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

     -    The unilateral raising of environment above all other factors fails to meet the Council’s own objectives of its 2018 Corporate Plan specifically Theme 3 to
          support an economy that is diverse and resilient and with a sustainable tourism sector.
     -    This amendment may create an inappropriate mechanism for future Councillors to ignore non-environmental factors including indigenous history, social
          inclusion, industry and community amenity when it balances decisions against environmental factors.
     -    Action required
     -    Revise the vision to ensure it accounts for factors such as community wellbeing as previously proposed.
     -    Provide clear and measurable performance indicators that address all community wellbeing factors.
     -    Ensure the Noosa River Plan’s Vision is aligned to all the themes of Council’s Corporate Plan and not singularly limited to Environment.
     -    Council should form a River Management Advisory Group to help guide its policy direction.
Legal Mandate
     -    Council proposes to take various actions without a legal mandate and in contravention of State and Federal legislation.
     -    The Plan variously proposes Council taking on compliance and enforcement of responsibilities over issues such as mooring, waste disposal, safety etc.
     -    Current State and Federal legislation excludes Council from having authority or mandate to “take control of the river” as variously proposed in the Plan.
     -    While various suggestions are made that Council needs to negotiate such powers, it cannot put forward actions to ‘take control’ until such time as legal
          processes are resolved.
     -    River users cannot be subjected to Council harassment and attempts to enforce compliance if Council has no authority.
     -    Council has long advocated taking ‘control of the river’ but is no closer to gaining the required authority or mandate.
     -    The draft River Plan (and a large number of actions within it) should not be premised on Council’s unachievable aspiration to takeover powers that will not
          be ceded to it.
     -    Action required
     -    Plan should be restructured to:
     -    Ensure any actions align to existing legislative powers.
     -    Develop a partnering approach with key agencies to increase resources allocated to the Noosa River so compliance and environmental goals can be better
          achieved (rather than seeking to do it all by Council).
     -    Direct Council staff to consult with community and industry on the application of State and federal legislation to better inform any future references in
          subsequent draft plans.
     -    If Plan recommends any takeover of powers, the Implementation Plan must set out the process, timetable and communication plan for stakeholders.
Lack of Strategic Options
     -    The Plan argues for “taking control of the river” without addressing options or alternatives to achieve desired outcomes.
     -    Action required
     -    Plan needs to be restructured to ensure any issue that is described is substantiated with data, assessed, prioritised and specifically mapped to action
          plans/actions that will address it.
Actions put forward do not properly align to or respond to key issues
     -    The plan describes “issues” based on personal perceptions and appear to lack data or evidence to support such observations or their declaration as
          “issues” which need to be addressed (e.g. Houseboats regularly breaking free and causing damage; increased boat traffic during holidays being a bad
          thing; safety is compromised without referring to any data on marine incidents etc.).
     -    The plan gives inadequate consideration of the relative priority of issues, their seriousness or their impacts.
     -    The plan fails to describe some issues at all before recommending actions.
     -    In particular, the Plan makes multiple recommendations about taking control of commercial businesses and leases but does not describe any issues
          associated with those businesses, does not associate any negative impacts created by them, does not refer to any significant legislative breach by any of
          them nor put forward any reasoned argument for seeking to take such action.
     -    Action required
     -    Plan should delete any actions that cannot be linked to a significant issue which are otherwise seen as peripheral and unnecessary.
     -    Plan should demonstrate consultation with responsible State and Federal agencies in relation to safety, compliance and risk before making ill-informed
          assessments without data or reference.
Plan needs to define the scope of waterways actually being addressed (page 5)
     -    Plan defines its scope as “Noosa’s freshwater creeks, wetlands, lakes, river estuary, coastal creeks and groundwater and incorporates a whole of
          catchment management approach”.
     -    The Plan however variously discusses the Noosa River and Noosa Waterways but extends into making arbitrary recommendations for singular matters
          relating to North Shore beaches and a single recommendation for Laguna Bay.
     -    Plan does not address broader issues associated with Laguna Bay, southern beaches, river mouth or any local coastal or offshore waters.
     -    The Plan fails to comprehensively assess sub-zones within the river such as lakes or urban areas or provide specific responses to zone issues (e.g.
          Sediment runoff from North Shore’s dirt roads adjacent to river).
     -    Plan does not address broader issues with pollution, infrastructure and management of the coastal and marine issues and only selectively chooses a few
          for reference.
     -    The current piecemeal approach is considered inadequate in scope nor properly consulted with key marine environmental reference and research groups.
     -    Action required
     -    Plan needs a defined scope as to whether it is referring to inland/upriver waterways or all river and ocean areas.
     -    Plan then needs to be revised to align its scope (e.g. If it is only addressing upriver areas, then it should delete ocean references.
     -    If it is addressing upriver and ocean issues, then it needs significant additional work rather than the current piecemeal approach to selective species and
          topics.
     -    Plan should comprehensively assess and profile each major region in the river to provide strategies and actions that are properly responsive to each
          region’s individual issues.
     -    Plan should either include or exclude all coastal areas rather than refer to selective issues on selective beaches.
Actions not related to issues
     -    The first draft of the Plan (page 7) stated that the river was under pressure from many sources including recreational users and environmental impacts but
          did not attribute a single issue to commercial operators.
     -    The second draft similarly does not attribute a single issue or environmental impact from commercial operators however the report continues the
          inappropriate targeting and controlling of commercial operators.
     -    Action required
     -    Council should ensure any actions are directly linked to clearly identified/and prioritised issues.
     -    It should not include vague political agendas in the plan if they are not causally linked to an actual issue that has a significant negative impact on the Noosa
          River.
Marine knowledge and experience
     -    Plan makes various references to marine safety and marine infrastructure however appear to lack proper referencing to existing legislation, agency
          responsibility or appropriate marine qualification.
     -    Many statements appear to be personal opinions and lack baseline data (eg. Boats regularly break free of their moorings and damage infrastructure) or
          understanding of marine regulations (eg. Duration for anchoring).
     -    Plan appears to be a desktop study and has no reference to baseline data for marine incidents.
     -    To our knowledge, Council staff/authors do not have any marine qualifications and/or on-river experience.
     -    Action required
     -    Report needs to be peer reviewed by marine industry experts.
     -    Report needs to be peer reviewed by State and Federal agencies before further considered by Council (noting it would be inappropriate for Council to
          approve a plan with actions that are potentially illegal).
     -    Report needs to be edited to remove personal perceptions and unsupported anecdotes and linked to appropriate baseline data.
     -    Report needs to engage with industry in relation to marine infrastructure issues and strategies.
Implementation Plan
     -    To be effective, Objectives need to be specific, measurable and have a completion date.
     -    Most actions lack a completion date and are inappropriately vague which makes them unaccountable.
     -    Actions listed as for completion by 2030 need to have sub-actions with earlier completion dates so progress can be tracked.


                                                                                                                                                                         21