11.4 Corporate and Community Services...Jasmine Meagher Australia’s South West Mark Batty WALGA Ian Proudfoot LGIS David Wood LGIS Paul Gravett SoAMR Peter Fagan SoAMR Erin Hutchins

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

11.4 Corporate and Community Services 11.4.4 DRAFT SHARK RESPONSE POLICY – FOR COMMUNITY

CONSULTATION

Attachment 1 – Shark Response Think Tank Policy Attachment 1 – Shark Response Policy Attachment 3 – Shark Response Flow Chart and Shark Response Risk Management – Responsibility Matrix Attachment 4 – Warning and Beach Closed Signage Examples Attachment 5 – Examples of Signage Installation Points Map

Shark Response Think Tank EXECUTIVE REPORT Tuesday, 05 August 2014 Page 1

Shark Response Think Tank South West WA

Tuesday, 05 August 2014 City of Bunbury Council Chambers

Executive Report

Introduction Local Government Authorities and key stakeholders from the South West of Western Australia attended a Shark Response Think Tank on Tuesday, 05 August 2014 at the City of Bunbury Council Chambers. The aim of the workshop was to develop risk-based procedures and protocols for Local Government and other Authorities that are relevant to the South West of Western Australia to reduce the likelihood of a shark encounter, manage shark sightings and respond to shark bite incidents. By the end of the workshop, participants had:

Increased their understanding of shark behaviour, shark mitigation strategies and shark response strategies;

Identified critical issues for Local Government Authorities and other stakeholders;

Developed an agreed risk framework to assist shark response management and decision-making;

Articulated essential Council, agency and stakeholder roles and responsibilities;

Further developed safety messaging and signage standards; and Agreed on the next steps. Participants included:

Sally Whatmough DPC Robert Kennedy DPC Heather Brayford DoF Brett Molony DoF

Research Bruno Mezzatesta DoF Lisa Clack DoF Brad Commins DPaW Brett Cassidy WA Police Matt du Plessis WA SLS Jasmine Meagher Australia’s

South West

Mark Batty WALGA Ian Proudfoot LGIS David Wood LGIS Paul Gravett SoAMR Peter Fagan SoAMR Erin Hutchins SoAMR John Kowal CoBun Chris Widmer CoBun Greg Simpson CoBun Dean Freeman CoBus Gordan Boettcher SoCapel

Facilitation and reporting by

Bevan Bessen, Tuna Blue Facilitation.


Executive Summary Participants identified and discussed key issues including: No jurisdiction on who owns the hazard;

LGA’s expected to respond but no science to inform decisions;

Lack of resourcing for a consistent, best practice approach;

No consistency on beach closures and beach reopening;

Better community awareness and education about the shared responsibility of the risk is needed;

Uncertainty on the level of threat or liability posed to LGAs. The forum agreed the crux of the situation is to be able to provide a reasonable level of care, in managing beaches for shark incidents. For patrolled beaches or when reliant on another Agency, the SLSWA procedures and standards should be adopted. For unpatrolled beaches, in terms of a reasonable approach, the following elements of a decision making matrix for responding to shark incidents in the South West are: A hierarchy of locations (high usage, local usage, remote), determined by:

level of use and population,

access levels,

proximity of resources ,

capacity for response,

frequency of previous sightings (hotspot);

That informs a categorised level of reasonable response, depending on:

Credibility of information (verified or not),

Seasonality (summer, winter, tourism),

Time of day (dawn or dusk),

Concurrent risk priorities (eg: bushfires);

In implementation:

A set of agreed guidelines for the hierarchy of locations for all LGAs,

But the assessment categories for level of response and therefore responses could vary from LGA to LGA dependent on the local conditions (eg: remote in terms of kilometres) and resources (eg: 2 Rangers).


Roles and responsibilities were clarified. Who Role Responsibility

WAPol Local Police

Call taking / dissemination MARSAR Search and Rescue / Coronial

Water Police Local Police

LGA / Land Manager, WAPol and SLSWA

Beach closure Limit access to risk exposure

DoF, SLSWA Public education on hazard Whole of Govt

WAPOL (fatality) SLSWA (Patrolled) DPaW (estate) LGA (unpatrolled)

Beach opening post sighting WAPol / DoF (fatality) SLSWA (patrolled) LGA (sighting, heightened alert)

Water Police Confirmation of sighting Water Police DoF

Lead Agency dependent on incident

Media and Public Info Lead Agency DP&C

Integrated policy approach that all LGA’s and DPaW endorse;

Implied best practice as the reasoning behind the decision to open a beach;

Lead Agency under the response framework will depend on whether it’s a fatality, attack or sighting.

Principles for uniform signage were agreed. For the next steps, it was agreed that momentum needed to be maintained and to do this, the forum endorsed Paul Gravett of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to take a lead role in co-opting a small interim committee to prepare standardised procedures and signage to map out the next steps for implementation and to liaise with the wider group.


Outcome One: The Current Situation The participants heard presentations from key stakeholders on the current situation. After each speaker, participants distilled the key messages from the presentation. Research to Date Brett Molony, Department of Fisheries spoke about the current shark research in WA. The principal research tool is tagging of sharks, either traditional tags, acoustic

tags or satellite tags: – traditional tags tell us where a shark is tagged and where it is caught, – acoustic tags record presence at individual receivers and connection of

receiver points, – satellite tagging provides the location of a shark if it is near the surface;

The Department is relying on acoustic tags and arrays of receivers in specified locations.

Key Messages Participants reported the following key messages: The current science is a very broad demographic, the purpose for which has

little application to shark hazard mitigation needed to make Local Government decisions;

Tagging is research, not a response solution; The Research Array is not a standalone solution; Shark behaviour is unpredictable and sharks travel large distances; More research and long term data is required for the near shore environment;

Low understanding and misconceptions make it difficult for the community to make informed decisions on risk.

Current Mitigation and Response Strategies Sally Whatmough, Department of the Premier and Cabinet outlined the Government’s shark mitigation strategies:

Measures include: – aerial surveillance, – enhanced beach patrols, – watch towers in the metropolitan region,


– a Shark Response Unit established at the Department of Fisheries (DoF),

– research undertaken by DoF, – applied research programs for non-lethal initiatives, – beach netting studies;

A review of research both nationally and internationally has been conducted; The environmental approval process for deploying drum lines is progressing. Lisa Clack, Department of Fisheries provided an overview of the Department’s shark response activities: The Shark Monitoring Network picks up signals from tags and within

90 seconds can provide text message advice; Sharksmart.com.au enables people to pick up a history of sightings at

nominated locations; Public sightings are processed by the Water Police, with SMS sent to

regionalised contact groups and details posted to Twitter for the public;

Sharksmart and Beachsafe: – provide information so people can make informed decisions about their

water use, – Beachsafe provides information specific to a local beach, and includes

all beach safety information, – Sharksmart provides a website with tips, latest research information

and the latest activity. From both presentations, participants reported the following key messages: The WA environment is unique, with a sparse location, difficult geography /

topography and a low population in a large area; – lack of suitable swimming enclosures, – limited detection methods and some uncertainty; – a complex situational environment that needs an integrated and

targeted approach;

Still not able to determine when to reopen a closed beach: – initial processes for detection in place up to Water Police SMS but then

what?: • 10 – 13 minutes to respond so which Agency can close a beach

in 15 minutes?, • are we providing sufficient information to the public, eg: if the

beach isn’t closed, is it then safe?,


A cross agency communications strategy and a consistent approach is needed: – there is a reasonable amount of information available, just need to

know where to look so it can be refined further, – a combination of strategies address some of the issues, – one entity should provide control (like bushfires);

Need to advertise that we can not guarantee safety: – people need to accept responsibility, – media driven, – access to information and increased reporting increases fear.

Local Government Perspective Chris Widmer, City of Bunbury outlined the Local Government perspective: Local Government does not have:

– knowledge of shark behaviour, – understanding of the elements for risk management, – resources available 24/7, – jurisdiction beyond the high water mark;

Local Government needs a risk based decision making process to demonstrate due diligence.

From participants, the key messages from a plenary session on Local Government involvement were: DPaW integrates pretty well with LGA’s especially around bushfires:

– would be good if shark response was at the same level in terms of hazard identification and mitigation but the response to date has been as good as it can be;

Resourcing is a key issue and theft of shark sighting signs; Department of Fisheries boundaries are appropriately aligned but other

Agencies don’t necessarily pick up the response, post hazard identification: – don’t seem to have the issues in the metropolitan area and the North,

as much as in the South, – could be the presence of metropolitan Lifesaving services and

community expectations in the South; LGA’s were presented with an initial risk framework but there is a lack of tools,

knowledge, experience and resources for LGA’s to deal with the hazard once presented: – need something workable that provides LGA’s with the due diligence to

act, – the research doesn’t reinforce the risk framework that was developed

and it has taken a step back;


As LGA’s, we need to answer the risk assessment question of what motivated your decision?: – that answer needs to be provided by the Agency with the most

knowledge and expertise; The information we receive isn’t all that reliable sometimes but we’re forced to

react with cautionary beach closures: – there is lag time in closing beaches, – reopening the beach becomes an issue when we’re unsure of the

ongoing risk; Would rather redirect swimmers with signage to controlled beaches than get

more involved in closures; Get a lot of misleading reports from the public and it is causing a deterioration

in the community’s confidence in that reporting: – the appreciation for the hazard is starting to wane a bit now as a result;

Operationally, LGA’s can close the beach but they can’t control what people do in the water;

Why are there differences in awareness levels between crocodile risk in the North and sharks in the South West?;

Can’t ascertain how much the awareness of sharks is affecting tourism but it is on people’s radars more now;

In police investigations, there are issues with access to fatalities and whether there are any witnesses: – otherwise we investigate based on the Fisheries findings and report to

the Coroner, – the Coroner could ask questions of LGA’s regarding hazard responses

if a fatality occurred; The heart of the problem is that LGA’s are expected to respond to hazards but

there are no clear guidelines on duty of care; Regardless of protocols, there will always be a residual risk that there was a

shark hazard there; Under the LGIS, LGA’s are expected to provide a duty of care in managing the

beach but not necessarily the water: – it’s about a reasonable level of care, given the circumstances in relation

to what other groups are doing, – public liability is based on negligence, so a claimant would have to

prove the LGA concerned was negligent in their duty of care.


Surf Lifesaving WA Approach Matt du Plessis, Surf Lifesaving WA provided an overview of their shark response framework for patrolled beaches. The key messages for participants are: Started from a “no idea” situation and had to get a procedure in place; Examined systems and research from all around the world;

Developed a flowchart based on size, distance offshore and time of day; Can decide whether to evacuate and which hazard signage to use; A designated timeframe for reopening beach closures is essential.

Shark Protocol

Monitor:• < 2m Clear water and erect signage:• 2-3m within 500m• 3m + within 1km

• Keep closed for 1hr after last confirmed sighting• Remove signage from beach

Shark Protocol Out of season assistance

Follow guidance from SurfCom/Duty Officer/Ranger

Clear water and erect signage:• 2-3m within 500m• 3m + within 1km

• Keep closed for 1hr unless advised by SurfCom or Rangers. • Allow access to shark signage to rangers• Remove signage from beach


Outcome Two: Key Issues Participants identified the key issues for a reasonable approach to shark response in South West WA. Key Issues No jurisdiction on who owns the hazard;

LGA’s expected to respond but no science to inform decisions;

Lack of resourcing for a consistent, best practice approach;

No consistency on beach closures and beach reopening;

Better community awareness and education about the shared responsibility of the risk is needed;

Are we overreacting and what is the liability for LGA’s? In detail Group One: • To close or not to close?:

the science doesn’t help us; • Agency capacity to respond:

under limited State resources,

the expectation that LGA’s will do it; • Is liability an issue? What is the case history?;

• Tyranny of distance in responding; • Development of response capacity:

LGAs have other roles and are not a single focus agency, especially in the regions,

other Agencies “lack science” but LGAs are still expected to do something!; • Human behaviour and expectation. Group Two: • Increase community awareness about the risk and emphasise that shared

responsibility is needed; • Provide relevant information at the right time to encourage people to engage; • Tourism needs an understanding of the risk and a way to target the group and

community appropriately; • Lack of beach closure resourcing but unlikely to reduce the risk of a fatal incident; • Perception that it can be dealt with is incorrect.


Group Three: • Lack of jurisdiction around who owns the hazard; • What is the hazard and are we overreacting (what are the chances)?; • Inadequate Local Government resources to deal with the situation (10-15 mins to

respond?);

• Authority to enforce; • When to open and close; • High water versus in water activities; • What are the public expectations?; • Risk can change with climate, season and holiday periods; • Lack of collaborative approach. Group Four: • Best practice is required in a consistent manner but resourcing will always be an

issue; • We cannot eliminate the risk and how big is it compared to others?; • Uniform signage and communications protocols are required; • Consistency on beach closures.


Outcome Three: A Reasonable Approach Participants developed the following principles for a reasonable approach. Decision Making Matrix The participants agreed on the key elements for a decision making matrix to respond to shark incidents as: A hierarchy of locations through:

Patrol levels (patrolled, unpatrolled, remote);

Unpatrolled beaches further categorised (high usage, local usage, remote) determined by:

level of use and population,

access levels, proximity of resources , capacity for response, frequency of previous sightings (hotspot);

That informs a categorised level of reasonable response, depending on:

credibility of information (verified or not), seasonality (summer, winter, tourism),

time of day (dawn or dusk),

concurrent risk priorities (eg: bushfires); In implementation:

a set of agreed guidelines for the hierarchy of locations for all LGAs, but the assessment categories for level of response and therefore

responses could vary from LGA to LGA dependent on the local conditions (eg: remote in terms of kilometres) and resources (eg: 2 Rangers).

In detail Group One: The criteria: • Need a hierarchy of locations (eg: distance and resourcing) agreed:

can it be Statewide or regional?,

would DPaW agree?; • Based on proximity of resources and capacity to respond; • Credibility of information; • Frequency of sightings should be considered.


The responses:

• Definitions of hierarchy of locations informs the level of response, eg: 1. high usage, unpatrolled (eg: Narrabup), 2. secondary, local users (eg: Jay’s Beach), 3. remote (eg: Windmills). • For categories 1 and 2 and where response time is greater than one hour, install 24

hour signage; • If Category 3 (remote), then the response is self determination through SMS, Twitter

and Sharksmart website; • Seasonality may be a consideration in determining appropriate responses; • Permanent, static signage in Hotspots; • All communications centralised through DoF or DP&C? Group Two:

The criteria:

• Confirmation and reliability of report; • Remote or popular beach; • Patrolled beach or reliant on another agency; • Ability to deploy and monitor signs; • Time taken to respond and install signs; • Time of day (dusk or dawn); • Amount of time that closure is required; • Tagged beacon activations vs. inconclusive data. The responses:

• “Own risk” on remote beach; • On patrolled beach or when reliant on another agency, SLSWA standard to apply; • Remote beach response dictated by:

time of year and local intelligence,

timeliness of reports to response,

all year round signs vs incident specific,

can it be monitored?,

known event or gathering of people,

location of signs on feeder and entry roads,

signs deployed by community volunteers or another Agency; • ‘Reasonable’ amount of signage. Group Three:

The criteria:

• Is the beach patrolled?; • Remoteness (what is the alternative) / location; • Level of water use (peak vs off peak, and day vs night); • Capacity for onsite response vs. permanent signage; • Source and nature of report (sighting / attack; and confirmed / unconfirmed).


The responses: • Categorise beaches:

Category A – patrolled beach,

Category B –city / main beach (has road access, car park and amenities),

Category C – popular, local beach, • Remote beaches:

consider fixed signage (supplemented by education) on remote beaches,

utilise LGA website, SLS Beach Watch, tourist radio, media, information publications available at tourist locations, information bays, accommodation.

Group Four: The criteria: • Populated versus remote beach; • Patrolled versus non-patrolled beach; • Unconfirmed versus confirmed (helicopter) sighting; • Time of day (daylight versus dusk); • Season (tourism, etc); • Concurrent risk priorities (eg: major bushfire incident). The responses: • Signage to notify of the risk of sharks in the area.


Roles and Responsibilities Participants agreed on the following roles and responsibilities for implementing the framework successfully. Who Role Responsibility

WAPol Local Police








Water Police Confirmation of sighting Water Police DoF

Lead Agency dependent on incident

Media and Public Info Lead Agency DP&C

Integrated policy approach that all LGA’s and DPaW endorse;

Implied best practice as the reasoning behind the decision to open a beach;

Lead Agency under the response framework will depend on whether it’s a fatality, attack or sighting.

In detail Group One:

Who Role Responsibility

WAPol Local Police









Who Role Responsibility

Water Police DoF

Confirmation of sighting Water Police DoF

Lead Agency (dependent on incident, eg: Water Police for fatality, delegating to DoF for media)

Media and Public Info Lead Agency DP&C DoF as support agency working within AIMS

Group Two: • If it’s good enough for Local Government to be beach managers, it needs to be

endorsed by DPaW as beach managers as well; • If it’s an attack, then WA Police to reopen the beach after consultation with DoF; • If non attack sighting, Local Government and DPaW role to:

determine the local response based on the ‘triggers’, resources available and concurrent risks;

local, reasonable response to be consistent across LGA’s and DPaW;

determine the level of signage dependent on situation; • How to manage the media? • What role does Volunteer Sea Rescue play? Group Three: • A confirmed attack could result in DoF ‘hunting’ for a week, which impacts on the

24 hr. proposed approach; • Roles and responsibilities are dependent on the incident (fatality, attack or sighting);

levels of involvement will be determined by these incident categories; • Local Government role:

ongoing communications;

beach closure and reopening;

community recovery services for handling grief etc.;

asset management and maintenance; • DoF role:

research, data and science;

on water activities;

communications via Sharksmart and protocols; • Tourism WA assist with general beach safety messaging as part of a communications

strategy; • If this is an attempt at an integrated cross agency approach, what is the agreed

governance model between stakeholders?.


Group Four: • DP&C role to provide directions and policy; • DoF role:

circulation of public messages;

research and data;

collaboration and confirmation of the decision to open the beach? (rely on implied best practice?);

• WA Police role:

receive advice of sightings and incidents (Water Police);

forward to DoF and SLSWA;

local investigations and coronial duties. Preferred Signage Examples of current and proposed signage were viewed and discussed. A variation in the icons used for sharks was noted and discussion was held on the merits of either: Having signs that permanent marker pen information could be added (issue of

unauthorised additions / information comes into play here);

Having good linkages and details of how to access existing electronic services to get an accurate update on the status of the beach closure.

Participants agreed on the following principles for signage: Comply with Australian and International Standards for the icons and images;

For temporary signage (eg: sighting in last 24 hrs), use coreflute rather than steel to reduce cost from souveniring or theft;

Permanent signage, with infographics from DoF Shark Response Unit;

QR codes on signage for international visitors. Next Steps Participants agreed on the next steps: Outcomes Report distributed;

Further action planning on agreed guidelines and procedures;

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River with a mandate to drive this forward.

It was agreed that momentum needed to be maintained and to do this, the forum endorsed Paul Gravett of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to take a lead role in co-opting a small interim committee to prepare standardised procedures and signage, to map out the next steps for implementation and to liaise with the wider group.


In detail Group One: • Refine the response framework:

signage standards,

communications strategy; • Implementation Committee:

initial endorsement,

pilot arrangements,

report, review, reset and / or expand. Group Two: • Standard ‘agreed’ multi-Agency response strategy to hazards; • ‘Prescribed Agency’ status for shark hazard; • Swimmer risk assessment tool for community (public education); • WALGA to advocate for the framework on behalf of LGA’s. Group Three: • Follow up meeting on today’s findings; • Agree on definition of beach categories and response for patrolled and unpatrolled

beaches; • Agree on uniform signage; • Agree on Agencies’ responsibilities. Group Four: • LGA’s and DPaW to agree on:

closure and opening templates for a consistent approach to sightings;

standard signage and number of locations.

This policy was adopted by Council to set governing principles in place that align the strategic direction of the organisation with community values and aspirations.

The Shark Response Policy relates to Goal 2: Welcoming and Inclusive Communities of the Community

Strategic Plan 2033: The Shire of Augusta Margaret River is committed to providing a safe and

welcoming place for residents and visitors.

Objectives The purpose of this policy is to provide direction on Shark Response protocols within the Shire of

Augusta Margaret River. Implementation of this policy will assist with provision of a safer environment for

the enjoyment of residents and visitors by clarifying the following:

• Criteria to assist Shire directed response to shark sightings and attacks;

• Shire response activities and communications to the public related to shark threats;

• Jurisdictions and role clarification of agencies related to response protocols;

• Prioritisation of response activities;

• Record Management; and

• Financial Support.

General Considerations

• Warning the public and closing beaches is a strategy to reduce the likelihood of shark human

encounters however complete protection from sharks can never be guaranteed.

• Sharks are very mobile and are capable of travelling large distances in a short period of time.

• Authorised Persons should access credible information to inform response strategies – primarily

from Water Police (9442 8600).

Shark Response Policy AMR Shire Policy September 2015

2

• The contents of this Policy are deemed manageable from a practicable and resource capacity

perspective, while also giving the public the option of making an informed decision about

personal safety with regards to entering the water after a confirmed shark sighting / attack.

Strategy Responding to Shark Attacks and Sightings:

The following criterion is presented as the policy guideline for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River to

administer regarding shark response. While not failsafe in its surety of harm reduction to the public, by

adopting this approach it is deemed that the Shire is doing what is reasonable from a jurisdiction,

resource capacity and practicability perspective in regards to its shark response protocols.

Criteria of Evaluation

All shark sightings are to be reported to Water Police on 9442 8600.

The Shire will mobilise Authorised Persons to respond to a confirmed shark sighting reported by Water

Police where it meets ALL of the following criteria:

Type: White, Whaler, Tiger or Bull Shark

Size: 2-3 metres in size or schooling sharks

Location: Sighted within 500m of shore, and within Shire managed coastline

Or

Size: Greater than 3 metres in size

Location: Sighted within 1 km of shore, and within Shire managed coastline

Where the shark species is unconfirmed but meets the remaining criteria, the Shire will also mobilise as outlined below. Due to the minimal risk associated, if a shark reported is less than 2m in length, the Shire will monitor but maintain normal operations. Overarching Beach Categories In determining the level of shark response, the following Beach Categories and summary response protocols have been established. Category 1 – Patrolled by Beach Life Guards or Surf Life Saving services. Response: Evacuate / close beach – re-open 1 hour post last sighting.

3

Category 2 – Not patrolled, easy road access, regularly populated 30+ persons, car parking and amenities provided. Response: Notify beach goers as soon as practicable. Post signage indicating recent shark sighting / activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanent beach signage. Remove signage 2 hours post last sighting.

Category 3 – Not patrolled. Access available but not regularly occupied by crowds, no amenities. Response: As soon as practicable, post signage indicating recent shark sighting/activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanent beach signage. Category 4 – Not patrolled. Remote, limited access, no amenities, not thought to have crowds of 10 persons or more. Response: If practicable, post signage indicating recent shark sighting/activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanent beach signage. The Shire operates a Beach Life Guard service at Margaret River Mouth (Category 1), while the remaining Shire beach responsibility areas relate to Category 2 and 3. NB: Beach maps for Shire responsibility beaches and signage locations have been developed within Shark Response Procedure documentation.

Response activities and communication to the public related to shark threat

Shark Sighting at Shire Managed Patrolled Beaches (Category 1):

• Shire managed beaches that have Beach Life Guards patrolling (approximately December to

April each year) will be closed for a shark sighting meeting the above criteria for a minimum of

one hour.

• Beach closed signs will be installed by Authorised Persons at key car park and beach access

points to inform the public.

• Shire employed Beach Life Guards will operationally respond to shark sightings on patrolled

beaches as per current Surf Life Saving WA Shark Incident Management protocols.

Shark Sighting at Shire Managed Non Patrolled Beaches (Category 2 and 3):

• Shire controlled beaches that are NOT patrolled by Beach Life Guards will not be formally closed

in the event of a shark related sighting. Instead, warning signs displaying relevant information of

public interest will be erected at key car park / beach entry points as soon as practicable to notify

beach goers of the potential danger.

4

• Where a reported shark is greater than 3 metres in size, less than 500 metres from shore and or

schooling sharks, an Authorised Person will also walk the relevant beach area 1 km each side of

the sighting to notify beach goers of the potential danger.

• Where it is identified that the public is in clear immediate danger from shark threat, an Authorised

Person will endeavour to notify the public via the use of a dedicated speaker / siren system,

where available.

• Department for Fisheries scientists estimate sharks travel approximately four kilometres per hour,

therefore, at non patrolled beaches, warning signs will remain in place for a minimum of two

hours from the time of reported sighting, not from the time of arrival at site.

• Where the sighting occurs at dusk, or Rangers are responding to other priority matters, warning

signs will stay in place for the remainder of that day, to be removed the following day.

Shark Attack at Shire Managed / Controlled Beaches (Category 1, 2 and 3):

• Where a shark attack / fatality occurs at a Shire managed / controlled beach, it will be formally

closed by an Authorised Person(s) for the remainder of the day of the incident.

• Upon deliberation with WA Police and Department of Fisheries, the beach may either be re-

opened to the public by an Authorised Person the following morning, or remain closed for another

24 hours.

• Beach closed signs will be erected at key car park / beach entry points as soon as practicable to

notify beach goers of the potential danger.

• An Authorised Person will also walk the relevant beach area one kilometre each side of the

attack to notify beach goers of the potential danger.

• Where it is identified that the public is in clear immediate danger from shark threat, an Authorised

Person will endeavour to notify the public via the use of a dedicated speaker / siren system,

where available.

Promotion of relevant information sources

• The Shire will promote to the public relevant information sources to assist education, awareness

raising and informed personal decision making.

o Report Shark Sightings to Water Police on 9442 8600

o http://twitter.com/SLSWA - Surf Life Saving WA Twitter

o http://www.sharksmart.com.au – Department of Fisheries information portal.

o Shire of Augusta Margaret River website / media releases

http://twitter.com/SLSWA

http://www.sharksmart.com.au/

5

• Where shark related sightings are a frequent occurrence, that is, more than four times in one

given year in one location, or in area of known shark attack / fatality, the Shire may consider

installing permanent static signs to notify the public of the potential risk.

• Permanent signage may contain relevant information provided by the Department of Fisheries

and Surf Life Saving WA outlining safer water use practices / considerations.

Jurisdictions and role clarification related to response protocols

• Shire Authorised Personnel will respond to sightings within Shire designated beaches, and at

beaches patrolled by the Shire’s seasonal Beach Life Guards as per the intent of this Policy.

• The Shire will support other agencies such as the Department of Fisheries, Department of Parks

and Wildlife, WA Police, Surf Life Saving WA and other local government authorities to respond

to shark threat within their jurisdictions where resources and capacity is available.

• WA Police are the controlling agency for shark fatality on behalf of the coroner. The Shire will

assist with beach closures, media coordination, as well as community recovery initiatives where

relevant.

• Department of Fisheries is responsible for any actions related to the attempted capture and or

destruction of a potentially dangerous shark(s).

• The Department for Parks and Wildlife is responsible for shark response protocols associated

with beaches / coastline under its jurisdiction.

• The Department for Child Protection is available to provide linkages to counselling services for

impacted community members where required.

• In the event of a shark related fatality, a debrief will be organised by the Shire post event,

inclusive of response and support agencies, as well as the public (where relevant), to review and

refine response protocols / areas of improvement.

• Procedure documentation will guide specific response and activation protocols for Shire

Authorised Persons.

Prioritisation of response activities

• Shire Rangers / Authorised Persons will respond to shark sightings as a matter of priority, except

where currently engaged in or mobilised to respond to the following:

o Fire / emergency

o Dog attack on person

o Stock on road

6

• Shire Rangers / Authorised Persons will respond to shark attacks as a matter of priority, except

where currently engaged in or mobilised to respond to the following:

o Fire / emergency

• Where priority activities divert Shire resources from dealing with immediate shark matters,

secondary support resources will be activated as soon as possible to assist from the following:

o Other on-duty Shire Rangers / other Authorised Persons

o WA Police and other Emergency Service agencies (where relevant)

o Neighbouring Local Governments.

Record management

Responding Authorised Persons are required to collate and archive records containing the following:

• Date, location, type, size and time of shark sighting / attack and summary of activities undertaken

in each instance;

The Rangers and Beach Life Guards teams will also collate and maintain a record of:

• Number of shark related activations within each financial year;

• Number of shark related closures within each financial year; and

• Number of shark attacks in each financial year.

Financials:

• A budget allocation will be provided annually for the cost of sign replacement and upkeep and to

support activities associated with implementation of this Policy.

Application Responsibility for the implementation of this policy rests with the Chief Executive Officer and Directors

and is to inform all strategies and plans of the Shire. The Policy is to be reviewed every three years.

DEFINITIONS

Community

A specific geographical area, professional

associations, a group with common interest, or even

individuals who provide services to a specific location

(Australian Safe Communities Foundation 2012).

7

Authorised Person “authorised person” means a person authorised by the

local government under section 9.10 of the Local

Government Act;

District “district” means the district of the local government;

Adopted by Council

Last reviewed September 2015

Related Policies Safer Communities Policy

Related Procedures Shark Response Flow Chart

Shark Risk Management – Responsibility matrix

Shark Response Checklist

Surf Life Saving WA Shark Incident Management

Protocol

Related Documents Shark Warning Signage

Beach Closed Signage

Shark Reporting Sheet

Legislation State Records Act 2000

South West Shark Response Flow-Chart

1.1 Sighting reported where shark (White, Whaler, Tiger, Bull) is >2m & <1km

offshore, or schooling sharks

1.3 Beach Category

1.3.1 – Category 1 - Patrolled

1.3.2– Category 2 - Not Patrolled, Easy road access, regularly populated 30+ pax, car-parking & amenities provided

1.3.3 – Category 3 - Not Patrolled, access available, but not regularly occupied by crowds, no amenities

1.3.4 – Category 4 - Not patrolled, remote, limited access, no amenities, not thought to have crowds of 10 persons, or more

1.3.1.2 Evacuate - Close Beach – reopen 1 hour post last sighting.

1.3.2.1 Notify beach goers as soon as practicable. Post signage indicating recent shark sighting/activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanently sign beach. Remove signage 2 hrs post last sighting.

1.3.3.1 As soon as practicable - post signage indicating recent shark sighting/activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanently sign beach.

1.3.4.1 If practicable, post signage indicating recent shark sighting/activity. If frequency > 4 times/annum, consider permanently sign beach.

1.0

2.0

1.2 Direct caller to Advise Water

Police on 9442 8600

1.3.1.1– Advise SurfCom

1.2.1 – Advise SLSWA SurfCom

1.2.2 – Advise DoF Shark Resp Unit

2.1 Shark Detector Buoy detects tagged

shark

3.0

3.1 Patrol aircraft detects shark (likely to

meet 1.1.2 Responsibility

Matrix)

4.0

Shark Incident Occurs

4.4 Is attack Fatal?

4.4.1 Yes

4.4.2 No

4.5 Have the victim’s remains been

recovered?

4.5.1 Yes

4.5.2 No

4.7 Land Manager Evacuate - Close Beach.

After consultation with WAPol OIC, DoF, DPaW, SLSWA, DPaW, and LG (and community if appropriate), relevant agency reopen beach next day, if no further shark activity noted (and body located in the event of a fatality).

Consider leaving closed for a further 24 hours if body not located in event of fatality.

4.6 Seek advice/confer

WAPol OIC

Unconfirmed?

Monitor Movement

1.1.2 Yes

1.1.3 No

Monitor movement

Appendix ‘A’

1.2.3– Advise LG/Land Manager

4.1

4.2.1 – Water Police to advise LG/Land Manager; DoF Shark Response Unit; SLSWA SurfCom

4.2. Direct Caller to Advise Water Police

on 9442 8600

4.3. Land manager to close beach for remainder of day

Shark Risk Management - Responsibility Matrix

Serial Incident WAPol WPCC Dept Of Fisheries

Tenure Dependent Response

SLSWA LG/Land Manager

1.0 Shark detected by general public – Directed to WAPol WPCC – 9442 8600 CI

1.1 Shark detected at 1.0 satisfying criteria (2m or greater in length & within 1 km of shore, or schooling sharks, type of shark – White, Tiger, Whaler, Bull), Decision point C I I I

1.1.2 Yes - shark does meet response criteria – Advise WAPol WPCC – 9442 8600 I I RA I 1.1.3 No – shark does not meet response criteria - Monitor movement of shark I I R R 1.2.1 WPCC advises SLSWA – SurfCom. SLSWA manages response to patrolled beaches, populates warning media R I A I 1.2.2 WPCC advises DoF – to decide appropriate DoF response R A I I 1.2.3 WPCC advises LG or Land Manager – to follow their response arrangements/enable their response R I I A 1.3 Decide Beach category – Decision Point RA C C 1.3.1 Category 1 Beach – Advise SurfCom, evacuate swimmers, patrol, follow SLSWA protocols for beach reopening I RA I 1.3.2 Category 2 Beach – Evacuate Notify swimmers / install warning signage as soon as practicable, remove warning signage

reopen beaches 2 hours after last sighting I RA

1.3.3 Category 3 Beach – As soon as practicable – install shark warning signage I RA 1.3.4 Category 4 Beach – If practicable, install shark warning signage I RA 2.1 Detection beacon – shark presence warning, meeting criteria 1.1 I RA I I 3.1 Aircraft detection – confirmed to meet criteria 1.1 I C RA I 4.0 Shark Incident Occurs C RA I I 4.2 Shark attack reported by general public – Directed to WAPol WPCC – 9442 8600 I 4.2.1 WPCC advises all agencies as per text alert R I I I 4.3 Land Manager closes beach I I RA RA 4.4 Does Incident prove fatal? – Decision Point RA C I I 4.4.1 Shark incident reported – Fatality occurs RA C C C 4.5 Have the victim’s remains been fully recovered - Decision point RA C I I 4.5.1 Victims remains recovered – yes – close beach rest of the day / 24 hours A C R R 4.5.2 Victim’s remains recovered – no – close beach remainder of the day, refer to WAPol for further advice A C R R 4.6 WA Pol provide further advice to agencies as required RA CA C C 4.4.2 Shark incident reported – Non fatal – Land Manager Evacuate / Close Beach for remainder of day / 24 hours CI CI RC RC Code Definition

R Responsible for action/initiation Executes the task A Accountable to ensure outcomes Owns outcomes – determines criteria for decisions C Consulted Prior to & during execution I Informed Prior to & post event

RA Responsible & Accountable

Appendix ‘B’

AMRS Beach Communication

Procedure in event of Shark Sighting related

to Shire controlled beach

LG Notified via Water Police Text message or member of the public / land manager / other agency

Manager Community Development and Safety

Ranger Coordinator

Duty Ranger Responding

Assess the situation against SW Shark Response Flow-Chart and Responsibility Matrix

Monitor situation

Place warning signage at key beach entry points at least 1 km each side of sighting

Place warning signage with key info at highly visible entry points of car parks at least 1km each side of sighting

Notify Beach Goers

Complete Job Sheet ENF/46

If shark >3m, closer than 500m, or schooling sharks, walk along beach area at least 1km each side of incident to notify verbally of shark activity

Key contacts:

Ranger Coord – 0439 951 907 / 97805286

Duty Ranger – 0419 902 540

MCD&S – 0477 146 411 / 9780 5218

Marketing and Events Officer – 0418 925 547 / 97805260

WAPol OIC - 0459 097 224 (Sgt Brett Cassidy MR Police); Augusta Police OIC – 0418 882 753 (Sgt Rik Lok)

DPaW - 08 9731 6232

DoF - 0419 963 469

SLSWA - 08 9207 6666

Recreation Operations Manager –

0408 572 176

Beach Life Guards – 0409 682 103; 0437 487 238

DCPFS – 9752 5600 (if counselling required) 1800 199 008 - 24 Hrs Crisis Care

and

community if relevant / required.

Liaise / Update Ranger Coord

Remove signage after 2 hours if no further shark activity / danger reported.

Back Up Ranger

Recreation Operations

Manager Text / notify Beach Life Guards

If call comes from member of public, request they contact Water Police on 9442 8600

IF CALLER UNABLE TO CALL –Take ALL details & advise Water Police –Ranger to Complete REPORT Sheet

Respond as per 1.3.1 Category 1 Beach – Shark Risk Management Responsibility Matrix and SLSWA Protocols

Beach Life Guards

Marketing and Events

Monitor situation

Direct traffic to SLSWA and Twitter feed regarding further shark related activity if relevant.

Ensure Ranger activities carried out as per procedure; Stats Sheet, Report Sheet and Records updated.

Ensure annual debrief completed and procedures / contacts updated / aligned with industry best practice

Ensure any LG Media related issues are resolved if relevant.

Ensure annual DEBRIEF held with relevant agencies / stakeholders and Internal officers to refine process.

Support / respond as required

Update Stats Sheet

Activate Ranger support when relevant

Update contact details July annually

Evacuate - Close Beach if relevant – reopen 1 hour post last sighting. Update Stats Sheet

Complete Shark Response Check List


AMRS Beach Closure Procedure in event of Shark Attack related to Shire controlled

beach

LG Notified via Water Police Text message or member of the public / land manager / other agency

Manager Community Development and Safety

Ranger Coordinator

Ranger on Site

Seek support from second Ranger

Notify Marketing & Events Officer

Notify CEO and DCCS

Place closure signage at key beach entry points at least 1 km each side of incident

Place closure signage at highly visible entry points of car parks at least 1 km each side of incident

Close Beach / Notify Beach Goers

Complete Job Sheet ENF/46

Attend Site

Attend Site

Liaise with Land Manager / WA Police OIC

Notify MCD&S / Recreation Operations Manager

Liaise with Marketing and Events Officer

Liaise with Ranger and MCD&S

Liaise with Land Manager / WA Pol OIC

Walk along beach area at least 1 km each side of incident to notify verbally of incident and beach closure

Develop Action Plan in consultation with:

Ranger Coord – 0439 951 907 / 97805286

Duty Ranger – 0419 902 540

MCD&S – 0477 146 411 / 9780 5218

Marketing and Events Officer – 0418 925 547 / 97805260

WAPol OIC - 0459 097 224 (Sgt Brett Cassidy MR Police); Augusta Police OIC – 0418 882 753 (Sgt Rik Lok)

DPaW - 08 9731 6232

DoF - 0419 963 469

SLSWA - 08 9207 6666

Recreation Operations Manager –

0408 572 176

Beach Life Guards – 0409 682 103; 0437 487 238

DCPFS – 9752 5600 (if counselling required) 1800 199 008 - 24 Hrs Crisis Care

and

community if relevant / required.

Liaise with Ranger Coord and Ranger

Liaise / Update Ranger Coord and MCD&S

Re-Open Beach after 24 hours if no further shark danger imminent and body retrieved…48 hours if needed in exceptional circumstances.

Back Up Ranger

Manage regular duties as required

Recreation Operations Manager

Text / notify Beach Life Guards

If call comes from member of public, request they contact Water Police on 9442 8600

IF CALLER UNABLE TO CALL –Take ALL details & advise Water Police –Ranger to Complete REPORT Sheet

Close beach / Notify Beach Goers

Beach Life Guards

Marketing and Events Officer

Attend site if necessary to assist media interactions / messaging

Update Shire website of incident and to direct traffic to SLSWA and Twitter feed regarding further shark related activity.

Ensure Ranger activities carried out in line with procedure; Record saved, including Report Sheet if relevant.

Ensure any LG Recovery related matters are resolved if relevant ie Memorials / support to Community Event.

Ensure any LG Media related matters / issues are resolved if relevant.

Ensure DEBRIEF held with relevant agencies / stakeholders to refine process / consider industry best practice.

Provide Debrief feedback as relevant

Update Stats Sheet


Respond to water safety as per SLSWA Shark Incident Management Protocols

Update Stats Sheet


APPENDIX 4 FIGURE 1: TEMPORARY SHARK WARNING SIGNAGE – TO BE INSTALLED FOR SHARK SIGHTINGS MEETING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

FIGURE 2: TEMPORARY BEACH CLOSED SIGNAGE – INSTALLED FOR SHARK ATTACK

FIGURE 3: PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR PERMANENT STATIC SIGNS IN HIGH SHARK ACTIVITY AREAS – PATROLLED BEACH (MARGARET RIVERMOUTH)

FIGURE 4: PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR PERMANENT STATIC SIGNS IN HIGH SHARK ACTIVITY AREAS – NON PATROLLED BEACH

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

1:15000