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

     -     The Plan describes legal authority to enforce river matters then inappropriately segues into a randomly asked question “Local management now seems like
           a viable option, however would the community be supportive of this approach?”
     -     The sentence appears to be a badly edited leftover of some discussion document or timeline when the section should arguably end with a statement that
           Council has (like every other Council in Queensland) no power to enforce anything on water.
     -     Action required by Council
     -     Restructure this section to remove inappropriate questions and align headings.
     -     Amend Plan to properly acknowledge that many jury suggestions do not provide a mandate, were not based on any marine expertise or industry
           consultation or expert participation.
     -     Prepare a comprehensive cost benefit analysis of whether Council pursuing its aspiration to “get control” is an appropriate allocation of community funds.
Community Jury
     -     The section discusses community jury aspirations under the heading “Living on the river” which is a poor structure.
     -     Our Association views most of the jury’s suggestions from 3 years ago as largely redundant as State and Federal
            agencies will not cede control, a permanent MSQ officer has been announced to bolster enforcement and risk profiles have
            changed.
     -     We believe the plan inappropriately infers that the community jury’s aspirations (noted in detail) give Council a mandate
            when the process was deeply flawed. The jury – who are understood to have lacked any marine qualifications – were given
            briefing papers prepared by Council and with a strong bias towards Council’s aspirations and little information explaining State
            and Federal legislation.
     -     It is inappropriate to state the jury made recommendations to Council when the process was based on Council’s briefing
            papers to jury members which strongly promoted Council’s preferred outcomes.
     -     Actions required by Council
     -     Amend report structure.
     -     Amend the report to note that the jury were given briefing papers that promoted Council’s preferred outcomes.
Pithy political statements (page 46)
     -     There is no evidence or data to support the statement that ceding control of the river to Council will “encourage a welcoming, friendly boating community
           which supports visitors as well as the expectation of residents”.
     -     To date, Council has shown no intent to manage the river in a consultative manner or to work cooperatively with the “boating community.”
     -     Action required by Council
     -     Amend the Plan to either remove pithy political statements.
     -     Reinstate community wellbeing to the Vision.
     -     Include community engagement and stakeholder satisfaction as a Measurable Outcome.
Jetty leases (page 43)
     -     The Plan should be revised to ensure the last two paragraphs are related to the heading and should be separated to a section relating to community use of
           the foreshore.
     -     Action required
     -     Restructure this section.
Sustainable Use (page 41)
     -     Objective #1 refers to “respects the river’s carrying capacity” without any reference to how “capacity” will be assessed and by what Agency. It is noted that
           there is State jurisdiction over the Noosa River and Council offers no criteria or studies to inform such an assessment. No consultation with any
           stakeholders is referenced. This objective also fails to reference Council and State responsibilities to provide adequate infrastructure to support safe usage
           of the river.
     -     Objective #2 inappropriately infers “recreational and commercial fishing” determines fish abundance and diversity.
     -     This ignores the vast range of environmental factors influencing a species or the health of their environment.
     -     Objective #3 states the Objective of “River mouth and foreshores are preserved and protected to ensure the natural form, process and function of the river
           are not impacted”. This statement is inappropriate given the vast number of historical and likely future interventions by Council to the river mouth, Noosa
           Sound, Main Beach and Munna Point. The reference does not correspond to Council’s own recent Erosion Plans or other studies that suggest further
           interventions may be required.
     -     Actions required by Council
     -     Refine the wording of objectives to be more accurate and appropriate. Remove biased references within the objectives.
Objective 2 (viii) page 62
     -     Refers to a new initiative of “Conduct regular compliance activities of the North Shore exclusion zone” when this is already a Council responsibility that is
           rarely actioned.
     -     The report should explain why Council does not carry out such responsibilities now rather than present them as new initiatives.
     -     Action required by Council
     -     Report should provide details of Council’s commitment and results in enforcing compliance of current responsibilities rather than present them as new
           initiatives.
Objective 3 (vi) page 63
     -     Suggests Council will undertake a roads sediment study.
     -     Recent works on the Noosa North Shore abutting the Noosa River and associated wetlands has seen dozers widen the road with little regard for debris
           clearance or road sediment runoff.
     -     Actions required by Council
     -     Ensure all road works minimise sediment runoff.
Objective 1 (ii) pages 63-64
     -     Community jury recommendations are flawed as noted above. They do not provide a mandate or appropriate strategy.
     -     Re (a): Council is not responsible for anchoring and cannot “manage these activities”
     -     Re (b): There is strong opposition to Council pursuing this objective to take control of the waterway.
     -     Re (c): The objective should be to have State agencies undertake the review with input from Council.
     -     Re (d): The plan gives no indication of who./ how this determination will be made.
     -     Re (e): The report should state why these current responsibilities are not completed and argue for resources to deliver it. This is not a new initiative.
     -     Actions required by Council
     -     These objectives should be rewritten and rephrased to comply with jurisdictional responsibilities of State agencies.
     -     Council should remove any reference to having a mandate because of its flawed community jury process.
Objective 1 (v) page 64
     -     As noted in reference to page 50, the report rightly notes that speed limits are an issue however fails to identify the full
            range of issues or properly scope any future assessment which should account for:
     -     Impact of vessel wash (boat and jetski) on other boats, jetties, ramps and pontoons (not just swimmers).
     -     Suitability of the current area of the speed restricted zone (e.g. Should it be extended or reduced?).
     -     Merits of some areas should having a year round speed limit change.
     -     Adequacy of signage.
     -     Lack of enforcement of speeds in the restricted zone.
     -     Lack of enforcement of speed limits upriver of the restricted zone particularly in relation to speeding jetskis and boats in the highly used area between
           Noosaville and Tewantin.
     -     Lack of enforcement after hours.
     -     Emergent issues such as flight boards not being governed by marine speed limits.
     -     Actions required by Council
     -     Broaden the review of speed limits to provide a comprehensive assessment
Objective 1(vi) page 64
     -     This objective is considered inadequate.
     -     As noted previously, the Plan describes the growing usage of the river but fails to adequately or comprehensively address marine infrastructure
           requirements including:
     -     Does not comprehensively describe what infrastructure exists, usage, adequacy and/or issues associated with it.

                                                                                                                                                                        25