The values and calculations are outlined as follows: Table 2.9.1: Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations

LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT RATING

* POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR

Inscription Point 2 2 3 7

The Leap 2 2 3 7

Yena Gap/Ours 2 2 3 7

Cape Solander 2 3 3 9

Tabbagai Gap 2 1 2 4

Blue Hole Gap 2 1 2 4

Point Long Nose 2 1 2 4

Cape Belly 2 1 2 4

Potter Point 2 2 3 7

Boat Harbour 2 4 4 12

Green Hills 2 4 4 12

Wanda 3 5 5 20

Elouera 3 5 5 20

North Cronulla 4 5 5 25

Cronulla 2 5 5 15

Blackwood’s 2 3 4 10

Shelly (Cronulla) 2 4 4 12

Windy Point 2 2 3 7

Oak Park 2 4 4 12

Jibbon 2 4 4 12

Port Hacking Point 2 3 3 9

Shelly (Port Hacking) 2 2 3 7

The Cobblers 3 2 3 9

Marley Head 3 2 3 9

Marley 4 2 3 11

Little Marley 2 2 3 7

Wattamolla 2 4 4 12

Providential Head 3 2 3 9

Curracurrang 3 1 2 5

Curracurrong 3 1 2 5

Garie North Head 3 2 3 9

Garie 4 4 3 19

Given the FVR scores, shown in the above table, listed below is an outline of the most appropriate sign characteristics pertinent to each location: FVR Score between 4 and 6 o Little Birdie/Waterfall This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility


of 89

o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o Any information symbols relevant to the facility NB: The sign does not require the depiction of warning symbols

FVR Score between 7 and 10

o Inscription Point o The Leap o Yena Gap/Ours o Cape Solander o Potter Point o Windy Point o Port Hacking Point o Shelly (Port Hacking) o The Cobblers o Marley Head o Little Marley o Providential Head o Curracurrang o Curracurrong o Garie North Head

This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top hazard should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility FVR Score between 11 and 15 o Boat Harbour o Green Hills o Cronulla o Shelly (Cronulla) o Oak Park o Jibbon o Marley o Wattamolla This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top two hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility FVR Score between 16 and 20 o Wanda


of 89

o Elouera o Garie This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter.

o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top three hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility

FVR Score between 21 and 26 o North Cronulla This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and spaced no greater than 100 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top four hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility


of 89

2.10 Facilities Audit

Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the beach/access points. These include but are not limited to: o Picnic areas o BBQ’s o Playgrounds o Benches o Showers/water taps o Amenities o Car parks o Caravan parks o Art infrastructure o Rubbish bins o Boat Ramps Why do we record facilities? Facilities are recorded because it is important for the Land Manager to recognise that by providing the above facilities it is expected that there will be an increase in people visiting these areas. This increase can correlate to the likelihood of a risk occurring in a coastal environment. Treatment plans identified in the report should be implemented in these areas to reduce the risk of a particular event occurring. Facilities as well as other local attractions are included in risk management and while these facilities or local attractions may, in isolation, increase the likelihood of a particular risk occurring, they may be offset by other factors such as the type of visitor who is going to a particular location. All factors relating to a risk are assessed as a whole and not in isolation when determining the level of risk. It is the level of risk and not the type of facilities (in isolation to other factors) that is used when determining if a risk treatment is required A breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Sutherland LGA can be requested by the Land Managers if required.


of 89

2.11 Beach Usage and Incident Statistics

Beach statistics The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving and lifeguard services operating within Sutherland LGA. All figures are the combined statistics from the last 3 patrolling seasons (2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13) on weekends and public holidays. Statistics have been sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’ and the Sutherland Shire Council. Table 2.11.1: Surf Life Saving Club statistics for 2010 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)

*Statistics have been found to be incomplete on SurfGuard

Notes to table: o North Cronulla has the highest number of attendances, rescues and preventions. o Cronulla has the highest number of first aid cases. o Wanda has the second highest number of rescues. Table 2.11.2: Sutherland lifeguard statistics for 2010 to 2013 (Sutherland Lifeguard Headquarters, 2013)

Notes to table: o North Cronulla has the highest number of attendances, rescues and preventions. (consistent with SLSC

stats) o Cronulla has the highest number of first aid cases. (consistent with SLSC stats) o Wanda has the second highest number of rescues. (consistent with SLSC stats) o Lifeguards at Wattamolla patrol only one day of the year, Australia Day and has a high average day

attendance. Comparing the two tables, it is interesting to note that although North Cronulla had the highest number of statistics for attendance, rescues and preventions Cronulla had the highest number of first aid cases for both lifesavers and lifeguards. Wanda also had the second highest number of rescues for both lifesavers and lifeguards. Table 2.11.3: Sutherland lifeguard statistics (winter period) for 2010 to 2013 (Sutherland Lifeguard Headquarters, 2013)

Surf Life Saving Clubs Attendance Rescues Preventions First Aid

Wanda 99,343 425 1,539 190

Elouera 160,001 294 3,300 506

North Cronulla 288,852 462 9,375 513

Cronulla *73,021 209 1,493 967

Garie 55,346 85 1,748 461

Totals 676,563 1,475 17,455 2,637

Lifeguard Services Attendance Rescues Preventions First Aid

Wanda 1,439,698 285 5,910 1,756

Elouera 1,519,021 261 3,819 1,422

North Cronulla 3,681,633 342 12,552 2,133

Cronulla 3,200,883 212 5,528 3,800

Garie 15,498 5 1,091 138

Wattamolla 10,410 2 113 5

Totals 9,867,143 1,107 29,013 9,254

Lifeguard Services Attendance Rescues Preventions First Aid

Cronulla & North Cronulla Combined n/a 205 2,909 1,842


of 89

These statistics are the total figures for the whole period from the end of the surf life saving season (Anzac Day) to the start of the surf life saving season (spring school holidays). Population Statistics This table shows the population in the Sutherland LGA is 210,863. Population over the last 10 years has increased by approximately 9,000 people (4.3% growth). Table 2.11.4: Sutherland population data (ABS, 2011)

Sutherland Local Government Area – Population

Year Males Females Total

2011 103,167 107,696 210,863

2006 100,870 104,578 205, 448

2001 99,430 102,728 202,158

This table provides a breakdown of the population living in the coastal towns of the Sutherland LGA (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Table 2.11.5: Population living in coastal suburbs within the Sutherland LGA (ABS, 2011)

Beach Population Figures

Beach Suburb Population

Kurnell 2,213

Cronulla 17,042

Bundeena 1,894

Totals 18,936

Greenhills Beach Development North of Wanda, Greenhills Beach is currently undertaking a significant development plan which will see 161 sites being built. The exact number of residents was unable to be sourced however this localised population expansion will continue attract an increase of visitations to Greenhills beach. Figure 2.11.1: Artists impression of Greenhills site (Australand, 2013) \\\ As shown in figure 2.11.1, the development is situated in close proximity to the coast with direct formalised access provided to an unpatrolled section of the beach. This will encourage an increase in beach usage at a hazardous location for inexperienced swimmers, in particular the very young and elderly. ‘The Greenhills Beach Development Control Code, 2011’ highlights safety precautions around swimming pools and bushfires but does not include any mention of coastal safety. Future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Sutherland LGA, should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision.


of 89

Tourist Information The below information has been sourced from the ‘Destination NSW’ website. All statistics are the average from three year totals to four year totals to June 2012. Destination NSW breaks down the number of visitors into three categories and these include: 1. Domestic overnight travel 2. Domestic day trip travel 3. International overnight travel Table 2.11.6: Tourism data and visitor information for Sutherland LGA (‘Destination NSW’, 2013)

Overall Tourist Figures (‘000)

Domestic Overnight 228,000

Domestic Day Trip (>50km) 831,000

International Overnight 21,820

Domestic Overnight Domestic overnight visitors who stayed in Sutherland were mainly travelling for the purpose of visiting friends and relatives (61%), followed by holiday (28%). The most popular activities for domestic overnight visitors staying in Sutherland were visiting friends and relatives (74%), eating out at restaurants (45%) and going shopping (26%). Overnight visitors to Sutherland were more likely to come from intrastate (69%) than interstate (31%). Interstate visitors were more likely to come from Queensland and Victoria while intrastate visitors were most likely going to be travelling from other parts of Sydney or the South Coast. Domestic Day Trip Of all domestic day trip visitors to Sutherland, nearly half (48%) come to the area for leisure purposes and (39%) to visit their friends and relatives. International Overnight The top three international markets staying in Sutherland were New Zealand, the UK and the USA. The most popular activity for international visitors to Australia who stayed in Sutherland was going to restaurants and cafes with 92% of all international visitors participating in this activity. Other popular activities included going shopping (77%), going to the beach (73%), sightseeing (70%), going to pubs and clubs (56%) and visiting national parks (48%). International visitors staying overnight in Sutherland were most likely to be travelling unaccompanied (65%) or as an adult couple (21%). The youth market (15-29 years) accounts for 33% of the total international visitors staying in Sutherland. The second largest age group is the 30-39 years olds (22%). International visitors staying in Sutherland were most likely to be return visitors to Australia (73%). Most international overnight visitors to Sutherland were travelling to Australia to visit friends and relatives (45%), followed by travelling for the purpose of a holiday (38%).


of 89

Drowning Incidents Below are the drowning incidents that have occurred in the Sutherland LGA (including Kamay National Park and Royal National Park) from 1 July 2004 to 30 April 2013. Table 2.11.7: Drowning incidents within Sutherland LGA from 2004 to 2013 (SLSA Incident Reporting Database, 2013)

Coastal Drowning Incidents – Sutherland Local Government Area

Date Location Time Day Month Age &

Gender Nationality

Residential

Status Activity

11/08/2004 Kamay National Park N/A Wed Aug 34 – M Chinese Australian

Resident Rock Fishing

29/01/2005 North Cronulla 7:00 Sat Jan 79 - M Australian Australian

Resident Swimming

6/11/2005 Wattamolla N/A Sun Nov 64 - M Bulgarian Australian

Resident Unknown

28/10/2006 Inscription Point 17:26 Sat Oct 34 – M Chinese Australian


23/12/2006 Oak Park N/A Sat Dec 68 – M Netherlands Australian

Resident Swimming

14/01/2007 Potters Point 8:10 Sun Jan 47 – M Australian Australian

Resident Boating

25/08/2008 Port Hacking Point 13:30 Mon Aug 52 – M

Unknown

Australian

Resident

Boating

19/10/2008 Cape Solander 12:00 Sun Oct 53 – M Chinese Australian

Resident

Diving/

Snorkelling

21/11/2008 Cape Solander 15:00 Fri Nov 38 – M Korean Australian


25/07/2009 Wanda 2:30 Sat Jul 36 – M Australian Australian

Resident Boating

25/07/2009 Wanda 2:30 Sat Jul 37 – F Maori Australian

Resident Boating

4/01/2010 Potters Point 6:00 Mon Jan 44 – M Unknown Unknown Rock Fishing

5/04/2010 Elouera 18:28 Mon Apr 59 – M British International

Tourist Swimming

11/07/2010 Elouera 23:30 Sun Jul 20s – F Asian Australian

Resident Swimming

07/05/2011 Curracurrong 9:30 Sat May N/A - M Asian Australian


26/04/2012 Kamay National Park 10:30 Thu Apr 50's - M Unknown Unknown Unknown

12/05/2012 North Cronulla 23:00 Sat May 50 - M Unknown Unknown Unknown

2/02/2013 Green Hills 17:30 Sat Feb 59 - F Unknown Unknown Unknown

Notes to table: o 55% of drowning incidents occurred within National Parks and 45% occurred within Council boundaries o 28% of all drowning incidents occurred during winter, 28% during winter, 22% during spring and 22%

during autumn o 39% of drowning incidents occur in the Kamay National Park While data surrounding incident location/time has been referenced, specific environmental conditions at the time of incidents have not been adequately assessed to identify causal factors and specific trends. This information exists and is held in raw format by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), including wave height/direction, tides, wind speed/direction, temperature, and visibility.


of 89

Review and assessment of this data, may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions for types of localities and specific ‘black spot’ locations themselves. Improvements to Dangerous Surf Warnings and education/awareness programs may be improved as a result. Emergency Callouts There have been 77 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2013 in the Sutherland LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams (lifesavers/lifeguards), including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police. Of the 77 callouts, 40 successful rescues have been conducted. Relative to the NSW coastline Sutherland LGA receive the fifth highest number of callouts

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

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

Table 2.11.8: SRERS call outs within Sutherland LGA from 2004 to 2013 (SLSNSW Reporting Database, 2013)

Surf Rescue Emergency Response System – Sutherland Local Government Area

Date Incident

Location Month Season Day Time Job Type Outcome

4/10/2008 Nth Cronulla Oct Spring Sat 16:25 Swimming 1 Person found

27/09/2008 Lilli Pilli Wharf Sep Spring Sat 8:50 Rock Related 1 patient rescued

27/04/2008 Wanda Apr Autumn Sun 11:43 Vessel 1 patient rescued

31/12/2008 Garie Dec Summer Wed 11:30 Swimming 1 patient rescued

20/01/2009 Bundeena Jan Summer Tue 19:55 Suicide 1 patient rescued

8/02/2009 Port Hacking Feb Summer Sun 12:27 Vessel 2 Patients rescued

26/01/2009 Cape Solander Jan Summer Mon 10:35 Rock Related 1 Patient rescued

25/07/2009 Wanda July Winter Sat 5:33 Vessel 2 coastal drowning

6/09/2009 Cape Solander Sep Spring Sun 6:20 Vessel 2 Patients Rescued

20/09/2009

Shelly Beach

(Cronulla) Sep Spring Sun 10:32 Diving/Snorkelling No Further Action

16/11/2009 Boat Harbour Nov Spring Mon 13:46 Vessel No Further Action

4/12/2009 Cape Solander Dec Summer Fri 15:57 Surf Craft 1 Patient Found

6/12/2009 Lilli Pilli Dec Summer Sun 11:51 Vessel Other

6/12/2009 Cape Solander Dec Summer Sun 11:17 Vessel 2 Patients Rescued

16/12/2009 Cape Solander Dec Summer Wed 20:05 Surf Craft 1 Patient Rescued

4/01/2010 Potters Point Jan Summer Mon 6:15 Rock fishing 1 Patient Deceased

19/01/2010 Tom Ugly Bridge Jan Summer Tue 11:55 Swimming No Further Action

20/01/2010 Nth Cronulla Jan Summer Wed 18:46 Swimming No Further Action

17/01/2010 Cronulla Jan Summer Sun 11:00 Vessel 2 Patients Rescued

21/02/2010 Cronulla Feb Summer Sun 16:15 Vessel No Further Action

5/04/2010 Elouera Apr Autumn Mon 18:19 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

14/05/2010 Hardons May Autumn Fri 21:38 Vessel other

15/05/2010 Woronora River May Autumn Sat 0:02 Vessel Stood Down

22/05/2010 Botany Bay May Autumn Sat 12:25 Light aircraft crash other

4/06/2010 Cape Solander Jun Winter Fri 16:14 Rock fishing 1 patient rescued

17/06/2010 Elouera Jun Winter Thu 16:55 Other Other

30/06/2010 Elouera Jun Winter Wed 12:27 Other No Further Action

7/08/2010 Iron Cove Bridge Aug Winter Sat 8:46 Vessel No Further Action


of 89


Date Incident


18/09/2010 Shark Island Sep Spring Sat 16:00 Vessel No Further Action

19/09/2010 Boat Harbour Sep Spring Sun 11:15 Vessel 1 Patient Rescued

19/09/2010 Shark Island Sep Spring Sun 14:33 Vessel 1 Patient Rescued

5/12/2010 Shark Island Dec Summer Sun 9:06 Swimming No Further Action

21/12/2010 Wanda Dec Summer Tue 6:31 Vessel 1 Patient Rescued

26/01/2011 Jibbon Jan Summer Wed 10:22 Diving/Snorkelling No Further Action

26/01/2011 Garie Jan Summer Wed 14:14 Swimming No Further Action

26/01/2011 Gunnamatta Bay Jan Summer Wed 23:00 Swimming 1 Person Found

27/01/2011 Boat Harbour Jan Summer Thu 6:50 Vessel No Further Action

30/01/2011 Cronulla Jan Summer Sun 17:03 Vessel 2 Patients Rescued

6/03/2011 Boat Harbour Mar Autumn Sun 14:57 Swimming 1 Patient Rescued

17/03/2011 Wanda Mar Autumn Thu 9:34 Vessel No Further Action

7/05/2011 Curracurrong May Autumn Sat 13:46 Rock fishing 1 Coastal Drowning

14/05/2011 Cape Solander May Autumn Sat 8:48 Rock fishing No Further Action

2/06/2011 Cronulla Jun Winter Thu 15:57 Swimming No Further Action

4/06/2011 Wanda Jun Winter Sat 10:53 Surf Craft 2 Patients Rescued

5/06/2011 Merries Reef Jun Winter Sun 11:00 Vessel 6 Patients Rescued

9/08/2011 Cronulla Point Aug Winter Tue 18:33 Surf Craft No Further Action

20/10/2011 Wanda Beach Oct Spring Thu 18:44 Swimming No Further Action

11/03/2012 Garie Mar Autumn Sun 8:44 Shark Sighting No Further Action

10/04/2012 Greenhills Apr Autumn Tue 17:17 Vessel No Further Action

19/04/2012

Shelly Beach

(Cronulla) Apr Autumn Thu 15:13 Swimming No Further Action

25/04/2012 Grannons Bay Apr Autumn Wed 3:48 Swimming No Further Action

26/04/2012 Cape Solander Apr Autumn Thu 10:31 Swimming 1 Coastal Drowning

12/06/2012

Shelly Beach

(Cronulla) Jun Winter Tue 17:26 Surf Craft 1 Patient Rescued

25/06/2012 North Cronulla Jun Winter Mon 20:13 Vessel No Further Action

19/08/2012 Boat Harbour Aug Winter Sun 13:28 Vessel 4 Patients Rescued

21/11/2012 Cronulla Nov Spring Wed 15:17 Other No Further Action

23/12/2012 Cape Solander Dec Summer Sun 15:08 Vessel 2 Persons Rescued

24/12/2012 Bonna Point Dec Summer Mon 16:05 Surf Craft No Further Action

28/12/2012 Windy Point Dec Summer Fri 13:00 Diving/Snorkelling No Further Action

31/12/2012 Garie Dec Summer Mon 21:03 Other No Further Action

3/01/2013 Jibbon Jan Summer Thu 13:14 Vessel No Further Action

14/01/2013 Cronulla Jan Summer Mon 16:23 Surf Craft No Further Action

16/01/2013 Gunnamatta Bay Jan Summer Wed 21:41 Swimming Stood Down

20/01/2013 Voodoo Jan Summer Sun 9:58 Vessel 4 Persons Rescued

20/01/2013 Tom Ugly Bridge Jan Summer Sun 12:47 Suicide/Self Harm Stood Down

22/01/2013 Potters Point Jan Summer Tue 10:21 Vessel No Further Action

26/01/2013 Taren Point Jan Summer Sat 13:53 Vessel Stood Down

26/01/2013 Bate Bay Jan Summer Sat 19:13 Other Medical support given


of 89


Date Incident


2/02/2013 Wanda Feb Summer Sat 17:28 Other 1 Coastal Death

20/02/2013 Blackwood’s Feb Summer Wed 9:55 Swimming No Further Action

25/02/2013 Caped Solander Feb Summer Mon 18:02 SurfCraft No Further Action

26/02/2013

Shelly Beach

(Cronulla) Feb Summer Tue 15:46 SurfCraft No Further Action

27/03/2013 Jibbon Mar Autumn Wed 20:18 Vessel No Further Action

21/04/2013 Cape Solander Apr Autumn Sun 13:47 Parachute Stood Down

24/04/2013 Jibbon Apr Autumn Wed 9:53 Diving/Snorkelling Stood Down

24/04/2013 Port Hacking Apr Autumn Wed 21:30 Vessel No Further Action

25/04/2013 Boat Harbour Apr Autumn Thu 11:16 Other Medical support given

14/06/2013 Wanda Jun Winter Fri 14:42 SurfCraft 1 Person Found

22/06/2013 Wattamolla Jun Winter Sat 8:20 Rockfishing 1 Patient Rescued

Notes to table: o 31% of all jobs occurred in National Parks, 47% of jobs occurred in the Bate Bay area and 22% occurred in

inland waterways o 39% of incidents occurred from vessels, 21% from swimming, 12% from surf craft, 8% from rock

fishing/rock related, and 20% from other incidents (snorkelling/diving, light aircraft crash, self-harm)

o 62% of incidents occurred after 12:00hrs (in the afternoon, evening or overnight)

o 47% of all jobs occurred in summer, 25% in autumn, 16% in winter and 12% in spring

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

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


of 89

2.12 Communication and Consultation

Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is at the heart of the risk management process. Stakeholder Consultation Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in place, issues in regards to risk management and opportunities that may exist. Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Brad Whittaker, Manager active communities o Bede Elphick, Lifeguard Supervisor – administration, Sutherland Shire Council o Cameron Pyett, Lifeguard Supervisor – education, Sutherland Shire Council o Carl Vanzino, Lifeguard Supervisor – beach operations, Sutherland Shire Council o Gwyn Cleeves, Parks and waterways manager o Adrian Johnstone, Area Operations Coordinator (Royal National Park), National Parks and Wildlife Service The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops o Print, Radio and Television media announcements of workshops and consultation o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops o Use of social media - Twitter o Web based surveys o Web based information submissions o On-site communication and distribution of flyers o On-site one-to-one surveying o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council Figure 2.12.1: Project Blueprint Flyer Consultation Workshop A public forum was held on Wednesday 3 April, 2013 at North Cronulla SLSC to discuss drowning prevention. This public forum was advertised in local print media and through pre-identified stakeholders (via email and letter). Public forums were open to any member of the public such as surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups, surfing associations, emergency services personnel etc. The public forum was attended by: o Regional Emergency Management Office, Sydney Metro, NSW Police o Des Hewitt, Local Emergency Management Officer, Sutherland Shire Council o Greg Antonjuk, Local Emergency Controller, Sutherland Local Area Command (NSW Police) o Denis Miller, Garie Boardriders Club o Ken Chubb, St George & Sutherland Anglers o John Veage, Cronulla Boardriders Club


of 89

o Matt Blackshaw, Council Lifeguard and Wanda SLSC o Craig Mckinnier, North Cronulla SLSC o John Arnex, Bulgo Beach Group Consultation Survey The consultation process has also involved the introduction of an online survey which has been useful to capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. Summary results will be published in the final report. Survey 1 The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. Survey Questions: o In your opinion, what are the (top three) factors contributing to drowning / coastal related incidents at this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minutes)? 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


of 89

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. Sutherland Shire Council, National Parks & Wildlife and Surf Life Saving Sydney should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Sutherland LGA. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Recommendations found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item. It is recommended that Sutherland Shire Council chair this committee. There is also the opportunity to invite other agencies as required.

Treatment Options 1.2, 2.2 & 6.1 Sutherland Shire Council, National Parks & Wildlife (Royal National Park and Kamay National Park) and Surf Life Saving Sydney should hold regular surf liaison meetings as an effective forum which raises safety issues and implements strategies in the Sutherland Local Government Area. The committee should have a standing item on all future meeting agendas titled ‘coastal risk management – status and issues’, or similar. Treatment options found in this report can be addressed in this agenda item.


of 89

3 Risk Assessment Findings

3.1 Action Planning Priority (Inherent Gross Risk)

3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index

The Action Planning Priority Index can be viewed as the gross risk score for a beach. The index seeks to identify the risks associated with the broader coastal environment under assessment, rather than specific hazards and risks present at a particular location or site. The majority of information detailed in this section of the report will be identified through pre exiting data (where available), with new data sourced where gaps are present or the data is not reliable. The total score for the Action Planning Priority Index, displayed on pages 51, 52 & 53 is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in table 3.1.6.2. The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s). The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information: 1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP Rating) 2. Local Population Rating (LPR) 3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) 4. Access Rating (AR)


of 89

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program

Table 3.1.2.1: ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Inscription Point nswBoB23 3* Rock Platform

The Leap nsw333RPa 3* Rock Platform

Yena Gap/Ours nsw333RPb 3* Rock Platform

Cape Solander nsw333RPc 3* Rock Platform

Tabbagai Gap nsw333RPd 3* Rock Platform

Blue Hole Gap nsw333RPe 3* Rock Platform

Point Long Nose nsw333RPf 3* Coastal Cliff

Cape Belly nsw333RPg 3* Coastal Cliff

Potter Point nsw333RPh 3* Rock Platform

Boat Harbour nsw333 3 Reflective

Green Hills nsw334a 4 Low Tide Terrace

Wanda nsw334b 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

Elouera nsw333c 6 Transverse Bar and Rip

North Cronulla nsw333d 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

Cronulla nsw335 3 Low Tide Terrace

Blackwood’s nsw336 3 Reflective + Rocks

Shelly (Cronulla) nsw337 3 Reflective + Rocks

Windy Point nsw337RPa 3* Rock Platform

Oak Park nsw338 4 Reflective + Rocks

Jibbon nsw339 2 Reflective

Port Hacking Point nsw339RPa 3* Rock Platform

Shelly (Port Hacking) nsw340 4 Reflective + Rocks

The Cobblers nsw340RPa 6* Rock Platform

Marley Head nsw340RPb 6* Rock Platform

Marley nsw341 7 Rhythmic Bar and Beach

Little Marley nsw342 4 Reflective

Wattamolla nsw343 4 Reflective

Providential Head nsw343RPa 6* Rock Platform

Curracurrang nsw343RPb 6* Rocks

Curracurrong nsw343RPc 6* Coastal Cliff

Garie North Head nsw343RPd 6* Rock Platform

Garie nsw344 7 Transverse Bar and Rip

* Sutherland LGA Rock Platform Ratings Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification study on rocky coasts. This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage


of 89

grant. Prof. Colin Woodroffe (University of Wollongong) presented the methodology for this project at the NSW Coastal Conference in Kiama (November, 2012). As an interim method of providing an indication of the hazardousness of rock platforms the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings for the beaches on either side of the each rock platform have been averaged. Since the beaches on either side of a rock platform would be exposed to similar prevailing and modal wind, wave and weather conditions and these sandy beaches have a recognised and accepted method of rating the associated hazardousness taking the average of the beaches bordering a rock platform will provide an indication as to the potential hazard associated with the modal conditions affecting the rock platform. It is a limitation of the report that there is no available method of calculating the specific hazard rating of a rock platform. However, in order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed an interim solution has been applied which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.


of 89

3.1.3 Local Population Rating

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

Table 3.1.3.1: Local population rating descriptors

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

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

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



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

Table 3.1.3.2: Local population ratings applied to assessed locations

Location LPR Total

Inscription Point 4

The Leap 4

Yena Gap/Ours 4

Cape Solander 4

Tabbagai Gap 1

Blue Hole Gap 1

Point Long Nose 1

Cape Belly 1

Potter Point 1

Boat Harbour 1

Greenhills 4

Wanda 5

Elouera 5

North Cronulla 5

Cronulla 5

Blackwood’s 5

Shelly (Cronulla) 5

Windy Point 5

Oak Park 5

Jibbon 4

Port Hacking Point 4

Shelly (Port Hacking) 4

The Cobblers 4

Marley Head 1

Marley 1

Little Marley 1

Wattamolla 1

Providential Head 1

Curracurrang 1

Curracurrong 1

Garie North Head 1

Garie 3


of 89

3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating

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

Population (in-water)

Conflicting activities Population (on beach)

Conflicting activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location Population (in water)

Conflict Population (on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

Inscription Point 1 1 1 1 4

The Leap 1 1 1 1 4

Yena Gap/Ours 1 1 1 1 4

Cape Solander 2 1 1 2 6

Tabbagai Gap 1 1 1 1 4

Blue Hole Gap 1 1 1 1 4

Point Long Nose 1 1 1 1 4

Cape Belly 1 1 1 1 4

Potter Point 2 1 1 2 6

Boat Harbour 3 2 1 2 8

Greenhills 5 2 1 2 10

Wanda 5 3 2 2 12

Elouera 5 3 2 2 12

North Cronulla 5 3 4 2 14

Cronulla 5 3 4 2 14

Blackwood’s 1 2 1 2 6

Shelly (Cronulla) 4 2 2 2 10

Windy Point 1 1 1 1 4

Oak Park 2 2 1 1 6

Jibbon 4 2 1 2 9

Port Hacking Point 2 1 1 1 5

Shelly (Port Hacking) 2 1 1 1 5

The Cobblers 1 1 1 1 4

Marley Head 1 1 1 1 4

Marley 2 2 1 2 7

Little Marley 1 1 1 1 4

Wattamolla 5 2 2 3 12

Providential Head 1 1 1 1 4

Curracurrang 1 1 1 1 4

Curracurrong 1 1 1 1 4

Garie North Head 1 1 1 1 4

Garie 5 3 2 2 12


of 89

3.1.5 Access Rating

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

Table 3.1.5.2: Access ratings applied to assessed locations.

Location Access Rating

Inscription Point 3

The Leap 3

Yena Gap/Ours 2

Cape Solander 3

Tabbagai Gap 2

Blue Hole Gap 2

Point Long Nose 2

Cape Belly 2

Potter Point 3

Boat Harbour 4

Greenhills 5

Wanda 5

Elouera 5

North Cronulla 5

Cronulla 5

Blackwood’s 5

Shelly (Cronulla) 5

Windy Point 5

Oak Park 5

Jibbon 3

Port Hacking Point 3

Shelly (Port Hacking) 3

The Cobblers 2

Access Rating Qualifying Description

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

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

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

public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking

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

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

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

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


of 89

Marley Head 2

Marley 2

Little Marley 2

Wattamolla 3

Providential Head 3

Curracurrang 2

Curracurrong 2

Garie North Head 2

Garie 4


of 89

3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score

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

Location

AMSAMP X 2

(Out of 20)

Population Support

X 2 (Out of 10)

Human Activity/

Interaction (Out of 20)

Access X 2

(Out of 10)

Total Score

(Out of 60)

Inscription Point 6 8 4 6 24

The Leap 6 8 4 6 24

Yena Gap/Ours 6 8 4 4 22

Cape Solander 6 8 6 6 26

Tabbagai Gap 6 2 4 4 16

Blue Hole Gap 6 2 4 4 16

Point Long Nose 6 2 4 4 16

Cape Belly 6 2 4 4 16

Potter Point 6 2 6 6 20

Boat Harbour 6 2 8 8 24

Greenhills 8 8 10 10 36

Wanda 12 10 12 10 44

Elouera 12 10 12 10 44

North Cronulla 14 10 14 10 48

Cronulla 6 10 14 10 40

Blackwood’s 6 10 6 10 32

Shelly (Cronulla) 6 10 10 10 36

Windy Point 6 10 4 10 30

Oak Park 8 10 6 10 34

Jibbon 4 8 9 6 23

Port Hacking Point 6 8 5 6 21

Shelly (Port Hacking) 8 8 5 6 23

The Cobblers 12 8 4 4 24

Marley Head 12 2 4 4 21

Marley 14 2 7 4 26

Little Marley 8 2 4 4 17

Wattamolla 8 2 12 6 27

Providential Head 12 2 4 6 23

Curracurrang 12 2 4 4 21

Curracurrong 12 2 4 4 21

Garie North Head 12 2 4 4 21

Garie 14 6 12 8 37

Where limited resources prohibit the implementation of all risk treatments recommended in this report, those beaches that have received a high action planning priority score should be treated first, then beaches with a medium and low score.


of 89

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

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

1

North Cronulla

48

High – this location should be considered as

a priority for implementation of identified

risk treatment options

2

Elouera

44




2

Wanda

44




4

Cronulla

40

Medium – this location should be

considered for implementation of identified

risk treatment options after locations rated

as high or as funding becomes available

5

Garie

37





6

Greenhills

36





6

Shelly (Cronulla)

36





8

Oak Park

34





9

Blackwoods

32





10

Windy Point

30

Low – this location should be considered for

implementation of identified risk treatment

options after locations rated as medium or

as funding becomes available

11

Wattamolla

27





12

Cape Solander

26





12

Marley

26






of 89

14

Boat Harbour

24





14

The Cobblers

24





14

Inscription Point

24





14

The Leap

24





18

Jibbon

23





18

Providential Head

23





18

Shelly (Port Hacking)

23





21

Yena Gap/Ours

22





22

Curracurrang

21





22

Curracurrong

21





22

Garie North Head

21





22

Marley Head

21





22

Port Hacking Point

21





27

Potter Point

20

Very Low – this location should be



as low or as funding becomes available


of 89

28

Little Marley

17





29

Blue Hole Gap

16





29

Cape Belly

16





29

Point Long Nose

16





29

Tabbagai Gap

16





Key to Action

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

Treatment Options 1.3 & 2.3 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.


of 89

3.2 Overview of Principal Risk Treatments

3.2.1 Introduction

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

3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlined below are principal risk treatment solutions that expand upon those listed within the Risk Register and Treatment Plan in Appendix B. The solutions outlined endeavour to provide specific and detailed information relative to the beach locations; however due to the diverse nature of location characteristics, recommendations are at times mainly generic in nature. Land Managers should endeavour to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are outlined on the following pages.


of 89

3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programmes

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

national parks) Educational Messages Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programmes which include standardised key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agency websites such as: NSW Water Safety Advisory Council: http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/ Together with the following referenced websites of the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council for beach safety: o BeachSafe: www.beachsafe.org.au o Rip Currents: www.ripcurrents.com.au One such opportunity includes displaying posters which promote water safety at public amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. Coastal Accommodation The Sutherland LGA is a popular destination for day trippers and visitors, especially through the school holiday periods. The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the LGA should be implemented. Safety messages and information provided to tourists, visitors and migrants is integral for the education of this high target group. School Education Providing surf education in schools is a key component in addressing the drowning chain and has the opportunity to reach a key target group. Surf education is not a core responsibility for land managers however they are still encouraged to assist with school participation levels. This type of promotion could include joint media releases, website promotion or written communication from council to local schools. This type of education can include but is not limited to; class room based surf safety presentations, surf educational programmes at the beach and swim and survive programmes. It is acknowledged that surf education with schools in the Sutherland LGA is strong as the Sutherland Shire Council employee a full time education officer for surf safety. Sutherland Shire Council educates thousands of students each year running practical surf education and programmes include: o Surf Survival Course: The Surf Survival Course is designed for high school students. Covered in the course is

the curriculum outlined in the Surf Awareness Course while also learning valuable rescue techniques and CPR procedures. It can be presented in any order depending on conditions on the day and school requirements.

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

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

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


of 89

o Surf Awareness Course: Designed for upper primary school students and during their four-hour visit are taught how to identify potential dangers, recognise safe and unsafe swimming areas, and learn how to identify rips and currents. Students learn about different wave types and how they are formed while also being instructed on important emergency response procedures. The course will also provide instruction on swimming and deep-water flotation techniques, skills in correct board paddling. Students will also have the opportunity to use their knowledge to identify dangers during a beach walk.

o Surf Safety Talk: (Free for Sutherland Shire schools) During the cooler months of winter council offer a 45-

minute Interactive Surf Safety Talk which involves a lifeguard coming to your school. An educational DVD is watched and the lifeguard lectures on the beach environment and surf safety issues.

Last summer period the above programmes saw high participation rates as 1,727 high school students and 1,430 primary school students were educated. Personal Protective Equipment Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman. Educational and awareness programmes in the Sutherland Local Government Area should also promote and encourage fisherman to wear lifejackets. This could also be included in school based education programmes, reinforcing the message in children. Education Collateral The Royal National Park attracts large amounts of visitors with many different backgrounds from all over Sydney and Illawarra. During peak periods and when vehicle visitor stations are occupied by NPWS staff, there is the opportunity for surf education collateral to be provided free of charge to members of the public when visiting the park. Surf education collateral can be handed to a visitor when issued there receipt by NPWS staff. This opportunity could provide as vital education for swimmers and rock fishermen who may lack experience and local knowledge of the area. Education Summary The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programmes that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Sutherland LGA. Table 3.2.3.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education and awareness programmes available to land managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of programmes that are available and delivered within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land managers are not limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider engaged to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified and insured. Table 3.2.3.1: Examples of education and awareness programmes

Programme Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

School based water safety programmes

Local primary and high school students

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Coastal Accommodation Network

Tourists, visitors and migrants (TVM)

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Local Media

Residents and TVM All locations Local media outlets

Learn to Swim / Swim and Survive

Young Children All locations Royal Life Saving Society Australia

Learn to Swim All ages All Locations AustSwim accredited swim schools

Nippers Local children All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. All ages All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Groms Local children All locations Surfing NSW


of 89

Programme Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

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

Kids Academy of Surf (KAOS)

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

School surfing and surf education

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

Corp Surf 18 years + All locations Surf Educate Australia

Get hooked – it’s fun to fish

Schools All locations NSW DPI (Fisheries)

Rock fishing safety information

Rock fishers

Break wall and rock platforms

Peak water safety agencies

Boating safety information

Boaters Port Hacking RMS

QR codes

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

All locations Sutherland Shire Council

The figures below are not intended as a comprehensive display of all education and awareness collateral available to land managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of collateral that are available and can be provided to land managers upon request. Land managers are not limited to the education collateral shown in 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 3.2.3.1: Don’t put our life on the line Figure 3.2.3.2: Survive a rip current Figure 3.2.3.3: Beach safety for tourists/migrants Figure 3.2.3.4: Swim between flags


of 89

Treatment Options 1.4 & 2.4 Existing education and awareness programmes within and around the Sutherland Local Government Area should continue to be implemented and reviewed.

Treatment Options 1.5 & 2.5 Education and awareness programmes should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website, ‘watersafety.nsw.gov.au’).

Treatment Options 1.6 & 2.6 Display safety information (e.g. posters) which promotes key water safety messages, at amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access.

Treatment Options 1.7 & 2.7 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.

Treatment Option 2.8 During the summer school holidays when vehicle visitor stations are occupied, surf safety collateral should be provided to members of the public when issued a visitor pass.

Treatment Option 3.2 Develop relationships with tourism agencies to expand on the coastal accommodation network program with the aim of distributing standardised surf safety collateral (e.g. Brochures, flyers, and pamphlets) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Sutherland Local Government Area.


of 89

3.2.4 Safety Signage

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

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

public, prior to arriving in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs o a consistent process of signage maintenance as part of the land managers annual planning It is important to note that at most locations, an improved safety signage system usually results in an overall reduction in the quantity of signage due to the elimination of duplicate or ineffectual signs and the consolidation of key information into other signs. For Land Managers this may see a reduction in implementation and maintenance costs related to signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site. Safety Signage Sutherland Shire Council and the NPWS have implemented a commendable system of aquatic and recreational safety signage at many of the access points in the Sutherland LGA ‘Appendix A’. To further enhance the effectiveness of the current signage strategy it is reminded that safety symbols should be updated in accordance with Australian Standards and there is the opportunity through natural attrition for signage layout/display to reflect the National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’. Figure 3.2.4.1: Council Signage Figure 3.2.4.2: NPWS Signage Furthermore, as outlined in the Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) section of this report, all potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of high should appear on the sign as warning symbols. Appendix B contains a risk register based upon Australian CoastSafe’s assessment of hazards and their potential risks at locations within Sutherland LGA. This information may be of assistance in determining which hazards should be included on signage. During the assessment process it was noted that a number of existing signs within the LGA had an insufficient number of warning symbols. Using the action planning priority scores as a guide, warning symbols should be placed on existing signs that currently have an insufficient number.


of 89

Figure 3.2.4.3: Example of access sign with only two warning symbols. Note the symbol of slippery rocks, however there are no rocks at this location.

There is also the opportunity to provide further aquatic and recreational safety signage as part of an ongoing management plan at the locations identified in Appendix A. These locations provide a list of associated hazards and a GPS position of where the sign should be placed. Table 3.2.4.1: Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for the Sutherland LGA

Combined Beach Locations Existing Signs

Possible Consolidation/

Remove

Proposed Level 2

Proposed Level 3

Total Proposed

Signs

Net Signage

Inscription Point 3 1 0 2 2 1

The Leap 0 0 0 1 1 1

Yena Gap/Ours 5 9 1 0 1 -8

Cape Solander 12 0 1 0 1 1

Tabbagai Gap 1 0 0 0 0 0

Blue Hole Gap 0 0 0 0 0 0

Point Long Nose 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cape Belly 0 0 0 0 0 0

Potter Point 3 1 0 1 1 0

Boat Harbour 59 1 1 1 2 1

Green Hills 18 1 0 0 0 -1

Wanda 32 0 0 0 0 0

Elouera 10 1 0 2 2 1

North Cronulla 21 0 0 0 0 0

Cronulla 31 3 0 0 0 -3

Blackwood’s 6 1 0 0 0 -1

Shelly (Cronulla) 16 4 0 0 0 -4

Windy Point 3 0 0 0 0 0

Oak Park 10 3 0 0 0 -3

Jibbon 15 3 0 1 1 -2

Port Hacking Point 3 1 0 0 0 -1

Shelly (Port Hacking) 5 0 0 0 0 0

The Cobblers 13 1 0 0 0 -1

Marley Head 20 0 0 0 0 0

Marley 18 1 0 0 0 -1

Little Marley 6 0 0 0 0 0

Wattamolla 34 1 0 1 1 0

Providential Head 6 0 0 0 0 0

Curracurrang 7 0 0 0 0 0

Curracurrong 2 0 0 0 0 0

Garie North Head 2 0 0 0 0 0

Garie 11 0 0 3 3 3

Totals 372 32 3 12 15 -19


of 89

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated signage. For example 15 signs have been proposed in the Sutherland LGA however 32 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated, leaving a net reduction in overall signage of negative 19 signs. When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended: 1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS 2416 – 2010: Water

Safety Signs and Beach Safety Flags’ and align signage style/layout with the ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual, 3rd Edition, July 2006’ or the State-wide Mutual guide. It is the recommendation of this report that style is aligned to the former.

2. Signage layout (top-down order) consists of the following:

a) Location name and emergency marker (if/when applicable) or street address b) Hazards and warnings within the designated area c) Safety information or general location/area details d) Regulations e) Facility / Land Manager

3. Safety signs should meet the size/height/placement specifications outlined in ‘AS/NZS 2416.3.2010 Water

safety signs and beach safety flags’. 4. ‘Diamond’ hazard symbols should be utilised (not triangle). Context: ASNZ2416 provides for the use of

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

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

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

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

not obscure the sign.

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

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

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

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

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


of 89

Figure 3.2.4.4: Example level two car park sign

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

There are numerous online providers that allow for the creation of a QR code. This stage of the process is cost effective and the only expense is printing. Certain online providers also allow customers to be able to track the number of people who have scanned the QR code. Temporary Signage In the context of this assessment temporary hazard signs have been identified as an option when a dangerous surf warning has been issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The BOM release a dangerous surf warning when the swell reaches a certain height and swell period. Dangerous surf warnings will appear on the official BOM forecast. The most appropriate locations of these signs have been identified as the main vehicle entry points where access to the Royal National Park. Two locations for signs have been identified in Appendix A and include: 1. Sign to be placed at Farnell Ave (outside the NPWS turnoff) 2. Sign to be place at corner of Lady Wakehurst Drive and Mckell Ave Further discussion about the type of sign to be used will need to occur between the NPWS and peak coastal water safety agencies. Figure 3.2.4.4: Example of what the BOM warning sign could look like


of 89

Treatment Option 1.8, 2.9 & 7.1 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 1.9 The Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) should be used to determine signage placement and the number of warning symbols required on a sign. Refer to ‘Appendix A’ for existing signs that currently have an insufficient number of warning symbols.

Treatment Option 2.10 Investigate the use of temporary signage at the main vehicle entry points (Appendix A) during Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) issued dangerous surf warnings - warning the public of large/hazardous waves.


of 89

3.2.5 Emergency Marker System

When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space parkland, walking trails, beaches or rocks (where no cross-street or other reference point is available) it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response to it. Emergency location markers enable triple zero (000) call takers too immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero (000) call. Below is an example of an emergency marker sign could look like. Figure 3.2.5.1: An example of an emergency marker sign.

Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage. For an optimal Emergency Marker System to be effective, a standardised state-wide program is required, that engages Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current program exists in NSW. Some locations in NSW have local emergency marker systems in place, where current signage displays a numbering code at some locations. This system is outlined in local emergency procedures however does not include a formal numbering system that links back to NSW emergency services (Police, Ambulance and Fire). Following on from recent meetings, Australian CoastSafe will be supplying the Emergency Information Coordination Unit (EICU) (NSW LPI) with the locations and numbers of these signs so there is a greater chance that a ‘000’ operator will recognise these numbers. Australian Coastsafe is working with key government departments and emergency services to develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near future. Treatment Option 3.3 With guidance from the NSW Government - Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Land and Property Information a state-aligned emergency marker program at all identified access locations should be implemented once such a programme is established.


of 89

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programmes

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

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

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

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

Options for formalising/redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers, vegetation growth and fencing.

It is noted that for some locations/situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or restrict the use of informal access


of 89

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

Location Open

Access

Formal

Pedestrian

Formal

Vehicle

Informal

Pedestrian

Private

Access

Total

Access

Possible

Consolidation

Net

Access

Inscription Point 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2

The Leap 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Yena Gap/Ours 0 2 0 1 2 5 1 4

Cape Solander 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Tabbagai Gap 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Blue Hole Gap 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

Point Long Nose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cape Belly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Potter Point 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Boat Harbour 0 5 1 0 0 6 0 6

Green Hills 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9

Wanda 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10

Elouera 0 7 0 1 0 8 1 7

North Cronulla 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10

Cronulla 1 10 0 3 0 14 0 13

Blackwood’s 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 2

Shelly (Cronulla) 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 4

Windy Point 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2

Oak Park 0 3 0 1 0 4 1 3

Jibbon 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Port Hacking

Point

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Shelly (Port

Hacking)

0 2 0 3 0 5 2 3

The Cobblers 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2

Marley Head 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Marley 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Little Marley 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Wattamolla 0 3 1 1 0 5 1 4

Providential Head 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 2

Curracurrang 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

Curracurrong 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

Garie North Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

Garie 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 5

Totals 5 82 3 20 3 113 10 103

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. For example, even though 113 access tracks have been located in the Sutherland LGA, 10 of these access paths have the opportunity to be consolidated or redirected, leaving a net access of 103.

Treatment Options 1.10 & 2.11 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through ongoing infrastructure and capital works programmes. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed.

Treatment Options 1.11 & 2.12 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.


of 89

3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment

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

PRE Type Morphology of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages Extensive Training Required

Recommended uses in NSW

Rescue Tube Sandy beaches and

rock pools

Can be thrown short distances

Requires the patient to enter the water

themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of deployment

Risk of theft, risk of using the line to

return the patient towards the rocks, not strong/tough

enough to be resilient from

environmental conditions

No May be used on a case by case basis.

Further

effectiveness investigation

required.

Throw Sticks (Stormy

grenades)

Personal device

(mobile)

Mobility – easily deployed to

incident locations

Effective mid-range (thrown)

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

first

No Yes. Relevant personnel /staff

(emergency services/SLS

/rangers)

Life Ring (Angel ring)

Steep rampart rock

platforms

Ease of use. Rugged design.

Awareness campaign

established.

Single use device. Distance of

deployment. Requires rescuer to

approach the platform edge.

Weight.

No Steep (>1:1) rampart rock

platforms

Silent Sentry Sloping platforms

EPIRB unit immediately alerts

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

rescuer at a safer distance

EPIRB units were vulnerable to

vandalism and disabled

No Sloping (<1:1) rampart rock

platforms.

Recommended redesign to

remove EPIRB housing.

Life Rings (Angel Rings™

2)

Life rings are an instantly recognised lifesaving mechanism and their functionality is easily understood by both a rescuer and the casualty. The national ‘Angel Ring ™

3 Project’ has seen the installation of 116 rings in NSW with 47 confirmed rescues involving their use. (Australian National Sports Fishing Association 2012, NSW Angel Ring Update, News Bulletin 16 June, 2012). There are currently 9 life rings situated in the Sutherland LGA. These life rings should be continued to be regularly checked and maintained as the assessment process found that 4 out of the 9 life rings were missing.

2Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association. 3Angel Ring is a registered trade mark of the Australian National Sportfishing Association.


of 89

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

Priority Location

1 Port Hacking

2 Shelly Beach (Port Hacking)

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. Rescue Tubes During the data collection process, Australian CoastSafe recorded the locations of 8 publicly accessible rescue tubes in the Sutherland LGA (the majority situated in the Kamay National Park). There is currently no system in place for the maintenance of these rescue tubes and the majority of the boxes identified had the rescue tube missing and were used for rubbish. Those rescue tubes that are still in place were in a deteriorated state, and in need of replacing. The age and deterioration of some would place them at risk of failure if they were to be used in an emergency situation. Because of these reasons it is recommended that the rescue tube boxes and the rescue tubes that are still in place be removed to reduce the risk of endangerment to a member of the public who could potentially use the device to perform a rescue. This source of this risk is both the unsatisfactory state of the rescue tube, and the possibility of an untrained member of the public entering the water to perform a rescue. NPWS should endeavour to remove the rescue tube boxes. Figure 3.2.7.1: Inadequately stored rescue tube in very poor condition Throw Sticks The throw stick provides rapid flotation assistance to a person at risk of drowning. The use of the throw stick is a relatively simple process. By removing the device from its waterproof bag and throwing near the person, once contact is made with the water it inflates in seconds to a large horseshoe shape, keeping the victim afloat and their head above the water until further assistance arrives. At only 35cm in length, throw sticks can be easily stored and transported making this a very versatile rescue device. Throw sticks aid the rescuer by enabling them to remain further away from ‘danger areas’ (compared to life rings) but still position a life saving device near a casualty. Due to the variability of conditions on any given day (e.g. wind) a minimum of 2 throw sticks are recommended as optimal to carry, such that the first ‘throw’ of the first device (which can be less accurate) can be followed by a more accurate second device.


of 89

As NPWS staff work in remote areas within the Kamay National Park and Royal National Park this device is an option for NPWS staff to carry with them if they by chance happen to see a rock fishermen or swimmer struggling in the water.

Treatment Option 2.13 Rescue tube boxes located throughout the Kamay National Park should be removed.

Treatment Option 2.14 Explore the means to fund equipping all National Parks and Wildlife Service vehicles operating within the Royal National Park and Kamay National Park with at least two throw sticks (i.e. inflatable floatation devices).

Treatment Option 3.4 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these rock fishing associations.

Treatment Option 4.1 Locations identified in ‘Appendix C’ where public rescue equipment (e.g. life rings) are missing from its stand should be replaced and continue to be maintained and monitored.


of 89

3.2.8 System of Supervision

The supervision of aquatic coastal locations is often required to manage the risk of the location, whether due to prevailing water conditions, the proximity to large population bases or the attendance of the beach/coastal area due to its proximity or attractiveness. The primary decision to be made by land managers before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location. The decision whether to provide supervision or not to provide supervision can be difficult to establish because of the following: o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non-suitable location, such as when the beach

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

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

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

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

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

are most needed. o Surveillance cameras. o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access. International Best Practice The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations internationally. Lifeguard/lifesaving uniforms The ILSF recommends the colours for uniforms be red & yellow

4. 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.

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


of 89

Red and yellow flags: The use of red & yellow feathered flags is undertaken to provide the maximum visual effect to identify a designated swimming area. The flags used in Sutherland LGA comply with ‘ANZS 2416.2:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags. Part 2: Specifications for beach safety flags – Colour shape meaning and performance (ISO 20712-2:2007, MOD)’ Lifesaving Service Level Calculator The lifesaving service level calculator takes into consideration the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings, visitation levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history, and remoteness of location to determine best practice lifesaving service levels. The following lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating. The scores are not absolute and are to be used as a guide in determining the actual levels. Table 3.2.8.1: lifesaving service level descriptors provide the recommended lifesaving service level for the scores/rating as calculated in the sections that follow.

Rating Lifesaving Service Level Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed analysis of lifesaving service level scores for Fringe and Off-Peak seasons have not been assessed in this report as this was outside of the scope of this assessment. Australian CoastSafe is able to provide this service, alternatively your lifesaving service provider can assist you with determining these levels. Where the number of people in the patrolled area is over 1,000, the lifesaving service provider should increase the number of lifesaving personnel in line with the following table. Table 3.2.8.2: Impact of beach attendance on lifesaving service levels

No. of People on Beach No. of additional lifeguards

1,000 - 5,000 2

5,000 - 10,000 4

> 10,000 6

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


of 89

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

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating Description

1 Peak visitation occurs once in a month

2 Peak visitation levels occur once a week

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

4 Peak visitation levels occur every day

5 Peak visitation levels continuously every day

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

Rating Beach visitor residency and assumed level of beach safety knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating Description

1 Less than 5 minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

2 5 or more minor incidents / first aid treatments reported

3 Less than 3 major incidents/first aid treatments reported

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

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


of 89

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

Rating Description

1 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

2 More than 1 minor incident or preventative action per day

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

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

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

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

Rating Description

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

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



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

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

Table 3.2.8.9: Boat Harbour lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 3 4 1 3 3 17

Autumn 3 2 3 1 3 3 15

Winter 3 1 2 1 3 3 13

Spring 3 2 3 1 3 3 15

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer and autumn the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to lower visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.10: Greenhills lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 4 4 1 5 3 21

Autumn 4 2 3 1 5 3 19

Winter 4 1 2 1 5 3 17

Spring 4 2 3 1 5 3 19

These calculations support that a service should provide coverage of the summer school holidays.


of 89

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

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 5 4 1 5 3 24

Autumn 6 3 3 1 5 3 21

Winter 6 2 2 1 5 3 19

Spring 6 3 3 1 5 3 21

These calculations support the current service level provided. (See notes on roving patrols in the following sections) If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers and frequency. Table 3.2.8.12: Elouera lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 6 5 4 1 5 2 23

Autumn 6 3 3 1 5 2 20

Winter 6 2 2 1 5 2 18

Spring 6 3 3 1 5 2 20

These calculations support the current service level provided. (See notes on roving patrols in the following sections). If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers and frequency. Table 3.2.8.13: North Cronulla lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 5 4 1 5 2 24

Autumn 7 4 3 1 5 2 22

Winter 7 2 2 1 5 2 20

Spring 7 4 3 1 5 2 22

These calculations support the current service level provided. (See notes on roving patrols in the following sections). Table 3.2.8.14: Cronulla lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 5 4 1 5 2 20

Autumn 3 4 3 1 5 2 18

Winter 3 2 2 1 5 2 16

Spring 3 4 3 1 5 2 18


of 89

These calculations support the current service level provided. (See notes on roving patrols in the following sections). Table 3.2.8.15: Blackwood’s lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 2 4 1 4 3 17

Autumn 3 2 3 1 4 3 16

Winter 3 1 2 1 4 3 14

Spring 3 2 3 1 4 3 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer and autumn the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to lower visitation numbers and the ABSAMP rating. Table 3.2.8.16: Shelly (Cronulla) lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 3 3 4 1 4 3 18

Autumn 3 2 3 1 4 3 16

Winter 3 1 2 1 4 3 14

Spring 3 2 3 1 4 3 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer and autumn the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to the ABSAMP rating. Table 3.2.8.17: Oak Park lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 3 4 1 3 3 18

Autumn 4 2 3 1 3 3 16

Winter 4 1 2 1 3 3 14

Spring 4 2 3 1 3 3 16

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer and autumn the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to the ABSAMP rating. Table 3.2.8.18: Jibbon lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 2 3 4 1 3 2 15

Autumn 2 2 3 1 3 2 13

Winter 2 1 2 1 3 2 11

Spring 2 2 3 1 3 2 13

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during summer the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 1 lifeguard should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during summer due to lower visitation numbers and the ABSAMP rating.


of 89

Table 3.2.8.19: Shelly Beach (Port Hacking) lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 2 4 1 1 3 15

Autumn 4 1 3 1 1 3 13

Winter 4 1 2 1 1 3 12

Spring 4 1 3 1 1 3 13

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

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 1 3 2 1 5 19

Autumn 7 1 2 2 1 5 18

Winter 7 1 1 2 1 5 17

Spring 7 1 2 2 1 5 18

If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer, autumn and winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to low visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.21: Little Marley lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 1 3 2 1 5 16

Autumn 4 1 2 2 1 5 15

Winter 4 1 1 2 1 5 14

Spring 4 1 2 2 1 5 15

These calculations support that a service is not required at this location at this point in time. If a lifeguard service were to be provided during spring, summer and autumn the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during these periods due to low visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Table 3.2.8.22: Wattamolla lifesaving service level calculator

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 4 5 4 2 3 5 23

Autumn 4 3 3 2 1 5 18

Winter 4 2 2 2 1 5 16

Spring 4 3 3 2 1 5 18

These calculations support that a service should provide coverage of the summer school holidays.


of 89

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

Seasons ABSAMP

Rating

Visitation

Rating

Frequency

Rating

Residency

Rating

Incident History

Rating

Remoteness

Rating

Total

LSSL

Score New Existing

Summer 7 4 4 2 3 5 25

Autumn 7 3 3 2 3 5 23

Winter 7 2 2 2 3 5 21

Spring 7 2 2 2 3 5 21

These calculations support the current service level provided. (See notes on roving patrols in the following sections). If a lifeguard service were to be provided during winter the lifesaving service level scores in the table above indicate that a service level of 2 lifeguards should be considered. However, a service has not been recommended at this location during winter due to lower visitation numbers, frequency and incident history. Volunteer Lifesaving Service Surf Life Saving New South Wales are currently in the process of working with the Sydney Branch and local Surf Life Saving Clubs to set volunteer lifesaving dates and patrol hours for the next three seasons. Below are the patrol dates and hours covered during the 2012/2013 season over weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.8.24: Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Sutherland LGA

Club / Service Patrol Dates Sat Sun & PH

Wanda

22/09/12 to 21/10/12 10am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 9am - 6pm 8am - 6pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 10am - 4pm 10am - 4pm

Elouera

22/09/12 to 21/10/12 10am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 9am - 6pm 8am - 6pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 10am - 4pm 10am - 4pm

North Cronulla

22/09/12 to 21/10/12 10am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 9am - 6pm 8am - 6pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 10am - 4pm 10am - 4pm

Cronulla

22/09/12 to 21/10/12 10am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

29/03/13 to 28/04/13 10am - 4pm 10am - 4pm

Garie

22/09/12 to 21/10/12 10am - 4pm 10am - 4pm

27/10/12 to 25/11/12 10am - 5pm 10am - 5pm

01/12/12 to 27/01/13 10am - 6pm 10am - 6pm

02/02/13 to 24/03/13 10am - 5pm 10am - 5pm

29/03/13 to 25/04/13 10am - 3pm 10am - 3pm

As outlined in the above commentary to the lifesaving service level calculator scores, regular roving patrols are encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are already incorporated into a Clubs Patrol Operation Manual. Roving patrols can be conducted by ATV, IRB/RWC or walking and should continue to be conducted at the following locations throughout a patrol: o Wanda SLSC: 750m north of club – 150m south of club o Elouera SLSC: 150m north of club – 300m south of club o North Cronulla SLSC: 200m north of club – 300m south of club


of 89

o Cronulla SLSC: 300m north of club – 200m south of club o Garie SLSC: Garie North Head (Rock Platform) - Little Garie It is also acknowledged that the Surf Life Saving Sydney through its support services already conducts roving patrols at unpatrolled locations (weekends and public holidays). The Branch has an RWC that operates in the Sutherland LGA and the coverage area of each is outlined below: o Zone: Inscription Point to Jibbon Point As part of this roving patrol there is the opportunity to formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations and report that information back to Surf Life Saving SurfCom or the Local Lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond to. Paid Lifeguard Service - Existing Lifeguards provide commendable coverage at the below locations during weekdays and are on duty with volunteer lifesavers on weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.8.25: Paid Lifeguard Services in the Sutherland LGA

Beach Patrol Dates Days of Service Patrol Times

Wanda

24/09/12 to 26/10/12 7 days 7am - 5pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 7 days 7am - 6pm

25/03/13 to 22/04/13 7 days 7am - 5pm

Elouera

24/09/12 to 26/10/12 7 days 7am - 5pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 7 days 7am - 6pm

25/03/13 to 22/04/13 7 days 7am - 5pm

North Cronulla

24/09/12 to 26/10/12 7 days 7am - 5pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 7 days 7am - 6pm

25/03/13 to 22/04/13 7 days 7am - 5pm

Off-season 5 days 12pm - 2:30pm

Cronulla

24/09/12 to 26/10/12 7 days 7am - 5pm

27/10/12 to 24/03/13 7 days 7am - 6pm

25/03/13 to 22/04/13 7 days 7am - 5pm

Off-season 7 days 7:30am - 3:45pm

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

Wattamolla Australia Day 1 day 9am - 5pm

Paid Lifeguard Service - Proposed Greenhills: As discussed in the population growth section of the report (p.31) the visitation levels will continue to increase at Greenhills beach due to the property development. Apart from the property development this section is also extremely popular during the peak summer period with many people visiting from western parts of Sydney. To react to the change of beach usage increases on this section of the beach a lifeguard service should be considered at this location to provide coverage over the summer school holidays. It is proposed that this lifeguard service commence for summer 2013/14 Wattamolla: This location is an extremely busy beach during peak periods and can attract a high number of people from all different areas of Sydney and Wollongong. The statistics recorded by the lifeguards at Wattamolla are as follows:


of 89

Table 3.2.8.26: Wattamolla Lifeguard Statistics

Wattamolla Attendance

Day/Year Figures

Australia Day 2013 3,100

Australia Day 2012 310




The above statistics shows very high day attendance on those days where favourable weather conditions are present. As this beach is only patrolled for one day each year the number of car park spaces can also determine beach usage levels. Approximately 360 car park spaces are provided at Wattamolla. If a car load has 4 persons per car that would mean 1,400 people at any one point in time. When the car park at Wattamolla is full, the gates to the beach are closed as maximum levels have been reached. Feedback from the NPWS suggests that maximum capacity is reached on numerous days throughout the peak period. Although the beach has a relatively low wave zone, crowd management and first aid injuries remain high. It is proposed that the lifeguard service at Wattamolla should be expanded to cover the period between Boxing Day and the end of the first week in January. The Australia Day long weekend should also be covered.

Treatment Option 1.12 Explore the means to fund a lifeguard service at Greenhills Beach on the completion of development, or as required by changing beach usage, to provide coverage over the summer school holiday period.

Treatment Option 2.15 Explore the means to fund the existing lifeguard service at Wattamolla to cover the period between Boxing Day and the end of the first week in January, as well as the Australia Day long weekend.

Treatment Option 6.2 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.

Treatment Option 6.3 Through the Sydney Branch Support Operations (e.g. RWC and ORB) as well as the Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter, there is the opportunity to formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations and report that information back to SurfCom and/or lifeguards so that they are more aware of where they may need to respond.


of 89

4. Emergency Response

The relatively high rate of critical emergency incidents in the Sutherland LGA in previous years makes consideration of issues in relation to emergency response extremely relevant to a drowning prevention strategy for the area. Emergency response considerations include but are not limited to: o Emergency communications/reporting Triple Zero (000) o Emergency phones o Emergency response beacons o Emergency service response o Radio coverage o Emergency service communications (internal and joint service)

4.1 Emergency Communications/Reporting - Triple Zero (000)

The ability of members of the public to request assistance in an emergency is an important component of a drowning prevention strategy. Triple Zero (000) should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency on all relevant signage/safety information and facilitated through any (specific) emergency communication devices. Through the Kamay National Park it was identified that different numbers are advertised for members of the public to call in the case of an emergency (see below). These signs should be removed or edited so that Triple Zero (000) is promoted. The locations of these signs can be found in Appendix A. Figure 4.1.1: Emergency Signage at Inscription Point

Treatment Option 2.16 Emergency information signs that are located in the Kamay National Park (Appendix A) that promote mobile numbers in the case of an emergency should be removed and Triple Zero (000) should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency.


of 89

4.2 Emergency Phones

Emergency phones are used in locations where mobile phone reception is limited. By using the emergency phone the caller is connected directly to Triple Zero (000). Two emergency phones where located in the Sutherland LGA at Garie and Wattamolla. It was noted during the assessment that the emergency phone at Garie did not work when tested. These phones should continue to be checked on a regular basis. Figure 4.2.1: Emergency phone located at Wattamolla

Treatment Option 2.17 Emergency phones located in the Royal National Park (Garie and Wattamolla) should be checked for their functionality through regular scheduled/documented maintenance.


of 89

4.3 Emergency Response Beacons

Emergency Response Beacons (ERB) Emergency Response Beacons can be positioned in high use / high risk areas. They are highly visible and once activated, link via radio to lifesaving/lifeguard services. The two main types of ERB are: Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach lifesaving service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non lifesaving). Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system, whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those monitoring the ERB. Fixed ERB are generally only considered for use in a high risk location, where no or limited mobile phone coverage exists and where a service can ensure, show and maintain 100% coverage/monitoring of the beacon and have in place a consistent process of equipment checking/testing (daily). More information about ERB can be provided by Surf Life Saving New South Wales. Due to the number of emergency incidents, visitation numbers and ease of access, a mobile emergency response beacon should be utilised by lifeguards and lifesavers when on duty at Wanda to help improve response times at Greenhills (750m north of surf club – access 6). It is reminded that a mobile emergency response beacon should not replace a roving patrol. This emergency response beacon will not have to be used if the proposed lifeguard service patrols during the summer school holidays. Figure 4.3.1: A mobile Emergency Response Beacon in place at a beach.

Treatment Option 6.4 The following mobile emergency response beacons should be installed when lifeguards and lifesavers are on duty: o Greenhills (750m north of surf club – access 6)


of 89

4.4 Emergency Service Response

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

Emergency Services – Sutherland Local Government Area

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb

Miranda LAC 34 The Kingsway Cronulla

NSW Police Force 34 The Kingsway Cronulla

NSW Police Force 1-7 Willock Ave Miranda

NSW Ambulance Service The Kingsway Caringbah

NSW Ambulance Service N/A Bundeena

NSW Fire and Rescue 91 The Kingsway Cronulla

NSW Fire and Rescue 48 Bundeena Dr Bundeena

NSW Fire and Rescue 242 Port Hacking Rd Nth Miranda

NSW Fire and Rescue 2 Moore St Sutherland

NSW Marine Rescue 202 Nicholson Parade Port Hacking

NSW Marine Rescue 310 Prince Charles Parade Kurnell

State Emergency Service 126 Wilson Pde Heathcote

Westpac Life Saver Helicopter Cape Banks Road, Botany Bay National Park La Perouse


of 89

4.5 Radio Coverage

The majority of radio coverage for surf life saving communications is moderate within the Bate Bay area; limited signal strength occurs in parts of the Kamay National Park, the Royal National Park and Green Hills (maps below). The map is the coverage area is of the Bondi repeater. Whilst coverage in the areas where a lifesaving/lifeguard service exists, further radio tests outside of these areas should be conducted by surf life saving to analyse the need for upgrades in any radio infrastructure. Figure 4.5.1: Radio coverage Sutherland LGA

Key:

Treatment Option 6.5 Radio tests within the assessment area should be conducted by surf life saving to analyse the need for upgrades in radio infrastructure.

No coverage

(black spot)

Signal strength

(limited)

Signal strength

(average)

Signal strength

(strong)


of 89

4.6 Joint Emergency Response (Lifesavers and Lifeguards)

Surf Rescue Emergency Response System The Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (NSW) was established in January 2008 and provides a single point of contact for emergency services when there is a need to utilise surf rescue assets in coastal incidents. The emergency number can be contacted 24/7 and operators (State Duty Officers) can task/notify any surf rescue asset in NSW. Through the growth of this system the Sydney Branch have an effective Branch Duty Officer system and dedicated Club Callout Teams (capable of night operations) that can respond to incidents outside of patrolled locations/after hours. The following tables list the notification priority order for the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System for emergency activations within the Sutherland LGA. These include: o Sutherland lifeguards are notified first on weekdays, weekends and public holidays during operational

hours o Surfcom Sydney is notified second on weekdays, weekends and public holidays during operational hours o Sydney Branch Duty Officers are notified first outside of operational hours o Sutherland lifeguards (after-hours) are notified second outside of operational hours Table 4.7.1: Sydney Branch Callout List

Branch Callout List

Priority Call Point of Call Mobile Other Call Sign

1st Call SurfCom Sydney - - SurfCom Sydney

2nd Call Sydney Pager Number - - N/A

3rd Call George Shales - - Sydney 10

4th Call Ben Inglis - - Sydney 11

5th Call Ron Camilleri - - Sydney 12

Table 4.7.2: Sydney Branch Duty Officers

Branch Duty Officers

Point of Call Mobile Other Call Sign

Sutherland

Matt Pacey - N/A Sutherland 10

Matt Thompson - N/A Sutherland 11

James Caterson - N/A Sutherland 12

Parks Michael Hodsdon -- N/A Parks 10

Brad McDonogh - N/A Parks 11

Table 4.7.3: Lifeguard Contacts

Lifeguard Contacts

Sutherland Shire Council – Non ALS (Wanda to Cronulla) - CALL 24/7

Priority Call Point of Call Mobile Call Sign

1st Call Day Lifeguard Supervisor - Sutherland 1

1st Call Night Manager Active Communities - Sutherland 1

2nd Call Day – Lifeguard Towers

Cronulla Lifeguard Tower: 9544 5399 North Cronulla Lifeguard Tower: 9544 5377

Elouera Lifeguard Tower: 9544 5388 Wanda Lifeguard Tower: 9544 5477

3rd Call Day Manager Active Communities - Sutherland 3

Royal National Park – Australian Lifeguard Service (Garie and Wattamolla)

1st Call ALS Operations Manager - Lifeguard 11

Note: mobile numbers have been removed from the above tables due to privacy reasons.


of 89

As outlined on pages 37, 38 & 39 lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many at unpatrolled locations/after hours). When meetings occur between Surf Life Saving Sydney and Sutherland Shire Council, the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System should be a topic of discussion to review recent major incidents and to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures). There is also the opportunity for joint emergency response exercises before the start of the surf life saving season. Sutherland lifeguard supervisors currently respond to after hour emergency incidents, however these are only informal procedures within the Sutherland LGA. Formal procedures should be developed to ensure an optimum response from lifeguards when supporting police with white water emergencies. Vehicle entry gates There are numerous gated entry points within the Sutherland LGA that can access remote areas such as Marley and Curracurrong in the event of an emergency. These entry points can act as fire trails, walking tracks and emergency access to beaches. Gates are also locked overnight at Cape Solander, Potter Point/Voodoo, Garie and Wattamolla. Park rangers hold keys to unlock all vehicle access at the locations identified above. Emergency services, including surf life saving should also have access to these gated access points in the event of an emergency. A stock take register should be developed by the NPWS to determine which agencies currently have / do not have access to these keys. Lifesaver/lifeguard relations Consultation with Sutherland lifeguard supervisors confirmed that meetings were previously held with the Club Captains of Bate Bay clubs e.g. Wanda, Elouera, North Cronulla and Cronulla. Of recent years, these meetings have not been occurring but should be re-introduced. These meetings are a great way for lifesaver/lifeguard relations (on and off the beach) is a great forum to communicate expectations from both parties.

Treatment Options 1.13 & 6.6 A de-brief session should continue to be held after any critical incidents that occur through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System where there is a joint response from lifesavers and lifeguards within the Sutherland Local Government Area to investigate where opportunities may exist at a local level to improve emergency response (e.g. information sharing, communication and the formalisation of emergency response procedures).

Treatment Option 1.14 Formal emergency action plans should be developed and recognised by Sutherland Shire Council for Sutherland lifeguards when responding to after hour incidents (surf rescue emergency response system) to ensure an optimum and safe response when supporting police and lifesavers with coastal emergencies.

Treatment Options 1.15 & 6.7 Club Captains from Bate Bay clubs (i.e. Wanda, Elouera, North Cronulla and Cronulla) should meet with Sutherland lifeguard supervisors at the start of the surf life saving season to discuss guidelines and expectations that will improve the communication and coordination to work effectively together while on patrol.

Treatment Options 1.16 & 6.8 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Sydney Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Sutherland lifeguard supervisors and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season.


of 89

Treatment Option 2.18 A key register should be developed by National Parks and Wildlife to determine which key agencies have access to the gates in the national park areas when responding to emergency incidents. It is recommended that keys be made available to those local emergency lifesaving services that do not currently have keys.


of 89

5. Monitor and Review This process ensures that risk treatment options are meeting their objectives, new hazards and risks are identified in a timely manner and evolving strategies are in line with community expectations. Land managers should ensure that a there is a process of regular review of the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies that have been implemented. This should include a process for the collection of data regarding any incidents affecting public safety at the locations assessed as well as the use of public rescue equipment and emergency response phones. It is acknowledged that the NPWS already have a system of monitor and review built into the ‘NPWS Visitor Safety Regional Risk Register User Guide’. Land managers may determine to further engage peak water safety organisations to assist with this task. The process should include the review of all incident data, access points, signage and public rescue equipment.

Treatment Options 1.17 & 2.19 In consultation with relevant stakeholders this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented.

Treatment Options 1.18 & 2.20 All drowning prevention strategies should be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance.


of 89

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

th June 2012’, Australian National Sports fishing

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

January, 2013 Barns, R 2012, ‘NSW Councils Beach Safety Information Signage’, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Bradstreet A, Sherker S, Brighton B, Weir A, Thompson, M 2012, ‘Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales’, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney. Census Data, 2011, ‘Quick Stats – Sutherland Local Government Area’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Destination NSW, 2011, ‘Travel to Sutherland Local Government Area’, Tourism Research Australia, Canberra, International Life Saving Federation, 2008, ‘Drowning Prevention Strategies A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving’, 8

th edition, The

International Life Saving Federation, Belgium Life Saving Victoria, 2006, ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual’, 3rd edition, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne McCarthey, A 2012, ‘Advice – Liability of Council when installing Water Safety Signage & Personal Rescue Equipment’, State of New South Wales (Crown Solicitor’s Office), Sydney NSW Division of Local Government, 2012, ‘Practice Note No. 15 – Water Safety’, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Nowra Short, A 2006, ‘Australian Beach Safety Management Program’, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney Standards Australia, 2009, ‘AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’, 4th edition, Standards Australia, Sydney Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 1: Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas’, Standards Australia, Sydney Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 2: Specifications for beach safety flags – “colour, shape, meaning and performance’, Standards Australia, Sydney Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 3: Guidance for use’, Standards Australia, Sydney Statewide Mutual, 2007, ‘Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision’, V.3, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2010, ‘The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines’, 2nd edition, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney Surf Life Saving Australia, 2011, ‘Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessor Learner Guide’, V.3, Surf Life Saving Australia, Sydney

Sutherland Local Government Area - Water Safety … › ... › Sutherland.pdfSutherland lifeguard...

Documents

Transcript of Sutherland Local Government Area - Water Safety … › ... › Sutherland.pdfSutherland lifeguard...