Original source · versioned page text
2017-10-13 Special Meeting
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 13 OCTOBER 2017
Page 42 of 48
Description of Risk and impact on project ‘Main Consequence} Risk movement Expected timeline
‘Category (movement in for future
sk rating from |treatment/ or next
7 |Internal Resources Required to manage Financial itis anticipated that unplanned management events will occur such as indiscriminate access, Possible Sep-17|Ongoing monitoring once tenure transitions. Ongoing | Project Group
addition Conservation Park by Council are |camping, bushfire and rubbish disposal which will all place additional responsibilities on
underestimated environment services/natural areas staff. However, impact on Environmental Team and Parks and|
Failing to accurately identify impact of Natural Areas have been included in Council's costs estimates peer reviewed by LandCare and
managing the project area on the Environment included in financial modelling. Local laws have confirmed limited impact on resources as a
and Parks and Natural Areas teams could put result of expanding area of responsibility to include the additional area within responsibility.
pressure on current capacity, which may lead to
request for further resources.
Council and NPA reputational risks Political nous and management from CEO and Council regarding managing community Possible Sep-17|Appropniate media statements pending project Nov-17
Political / Reputational Risk associated with expectations and setting up clear boundaries regarding extent of project parties responsibilities proceeding.
Noosa Council being part of a significant multi and relationship of transactions.
party agreement with Noosa Parks Association,
which involves significant long term Formal MOU and subsequent agreements will be transparent and available for publication.
commitment.
Confidentiality / Media Attention It was agreed at meeting at DEHP on 9 June 2017 that no parties would contact the media until Possible Jun-17 | Project Parties and State Government to prepare Sep-17 |CEO/ Council!
Given the large number of parties involved further notice. State Goverment would coordinate a draft media release in due course to be media release in due course in accordance with Officers involved
(some with Commercial Interests) and the large signed off by all project parties before release. agreed MOU and agreement in the project
number of people/stakeholders who this project
could impact on it is important that media is not Initial Council approval meeting is being held confidentially.
informed about the project until such time that
parties are in some sort of an agreement to
proceed further. Failing to do so could impact
‘on the relationship! cooperation of various
Failure to identify opportunities to reduce Financial / Council Project team and Transition Committee must explore opportunities to reduce costs further. Possible Decrease Sep-17 | Opportunities to reduce costs must continued to be Ongoing |Project Group
rehab costs and maximise value of the Reputational explored throughout the project. Further research
project Council must ensure that opportunities to reduce rehab costs are explored well in advance of re Carbon offset opportunities, third party not for
Risk of not identifying/exploring opportunities to jcommence formal rehabilitation e.g. environmental grants, good Corporate Citizen projects etc. profit assistance e.g. land care, green army etc.,
reduce rehab costs to Council through the life of Koala sanctuaries.
the project leads to negative financial Initial investigations have been undertaken with respect to potential carbon and environmental
consequences. offset opportunities for the project. Future federal funding opportunities may be
available such as under 20 Million Trees program.
Inadequate Concept selection Financial / Confirmation that project aligns with Council's Corporate Plan Theme - The Noosa Environment -" Decrease Sep-17 | Once project details have been finalised and Nov-17 |Project Group
Risk that initial pre-feasibility and feasibility Reputational Our Environment is protected, enhanced and valued by our Community" “The Noosa Natural approved by Council and project parties have
stages of the project were not adequately Environment is protected and enhanced". finalised MOU, announcements can be made to
investigated, which may lead to the organisation Extensive h has been undertaken by a number of proj ies to ensure that Proj the public highlight the environmental significance
becoming bound to a long term project that may - - ~ Project F ~ - ro} Park and value of this project in accordance with agreed
not be aligned to end produce desired concept aligns with desired outcomes - permanent protection of the project area into National 5 Js.
outcomes. (risk include, financial, reputational) for Community benefit. Investigations include: _ a
1. Recommendations from the DEHP regarding the natural values and existing uses of Ringtail
and Yurol State Forests.
2. Preliminary guidelines developed by DEHP for restoring plantation areas of Yurol and Ringtail
State Forests.
3. Environmental Reports from DEHP of project area confirming the environmental value of the
project area if protected.
4. intemal Council analysis by Environmental Officers and Parks and Natural Areas Coordinator
also confirm the environmental value and significance of the project.
5. Environment Levy Working Group have confirmed the environmental merits of the project.
|The above investigations confirm that the project from an environmental perspective would align
ito the objectives of the Environment Levy Policy and Council's Environmental Strategic Values.
Project of regional significance - linking the National Park Corridor. In terms of financial,
environmental and community value - the vast size of the project area that would be protected as.
part of the project is much greater than recent acquisitions under the environment levy of Johns’
landing (40Ha) $2.2M and Franz Land (80ha) $2.7M. Project area - PLA 1,482 HA and State
Forest 1, 100HA to transition to National Park. End game is that project area is permanently
protected under National Park. Total cost to be divided between State, Council and NPA to pay
HOP to walk away from all plantations in the area within 5 years is $3.5M. Cost comparisons of
this project with previous per HA acquisitions under the Environment levy indicate this project
provides great value for use of the environment levy in terms of the amount of land permanently
protected against costs. But for this project, 2409Ha of land with regional National Park
connectivity would remain exposed to future logging for a significant amount of time.
Page 42 of 48See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.