Water Safety NSW - Pittwater Local Government Area › Documents › ...Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Pittwater Local Government Area Page vii of 80 Executive Summary This

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 Pittwater Local Government Area

February 2014

Coastal Public Safety Risk Assessment: Pittwater Local Government Area

Page ii of 80

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


Page iii of 80

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. VII

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. IX

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

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

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

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 SITE INSPECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 11 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.6 BEACH HAZARD RATINGS AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 13 2.7 ABSAMP TYPES AND RATINGS .................................................................................................................... 14 2.8 ABSAMP BEACH TYPE CHARACTERISTIC OVERVIEW AND HAZARDS .................................................................... 16

2.8.1 Transverse Bar and Rip ................................................................................................................. 16 2.8.2 Reflective....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.8.3 Rock Platforms and Rocky Coasts ................................................................................................. 17

2.9 FACILITY VISITATION RATES (FVR) ................................................................................................................ 18 2.9.1 Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables ......................................................................... 18

2.10 FACILITIES AUDIT ....................................................................................................................................... 22 2.11 POPULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM................................................................................................... 23

2.11.1 Population Statistics ..................................................................................................................... 23 2.11.2 Development Plans in Pittwater ................................................................................................... 23 2.11.3 Tourism Information ..................................................................................................................... 24

2.12 BEACH USAGE AND INCIDENT STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 25 2.12.1 Beach Usage Statistics .................................................................................................................. 25 2.12.2 Drowning Incidents ....................................................................................................................... 32 2.12.3 Emergency Callouts ....................................................................................................................... 34

2.13 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................... 38

3 RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 40

3.1 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY (INHERENT GROSS RISK) ...................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 Action Planning Priority Index ....................................................................................................... 40 3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program ................................................................... 41 3.1.3 Local Population Rating ................................................................................................................ 42 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating ............................................................................................... 43 3.1.5 Access Rating ................................................................................................................................ 44 3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score ....................................................................................................... 45

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL RISK TREATMENTS ................................................................................................... 48 3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 48 3.2.2 Hierarchy of Risk Treatments (Controls) ....................................................................................... 48 3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programs ............................................................................................ 49 3.2.4 Safety Signage .............................................................................................................................. 55 3.2.5 Emergency Marker System ........................................................................................................... 61 3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs ................................ 62 3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment .............................................................................................................. 64 3.2.8 System of Supervision ................................................................................................................... 68

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


Page iv of 80

4.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTING - TRIPLE ZERO (000) ..................................................................... 74 4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACONS ................................................................................................................. 74 4.3 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE ................................................................................................................... 75 4.4 RADIO COVERAGE ...................................................................................................................................... 77 4.5 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LIFESAVERS AND LIFEGUARDS) ............................................................................ 77

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

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 79

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Access and Signage Schedule APPENDIX B - Risk Register and Treatment Plan APPENDIX C - Public Rescue Equipment APPENDIX D - Facilities Audit APPENDIX E - Coverage Maps APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Engagement APPENDIX G - Life Saving Service Level Calculator APPENDIX F - Data Collection


Page v of 80

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1.1 THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATION DROWNING CHAIN .................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF PITTWATER LGA COASTAL LOCATIONS ASSESSED BY AUSTRALIAN COASTSAFE .................................. 9 FIGURE 2.4.1 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 2.8.1 ILLUSTRATION OF A TRANSVERSE BAR AND RIP BEACH ................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2.8.2 ILLUSTRATION OF A REFLECTIVE BEACH ....................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2.12.1 SLS ATTENDANCE STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ........................................................ 25 FIGURE 2.12.2 ALS ATTENDANCE STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ........................................................ 26 FIGURE 2.12.3 SLS RESCUE STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ................................................................ 27 FIGURE 2.12.4 ALS RESCUE STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ............................................................... 28 FIGURE 2.12.5 SLS FIRST AID AND PREVENTION STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ..................................... 29 FIGURE 2.12.6 ALS FIRST AID AND PREVENTION STATISTICS FOR 2008 TO 2013 (SURFGUARD, 2013) ..................................... 30 FIGURE 2.12.7 LOCATION AND DISTANCE OF DROWNING CASUALTY’S RESIDENCE (POSTCODE) TO PLACE OF OCCURRENCE ............. 33 FIGURE 2.12.8 SURF RESCUE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BY LOCATION (SLSNSW, 2013).......................................................... 34 FIGURE 2.12.9 SURF RESCUE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BY SEASON AND DAY (SLSNSW, 2013) ............................................... 35 FIGURE 2.12.10 SURF RESCUE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BY ACTIVITY (SLSNSW, 2013) ......................................................... 36 FIGURE 2.13.1 PROJECT BLUEPRINT FLYER ..................................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 3.2.1 BEACH SAFETY INFORMATION ON THE PITTWATER COUNCIL WEBSITE (PITTWATER COUNCIL, 2013) ...................... 49 FIGURE 3.2.2 SURF SAFETY PRESENTATION AT NEWPORT BEACH ........................................................................................ 50 FIGURE 3.2.3 RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE ROCK FISHING SCHOOL ............................................................................... 51 FIGURE 3.2.4: KOREAN WEBSITE PROMOTING ROCK FISHING (WAVE ROCK, 2006)................................................................ 52 FIGURE 3.2.5 EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNAGE AT ROCK POOLS MANAGED BY PITTWATER COUNCIL ............................................... 55 FIGURE 3.2.6 EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNAGE AT ROCK FALLS ................................................................................................ 55 FIGURE 3.2.7 EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNAGE AT HIGH RISK LOCATIONS IN PITTWATER ............................................................... 56 FIGURE 3.2.8 EXAMPLE COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNAGE IN PITTWATER .......................................................................... 56 FIGURE 3.2.9 EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNAGE AT RESERVES MANAGED BY PITTWATER COUNCIL................................................... 56 FIGURE 3.2.10 TEMPORARY PITTWATER LIFEGUARD SIGN ................................................................................................ 56 FIGURE 3.2.11 EXAMPLE LEVEL TWO CAR PARK SIGN ........................................................................................................ 57 FIGURE 3.2.12 EXAMPLE SIGNAGE AT A BEACH ACCESS POINT IN BYRON BAY ........................................................................ 57 FIGURE 3.2.13 EXAMPLE OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE .......................................................................................................... 60 FIGURE 3.2.14 EXAMPLE EMERGENCY MARKER SIGN ........................................................................................................ 61 FIGURE 3.2.15 EXISTING EMERGENCY MARKER SIGN AT KINGSCLIFF ..................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 3.2.16 FORMAL ACCESS AT MONA VALE ............................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE 3.2.17 INFORMAL ACCESS AT BARRENJOEY HEAD ................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE 3.2.18 PUBLIC RESCUE TUBE IN PLACE AT NEWPORT BEACH .................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 3.2.19 EXAMPLE GRAPHIC OF WHAT THE RESCUE TUBE BOXES COULD LOOK LIKE ......................................................... 67 FIGURE 3.2.20 TOURISTS AND VISITORS WATCHING PRODUCTION OF HOME AND AWAY AT NORTH PALM BEACH ........................ 72 FIGURE 4.2.1 EXAMPLE OF A MOBILE EMERGENCY RESPONSE BEACON ON A BEACH ................................................................. 74 FIGURE 4.3.1 EMERGENCY SERVICE LOCATIONS IN PITTWATER ........................................................................................... 76


Page vi of 80

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.3.1 ASSESSED LOCATIONS AND ASSESSMENT DATES .............................................................................................. 10 TABLE 2.6.1 ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS............................................................................................................ 13 TABLE 2.6.2 BEACH HAZARD RATING CALCULATION MATRICES FOR WAVE DOMINATE BEACHES ................................................. 13 TABLE 2.7.1 ABSAMP BEACH HAZARD RATINGS – PITTWATER LGA.................................................................................. 14 TABLE 2.9.1 TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL HAZARDS RATING FOR RESERVES – NON BEACH ENVIRONMENTS .................. 18 TABLE 2.9.2 TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT RATINGS FOR BEACHES .............................................................................................. 18 TABLE 2.9.3 TYPICAL POPULATION USE RATING FOR A FACILITY ........................................................................................... 19 TABLE 2.9.4 SUGGESTED FREQUENCY USE RATING FOR A FACILITY ...................................................................................... 19 TABLE 2.9.5 FACILITY VISITATION RATES – FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS .................................................................................. 19 TABLE 2.11.1 PITTWATER POPULATION DATA (ABS, 2013) .............................................................................................. 23 TABLE 2.11.2 ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS IN THE PITTWATER LGA ................................................................................ 24 TABLE 2.12.1 DROWNING INCIDENTS WITHIN PITTWATER LGA (SLSA, 2013) ..................................................................... 32 TABLE 3.1.1 ABSAMP AND INDICATIVE RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS ............................................................... 41 TABLE 3.1.2 LOCAL POPULATION RATING DESCRIPTORS ..................................................................................................... 42 TABLE 3.1.3 LOCAL POPULATION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS ......................................................................... 42 TABLE 3.1.4 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION DESCRIPTORS .............................................................................................. 43 TABLE 3.1.5 HUMAN/ACTIVITY INTERACTION RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS ........................................................ 43 TABLE 3.1.6 ACCESS RATING DESCRIPTORS ..................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 3.1.7 ACCESS RATINGS APPLIED TO ASSESSED LOCATIONS ......................................................................................... 44 TABLE 3.1.8 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY CALCULATIONS FOR EACH ASSESSED LOCATION ...................................... 45 TABLE 3.1.9 ACTION PLANNING PRIORITY SCORES FOR ASSESSED LOCATIONS ........................................................................ 46 TABLE 3.2.1 EXAMPLES OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 53 TABLE 3.2.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF AQUATIC AND RECREATIONAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PITTWATER LGA ............. 58 TABLE 3.2.3 ACCESS PROVISION WITHIN ASSESSED LOCATIONS IN PITTWATER ....................................................................... 63 TABLE 3.2.4 AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC RESCUE EQUIPMENT (PRE) (BRADSTREET, ET AL., 2012) ............................................. 64 TABLE 3.2.5 PROPOSED LIFE RING LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................. 65 TABLE 3.2.6 VOLUNTEER LIFESAVING SERVICES IN THE PITTWATER LGA .............................................................................. 69 TABLE 3.2.7 PAID LIFEGUARD SERVICES IN THE PITTWATER LGA ........................................................................................ 71 TABLE 4.2.1 COASTAL EMERGENCY SERVICE LOCATIONS FOR PITTWATER LGA. .................................................................... 75


Page vii of 80

Executive Summary This report contains findings and treatment options which align with current International and Australian standards, guidelines and best practice risk management processes. The report contains information specific to locations under the authority of Pittwater Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) – Office of Environment and Heritage. These locations include (north to south):

1. Barrenjoey Head 13. South Bilgola Headland 2. North Palm Beach 14. Newport 3. Palm Beach 15. Bungan Headland 4. Little Head 16. Bungan 5. Whale Beach 17. Mona Vale Headland 6. Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 18. The Basin 7. Careel Head 19. Mona Vale 8. Bangalley Head / St. Michaels Cave 20. Warriewood 9. Avalon 21. Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole 10. Little Avalon 22. Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen 11. Bilgola Headland 23. Narrabeen Head 12. Bilgola

Activities/Facilities The Pittwater 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 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 The Pittwater LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the area. These are outlined in detail in the report body and Appendix B. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, the following hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Pittwater 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 Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction It has been identified that the above listed hazards pose risk to the following types of recreational users:

Strong ocean currents/rip currents: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Waves/waves overwashing: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen, rock platform users Inshore holes/deep water: Swimmers, fishermen Slippery rocks: Fishermen, rock platform users Shallow sandbanks/shore dump: Swimmers, surf craft users Submerged rocks: Swimmers, surf craft users, fishermen Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters


Page viii of 80

Existing Risk Treatments Land Managers in partnership with a number of other organisations have implemented the following risk treatment initiatives within the Pittwater LGA: o System of supervision (p. 68) o Education and awareness programs (p.49) o Safety signage (p.55) o Public rescue equipment (p.64)


Page ix of 80

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 Pittwater Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 1.1 Existing and future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Pittwater LGA,

should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision. (p. 24)

1.2 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.37)

1.3 Pittwater Council should continue to meet regularly with The Australian Lifeguard Service and Surf Life

Saving Sydney Northern Beaches as an effective meeting which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Pittwater Local Government Area. It is recommended that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of these meetings. (p. 39)

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

staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p. 47) Education: 1.5 Education and awareness programs within the Pittwater Local Government Area should continue to be

implemented, reviewed and supported. (p. 54) 1.6 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p. 54)

1.7 Water safety information (e.g. posters) should be strategically placed at amenity blocks and visitor

information displays directly located around coastal beach access. (p. 54) 1.8 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p. 54)

1.9 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 and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Pittwater Local Government Area.) (p. 54)

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

implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage.) (p. 60)

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


Page x of 80

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

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p. 63)

1.12 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.63) Public Rescue Equipment: 1.13 All rescue tube boxes should be clearly identified with the following text: “Emergency Rescue Equipment

– Dial Triple Zero (000). Existing rescue tube locations can be found in ‘Appendix C’. (p. 67) Supervision and Surveillance: 1.14 Explore the means to fund the lifeguard service at North Palm Beach to provide coverage over the spring

and autumn school holiday period. The options outlined in the main report should be considered in the interim. (p. 73)

Monitor and Review: 1.15 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

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

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

Recommendation 2 The National Parks and Wildlife Service – Office of Environment and Heritage should consider implementing the following 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.37)

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

staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence. (p.47) Education: 2.3 Education and awareness programs within and around the Pittwater Local Government Area should

continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported. (p.54) 2.4 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are

recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/). (p.54)

2.5 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. (p.54)

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


Page xi of 80

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

implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage. (p.60)

Access: 2.7 Formal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should continue to be regularly maintained through

ongoing infrastructure and capital works programs. This will encourage formal access use (rather than informal), enhance the effectiveness of water safety signage and minimise the quantity of signage needed. (p.63)

2.8 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.63)

Monitor and Review: 2.9 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the

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

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

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

Recommendation 3 The Water Safety Advisory Council should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Education:

3.1 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 and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Pittwater Local Government Area. (p.54)

3.2 Work with Sydney Buses and Forest Coach Lines with the aim of providing surf safety collateral on board popular bus routes such as the L90/L88 (Central Station, City to Palm Beach) and the 197 (Macquarie Station – Via Gordon to Mona Vale) during the summer school holiday period. (p. 54)

3.3 Identify the relevant user groups and related resources/websites (including multilingual) that promote rock fishing in the Pittwater Local Government, and target safety messaging to those groups/resources. This research may also provide the opportunity for targeted education campaigns. (p.54)

Emergency Marker Signage: 3.4 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information,

a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered. (p. 61) Public Rescue Equipment:

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

consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations. (p. 67)


Page xii of 80

Recommendation 4 Australian CoastSafe should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 4.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf

Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed. (p.15)

Recommendation 5 Surf Life Saving (State, Branch & Club) should consider implementing the following risk treatment options: Strategic Coordination: 5.1 Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches should continue to meet with Pittwater Council and The Australian

Lifeguard Service and Pittwater Council as an effective meeting which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Pittwater Local Government Area. It is recommended that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of these meetings. (p. 39)

Supervision and Surveillance: 5.2 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.73)

5.3 Surf Life Saving Support Operations e.g. RWC (jet-ski) could formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations as part of standard surveillance patrols and report the information back to Surf Life Saving SurfCom or the local lifeguards/lifesavers to improve the knowledge and data quality for coastal usage patterns. This information could also be used to advise available rescue operators of locations at higher risk of an incident occurring. (p.73)

Emergency Response: 5.4 A debrief 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 Pittwater Local Government Area. These sessions should 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.77)

5.5 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Sydney Northern Beaches Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Pittwater lifeguard supervisors and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season. (p.77)


Page 1 of 80

1 Introduction, Scope & Context

1.1 Introduction Project Background Surf Life Saving New South Wales is undertaking a significant state-wide drowning prevention project, known as Project Blueprint. As a core component of the project, every accessible coastal beach and rock platform in New South Wales are being assessed using industry leading systems and processes. The outcomes will include evidence based drowning prevention treatment options to stakeholders and government, both at a local, regional and state level. Project Blueprint is being delivered by Australian CoastSafe, as the leading coastal public safety risk management authority in Australia. Australian CoastSafe is the strategic and intelligence beach safety unit of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) – visit www.coastsafe.org.au for more information. This document is a coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan specific to water safety related issues identified at every beach/rock platform located on the coast of the Pittwater LGA. The Land Managers of this area include Pittwater Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) - Office of Environment and Heritage. The Drowning Issue 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

1 Surf Life Saving Incident Reporting Database

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


Page 2 of 80

Figure 1.1.1 The International Life Saving Federation Drowning Chain

Source: International Life Saving Federation (2008) Treatment Options This report will be fundamental in addressing the coastal drowning issue in NSW both in the short, mid and long term. The report will do this by providing a sustainable and effective drowning prevention strategy with clear supporting evidence/data, engagement of relevant stakeholders, and the application of effective risk mitigation and drowning prevention initiatives where and when they are required. It is acknowledged that land managers have many competing priorities and limited resources. Land managers should balance water safety land management activities within the context of their broader role to provide services and facilities to meet the current and future needs of their local communities as a whole, all within a limited budget. This report recognises that there are many inherent risks associated with the NSW coastline and that in most instances these risks 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. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government.


Page 3 of 80

1.2 Context and Scope 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 two to include the Pittwater, Warringah, Manly, Shoalhaven and Bega LGAs. The report provides risk treatment recommendations about how to improve risk and safety management in line with current industry standards: o AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and Guidelines o 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 Scope This coastal public safety risk assessment and treatment plan has been prepared following an on-site risk assessment undertaken by Australian CoastSafe of the Pittwater LGA which commenced on Monday 2nd September and concluded on Friday 6 September, 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 Pittwater LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report. Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment. While recreational and commercial boating may occur in these waters the detailed assessment of hazards and their treatments specific to boating activities falls outside the scope of this report. Information on boating safety can be found at www.maritime.nsw.gov.au. The engagement of Land Managers and other key local stakeholders was also a vital part of this risk assessment. Australian CoastSafe assessed the following in detail: o Access locations, classifying these as formal or informal access tracks and recommending treatment

options. Signage that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current signage Appendix A. o Hazards, their potential risks, risk groups, risk scores and treatment options Appendix B. o Public rescue equipment that should be implemented, in conjunction with an audit of current public rescue

equipment Appendix C. o Facilities and points of interest that may attract members of the public to coastal locations Appendix D. Other appendices include: o Coverage maps of assessed locations Appendix E o Stakeholder Engagement Appendix F o Life Saving Service Level Calculator Appendix G


Page 4 of 80

o Data Collection Appendix H At no time during the inspection was the water entered. The assessments were performed from the land, along the edges of the water, along rocky outcrops, headlands, access tracks and car park access points.

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

report as a result of the project timeframes.


Page 5 of 80

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

ABSAMP Australian Beach Safety and Management Program

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

ATV All-terrain vehicle

CALD Culturally And Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities

Coastal The foreshore, seabed, coastal water, and airspace above a large body of water (marine), including areas up to 2NM offshore and of which the landward boundary is the line of mean high water. Coastal beaches are all marine beaches listed in ABSAMP, which exclude harbours, inlets and bays.

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).

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

IRB Inflatable Rescue Boat


Page 6 of 80

LGA Local Government Area – for the purposes of this report this area is used to determine the scope of the assessment (i.e. the coastal boundary of the Local Government Area). This may include lands managed by Councils, Crown and National Parks and Wildlife Service.

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

Likelihood Used as a general description of probability or frequency

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

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

Peak Water Safety Agencies

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

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

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

Preventative Action / Prevention

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

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


Page 7 of 80

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

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

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

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

RWC Rescue water craft (jet ski)

SLS Branch Surf Life Saving Branch, a regional body of Surf Life Saving formed to further the objects of surf lifesaving in a particular geographic area.

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

1.5 Project Team / Authors Project Team: Adam Weir, Coastal Risk Manager, [email protected] Camilla Green, Coastal Risk Officer, [email protected] Luke Stigter, Coastal Risk Officer, [email protected] Chris Twine, Coastal Administration Officer, [email protected] Australian CoastSafe Surf Life Saving New South Wales Ph: 02-9471 8000| F: 02-9471 8001 W: www.coastsafe.org.au/blueprint


Page 8 of 80

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 in Figure 3.2.1 provides an overview of the locations of beaches and rock platforms within the Pittwater LGA subject to the coastal risk assessment. The specific locations can be referenced in Appendix E. All together the Australian CoastSafe team assessed approximately 20km of coastline in the Pittwater LGA. The area includes locations and/or facilities under the administration of: o Pittwater Council o NPWS

Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park o Crown Lands The assessment identifies hazards and the associated risks of the coastal environment and is not limited to signage, car parks, access tracks, service provision, geographical hazards, geological hazards, user groups, conflicting activities and usage. The report also identifies facilities and activities that encourage people to visit the location. The geographical scope of this assessment has been determined by the northern and southern boundaries of the Pittwater LGA. All accessible coastal environments within these boundaries have been included in this report. Aquatic areas which are excluded from this assessment include all bodies of water which are not ‘coastal’ in nature under SLSA definitions, and all hazards not directly associated with the use and immediate access to the coastal aquatic environment.


Page 9 of 80

Pittwater LGA – Assessed Locations

Figure 2.2.1 Overview of Pittwater LGA coastal Locations assessed by Australian CoastSafe


Page 10 of 80

2.3 Site Inspection Table 2.3.1 Assessed locations and assessment dates

Location Land Management Authority Date

Barrenjoey Head National Parks and Wildlife Monday 2 September, 2013

North Palm Beach Pittwater Council Monday 2 September, 2013

Palm Beach Pittwater Council Monday 2 September, 2013

Little Head Pittwater Council Tuesday 3 September, 2013

Whale Beach Pittwater Council Tuesday 3 September, 2013

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens Pittwater Council Tuesday 3 September, 2013

Careel Head Pittwater Council Tuesday 3 September, 2013

Bangalley Head / St. Michaels Cave Pittwater Council Tuesday 3 September, 2013

Avalon Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Little Avalon Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Bilgola Headland Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Bilgola Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

South Bilgola Headland Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Newport Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Bungan Headland Pittwater Council Wednesday 4 September, 2013

Bungan Pittwater Council Thursday 5 September, 2013

Mona Vale Headland Pittwater Council Thursday 5 September, 2013

The Basin Pittwater Council Thursday 5 September, 2013

Mona Vale Pittwater Council Thursday 5 September, 2013

Warriewood Pittwater Council Friday 6 September, 2013

Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole Pittwater Council Friday 6 September, 2013

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen Pittwater Council Friday 6 September, 2013

Narrabeen Head Pittwater Council Friday 6 September, 2013


Page 11 of 80

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 The Pittwater LGA has a number of consistent hazards due to the geography and high energy nature of the beaches in the area. Based on the risk assessment in Appendix B, the following hazards that have been rated with the greatest inherent risk for the Pittwater 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 Cliffs: As a result of coastal geography Boating traffic: As a result of human interaction It has been identified that the above listed hazards pose risk to the following types of recreational users: Strong 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 Cliffs: Fishermen, walkers, sight seers Boating traffic: Swimmers, surf craft users, boaters This coastal public safety risk assessment aligns with the international standard of risk management ‘AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines’ (Standards Australia, 2009). The flow diagram on the next page outlines the risk management process.


Page 12 of 80

Figure 2.4.1 Risk Management Process

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 Program (ABSAMP) o Australian Bureau of Statistics – 2011 Census data o Australian Lifeguard Service Statistics o BeachSafe (2013) http://beachsafe.org.au/ o NSW Tourism Statistics o Rock Fishing Review - Bradstreet et al, (2012) – Research Review of Rock Fishing in New South Wales. Surf

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

http://beachsafe.org.au/


Page 13 of 80

2.6 Beach Hazard Ratings and Overview The ABSAMP (Australian Beach Safety and Management Program) was developed by Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney Coastal Studies Unit in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Australia. The program has identified coastal hazards that affect bathers and rates the safety of the beach on a scale of one to ten, where one (1) is the least hazardous and ten (10) is the most hazardous. The beach hazard ratings and definitions are provided in Table 2.6.1. 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 the hazard may in fact be greater or less, depending upon an individual's own skill, and understanding and competence in relation to a certain area. The ABSAMP hazard ratings for the inspected areas of the Pittwater LGA are detailed within the next section of the report.

Hazard Rating Details

1 - 3

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

4 - 6

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

7 - 8

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

9 - 10

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


Page 14 of 80

2.7 ABSAMP Types and Ratings The ABSAMP Hazard Rating for the assessed locations listed in Table 2.7.1 below. The table provides both a modal and a prevailing ABSAMP rating. The modal ABSAMP rating represents the average conditions for each location, which has been extracted from the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program. The prevailing ABSAMP rating represents the conditions observed by Australian CoastSafe on the day each audit took place. Table 2.7.1 ABSAMP Beach Hazard Ratings – Pittwater LGA

Location Name ABSAMP No.

ABSAMP Rating

(Modal)

ABSAMP Type (Modal)

ABSAMP Rating

(Prevailing)

ABSAMP Type (Prevailing)

Barrenjoey Head nsw300RPa 6* Rock Platform 5* Rock Platform

North Palm Beach nsw300a 7 Transverse Bar

& Rip 5 Transverse Bar & Rip

Palm Beach nsw300b 6 Transverse Bar

& Rip 4 Low Tide Terrace

Little Head nsw301RPa 7* Rock Platform 5* Rock Platform

Whale Beach nsw301 7 Transverse Bar

& Rip 5 Low Tide Terrace

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens

nsw301RPb 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform

Careel Head nsw301RPc 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform

Bangalley Head / St. Michaels Cave

nsw301RPd 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform

Avalon nsw302 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

6 Transverse Bar & Rip

Little Avalon nsw302RPb 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform

Bilgola Headland nsw303RPa 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform

Bilgola nsw303 6 Transverse Bar & Rip


South Bilgola Headland nsw303RPb 6* Rock Platform 5* Rock Platform

Newport nsw304 6 Transverse Bar & Rip

4 Low Tide Terrace

Bungan Headland nsw305RPa 7* Rock Platform 5* Rock Platform

Bungan nsw305 7 Transverse Bar & Rip


Mona Vale Headland nsw305RPb 5* Rock Platform 5* Rock Platform

The Basin nsw306 3 Reflective 3 Reflective

Mona Vale nsw307 7 Transverse Bar & Rip


Warriewood nsw308 6 Transverse Bar & Rip


Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole

nsw308RPb 7* Rock Platform 7* Rock Platform

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen

nsw309 7 Transverse Bar & Rip


Narrabeen Head nsw309RPa 7* Rock Platform 6* Rock Platform


Page 15 of 80

* Pittwater LGA Rock Platform Ratings Currently there is no method of rating the hazardousness of the rocky coast, in an equivalent manner to the ABSAMP beach hazard rating system for sandy beaches. Research is currently underway; Dr. David Kennedy has utilised a grant from Melbourne University to pilot the methods for the development of a risk classification study on rocky coasts (Kennedy, et al., 2013). This research has now received funding under an Australian Research Council linkage grant. 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. In order to allow the risk calculations used in this report to be processed the interim solution, which takes into account the local conditions and geomorphology detailed above, has been applied. Once the research being conducted by Dr. David Kennedy and Prof. Colin Woodroffe is completed then these calculations should be revisited.

Treatment Option 4.1 Research currently being conducted by the University of Melbourne, University of Wollongong and Surf Life Saving Australia into a rocky coast classification model and hazard rating system for rocky coast should be commended and supported. Once this research is completed the calculations related to rocky coasts in this report should be reviewed.


Page 16 of 80

2.8 ABSAMP Beach Type Characteristic Overview and Hazards The modal beach characteristics and associated hazards for each location are as follows:

2.8.1 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. The following beaches within the Pittwater LGA are classified as Transverse Bar and Rip: o North Palm Beach o Palm Beach o Whale Beach o Avalon o Bilgola

o Newport o Bungan o Mona Vale o Warriewood o Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen

2.8.2 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

Figure 2.8.1 Illustration of a Transverse Bar and Rip Beach

Figure 2.8.2 Illustration of a Reflective Beach


Page 17 of 80

continent. Reflective beach morphology consists of the steeper, narrow beach and swash zone, with beach cusps commonly present in the upper high tide swash zone. They have no bar or surf zone as waves move unbroken to the shore, where they collapse or surge up the beach face. The following beach within the Pittwater LGA is classified as Reflective: o The Basin

2.8.3 Rock Platforms and Rocky Coasts

Rock platforms and rocky coasts are wave eroded regions that exist at the base of rocky cliffs and headlands. They are typically influenced by tides and waves. For coastal hazards, rocky coasts can therefore be considered static features unable to adjust their morphology during storms unlike sandy beaches (Kennedy, et al., 2013). The following regions within the Pittwater LGA are classified as Rock Platforms or Rocky Coast: o Barrenjoey Head o Little Head o Dolphin Bay / The Ovens o Careel Head o Bangalley Head / St Michaels Cave o Little Avalon

o Bilgola Headland o South Bilgola Headland o Bungan Headland o Mona Vale Headland o Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole o Narrabeen Head


Page 18 of 80

2.9 Facility Visitation Rates (FVR) The Facility Visitation Rate (FVR) is a quantitative assessment system developed by Statewide Mutual as ‘Best Practice’ for Signage As Remote Supervision (2007). The FVR can be used by NSW Local Government to determine the most appropriate signage schedule for a facility (venue or location). The FVR is calculated using data collected during the assessment process and includes site population use and frequency of use. Since the FVR calculation is used to determine aquatic recreational warning signage requirements, the figures used are those of the peak period of beach usage. The following information is used to calculate the FVR: 1. Observational data collected during the site assessment; 2. Stakeholder observation, consultation and feedback; and, 3. Historical statistical data The Facility Visitation Rate is calculated using the following formula: FVR = (Development x Population) + Frequency Where: Development* = The level of facilities and infrastructure that exist within or about the facility Population = The average number of people that use the facility at any point in time Frequency = The number of times that the facility is used by patrons

*Note: All assessed locations were beach environments and therefore the indicative ABSAMP ratings were converted to

development ratings

2.9.1 Facility Visitation Rating (FVR) Reference Tables

Table 2.9.1 provides the Development ratings that apply to a reserve or other non-beach environment provided by council. Table 2.9.2 provides the equivalent AMSAMP hazard rating for each Development rating. The Population and Frequency rating classifications are provided in Table 2.9.3 and Table 2.9.4, respectively. Table 2.9.1 Typical Development and Natural Hazards Rating for Reserves – non beach environments

Rating Development Natural Hazards

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

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

Sloping ground; no natural water; walking track around reserve

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

dog areas

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

than 1 metre

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

ground, caravan park

Creeks, ponds and ledges between 1 metre and 3 metres

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

Contains rivers, dams and cliffs greater than 3 metres

Table 2.9.2 Typical development ratings for beaches

Rating ABSAMP Beach Rating

1 Beach hazard rating 1 and 2






Page 19 of 80

Table 2.9.3 Typical population use rating for a facility

Rating Population Use

1 Less than 5 people at a time

2 5 to 50 people at a time



5 Greater than 500 people at a time

Table 2.9.4 Suggested Frequency use rating for a Facility

Rating Frequency of Use

1 An annual activity or event is held at the facility

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

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

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

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

The FVR values for assessed locations in the Pittwater LGA are provided in Table 2.9.5. Since only beach environments were assessed, the ABSAMP hazard rating for each location was converted to a Development rating using Table 2.9.2. Table 2.9.5 Facility Visitation Rates – for assessed locations

LOCATION NAME DEVELOPMENT RATING

* POPULATION + FREQUENCY = FVR

Barrenjoey Head 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

North Palm Beach 4 * 5 + 3 = 23

Palm Beach 3 * 5 + 3 = 18

Little Head 4 * 2 + 4 = 12

Whale Beach 4 * 4 + 3 = 19

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 4 * 2 + 3 = 11

Careel Head 4 * 2 + 3 = 11


4 * 2 + 3 = 11

Avalon 4 * 5 + 3 = 23

Little Avalon 4 * 2 + 3 = 11

Bilgola Headland 4 * 2 + 3 = 11

Bilgola 3 * 4 + 3 = 15

South Bilgola Headland 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

Newport 3 * 5 + 3 = 18

Bungan Headland 4 * 2 + 3 = 11

Bungan 4 * 4 + 3 = 19

Mona Vale Headland 3 * 2 + 3 = 9

The Basin 2 * 4 + 3 = 11

Mona Vale 4 * 5 + 3 = 23

Warriewood 3 * 5 + 3 = 18


4 * 3 + 2 = 14

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen 4 * 4 + 3 = 19

Narrabeen Head 4 * 3 + 3 = 15

Given the FVR scores listed in Table 2.9.5, the most appropriate signage characteristics for each location are listed below.


Page 20 of 80

FVR Score between 7 and 10 o Barrenjoey Head o South Bilgola Headland o Mona Vale Headland

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

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top hazard should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility FVR Score between 11 and 15 o Little Head o Dolphin Bay/ The Ovens o Careel Head o Bangalley Head / St Michaels Cave o Little Avalon o Bilgola Headland o Bilgola o Bungan Headland o The Basin o Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blowhole o Narrabeen Head This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 500 metres apart around the beach perimeter. Additionally the signage should contain the following: o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

as warning symbols. If no highs then the top two hazards should appear o Any information symbols relevant to the facility FVR Score between 16 and 20 o Palm Beach o Whale Beach o Newport o Bungan o Warriewood o Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen This score would generally indicate that where access cannot be controlled, entrances to the beach provided by Land Managers have signage and are spaced no greater than 250 metres apart around the beach perimeter. o The name of the facility o A general warning message o Ordinances that apply to the facility should appear on the sign as prohibition pictograms o All potential hazards identified within the facility that have a risk rating of HIGH should appear on the sign

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


Page 21 of 80

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

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


Page 22 of 80

2.10 Facilities Audit Facilities in the coastal risk management process are any item of infrastructure which is situated close to the beach/access. 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? It is important for the Land Manager to recognise that by providing facilities to the public, it is likely that there will be increase in people visiting these areas. This increase in human visitation can correlate to the likelihood of a risk occurring in a coastal environment. Implementation of the treatment plans identified in this report may reduce the risk of a particular event occurring. Refer to Appendix D for a breakdown of facilities at the assessed locations within the Pittwater LGA.


Page 23 of 80

2.11 Population, Development and Tourism Population growth is an important consideration when evaluating and predicting beach usage trends. Increasing beach usage due to population growth relates to an increase in the probability of an event occurring. Tourism operations and development proposals are also associated with population growth, and these should also be considered when determining suitable risk treatment options.

2.11.1 Population Statistics

The 2011 census recorded that a population count of 57,155 in the Pittwater LGA. Population over the last 10 years has increased steadily by approximately 4,779 people (9% growth). Table 2.11.1 lists the male, female and total population in the Pittwater LGA for the last three Census counts. Table 2.11.1 Pittwater population data (ABS, 2013)

Pittwater Local Government Area – Population

Year Males Females Total

2011 27,912 29,243 57,155

2006 26,647 27,510 54,157

2001 25,713 26,663 52,376

2.11.2 Development Plans in Pittwater

Existing and future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Pittwater LGA, should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision. Consideration should be given to the placement of facilities with respect to identified hazards and risks and lifesaving services. Foreshore BBQ, playground/s, car parks and service amenities, all subsequently attract large numbers of people (residents and tourists) including young children. Several major development plans scheduled for coastal locations in Pittwater Council are described below. Mona Vale Village Centre Master Plan: Mona Vale has been prioritised for a master planning process of the village centre, due to its identification as Pittwater’s main town centre in the NSW Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. Mona Vale also serves as a major gateway to Sydney’s Northern Beaches through road networks and public transport routes. The master planning process, which will provide a clear urban design vision and planning controls, will begin in 2014 (Pittwater Council, 2013). Future Development in Ingleside: A precinct planning process is currently being undertaken for the suburb of Ingleside in the north west corner of the Pittwater LGA. Ingleside Precinct is comprised of 634 hectares, approximately one third of which is owned by the NSW Government. Most of the existing development in Ingleside is residences in a semi-rural setting. The precinct planning process, which is being led by the NSW Government Department of Planning and Infrastructure, will consider roads, services, housing and environment for the management of future land releases in Ingleside. The project is due for completion by the end of 2014 (Department of Planning & Infrastructure, 2013). Development in Warriewood Valley: A review of the development potential of all remaining undeveloped land in the Warriewood Valley has been conducted by Pittwater Council in Partnership with the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The review recommends an increase in housing density from the current 25 dwellings per hectare to 32 dwellings per hectare. Housing types will include a mix of low-level apartments, townhouses, terraced houses and small lot housing (Pittwater Council, 2013).


Page 24 of 80

Narrabeen Lakeside Holiday Park Upgrade: The Sydney Lakeside Holiday Park at North Narrabeen is undergoing progressive upgrades by Pittwater Council. The development is being completed in stages and includes a waterpark playground (completed in November 2012) and 27 new cabins. The next stage will see the older lake view cabins with 10 new premium elevated cabins (Pittwater Council, 2013). All Abilities Playground Proposal: An ‘all-abilities’ playground has been proposed at Bert Payne Reserve at Newport Beach. The site is located near the beachfront and car park and is close to the surf club, public amenities, and local shops. The aim of the development is to provide a safe and secure environment where children, parents and carers of all ages and abilities can play alongside each other. Pittwater Council will commence costing and design of the project, with the aim of ascertaining funding from the 2015-2016 budget and Grant opportunities (Pittwater Council, 2013). Avalon Beach Plan of Management: The Avalon Beach Plan of Management includes strategic development plans to improve the Avalon Beach Surf Club and its surrounds. Improvements to access and parking as well as refurbishment of the Avalon Beach Surf Club are currently underway. Modifications to the surf club will include additional meeting room space, improved facilities for life saving and lifeguard services, upgraded amenities and a café and restaurant. The plan also includes landscaping, upgrades to the playground, a new picnic/barbeque area, and improvements to dune management (Pittwater Council, 2013).

Treatment Option 1.1 Existing and future coastal development plans (government and private) scheduled for the Pittwater LGA, should consider the impact of increased beach usage, discussing possible treatment options such as education, signage, beach access and supervision.

2.11.3 Tourism Information

Local accommodation providers also attract beach users to the coast especially during school holiday periods. The major accommodation providers are listed in Table 2.11.2 Accommodation Providers in the Pittwater LGA Table 2.11.2 Accommodation Providers in the Pittwater LGA

Venue Location No. rooms/Sites Max Capacity Sydney Lakeside Holiday Park North Narrabeen 300 powered sites

78 cabins 98 permanent units

3000

Reef Resort Apartments

Mona Vale: 15 apartments 60 people

Pittwater YHA:

Morning Bay 4 rooms 32 people

Avalon Beach Backpackers

Avalon 18 rooms 90 people

Newport Mirage Hotel:

Newport 47 rooms 96 people

Newport Arms Hotel:

Newport 9 rooms 30 people

Checkers Resort and Conference Centre*

Terry Hills 42 rooms 108 people

Terrey Hills Motel and Caravan Park:*

Terry Hills 23 cabins 50 people

*Although located in Terrey Hills, guests will still predominantly visit the beaches in the Pittwater LGA

There are also an extensive number of holiday apartments/houses as well as bed/breakfast accommodation options along the Pittwater coastline.


Page 25 of 80

2.12 Beach Usage and Incident Statistics

2.12.1 Beach Usage Statistics

The following statistics have been recorded by the lifesaving (volunteers) and lifeguard services (paid) operating within the Pittwater LGA over the last five patrolling seasons (2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13). Statistics have been sourced from the Surf Life Saving internal management database known as ‘SurfGuard’. Lifeguards in the Pittwater LGA are contracted out to the Australian Lifeguard Service (ALS). Attendances: The two graphs below provide an average daily attendance for lifesavers (weekends and public holidays - Figure 2.12.1) and lifeguards (weekdays - Figure 2.12.2). The average daily attendance for each season was calculated by dividing the annual attendance for each beach by the number of days patrolled. The graph shows the cumulative average daily attendance from 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2013. It is important to note that on numerous occasions beach statistics were not recorded by volunteer lifesavers and these days were recorded as null.

*Please note that the Warriewood SLSC recordings are incomplete

Notes to graph: o Mona Vale has the highest recorded average daily attendance, followed by Newport and Palm Beach o Bungan recorded the lowest average daily attendance o For most locations average daily attendance figures increased between 2008/09 to 2011/12 however

attendance declined in season 2012/13.

Figure 2.12.1 SLS attendance statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 26 of 80

Notes to graph: o Palm Beach recorded the highest average daily attendance, followed by Newport and Warriewood o Bungan recorded the lowest recorded average daily attendance

Figure 2.12.2 ALS attendance statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 27 of 80

Rescues: The two graphs below provide the rescue statistics for lifesavers (weekends and public holidays - Figure 2.12.3) and lifeguards (weekdays - Figure 2.12.4). The graphs show the cumulative rescues recorded at each beach from 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2013.

*Please note that the Warriewood SLSC recordings are incomplete

Notes to graph: o Palm Beach recorded the highest amount of rescues closely followed by North Palm Beach, Bilgola,

Newport and Mona Vale o Season 2011/12 had the highest number of rescues

Figure 2.12.3 SLS rescue statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 28 of 80

Notes to graph: o Palm Beach recorded the highest amount of rescues followed by Mona Vale o Season 2011/12 had the highest number of rescues

Figure 2.12.4 ALS rescue statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 29 of 80

Preventions/First Aid: The two graphs below provide the preventions and first aid statistics for lifesavers (weekends and public holidays - Figure 2.12.5) and lifeguards (weekdays - Figure 2.12.6). The graphs show the cumulative preventions and first aid statistics recorded at each beach from 1st July 2008 to 30th June 2013. Preventions may include: o Swimmers advised/warned o Craft users advised/warned o Beach users advised/warned o Warning signs erected o Shark alarm o Searches/lost children

First Aid cases may include: o Minor injuries/first aid o Major injures/hospitalisation o Marine stings o Spinal injuries o Shock

*Please note that the Warriewood SLSC recordings are incomplete Notes to graph: o Newport and Mona Vale recorded the highest first aid cases o North Palm Beach and Mona Vale recorded the highest preventions o Bungan recorded the lowest first aid cases and preventions

Figure 2.12.5 SLS first aid and prevention statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 30 of 80

Notes to graph: o Palm Beach recorded the highest first aid cases followed by Newport, Avalon and Mona Vale o Palm Beach and Mona Vale recorded the highest preventions o North Palm Beach and Bungan recorded the lowest first aid cases and preventions

Figure 2.12.6 ALS first aid and prevention statistics for 2008 to 2013 (SurfGuard, 2013)


Page 31 of 80

Rescues/Preventions: The below tables show the cumulative statistics for both preventions and rescues which are then used to determine the preventions: rescues ratio. In theory, the more preventative actions a club/service makes, the number of rescues that are required to be conducted will decrease e.g. Mona Vale makes 29 preventions before having to conduct a single rescue. These statistics may highlight which clubs/services have the opportunity to be more proactive in making preventions with the aim of reducing the amount of rescues that need to be conducted. Surf Life Saving

North Palm Beach

Palm Beach

Whale Beach

Avalon Beach Bilgola Newport Bungan

Mona Vale Warriewood

Total Preventions 9787 3597 2543 4873 3357 3773 529 9603 121

Total Rescues 350 386 165 168 344 379 40 335 38

Ratio Preventions /

Rescues 28:1 9:1 15:1 29:1 10:1 10:1 13:1 29:1 3:1

*Please note that the Warriewood SLSC recordings are incomplete Notes to table: o Mona Vale and Avalon recorded the highest ratio of preventions / rescues o Palm Beach recorded the lowest ratio of preventions / rescues followed closely by Bilgola and Newport

Pittwater Lifeguard Service

North Palm Beach

Palm Beach

Whale Beach

Avalon Beach Bilgola Newport Bungan

Mona Vale Warriewood

Total Preventions 7524 52705 19920 20762 22537 22148 2085 35375 17512

Total Rescues 41 319 46 116 82 76 17 210 57

Ratio Preventions /

Rescues 184:1 165:1 433:1 179:1 275:1 291:1 123:1 168:1 307:1

Notes to table: o Whale Beach recorded the highest ratio of preventions / rescues followed by Warriewood o Bungan recorded the lowest ratio of preventions / rescues In comparing the above tables, more rescues are conducted on weekends when volunteer lifesavers are on duty however there is the opportunity for more preventative actions to be made as the Pittwater lifeguards have considerably higher ratios.


Page 32 of 80

2.12.2 Drowning Incidents

The drowning incidents that have occurred in the Pittwater LGA between the 1st of July 2004 and the 30th of

June 2013 are provided in Table 2.12.1. Table 2.12.1 Drowning incidents within Pittwater LGA (SLSA, 2013)

Coastal Drowning Incidents – Pittwater Local Government Area Date Location Time Mon

th Age /

Gender Ethnicity Residenti

al Status Activity Residents

Postcode

2/01/06 Palm Beach 20:30 Jan 56 / M Romanian Resident Swimming 2074

22/02/06 Avalon Beach 10:10 Feb 72 / M Australian Resident Diving/ Snorkelling

2099

26/02/06 Turrimetta Head/ Warriewood Blowhole

17:45 Feb 19 / M Australian Resident Rock Related

2121

9/11/06 Newport n/a Nov 34 / M n/a n/a Swimming 2110

24/02/08 Mona Vale 18:10 Feb 40 / M Australian Resident Swimming unknown

29/06/08 Whale Beach 7:40 Jun 58/ M Korean Resident Rock Fishing 2122

8/05/12 Mona Vale 16:40 May 65 / M n/a Resident Swimming 2071

10/03/13 Whale Beach* 8:03 Mar 29 / M Korean Resident Rock Fishing 2194

16/03/13 Turrimetta Head/ Warriewood Blowhole

10:19 Mar 23 / M Australian Resident Rock Related*

2146

10/06/13 Mona Vale* 14:38 Jun 55 / M Australian Resident Surfcraft 2101 *To be confirmed (cases still to be determined by the coroner)

Notes to table: o Every person who has drowned in Pittwater between the 1st of July 2004 and the 30th of June 2013 has

been both male and a resident of Australia (with the exception of one unknown); o 50% of these people were of Australian nationality; o 30% of the drowning incidents have occurred at Mona Vale, followed by Whale Beach and Turrimetta

Head/Warriewood Blowhole, both at 20%; o Most of the incidents occurred during the summer months (40%), followed by autumn (30%) o All drowning incidents took place at unsupervised locations and/or outside patrol hours While data surrounding incident location/time has been referenced, specific environmental conditions at the time of incidents have not been adequately assessed to identify causal factors and specific trends. This information exists and is held in raw format by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), including wave height/direction, tides, wind speed/direction, temperature, and visibility. The Bureau of Meteorology and Surf Life Saving Australia are currently undertaking a retrospective analysis of meteorological and oceanographic conditions prevalent at the time of drowning cases between 2003 and 2013 to identify trends and inform the refinement of the hazardous surf warning system. Review and assessment of this data may identify environmental trends which may encourage/discourage recreational activities, impact hazard/risk perception and risk taking behaviour, identify higher-risk conditions for types of localities, and specific ‘black spot’ locations. Dangerous surf warnings and education/awareness programs may be improved as a result.


Page 33 of 80

Figure 2.12.7 Location and distance of drowning casualty’s residence (postcode) to place of occurrence


Page 34 of 80

2.12.3 Emergency Callouts

There have been 75 emergency callouts through the Surf Rescue Emergency Response System (SRERS) from 1st

January 2008 to 30

th June 2013 in the Pittwater LGA. The SRERS involves callout teams (lifesavers/lifeguards),

including ‘after hours’ responding to emergencies that have been tasked by the Police. Of the 75 callouts, 22 successful rescues have been conducted resulting in lives saved. Relative to the NSW coastline Pittwater 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.

Notes to graph: o Mona Vale has the highest number of emergency callouts closely followed by Newport, Avalon and

Turrimetta Head/Warriewood Blowhole o North Palm Beach and Bungan Headland recorded the lowest number of emergency callouts o Emergency Callouts cover the majority of assessed locations within the Pittwater LGA

Figure 2.12.8 Surf Rescue Emergency Response by Location (SLSNSW, 2013)


Page 35 of 80

Figure 2.12.9 Surf Rescue Emergency Response by Season and Day (SLSNSW, 2013)

Notes to graph: o The majority of emergency repose callouts have occurred in summer and on weekends o Saturdays record the greatest percentage of callouts at 22%, while the least have occurred on Wednesdays

(5%) and Thursdays (7%) o More emergency responses have occurred on Mondays than Sundays, while the same numbers have been

recorded on Tuesdays Fridays and Sundays (16%) o 70% of callouts have been recorded in summer and autumn collectively, with more than one third of all

callouts occurring in each season o The months of the spring season have had the least emergency callouts

Surf Rescue Emergency Response by Season and Day Pittwater (2008 – 2013)


Page 36 of 80

Notes to graph: o Surf craft related activities have instigated the greatest number of emergency responses with 22 having

been recorded in Pittwater o The second highest activity resulting in an emergency response callout is swimming o Rock fishing (5 records) and rock related (9 records) would rank as the third highest activity resulting in

emergency response if these were considered collectively

Figure 2.12.10 Surf Rescue Emergency Response by Activity (SLSNSW, 2013)


Page 37 of 80

Notes to graph: o 53% of emergency callouts occurred during the patrol season and within patrol hours where lifeguards and

lifesavers were able to respond o 47% of emergency callouts occurred outside of the patrol season and outside patrol hours where Branch

Duty Officers and Club Callout Teams were able to respond

Treatment Options 1.2 & 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.


Page 38 of 80

2.13 Communication and Consultation Communicating with stakeholders about risk perception and tolerance is a core component of the risk assessment and management process. Stakeholder Consultation Consultation with a number of stakeholders was formally undertaken to ensure Land Managers and other key stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide local input and knowledge i.e. validation of strategies in place, risk management issues and opportunities that may exist. Local stakeholder meetings were conducted with: o Pittwater Council (Steven Lawler, Les Munn, Jeremy Wardell) o Pittwater Lifeguard Supervisor (Phi Dunn) o Members and Directors of Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches o Australian National Sports Fishing Association (Stan Konstantaras) o Recreational fishers (Alex Bellissimo) o Department of Primary Industries – NSW Fisheries (Joel Cox, George Mannah) o Pittwater, Warringah, Manly (Northern Beaches) Local Emergency Management Committee The consultation process has been aided in the following ways: o Open community forums and workshops o Print, Radio and Television media announcements of workshops and consultation o Written and verbal follow ups post workshops o Use of social media - Twitter o Web based surveys o Web based information submissions o On-site communication and distribution of flyers o On-site one-to-one surveying o Draft reports circulated to the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council Figure 2.13.1 Project Blueprint Flyer


Page 39 of 80

Consultation Workshop A public forum was held on Tuesday 17

th September 2013 at the Coastal Environment Centre in North

Narrabeen to discuss Project Blue Print and drowning prevention. This public forum was advertised in local print media and emailed to 148 pre-identified stakeholders. Pittwater lifeguards (ALS) were also formally notified and encouraged to attend. Public forums were open to any member of the public including surf lifesavers, lifeguards, fishing groups, surfing associations, emergency services personnel, Pittwater residents, etc. The public forum was attended by: o Geoff Raper, Rescue Services Director, Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches o Robert Berry, Publicity Officer, Whale Beach SLSC Consultation Survey The consultation process has also involved the introduction of two online surveys which has been useful to capture input from a wide range of key stakeholders, at local/regional level. The first survey was sent to both internal and external stakeholders. Questions focused on drowning identification and prevention. The second survey was sent to internal stakeholders only e.g. lifesavers and lifeguards. Questions focused on visitation numbers and incidents. Specific questions and answers can be referenced in Appendix F. Stakeholder communication The process of communicating risk estimates from the assessment process to decision-makers and ultimately to the public, sometimes referred to as risk education, is only one part of the communication process. In getting those affected by risk to accept risk mitigation measures, and in providing decision-makers and communities with the information they need to tolerate and deal with risks, there needs to be two-way communications that includes those affected by risk, the public, into the decision-making process. It is acknowledged that Pittwater Council meets with the Australian Lifeguard Service on a regular basis throughout the year, and with Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches and club captains twice a year at the beginning and end of the patrolling season. It is recommended that the treatment options found in this report can be addressed as part of these meetings. The Local Emergency Management Committee is an effective group on the Northern Beaches to discuss emergency management processes, opportunities and issues (including coastal). The group is made up of representatives from NSW Police, NSW Marine Area Command, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Ambulance Service, State Emergency Service, Marine Rescue, Pittwater/Warringah/Manly Councils, National Parks and Wildlife, Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches, Australian Lifeguard Service, Transport Groups, Local Government Departments (Education, Communication Services), Roads and Maritime Services, Sydney Water, Telstra, Jemina (Gas) and the Animal Emergency Committee. Australian CoastSafe presented Project Blueprint at the last Local Emergency Management Committee meeting on 7 November 2013.

Treatment Options 1.3 & 5.1 Pittwater Council should continue to meet regularly with The Australian Lifeguard Service and Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches as an effective meeting which raises safety issues and implements coastal safety strategies in the Pittwater Local Government Area. It is recommended that the treatment options found in this report be addressed as part of these meetings.


Page 40 of 80

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 46 & 47 is intended to be used for the purpose of prioritising risk mitigation strategies provided for consideration in this report. The individual components of the Action Planning Priority Index should not be considered in isolation from the total scores outlined in table 3.1.8 The information is based on modal data for peak visitation during the busiest season(s). The Action Planning Priority Index uses the following risk identification information: 1. Australian Beach Safety & Management Program (ABSAMP) Rating (Table 3.1.1) 2. Local Population Rating (LPR) (Table 3.1.3) 3. Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) (Table 3.1.5) 4. Access Rating (AR) (Table 3.1.7)


Page 41 of 80

3.1.2 Australian Beach Safety and Management Program

Table 3.1.1 ABSAMP and Indicative ratings applied to assessed locations

Location Name ABSAMP No. ABSAMP Rating ABSAMP Type

Barrenjoey Head nsw300RPa 6* Rock Platform

North Palm Beach nsw300a 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Palm Beach nsw300b 6 Transverse Bar & Rip

Little Head nsw301RPa 7* Rock Platform

Whale Beach nsw301 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens nsw301RPb 7* Rock Platform

Careel Head nsw301RPc 7* Rock Platform


nsw301RPd 7* Rock Platform

Avalon nsw302 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Little Avalon nsw302RPb 7* Rock Platform

Bilgola Headland nsw303RPa 7* Rock Platform

Bilgola nsw303 6 Transverse Bar & Rip

South Bilgola Headland nsw303RPb 6* Rock Platform

Newport nsw304 6 Transverse Bar & Rip

Bungan Headland nsw305RPa 7* Rock Platform

Bungan nsw305 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Mona Vale Headland nsw305RPb 5* Rock Platform

The Basin nsw306 3 Reflective

Mona Vale nsw307 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Warriewood nsw308 6 Transverse Bar & Rip


nsw308RPb 7* Rock Platform

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen nsw309 7 Transverse Bar & Rip

Narrabeen Head nsw309RPa 7* Rock Platform


Page 42 of 80

3.1.3 Local Population Rating

The Local Population Rating (LPR) expands on the information obtained from the Facility Visitation Rating. This additional population rating identifies the population of residents and/or non-residents located within 2km’s of a coastal location under assessment. The highest figure (resident or non-resident) will be recorded. Table 3.1.2 Local population rating descriptors

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

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

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



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

Table 3.1.3 Local population ratings applied to assessed locations

Location LPR Total

Barrenjoey Head 2

North Palm Beach 3

Palm Beach 4

Little Head 5

Whale Beach 5

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 5

Careel Head 5


5

Avalon 5

Little Avalon 5

Bilgola Headland 5

Bilgola 5

South Bilgola Headland 5

Newport 5

Bungan Headland 5

Bungan 5

Mona Vale Headland 5

The Basin 5

Mona Vale 5

Warriewood 5

Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole 5

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen 5

Narrabeen Head 5


Page 43 of 80

3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction Rating

The Human/Activity Interaction Rating (HAIR) identifies any conflicts present at the coastal environment between the number of people and activities taking place. Activities include both those in the water and those on the beach. Table 3.1.4 Human/Activity Interaction descriptors

Population (in-water)

Conflicting activities Population (on beach)

Conflicting activities

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

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

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

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

1-25 1 No conflicts reported 1 1-250 1 No conflicts reported 1 Table 3.1.5 Human/Activity Interaction ratings applied to assessed locations

Location Population (in water)

Conflict Population (on beach)

Conflict HAI Total

Barrenjoey Head 1 1 1 1 4

North Palm Beach 5 3 2 3 13

Palm Beach 5 3 3 3 14

Little Head 2 1 1 1 5

Whale Beach 5 3 2 3 13

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 1 1 1 1 4

Careel Head 1 1 1 1 4


1 1 1 1 4

Avalon 5 3 3 3 14

Little Avalon 2 2 1 1 6

Bilgola Headland 1 1 1 1 4

Bilgola 5 3 2 3 13

South Bilgola Headland 1 1 1 1 4

Newport 5 3 4 3 15

Bungan Headland 1 1 1 1 4

Bungan 5 3 1 3 12

Mona Vale Headland 1 1 1 1 4

The Basin 2 2 1 2 7

Mona Vale 5 3 4 3 15

Warriewood 5 3 2 3 13


1 1 1 2 5

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen 3 2 1 2 8

Narrabeen Head 1 1 1 1 4


Page 44 of 80

3.1.5 Access Rating

Beaches or coastal environments that have increased accessibility (i.e. near major roads, cities, public transport, car parks, boat ramps, maintained access paths etc.) increase the likelihood of users at that beach. This directly increases the level of risk of drowning and or injury. Table 3.1.6 Access rating descriptors

Table 3.1.7 Access ratings applied to assessed locations

Location Access Rating

Barrenjoey Head 3

North Palm Beach 5

Palm Beach 5

Little Head 2

Whale Beach 5

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 2

Careel Head 2


3

Avalon 5

Little Avalon 2

Bilgola Headland 2

Bilgola 5

South Bilgola Headland 3

Newport 5

Bungan Headland 2

Bungan 4

Mona Vale Headland 2

The Basin 4

Mona Vale 5

Warriewood 5

Turrimetta Head / Warriewood Blow Hole 2

Turrimetta / Little Narrabeen 3

Narrabeen Head 3

Access Rating Qualifying Description

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

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

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

public toilet, payphone, kiosk, significant roadway, parking

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

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

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

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


Page 45 of 80

3.1.6 Action Planning Priority Score

The action planning priority score provides an indicator for the overall level of risk of the location. The scores range from 0 to 60. These scores can be used to prioritise the order in which risk treatments described in the next section of this report are implemented. Table 3.1.8 Summary of action planning priority calculations for each assessed location

Location

AMSAMP X 2

(Out of 20)

Population Support

X 2 (Out of 10)

Human Activity/

Interaction (Out of 20)

Access X 2

(Out of 10)

Total Score

(Out of 60)

Barrenjoey Head 12 4 4 6 26

North Palm Beach 14 6 13 10 43

Palm Beach 12 8 14 10 44

Little Head 14 10 5 4 33

Whale Beach 14 10 13 10 47

Dolphin Bay / The Ovens 14 10 4 4 32

Careel Head 14 10 4 4 32


14 10 4 6

34

Avalon 14 10 14 10 48

Little Avalon 14 10 6 4 34

Bilgola Headland 14 10 4 4 32

Bilgola 12 10 13 10 45

South Bilgola Headland 12 10 4 6 32

Newport 12 10 15 10 47

Bungan Headland 14 10 4 4 32

Bungan 14 10 12 8 44

Mona Vale Headland 10 10 4 4 28

The Basin 6 10 7 8 31

Mona Vale 14 10 15 10 49

Warriewood 12 10 13 10 45


14 10 5 4

33


14 10 8 6

38

Narrabeen Head 14 10 4 6 34

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


Page 46 of 80

Table 3.1.9 Action Planning Priority scores for assessed locations

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

1

Mona Vale

49

High – this location should be considered as

a priority for implementation of identified

risk treatment options

2

Avalon

48




3

Newport

47




3

Whale Beach

47




5

Warriewood

45




5

Bilgola

45




7

Palm Beach

44




7

Bungan

44




9

North Palm Beach

43




10

Turrimetta / Little

Narrabeen

38

Medium – this location should be

considered for implementation of identified

risk treatment options after locations rated

as high or as funding becomes available

11

Bangalley Head / St

Michaels Cave

34





11

Little Avalon

34





11

Narrabeen Head

34





14

Turrimetta

Head/Warriewood

Blowhole

33





14

Little Head

33






Page 47 of 80

Priority

Priority location

Priority Action & Total Score

Comments

16

Dolphin Bay/The Ovens

32





16

Careel Head

32





16

Bilgola Headland

32





16

South Bilgola Headland

32





16

Bungan Headland

32





21

The Basin

31





22

Mona Vale Headland

28

Low – this location should be considered for

implementation of identified risk treatment

options after locations rated as medium or

as funding becomes available

23

Barrenjoey Head

26

Low – this location should be considered for

implementation of identified risk treatment

options after locations rated as medium or

as funding becomes available

Key to Action

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

Treatment Options 1.4 & 2.2 As funding becomes available, treatment options outlined in this report should be implemented using a staged/prioritisation approach, based on evidence.


Page 48 of 80

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 plan to adopt the most appropriate treatments specific to their organisations capabilities and in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The principal risk treatments are outlined on the following pages.


Page 49 of 80

3.2.3 Education and Awareness Programs

Public education and awareness programs are a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy, and target both the pre-arrival and early arrival periods (prior to hazard exposure). Key factors pertaining to effective education and awareness programs include: o Consistency in safety messaging (elimination of confusing/unclear or dissipative information) o Consistency in the method of provision (ongoing information provided at regular locations/times) o Longevity in the provision of information (ongoing, not a one-off)

Existing Controls:

During the course of the assessment and throughout the consultation process, Australian CoastSafe were made aware of various beach safety information sources and education and awareness programs that are currently in place to educate and inform the public at a local level. These programs as well as any other initiatives within the Pittwater LGA should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported by Land Managers and key stakeholder groups. Information sources and initiatives include: Pittwater Council Website: The Pittwater Council website provides information on safety at the beach, including general tips for swimmers as well as facts about aquatic hazards such as rips and waves (Pittwater Council, 2013). Lifeguard and life saving patrol times and locations are also provided.

Figure 3.2.1 Beach safety information on the Pittwater Council Website (Pittwater Council, 2013)


Page 50 of 80

The Coastal Environment Centre: The Coastal Environment Centre is an educational facility for schools and the community, which aims to raise awareness of local ecosystems, management and sustainability issues particularly in the coastal zone. Programs include outdoor components such as rock platform investigations, and practical beach and bush ecology lessons. The Coastal Ambassadors Program was developed by the Coastal Environment Centre in partnership with Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches. The program is designed to educate volunteer surf life savers on Sydney’s Northern Beaches about the dynamics of their working environment, and to demonstrate leadership in protecting the coastal environment (Coastal Environment Centre, 2013). Community Education: Surf Educate Australia (SEA): SEA is a provider of surf education and surfing programs for schools and the general community. All programs include important surf education and water safety messages that help save lives and provide a healthy and active learning experience. (Surf Education Australia, 2013). Manly Surf School: Manly Surf School offers a range of surf safety, surf education, surfboard riding, body surfing and body board programs for tourists, school groups, corporate groups and any member of the public. In relation to the Manly LGA these programs are organised along the Queenscliff to Manly stretch (Manly Surf School, 2013). Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches: The Sydney Northern Beaches branch of Surf Life Saving (SLSSNB) conducts a Surf Life Saving School aimed at educating school aged children about surf safety and survival through a series of water based and classroom programs (SLSSNB, 2013). Within the Northern Beaches 15,159 students participated in beach programs and presentations last financial year (2012/13).

Figure 3.2.2 surf safety presentation at Newport Beach (Photo courtesy of Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches)

School Programs – Western Sydney One of the key target groups for surf safety education includes people residing in western Sydney. Through the Water Safety Black Spot Fund Wollongong Council and Surf Life Saving NSW are currently delivering surf education to schools in south west Sydney. To date this program has received positive feedback and will aim to educate key target groups so they are informed about the hazards and risks when using the coastline. This program will be expanded next year to include schools in the areas of north west Sydney. Recreational Fishing Alliance: The Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW has produced the Safe Fishing website, which also provides multilingual information and resources to promote safer recreational rock fishing (Recreational Fishing


Page 51 of 80

Alliance, 2011). Part of this initiative has been the provision of multilingual flyers and DVDs to promote rock fishing safety. Education days are also organised for rock fishers to provide educational learning and fishing techniques that will provide rock fishers with more information to make an informed decision about where they decide to fish as well as communicating key safety messages. Rip Current Awareness Over the past few years, surf life saving clubs have participated in raising awareness about rip currents through an educational and visual demonstration. As part of these scheduled events, coloured dye is released by club members at various beaches around Australia to show the speed and distance of which a rip current can flow. Surf Life Saving Australia can provide the necessary resources to branches and clubs upon request. Media: Throughout the surf life saving season, the Manly Daily play a key role in delivering key safety messages as well as informing the public when dangerous surf warnings are in place.

Recommended Controls:

Educational Messages: Land Managers should continue to provide public education/awareness programs which include standardised key safety messages and align/reference to peak coastal water safety agency websites such as: NSW Water Safety Advisory Council: http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/beach-safety/ Together with the following referenced websites of the NSW Water Safety Advisory Council for beach safety: o BeachSafe: www.beachsafe.org.au o Rip Currents: www.ripcurrents.com.au The Water Safety Advisory Council has recently established the Consistent Messaging Sub Group with the aim of standardising key safety messages for water safety. One such opportunity includes displaying posters which promote water safety at public amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access. The Coastal Environment Centre (Pittwater Council) and CoastCare have designed and implemented signs with information about coastal processes at the following beaches in Pittwater: o Palm Beach o Newport o Mona Vale o Warriewood

Figure 3.2.3 Recreational Fishing Alliance rock fishing school (Photo courtesy of NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance)

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

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

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


Page 52 of 80

Educational posters, signage and information boards should not be placed in positions where they would compete with formal aquatic and recreational safety signage which is usually placed around formal access points and high traffic areas (see Section 3.2.4, Safety Signage). Education Collateral: The Pittwater LGA is a popular destination for day trippers and overnight visitors, especially through the school holiday periods. The distribution of surf safety collateral (e.g. brochures and flyers) 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. There is also the opportunity for the Ministry of Police and Emergency Services to work with Sydney Buses and Forest Coach Lines to provide surf safety collateral on popular bus routes such as the L90/L88 (Central Station, City to Palm Beach) and the 197 (Macquarie Station – Via Gordon to Mona Vale) during the summer school holiday period. Personal Protective Equipment: Water safety agencies actively promote the use of lifejackets for fisherman. Educational and awareness programs in the Pittwater LGA should also promote and encourage fisherman and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets. This could also be included in school based education programs, reinforcing the message in children. The NSW Ministry for Police and Emergency Services have released a discussion paper titled Wearing of Lifejackets by Rock Fishers (2013). This paper has proposed six options for the wearing of lifejackets in NSW Option One Major coordinated education campaigns Option Two Maintain voluntary wearing of lifejackets Option Three Mandatory wearing of lifejackets in high risk locations or high risk conditions Option Four Wearing of lifejackets in certain situations Option Five Trial mandatory wearing of lifejackets for a certain time period in a certain location Option Six Mandatory wearing of lifejackets Rockfishing Websites During the course of the assessment, Australian CoastSafe were made aware that non English speaking websites (e.g. Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese etc.) exist amongst ethnic groups which promote rock fishing specifically in the Pittwater LGA. Further investigation of these websites could provide an opportunity to engage a targeted educational campaign to specific user groups. Examples include: o http://waverockfishing.com/about.htm

o http://ameblo.jp/japanese-fishing-sydney/

Figure 3.2.4: Korean website promoting rock fishing (Wave Rock, 2006)

http://waverockfishing.com/about.htm

http://ameblo.jp/japanese-fishing-sydney/


Page 53 of 80

Education Summary: The following table outlines a range of education and awareness programs that can be adopted by Land Managers within the Pittwater LGA. Table 3.2.1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all education and awareness programs available to land managers, it is intended to provide examples of a range of programs that are available and delivered within the context of coastal aquatic safety. Land managers are not limited to the organisations listed in the table below, however they should ensure that any provider engaged to act on their behalf is adequately licensed, qualified and insured. Table 3.2.1 Examples of education and awareness programs

Program Target audience Location Delivery (Who)

School based water safety programs

Local primary and high school students

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Coastal Accommodation Network

Tourists, visitors and migrants (TVM)

All locations Peak water safety agencies

Local Media

Residents and TVM All locations Local media outlets

Learn to Swim / Swim and Survive

Young Children All locations Royal Life Saving Society Australia

Learn to Swim All ages All Locations AustSwim accredited swim schools

Nippers Local children All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Ed. All ages All locations Surf Life Saving NSW

Surf Groms Local children All locations Surfing NSW

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

Kids Academy of Surf (KAOS)

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

School surfing and surf education

Local children All locations Surf Educate Australia

Corp Surf 18 years + All locations Surf Educate Australia

Get hooked – it’s fun to fish

Schools All locations NSW DPI (Fisheries)

Rock fishing safety information

Rock fishers

Rock platforms

Peak water safety agencies

Boating safety information

Boaters Pittwater RMS

QR codes

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

All locations Pittwater Council


Page 54 of 80

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.

Treatment Options 1.5 & 2.3 Education and awareness programs within the Pittwater Local Government Area should continue to be implemented, reviewed and supported.

Treatment Options 1.6 & 2.4 Education and awareness programs should include standardised key safety messages which are recognised by the aquatic industry (e.g. NSW Water Safety website http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/)

Treatment Option 1.7 Water safety information (e.g. posters) should be strategically placed at amenity blocks and visitor information displays directly located around coastal beach access.

Treatment Options 1.8 & 2.5 Continue to promote and encourage rock fishermen and recreational boaters to wear lifejackets.

Treatment Options 1.9 & 3.1 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 and flyers) to all coastal accommodation providers in the Pittwater Local Government Area.

Treatment Options 3.2 Work with Sydney Buses and Forest Coach Lines with the aim of providing surf safety collateral on board popular bus routes such as the L90/L88 (Central Station, City to Palm Beach) and the 197 (Macquarie Station – Via Gordon to Mona Vale) during the summer school holiday period. (p. 54)Error! Reference source not found.

Treatment Option 3.3 Identify the relevant user groups and related resources/websites (including multilingual) that promote rock fishing in the Pittwater Local Government Area, and target safety messaging to those groups/resources. This research may also provide the opportunity for targeted education campaigns.

Figure 3.2.1 Don’t Put Your Life on the Line™

Figure 3.2.2 Survive a rip current

Figure 3.2.3 Beach safety for tourists/migrants

Figure 3.2.4 Swim between the flags


Page 55 of 80

3.2.4 Safety Signage

Safety Signage is a fundamental component of any drowning prevention strategy and targets the in-transit and on-arrival periods pertaining to a person/s arriving at a hazardous location. Key factors relating to effective safety signage include: o a risk assessment process used in the identification of priority information to display o alignment to Australian Standards for signage content (ASNZ2416:2010) o consistency in signage layout/display (Australian Water Safety Council, 2013) o consistency in the appropriate positioning of signage, to maximise exposure to the public prior to arriving

in a hazardous location, with the minimum number of signs 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 the implementation and maintenance costs related to signage and a reduction in the visual pollution of a site.

Existing Controls:

Existing safety signage managed by Pittwater Council includes: o warning signage at rock pool locations o warning signage at cliff edge locations o warning signage at park reserves o warning signage at high risk locations such as Warriewood Blowhole o warning signage at rock fall locations o coastal environment signage Existing safety signage (temporary) is also in place when lifesavers and lifeguards are on duty. These signs are placed in the general vicinity of the flagged area.

Figure 3.2.5 example warning signage at rock pools managed by Pittwater Council

Figure 3.2.6 example warning signage at rock falls


Page 56 of 80

Figure 3.2.7 example warning signage at high risk locations in Pittwater

Figure 3.2.8 example coastal environmental signage in Pittwater

Figure 3.2.10 example warning signage at reserves managed by Pittwater Council

Figure 3.2.10 Temporary Pittwater Lifeguard Sign


Page 57 of 80

Recommended Controls: An option for improvement, Pittwater Council could implement a strategy of consistent aquatic and recreational safety signage at all formalised access points in the assessed area Appendix A (see below information under ‘In Progress’). Level 2 Car Park Signs (Primary access sign) Land managers have the option to place this type of signage at the main entrance/car park to an aquatic environment. The recommended content includes location name, emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information. See Figure 3.2.11 for an example. Level 3 Access Signs (Secondary access sign) Land managers can place this type of sign at access points or pathways that lead to the aquatic environment (beach, rock pool or rock platform). Level 3 access signs follow the same principles as those of Level 2 car park signs and typically display the location name, emergency contact information, safety hazards/prohibitions and lifesaving/lifeguard service information. The below signs are examples of signs at an access points in the Byron Bay LGA.

In Progress: Pittwater Council is currently in the process of implementing aquatic safety signage in line with the Standard - AS/NZS 2416.1:2010 at every beach in the LGA. New signage implemented by Pittwater Council is consistent with key treatment options in this report with respect to signage. The authors may hold slightly different opinions regarding specific symbols used on signage, however, so long as the symbols used on those signs are supported by Pittwater Council’s internal risk assessment processes these signs should be defensible if required. Symbols may be update through natural attrition or as Council sees fit.

Figure 3.2.11 Example level two car park sign

Figure 3.2.12 example signage at a beach access point in Byron Bay


Page 58 of 80

Table 3.2.2 Summary table of aquatic and recreational signage recommendations for the Pittwater LGA

Combined Beach Locations

Existing Signs

Possible Consolidation/

Remove

Proposed Level 2

Proposed Level 3

Proposed Level 4

Total Proposed

Signs

Net Signage

Barrenjoey Head 20 1 0 0 1 1 0

North Palm Beach

36 15 2 17 0 19 4

Palm Beach 23 11 4 1 1 6 -5

Little Head 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Whale Beach 17 9 3 2 2 7 -2


2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Careel Head 2 0 0 0 0 0 0


45 0 0 1 0 1 1

Avalon 33 6 2 3 1 6 0

Little Avalon 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Bilgola Headland 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bilgola 17 5 1 2 1 4 -1


7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Newport 47 21 1 11 2 14 -7

Bungan Headland

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bungan 18 3 0 2 1 3 0

Mona Vale Headland

8 1 0 0 1 1 0

The Basin 10 4 0 3 0 3 -1

Mona Vale 37 12 0 10 1 11 -1

Warriewood 15 3 1 4 1 6 2


33 0 0 0 0 0 0


16 3 0 2 1 1 -1

Narrabeen Head 28 0 0 1 0 1 1

Totals 420 94 14 59 14 85 -9

Note: Net signage = proposed signage minus consolidated signage. For example 85 signs have been proposed in the Pittwater LGA however 94 existing signs have the opportunity to be consolidated and/or removed, leaving a net reduction in overall signage of negative 9 signs. (Note: see previous page about the information ‘in progress’). When implementing future signage, the following points are recommended: 1. Safety signs as recommended in this report should meet Australian Standard ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water

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

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

a) Location name and emergency marker (if/when applicable) or street address b) Hazards and warnings within the designated area


Page 59 of 80

c) Safety information or general location/area details d) Regulations e) Facility / Land Manager

3. Safety signs should meet the size/height/placement specifications outlined in ‘AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 Water

safety signs and beach safety flags’.

4. ‘Diamond’ hazard symbols should be utilised (not triangle). Context: AS/NZS 2416.3:2010 provides for the use of either ‘diamond’ or ‘triangle’ hazard symbols. For consistency with existing signage and across local government areas the more effective diamond symbols should be utilised.

5. Effective placement of aquatic and recreational safety signage in a public reserve cannot be underestimated. Location, height and existing visual distractions are major factors which contribute to the effectiveness of a sign when installed.

6. Signs positioned in car parks should be placed central to the parking area and where parked vehicles will not obscure the sign.

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

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

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

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 Temporary individual hazard signs may be used where a hazard is localised, has been identified at a level of risk that warrants a sign posting and is not permanent in nature. Temporary hazards signs can be utilised in the following ways: 1. Where there is a higher risk of injury from temporary hazards such as beach erosion, dangerous access and

debris.

2. Where a hazard may exist at a patrolled beach either side of the flags (occurs at some locations)

3. When the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) release a dangerous surf warning once the swell reaches a certain height and wave period. Dangerous surf warnings will appear on the official BOM weather forecast.


Page 60 of 80

Treatment Option 1.10 & 2.6 Standardised water safety signage that aligns to Australian standards and best-practice ‘style’ should be implemented at the locations listed in ‘Appendix A’. This may include the maintenance and upgrade of existing signage through planned works schedules, the consolidation of multiple existing signs into a single sign (less signs) or the removal of unnecessary signage.

Figure 3.2.13 Example of temporary signage


Page 61 of 80

3.2.5 Emergency Marker System

When an incident occurs at a specific street address, it is relatively simple for emergency services to identify the location of the caller/incident. However, when an incident occurs at locations such as open-space parkland, walking trails, beaches or rock platforms (where no cross-street or other reference point is available) it can delay the identification of a location and the subsequent emergency service response. Emergency location markers enable triple zero call takers to immediately and accurately verify the location of an emergency triple zero call. Figure 3.2.14 provides an example of how an emergency marker sign might look.

Emergency markers display a unique number to a specific location, most commonly on existing access/safety signage. These emergency marker displays could be a sticker placed over already existing signage. For an emergency marker system to be effective, a standardised state-wide program is required, that engages Police and other emergency service CAD systems and land management authority signage plans. No current program exists in NSW. Some locations in NSW have local emergency marker systems in place, where current signage displays a numbering code at some locations (see Figure 3.2.15). 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 currently working with key government departments and emergency services to develop a best practice emergency marker system which can be rolled out on a state-wide basis in the near future.

Treatment Option 3.4 With guidance from the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services and Lands and Property Information, a state aligned emergency marker system at all identified access locations should be considered.

Figure 3.2.14 example emergency marker sign

Figure 3.2.15 existing emergency marker sign at Kingscliff


Page 62 of 80

3.2.6 Access Infrastructure and Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs

The way the coast is accessed is a significant factor in the management of coastal risk. While preventing public access/use to the coastal environment is not desired, a number of options exist to minimise the risks associated with the access way itself and the hazards that may be encountered on the coast (via that access way). In reference to the assessment process, access points have been broken down into formal (defined), and informal (undefined) access. Access issues are interrelated to other risk management initiatives/options such as water safety signage, emergency access numbering/reporting, supervision (lifeguard) information and public rescue equipment. An effective access plan for an area may optimise the effectiveness and efficiency of other initiatives. Formal Access The majority of formal access tracks in the Pittwater LGA are well maintained. Periodic inspections take place due to vegetation overgrowth, degraded footings and unattached fence posts. Formal, well maintained access ways are effective in promoting and facilitating the use of a generally safer ‘track’, exposing people to the relevant safety signage/information, reducing the quantity of signage required and enhancing emergency access, reporting and location identification. Informal Access A number of informal access tracks also exist. Informal access ways may create higher risk through use (uneven ground/hazards), may expose people to dangerous locations (cliffs/unstable and uneven surfaces), may require duplicate/multiple signage (inefficient/costly) and may make emergency location reporting difficult (location awareness).

Options for formalising, redirecting or consolidating informal access use may include man-made barriers, vegetation growth and fencing. It is noted that for some locations and situations it may be difficult to formalise access and/or restrict the use of informal access. Private Access There are a number of private access points in the Pittwater LGA where residents have direct coastal access. The majority of these access points lead to unpatrolled sections of the coastline and the experience and local knowledge of beach safety issues can vary with residents. Private access can be monitored by recording the number of rescues, preventions and major incidents that may occur at these locations. Emergency Vehicle Access Access for emergency vehicles is of vital importance during emergency incidents for ease of access and quick response. These locations have been included in Appendix A.

Figure 3.2.16 Formal access at Mona Vale

Figure 3.2.17 Informal access at Barrenjoey Head


Page 63 of 80

Table 3.2.3 Access Provision within assessed locations in PIttwater

Location Open

Access

Formal

Pedestrian

Vehicle

Access

Informal

Pedestrian

Private

Access

Total

Access

Possible

Redirection

Net

Access

Barrenjoey Head

0 3 1 5 0 9 1 8

North Palm Beach

2 15 8 1 0 26 0 26

Palm Beach 4 3 1 0 1 9 0 9

Little Head 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2

Whale Beach 3 3 3 0 2 11 0 11


0 0 0 1 2 3 0 3

Careel Head 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1


0 2 0 1 0 3 0 3

Avalon 1 6 0 1 1 9 0 9

Little Avalon 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1

Bilgola Headland

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bilgola 0 3 1 0 1 5 0 5


0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

Newport 1 13 1 1 1 17 0 17

Bungan Headland

0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2

Bungan 0 2 1 0 2 5 0 5

Mona Vale Headland

0 2 2 0 0 4 0 4

The Basin 0 4 1 0 2 7 0 7

Mona Vale 0 10 3 0 0 13 0 13

Warriewood 1 8 1 1 0 11 0 11


0 2 1 4 0 7 1 6


0 2 1 0 0 3 0 3

Narrabeen Head 0 2 3 0 1 6 0 6

12 79 28 24 13 156 3 153

Note: Net Access = the total of all access types minus consolidated/redirected access. For example, even though 156 access tracks have been located in the Pittwater LGA, 3 of these access paths have the opportunity to be redirected or consolidated, leaving a net access of 153.

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

Treatment Options 1.12 & 2.8 Informal access paths identified in ‘Appendix A’ should be considered for redirection or consolidation, in order to promote/facilitate the use of formal access.


Page 64 of 80

3.2.7 Public Rescue Equipment

The table below provides an overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) currently in or available for use in Australia. Table 3.2.4 An overview of Public Rescue Equipment (PRE) (Bradstreet, et al., 2012)

PRE Type Morphology of current

installations

Advantages Disadvantages Extensive Training Required

Recommended uses in NSW

Rescue Tube Sandy beaches and

rock pools

Can be thrown short distances

Requires the rescuer to enter the water

themselves

Yes None

Throw Bag Not in use Distance of deployment

Risk of theft, risk of using the line to

return the patient towards the rocks, not strong/tough

enough to be resilient from

environmental conditions

No May be used on a case by case basis.

Further

effectiveness investigation

required.

Throw Sticks (Stormy

grenades)

Personal device

(mobile)

Mobility – easily deployed to

incident locations

Effective mid-range (thrown)

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

first

No Yes. Relevant personnel /staff

(emergency services/SLS

/rangers)

Life Ring (Angel ring)

Steep rampart rock

platforms

Ease of use. Rugged design.

Awareness campaign

established.

Single use device. Distance of

deployment. Requires rescuer to

approach the platform edge.

Weight.

No Steep (>1:1) rampart rock

platforms

Silent Sentry Sloping platforms

EPIRB unit immediately alerts

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

rescuer at a safer distance

EPIRB units were vulnerable to

vandalism and disabled

No Sloping (<1:1) rampart rock

platforms.

Recommended redesign to

remove EPIRB housing.

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).

“ANSA NSW will maintain contact with the local clubs, NSW Government agencies and individuals who have installed or agreed to manage the angel rings and continue communication to ensure that management targets are met. As a minimum ANSA NSW or its nominated management team must complete a visual check at least every 2 months to determine the rings status.” (ANSA, 2013)

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


Page 65 of 80

The Australian National Sportsfishing Association recently received additional funding for the expansion and maintenance of the Angel Ring Project through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust. There are currently 4 life rings situated in the Pittwater LGA and it is currently the responsibility of the Manly Sports Fishing Club who are aligned to the Australian National Sportsfishing Association to regularly check and maintain these life rings. Proposed life ring locations are provided in Table 3.2.5 and further information can be found in Appendix C. Table 3.2.5 Proposed life ring locations

Priority Location

1 Dolphin Bay – The Ovens

2 Careel Head

3 Turrimetta Head/ Warriewood Blowhole

4 Mona Vale Rock Pool

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 The Pittwater LGA also has in place public rescue tubes along the coastline. During the course of the assessment, Australian CoastSafe were made aware that on numerous occasions the public rescue tubes have been used to conduct rescues when lifesavers and lifeguards are not on duty, although no recorded data exists. The rescue tubes are continually checked and maintained by the Pittwater Lifeguard Supervisor. Existing rescue tube locations can be found in Appendix C.

In 2012, the NSW Department of Primary Industries commissioned a report titled a Research Review of Rock Fishing Safety in New South Wales (Bradstreet et al., 2012). The extract below is taken from pages 48 – 49 of this report and relates to the use of rescue tubes as items of public rescue equipment.

Rescue tubes are presently used in a small number of coastal council areas in NSW, generally around sandy beaches and rock pools. Their use is currently limited to sandy beaches and rock pools. The use of a rescue tube as public rescue equipment is considered inappropriate for four reasons:

1. The use of the equipment could not be adequately taught to the rescuer in under 10 seconds

Figure 3.2.18 Public rescue tube in place at Newport Beach


Page 66 of 80

preferably in pictures; 2. There is significant aquatic ability and skill required to use a rescue tube effectively; and 3. The effective use of the equipment requires the rescuer to enter the water, assuming a degree of

aquatic skill and exposing the rescuer to further risk 4. The use of swimming fins is highly recommended with a rescue tube.

An argument for the use of rescue tubes is related to human nature, and that loved ones will enter the water to conduct a rescue, and any flotation that can be provided is beneficial. This topic, for the case of the child drowning victim, is discussed in a paper by Pearn and Franklin, who term the process of the rescuer drowning following a rescue as aquatic victim-instead-of-rescuer (AVIR) syndrome. The results of this study advocate both an increase in basic rescue skills (aquatic skill development) and use of non contact rescues. The Royal National Lifeboat Association (RNLI) also uses rescue tubes for trained lifeguards, but the equipment is not recommended for use on beaches, rocky coasts, tidal inlets, estuaries, or man-made coasts. The descriptions of the geomorphology included in the RNLI guide are consistent with the descriptions included in the SLSA Public Safety and Aquatic Rescue Manual learners guide, therefore the guideline has been considered transferrable to the Australian environment. Training provided to lifesavers and lifeguards in the use of rescue tubes strongly recommends the use of swim fins (flippers) to aid the effectiveness and speed with of aided and unaided rescues. This has also been displayed through scientific research. It has been noted by stakeholders that storage of swim fins in situ as a piece of public rescue equipment would be impossible due to theft, and inability to provide a variety of sizes to suit different rescuer sizes. The RNLI guide also states that “PRE is not generally suitable for shallow shelving beaches (...) PRE has proven to be ineffective in areas where an adult is able to stand at any point within 25m of the shoreline and the gradient of the seabed or the beach is low and gentle”. In the case where PRE is going to be installed, RNLI recommend small-medium life rings are used. Action Item 1.17: Based on the available evidence, rescue tubes are not recommended for use as PRE.

However, local lifeguards provided anecdotal evidence of rescue tubes being used to conduct a number of rescues within the Pittwater LGA and were not aware of any incidents in which the use of rescue tubes by members of the public to perform a rescue resulted in the rescuer requiring assistance or suffering injury as a result of attempting the rescue. Through the course of consultation with local lifeguards they have strongly advocated for an expansion of the publically available rescue tube program. Additional locations that have been requested by lifeguards include: o North Palm Beach o North Newport o Cooks Terrace o Warriewood North o Little Narrabeen


Page 67 of 80

Rescue Tube Messaging: The Australian Government, through the Attorney-General’s Department are currently running a national Triple Zero (000) campaign which aims to build awareness of the Triple Zero (000) number and educate the community about when to use the number. The campaign serves to reinforce to members of the public their responsibilities when calling the Triple Zero (000) emergency number both in nominating the required emergency service and identifying the location they are calling from. The campaign uses the internet, newspapers, radio and television to promote messages of Triple Zero (000). In addition, elements of the campaign have been translated to reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities throughout Australia. “Triple Zero (000) should not be referred to as 'Triple Oh', as this can cause confusion and could result in people incorrectly dialling 666 on some alpha-numeric keypads. If dialled within Australia, emergency calls to 666 will not be re-routed to Triple Zero (000)” (Australian Government, Attorney's-General Department, 2012). Therefore, all rescue tube boxes should reflect this advice and an example graphic is one option for implementation.

Treatment Option 3.5 Explore the means to fund the expansion and continued maintenance of the ‘Angel Ring Project’ in consultation with the Australian National Sports Fishing Association (NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW at the locations outlined in ‘Appendix C’. Final positioning should be determined by these fishing associations.

Treatment Option 1.13 All rescue tube boxes should be clearly identified with the following text: “Emergency Rescue Equipment – Dial Triple Zero (000). Existing rescue tube locations can be found in ‘Appendix C’.

Figure 3.2.19 Example graphic of what the rescue tube boxes could look like


Page 68 of 80

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 location or attractiveness. The primary decision to be made by land managers before establishing a lifesaving/lifeguard service is to determine which areas will be patrolled or unpatrolled. A patrolled beach is one at which a trained lifesaver and/or lifeguard is stationed during prescribed times and designated by the flying of red and yellow flags. A mobile lifesaver/lifeguard or lifeguard vehicle that periodically visits or checks a location may be effective as a proactive education initiative but should not be considered as providing a patrolled swimming location. Uncertainties may exist when deciding whether supervision at a given location is appropriate, since: o The provision of a service may encourage attendance at a non-suitable location, such as when the beach

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

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

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

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

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

are most needed. o Surveillance cameras. o No service, but the provision of safety signs and controlled access. Lifesaving Service Level Calculator The lifesaving service level calculator takes into consideration the ABSAMP beach hazard ratings, visitation levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history and remoteness of location to determine best practice lifesaving service levels. The first decision that needs to be made by a Land Manager is whether or not a location should be patrolled. The Action Planning Priority Index should be used to guide decision making on which locations are of greater risk and therefore a higher priority for a lifesaving service. The lifesaving service level calculations should not be used in isolation to determine whether or not a lifesaving service should be provided, however once a decision has been made to provide a service the calculations should be referred to for guidance on the minimum service level required. A thorough lifesaving service level analysis has been completed and calculations for all beaches can be found in Appendix G. International Best Practice The International Life Saving Federation (ILSF) is the peak body for lifeguard and water safety organisations internationally. 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

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


Page 69 of 80

o Assistance in times of need As such the lifeguards should be readily distinguishable against the many people and colours they may be wearing while in, on or around these aquatic environments. The red and yellow colours have been used by a number of International Lifesaving Member Federations for many years to such an extent and with much success that red and yellow has become synonymous with lifesavers and lifeguards in these countries. Red and yellow flags: The use of red & yellow feathered flags is undertaken to provide the maximum visual effect to identify a designated swimming area. The flags used in the Pittwater LGA comply with (AS/NZS 2416.2:2010). Lifeguard Towers/Shelters: Lifeguard towers/shelters are currently used by lifeguards at different locations in NSW and are one option to improve surveillance of an area. If volunteer patrols have sufficient resources, there is the opportunity for lifesavers to utilise these towers as part of their normal patrolling duties. Further discussion about the use and location of lifeguard towers could be conducted with Pittwater Council, the Australian Lifeguard Service and Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches. Volunteer Lifesaving Service Below are the patrol dates and hours that will be covered during the 2013/2014 season over weekends and public holidays. Table 3.2.6 Volunteer Lifesaving Services in the Pittwater LGA

Club Patrol Dates Saturdays Sundays / Public

Holidays

North Palm Beach

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

Palm Beach

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

Whale Beach

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

Avalon Beach

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm


Page 70 of 80

Bilgola

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

Newport

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

Bungan

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 10am - 3pm 10am - 3pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 10am - 3pm 10am - 3pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 10am - 3pm 10am - 3pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 10am - 3pm 10am - 3pm

Mona Vale

21/09/2013 to 07/10/2013 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

12/10/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 30/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

05/04/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4:30pm 9am - 4:30pm

Warriewood

21/09/2013 to 27/10/2013 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

02/11/2013 to 15/12/2013 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

21/12/2013 to 27/01/2014 9am - 6pm 9am - 6pm

01/02/2014 to 09/03/2014 9am - 5pm 9am - 5pm

15/03/2014 to 27/04/2014 9am - 4pm 9am - 4pm

Regular roving patrols are also encouraged as part of SLSNSW Standard Operating Procedures and are incorporated into a Clubs Patrol Operation Manual. Roving patrols can be conducted by ATV, IRB/RWC or walking and should continue to be conducted at the following locations throughout a patrol o North Palm Beach SLSC: Barrenjoey Head to Black Rock o Palm Beach SLSC: Black Rock to Palm Beach Pool o Whale Beach SLSC: Little Head to Dolphin Bay/The Ovens o Avalon SLSC: North end of beach to Little Avalon o Bilgola SLSC: North end of beach to South Bilgola Headland o Newport SLSC: North end of beach to Newport Pool o Mona Vale SLSC: Bungan Headland to Mona Vale Headland o Warriewood SLSC: Cooks Terrace to Warriewood Blowhole

It is also acknowledged that the Surf Life Saving Northern Beaches Branch through its support services already conducts roving patrols at unpatrolled locations (weekends and public holidays). The Branch has 2 RWCs that operates in the Pittwater LGA and the coverage area of each is outlined below: o Zone 1: Barrenjoey Head to Avalon o Zone 2: Newport to Warriewood As part of this roving patrol there is the opportunity to formally monitor and provide preventative education to rock fishers who may be fishing in dangerous conditions. RWC operators can also record rock fisher numbers at rock platforms and report this information back to Surf Life Saving SurfCom and/or the local lifesavers at the


Page 71 of 80

nearest patrolled location. These statistics will be beneficial as there is currently no formal methodology to record rock fisher numbers along the coast of Pittwater LGA. These statistics can then provide evidence for future drowning prevention treatments. The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter is also a vital service that operates along the coastline of the Pittwater LGA. For emergency response, this service is activated through the surf rescue emergency response system, mostly outside of patrol hours. The service also conducts regular roving patrols on weekends, looking out for swimmers, surfcraft users, rockfishermen and boaters who may be in need of assistance as well as scanning for dangerous marine life that may be around patrolled locations. Paid Lifeguard Service - Existing Below are the patrol dates and hours that will be covered during the 2013/2014 season over weekdays through the Australian Lifeguard Service. Table 3.2.7 Paid Lifeguard Services in the Pittwater LGA

Service Location/Beach

Period of Service Dates

North Palm* Three Months Monday 2 December 2013 – Friday 28 February 2014

Palm Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Whale Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Avalon Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Bilgola Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Newport Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Bungan December/January NSW School Holidays

Monday 23 December 2013 – Tuesday 28 January 2014

Mona Vale Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

Warriewood Seven Months Monday 23 September 2013 – Thursday 24 April 2014

*The Australian Lifeguard Service at North Palm Beach has recently been extended from 6 weeks to 3 months. Notes to table: o Lifeguards will patrol 9.00am to 5.00pm during Off Peak periods o Lifeguards will patrol 9.00am to 6.00pm during Peak periods (December, January, February) o All locations have two lifeguards on duty. Palm Beach has three lifeguards over Christmas Roving patrols can also be conducted by RWC at Palm Beach, Newport and Warriewood. These locations are also central for emergency response to nearby locations.


Page 72 of 80

Paid Lifeguard Service - Proposed North Palm Beach: North Palm Beach is one of two currently patrolled beaches where there is no supervision during the spring and autumn school holiday period. Funding was however recently granted to extend the Australian Lifeguard Service at North Palm Beach from six weeks to three months. As future funding becomes available Pittwater Council could explore the means to extend this service for an additional four weeks to cover the spring and autumn school holiday period. As outlined in Appendix G, the Lifesaving Service Level Calculator for North Palm Beach suggests that the scores recorded indicate that the current service level provided is adequate for the summer months however the seasons of spring and autumn generated a lifesaving service level score of twenty (20) suggesting that two (2) lifeguards should provide coverage over spring and autumn. The most appropriate coverage during these periods would be over the school holidays. Tourists are also attracted to North Palm Beach, as according to many international tourists and domestic travellers, this location is known as ‘Summer Bay’, the site for the popular TV show Home and Away. As these tourists and domestic travellers are attracted to the location, they will also use the area for recreational activity such as swimming and surfing but may be inexperienced in these activities.

North Palm Beach also has a high number of facilities that attract people such as BBQ/picnic areas, playgrounds, amenities, benches, car parks and cafes/restaurants. These areas are particular busy during school holiday periods. This service will also be useful for any emergency incidents that may occur around Barrenjoey Head as the lifeguards at North Palm Beach will be the closest resource to respond. While the spring and autumn school holiday periods remain unsupervised at North Palm beach, the following options could be implemented in the interim: Temporary Signage: Lifeguards on duty at Palm Beach could erect temporary signs in front of beach

accesses at North Palm beach indicating the direction of the patrolled section of the beach.

Figure 3.2.20 Tourists and visitors watching production of Home and Away at North Palm Beach


Page 73 of 80

Permanent Signage: Signage which informs beach-goers of when the beach is patrolled could be permanently placed at the North Palm beach SLSC. Other information such as nearby supervised locations could also be included.

Loud Speaker Lifeguards on duty at Palm Beach could broadcast warnings throughout the day of rip currents and other hazards in unpatrolled locations.

Emergency Response Beacon

See Section 4.2on page 74

Treatment Option 1.14 Explore the means to fund the lifeguard service at North Palm Beach to provide coverage over the spring and autumn school holiday period. The options outlined in the main report should be considered in the interim.

Treatment Option 5.2 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 5.3 Surf Life Saving Support Operations e.g. RWC (jet-ski) could formally monitor and record usage patterns on rock fishing locations as part of standard surveillance patrols and report the information back to Surf Life Saving SurfCom or the local lifeguards/lifesavers to improve the knowledge and data quality for coastal usage patterns. This information could also be used to advise available rescue operators of locations at higher risk of an incident occurring.


Page 74 of 80

4 Emergency Response The relatively high rate of emergency incidents in the Pittwater 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) remains and should be promoted as the sole method for reporting an emergency on all relevant signage/safety information and facilitated through any (specific) emergency communication devices.

4.2 Emergency Response Beacons Emergency Response Beacons can be positioned in high use/risk areas. They are highly visible and once activated, link via radio to lifesaving/lifeguard services. The two main types of ERB are: Mobile: A movable unit which can be placed at a designated location for a limited period (usually daylight hours) before being removed for security/monitoring reasons. They usually complement an existing on-beach lifesaving service (nearby) or on-duty staff hours (non lifesaving). Fixed/permanent: A unit which is permanently or semi-permanently positioned (secured) at a location, and provides 24/7 capacity. Such an ERB should fit within a coordinated emergency communications system, whereby the unit is monitored 24/7 and complemented with specific procedures for emergencies by those monitoring the ERB. Fixed 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.

Figure 4.2.1 example of a mobile emergency response beacon on a beach


Page 75 of 80

4.3 Emergency Service Response Emergency services and support organisations play a vital role in responding to coastal emergencies within the Pittwater LGA. Resources that may respond include: o Police (including Water Police) o Ambulance (including the Westpac Helicopter) o Pittwater 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 Table 4.3.1 outlines the locations of emergency services on the Pittwater coastline. Table 4.3.1 Coastal Emergency Service locations for Pittwater LGA.

Emergency Services – Pittwater Local Government Area

Emergency Service Street Address Suburb

NSW Police 1705-1707 Pittwater Road Mona Vale

Marine Area Command McCarrs Creek Road Church Point

Marine Rescue Broken Bay boat ramp Bayview

NSW Ambulance Service Corner of Central Road & Barrenjoey Road Avalon

NSW Fire & Rescue 689 Old Barrenjoey Road Avalon

NSW Fire & Rescue 6 Harkeith Street Mona Vale

NSW Rural Fire Service Church Point Wharf, Pittwater Road Church Point

NSW Rural Fire Service 301a McCarrs Creek Road Terrey Hills

NSW Rural Fire Service Coasters Retreat West Head

NSW Rural Fire Service Cottage Point Road Cottage Point

NSW Rural Fire Service King Road Ingleside

NSW Rural Fire Service Monash Avenue Mackerel Beach

NSW Rural Fire Service Catherine Park Scotland Island

NSW Rural Fire Service 2 Tumburra Street Ingleside

NSW Rural Fire Service South Elvina Park Elvina Bay

NSW Rural Fire Service Lovett Station Lovett Bay

State Emergency Service Thomspon Drive (Off Kamber Rd) Terrey Hills


Page 76 of 80

Figure 4.3.1 Emergency service locations in Pittwater


Page 77 of 80

4.4 Radio Coverage Although the coastline of the Pittwater LGA has varying topography, radio coverage for surf life saving communications is strong. Three repeater sites located at Barrenjoey, Bilgola and Warringah (Fisherman’s Beach) assist in clear radio communications. When conducting cross border emergencies, Lifeguards and lifesavers from both Pittwater Council and Warringah Council also have the ability to communicate via radio communication.

4.5 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 Northern Beaches 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 Pittwater LGA. These include:

o Pittwater lifeguards are notified first on weekdays during operational hours

o Surfcom Sydney Northern Beaches is notified first on weekends and public holidays during operational

hours

o Sydney Northern Beaches Branch Duty Officers are notified first outside of operational hours

o Pittwater lifeguards are notified second outside of operational hours

Lifeguards and lifesavers do an outstanding job responding to emergency incidents (many of which occur at unpatrolled locations and/or after hours). 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.

Treatment Option 5.4 A debrief 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 Pittwater Local Government Area. These sessions should 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 5.5 An emergency response training scenario should be conducted with Sydney Northern Beaches Branch Duty Officers/Support Operations, Pittwater lifeguard supervisors and local emergency services once a year before the commencement of the surf life saving season


Page 78 of 80

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

Treatment Option 1.15 & 2.9 In consultation with relevant stakeholders, this document should be reviewed annually to measure the effectiveness of any risk mitigation strategies and drowning prevention initiatives that have been implemented.

Treatment Option 1.16 & 2.10 All drowning prevention strategies should be documented and incorporated into the relevant strategic and management plans. This will ensure consistency throughout the management area and a structured approach to maintenance.


Page 79 of 80

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 ABS, 2013. Census. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/map, Accessed September 2013 Australian Water Safety Council, 2013. National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual , Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. 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. Coastal Environment Centre, 2013. Coastal Ambassadors, http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/cec/News_and_Events/coastal_ambassadors_program, Accessed 23 September 2013 Department of Planning & Infrastructure, 2013. Greenfield Release Area – Ingleside, http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/ingleside/home, Accessed 23 September 2013 International Life Saving Federation, 2008. A framework to reduce drowning deaths in the aquatic environment for nations/regions engaged in lifesaving, Belgium: The International Life Saving Federation. Kennedy, D. M. et al., 2013. Rocky coast hazards and public safety: Moving beyond the beach in coastal risk management. Ocean and Coastal Management, Volume 82, pp. 85-94. Life Saving Victoria, 2006, ‘National Aquatic and Recreational Signage Style Manual’, 3rd edition, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne Manly Surf School , 2013. Manly Surf School. http://manlysurfschool.com.au Accessed 26 September 2013 NSW Division of Local Government, 2012, ‘Practice Note No. 15 – Water Safety’, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Nowra Pittwater Council, 2013. 'All Abilities' Playground Proposed for Pittwater. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/news/2012/december/all_abilities_playground_proposed_for_pittwater, Accessed 23 September 2013. Pittwater Council, 2013. Avalon Beach Plan Approved. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/news/2013/february/avalon_beach_plan_approved, Accessed 23 September 2013. Pittwater Council, 2013. Beach Safety. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/recreation/beaches/beach_safety, Accessed 24 September 2013. Pittwater Council, 2013. Lakeside Holiday Park Upgrade. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/news/2013/apri/lakeside_holiday_park_upgrade, Accessed 23 September 2013. Pittwater Council, 2013. Village Centre Plans Proceed. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/news/2013/june/village_centre_plans_proceed, Accessed 23 September 2013.


Page 80 of 80

Pittwater Council, 2013. Warriewood Valley Review Adopted. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/news/2013/june/warriewood_valley_review_adopted, Accessed 23 September 2013. Recreational Fishing Alliance, 2011. Safe Fishing. http://www.safefishing.com.au/index.html, Accessed 24 September 2013.

Short, A 2006, ‘Australian Beach Safety Management Program’, Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney SLSNSW, 2013. Incident Reporting Database, Sydney: Surf Life Saving New South Wales. SLSSNB, 2013. Surf Life Saving School. http://www.surflifesavingschool.com.au, Accessed 24 September 2013. Statewide Mutual, 2007, ‘Best Practice Manual, Signs As Remote Supervision’, V.3, Statewide Mutual, Sydney Standards Australia, 2009. AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines. Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 1: Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas’, Standards Australia, Sydney Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 2: Specifications for beach safety flags – “colour, shape, meaning and performance’, Standards Australia, Sydney Standards Australia, 2010, ‘AS/NZS 2416:2010 Water safety signs and beach safety flags: Part 3: Guidance for use’, Standards Australia, Sydney Statewide Mutual, 2007. Signage As Remote Supervision, Sydney: Statewide Mutual. Surf Education Australia, 2013. Surf Education and Surfing Programs. http://www.seaaustralia.com.au/, Accessed 26 September 2013. SurfGuard, 2013. SurfGuard. https://www.surfguard.slsa.asn.au/, Accessed September 2013. 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 Wave Rock, 2006. Wave Rock. http://waverockfishing.com/about.htm, [Accessed 28 November 2013].

http://waverockfishing.com/about.htm