2021-01-18 GC - Item 2 - Attachment 3 - Consultation Report River Plan Version 2 (2019-20)

                           -    Imposing further cost onto the Noosa rate payers is not required and or warranted.

Private                    -    The Noosa River is Estate Government responsibility and that is how it should be.
                           -    No changes in my opinion.

Private                Noosa Council, where are the future budget and expenditure forecasts?
                           -   Noosa Council, can you convince the ratepayers we are not going to pay for this in the long run?
                           -   Noosa Council, am I going to have to pay you each time I put my SUP in for a paddle, or my kayak, and how much extra for my boat that I already pay
                               registration to the State Govt for?
                           -   Noosa Council, are you going to make it impossible for existing businesses on the river to survive?
                           -   Noosa Council, our river is a safe haven for vessels to shelter in time of a crisis such as a cyclone. Are you going to put restrictions on them?
                           -   Noosa Council, you spent a lot of rate payer/ tax payer money on the Noosa River mouth dog beach. It's eroded again, this was an expensive exercise.
                           -   How will you go managing the whole river???
                           -   Just leave in to the State Government!

Private                I am a rate payer and own a small Queensland registered boat kept on a Queensland Maritime Safety licensed mooring in Woods Bay. I support the overall aim of
                       the Noosa River Plan but am concerned about
                            -    The cost to ratepayers for the management of anchoring/mooring in the river under a user pays system. I understand that Council has advertised positions
                                 to manage the river use that will involve a cost of $1m plus over five years which is not welcome as a ratepayer when the same river management results
                                 could be achieved under the current system by ensuring the relevant Agencies do their job.
                            -    The Queensland Maritime Safety moorings are an easy target for user pays system revenue but there are only 112 of them and any useful recovery of
                                 costs would require marina level charges to be imposed (without marina level services). Collecting charges from the remaining anchored boats would not
                                 be easy because of their movements and the less easily available ownership details.
                            -    Further, the great majority of boating on the river is shore based from ramps (subsidised by the State). These boats would escape user pays charges
                                 unless a ticket collector system was imposed and this is not practical. Additionally, the many boats based at residence jetties would not be charged for
                                 using the river.
                            -    In summary the great majority of boats using the Noosa River would escape user pays charges and the cost of user pays would be borne by the few
                                 licensed mooring holders.
                            -    My observation is that the majority of boats moored and anchored in the river are not super yachts and appear to owned by people of modest incomes.
                            -    If Council wished to attract the high spending super yacht crowd the river mouth would have to be continuously dredged at high cost and marina facilities
                                 constructed like Mooloolaba. Both of these would be in conflict with the draft River Plan.
                            -    I understand that a Woods Bay marina was not approved by the then Council some time ago for environmental reasons.
                            -    While improvement of the current mooring and anchoring arrangements in the river is always possible, the current situation is not bad.
                            -    Obviously deserted craft have been removed over recent years.
                            -    I consider a more cost effective way to manage river use is to ensure the current Agencies do their jobs.
                            -    The current presence of Agency personnel on the river during this holiday period is a good start.
                            -    Council should have a formal role as a point of contact for reporting issues to Agencies and following up on action taken. This would not require the major
                                 investment in people and equipment involved in implementing a user pays system with consequent benefits for all rate payers.

Q5. Boating            Please consider the following additional comments to address specific actions proposed under Sustainable Use and Enjoyment.
Industry Association       -    Action 1. Continue to work with relevant State agencies to advocate for and support improved monitoring, compliance and enforcement of regulations on
(BIA)                           the Noosa River. SUPPORTED.
                           -    Action 2. Advance discussions with relevant State agencies regarding local management of anchoring, mooring, living on the river … SUPPORTED IN
                                PART. That is Council should liaise with Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ), as the latter is the appropriate authority to oversee management of anchoring,
                                mooring and accommodation on boats.
                           -    Recommendation: Instead of ‘advancing’ discussions for council to take over boating responsibilities, Council should support MSQ to develop a Noosa
                                Regional Boating Plan which should be evidence-based and apply a Safe System approach i.e. safe people, safe vessels and safe waterways. It should
                                encompass safe navigation (i.e. water traffic) and maritime infrastructure (i.e. access, storage and environmental facilities). Such a plan could well set a
                                new benchmark in local waterway management for the State and Noosa could be used as the pilot for such a program that would deliver ongoing benefits
                                state wide.
                           -    Recommendation: Council should also support MSQ to establish a joint or shared maritime operational facility the area which could house other agencies
                                with responsibilities for marine matters in and around Noosa e.g. Fisheries. This could only help lift the profile of safe and responsible boating and
                                effectiveness of compliance in the area.
                           -    Action 3. Development of an Anchoring, Mooring and Living on board Management Plan to identify how council intends to manage these activities.
                                SUPPORTED BUT NOT MANAGED BY COUNCIL. MSQ should lead and deliver on this matter with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined
                                under response outlined above.
                           -    Recommendation: MSQ is the appropriate authority to manage these issues as in addition to its statutory responsibilities, the following is relevant. MSQ is
                                under new leadership which has already moved to lift compliance on the river; and lift education regarding safe and responsible boating. BIA is working
                                with MSQ on issues that include
                           -    Dealing with wrecks, derelict, abandoned vessels state wide and looking at recycling and repurposing
                           -    Dealing with sewage discharge from vessels
                           -    Supporting a strategic approach to boating infrastructure
                           -    Supporting a triple bottom line approach to ensure a proper balance and outcome for stakeholders
                           -    Making boating accessible and safe
                           -    Looking to the regulation, education and compliance model applied to anchoring, mooring and living aboard in other states such as NSW (where
                                permanent living on board is basically prohibited).
                           -    Recommendation: In the short term, Council should liaise with MSQ to have the latter apply a seaworthiness standard to new and existing vessels on
                                moorings in the estuary. Vessels deemed to be unseaworthy should not be granted or reissued with a permit to moor and or be issued with a notice to
                                remove.
                           -    Recommendation: Council should also request MSQ to put in place a system of education/ warnings/ inspection/ compliance regarding pollution offences
                                to any owners who have vessels moored or anchored that do not have holding tanks.
                           -    Action 4. State endorsement of the Plans, and enter into a formalised agreement under relevant waterways legislation. NOT SUPPORTED. MSQ should
                                lead and deliver on this matter with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined above.
                           -    Action 5. A review of anchoring and mooring locations and types of moorings. SUPPORTED IN PART. That is, such a review should be carried out.
                                However, MSQ is the appropriate organisation to lead on such matters as they hold responsibilities together with TMR for the statutory framework relating
                                to boating.
                           -    Action 6. Identification of a cap and locations for living on the river. SUPPORTED IN PART. That is, such a review should be carried out. However, MSQ
                                should lead and deliver with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined under response to #2 and 3
                           -    Action 7. Effective monitoring and facilitation of waste tank effluent removal and disposal from vessels. SUPPORTED IN PART.
                                That is, such a review should be carried out. However, MSQ should lead and deliver with support from Council for the similar
                                reasons outlined under response to #2 and 3.
                           -    Action 8. Advocate for removal of unsafe, abandoned and derelict vessels from the Noosa River. SUPPORTED BUT NOT TO BE MANAGED BY
                                COUNCIL. MSQ should lead and deliver on this matter with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined under response to #2 and 3. Furthermore,
                                MSQ is leading on the issue dubbed the “War on Wrecks” on behalf of the State Government and has $20M in State funding to respond to this very issue.
                                That includes the policy, strategy, capital and operational capability.
                           -    Action 9. Investigate legislative amendments to control the ‘length of stay’ for anchoring. SUPPORTED BUT NOT TO BE MANAGED BY COUNCIL. MSQ
                                should lead and deliver on this matter with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined under response to #2, 3 and 8.
                           -    Action 10. Review of seasonal speed limit restrictions around Munna Point and Noosa Spit (Dog Beach) with Maritime Safety Queensland. SUPPORTED
                                BUT NOT TO BE MANAGED BY COUNCIL. MSQ should lead and deliver on this matter with support from Council for the similar reasons outlined under
                                response to #2 and 3.

                                                                                                                                                                                               12