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

                           Use sections summarising the “Driver, Pressure, State and some of the “Impact” elements, and the Implementation, Action Plan and Monitoring sections
                           summarising the “Response” element), so this could be a useful starting point for summarising the logic flow that underpins the Plan.
                      -    Enhance the overarching objective of the Plan – the vision is clear, but the objective gets a bit lost.
                      -    Given the diversity of supporting documents and strategies that the Plan draws on (e.g. the 2017 Condition Assessment, research or community projects
                           on particular ecosystem elements, Noosa River Community Jury outcomes, Noosa Council’s Environment Strategy and Sustainability principles etc.), it
                           would be really helpful to have a table or diagram that summarises these information sources and the parts of the Plan they support. This could go as an
                           Appendix, but it would be helpful to flag this as a reference point early in the document.
                      -    The current Managing for Change subsection seems more like a summary of major threats. Suggest renaming it as such, then finishing with a short
                           subsection that summarises the planned management approach for dealing with the key challenge, e.g. an adaptive management strategy?
                      -    River Health and Biodiversity
                      -    This section contains a wealth of information, but I think would benefit from the following.
                      -    A bit more structure at the front end to help unpack the flow.
                      -    Trimming out some of the detail in some subsections, e.g. benthic biodiversity.
                      -    More consistency in the type of information presented in each of the habitat sections (e.g. some contain background and recommendations, some are a
                           mix of background, status-quo, threats and proposed actions etc.).
                      -    Repackaging the Rural runoff, Urban runoff and Wastewater treatment sections as collective threats (or management issues) to the habitats identified in
                           the Riparian and Wetland habitats section. Some overlap and repetition does creep in, however, given that the latter section also sometimes addresses
                           threats. On this point, the “climate change considerations” subsection in the Riparian and Wetland habitats section seems out of place, given it is an
                           overarching threat.
                      -    Sustainable Use and Enjoyment
                      -    Similar comments to above.
                      -    Suggest the “Speed limits & public safety” subsection is better placed in the Recreational Boating section.
                      -    Living on the river subsection is repeated from the River Health and Biodiversity area.
                      -   Working together
                      -   This is an integral part of the Plan, as stated in the Introduction. While the objectives are clearly stated, how all the stakeholders are brought together
                          doesn’t come through as clearly. Again, suggest including some kind of summary diagram that illustrates the stakeholder links to the Plan.
                      -   Implementation
                      -   Community input section seems better placed in “Working together”.
                      -    Noting the extent of information needed to produce the risk assessments, they are given a surprisingly low profile (and the text in the table is difficult to
                           read, though perhaps this is an issue with the document resolution).
                      -    Suggest a succinct summary paragraph highlighting the key risks that have been identified.
                      -    Action Plan
                      -    Great to see the Action Plan table that ties back to the objectives identified in each priority area, and consistently identifies the roles and desired outcomes
                           for each.
                      -    I would also suggest including an additional column that identifies the measurable targets for each (where possible). For example, rather than simply
                           “Riparian areas are protected to stabilise banks……”, how much area over the next 5 years (e.g. an additional 15%?).
                      -    Otherwise, there is a risk that stakeholders lose trust in the document. Additionally, undertaking a review of “progress against the stated objectives of the
                           Plan” (as identified in the Monitoring and Evaluation section) is difficult when there are few quantifiable benchmarks against which to gauge success.
                      -    Some of these targets have been included in the Monitoring and Evaluation section, and could be integrated into the Action Plan table.
                Does the plan identify and adequately address major conservation challenges?
                      -    Yes, the Plan identifies the key conservation challenges to different ecosystem components and societal values at various stages throughout the
                           document.
                      -    As identified above, however, these could be more succinctly summarised to avoid diffusing the message.
                How does it compare with current best practice?
                      -    The Plan often integrates best available information that is in many instances comprehensive, relevant and recent.
                      -    It also touches on plans for best practice approaches with regard to restoring lost habitat, such as oyster reefs.
                      -    However, it is unclear how widely some other relevant best practice approaches will be adopted in the Action Plan.
                      -    For example, the River Health and Biodiversity section identifies clear knowledge gaps in the “habitat condition” of Noosa’s waterways (p13). While
                           occasional references are made to overarching health assessment programs (such as the Healthy Land and Water program), it is unclear how
                           comprehensively each of the key ecosystem components in the Noosa River will be assessed and monitored for health status (e.g. report card grades)
                           under the Plan.
                      -   It is also unclear how widely predictive ecosystem modelling approaches will be used to better anticipate the likely impacts of key stressors, and adjust
                          management strategies to suit.
                Are the proposed interventions commensurable with the threats?
                      -   In general, yes.
                      -   However, measuring the success of interventions in mitigating the impact of threats can only be achieved if clear benchmarks are established, quantitative
                          indicators of ecosystem status are identified and regular monitoring and reporting systems are established.
                      -   While baselines and monitoring are sometimes suggested in the Plan, it is unclear how widely they will be applied.
                Is there sufficient scope for research and innovation, community engagement?
                      -   There is considerable scope for research and community engagement in the extent of work outlined in the Plan.
                      -   It may also be useful to identify somewhere in the document (perhaps in the Action Plan section) the key knowledge or information gaps that could best be
                          filled by these pathways.

The Nature           -   The plan is comprehensive and well thought out, providing a full understanding of the factors that impact the health of the watershed / catchment area.
Conservancy –        -   The plan considers and describes well the physical, ecological, economic and social factors that characterize the watershed and its community.
Reviewer 2           -   The plan balances economic and environmental health well and doesn't promote one over the other.
                     -   (Page 20) It would be well for the community to evaluate baseline fish population conditions in the basin. With the commercial and recreational importance
                         of fisheries in the community well-documented, a baseline population survey of fisheries in the watershed is merited and sets a foundation for adaptive
                         management.
                    -    There is a keen respect for indigenous peoples, the larger community and for cultural and historic resources. These sensitive areas may be threatened in
                         the future by changing sea levels and development pressures. The community should be prepared to respond to these challenges.
                    -    The plan provides measurable outcomes that are realistic and feasible. Community coordination and action will be required for success, but the value of
                         the watershed to the community seems strong and well documented.
                    -    In addition to providing measurable outcomes, the plan has developed a strong framework for accountability among various stakeholder groups.
                    -    Unless I missed it (and I very well may have), it was not clear to me if the volume and quality of drinking water was a concern in the watershed. Healthy
                         communities rely on clean, readily available drinking water as essential to the integrity of the community and economic and environmental health.
                A couple of additional minor points:
                    -    Consider a different cover photo. I am concerned for the health of the boy on the dock and what may have just transpired. In all seriousness, a photo that
                         has people and fish and boats, etc. could better represent the values of the community.
                    -    On page 5, "Introduction," the "." is not needed after "Working Together" in the second column.
                    -    Change 2019 to 2020, where appropriate.

The Nature      Water quality does not seem to be as elevated as I would expect.
Conservancy –        -    I think the report mentioned water quality has been decreasing and this can be a tipping point issue that affects everything else (habitat, fishing, oysters,
Reviewer 3                recreation etc.). Water quality does not seem to have its own target on the monitoring and evaluation table (although I do see the A rating grade target). A
                          lot of watershed plans in the US have TMDL (total max daily loads) assessments and goals for reducing loads but many of our systems are more impaired
                          so it is hard to compare without knowing more.
                I am also curious about the rate of development in the catchment or a projected development layer (maybe that’s not a big deal yet).
                     -    Same for impervious surface. It appears from the report that development and changing land use is not a threat? Hard to say because I am not very
                          familiar with the catchment.


                                                                                                                                                                                              27