2021-01-18 GC - Item 2 - Attachment 2 - Consultation Report River Plan Version 1 (2018)

                     -   If you allowed the use of Jet Skis with the same restrictions as other recreational vessels I would be happy to pay extra $20.

                     -   $20 to pay for removal of vessels as long as mooring rights are increased to a ‘decent’ amount.

                     -   $20 per year is completely reasonable to protect one of our most beautiful assets.

                     -   $20, but cost sharing of the co-governance arrangements should be borne by local and state governments to implement the plan actions.

                     -   $20 if that’s what it takes to get action.

5            $20 -   -   We are willing to pay $20-$50 annual river management levy to help fund the catchment, provided we are updated with planning, progress, and
             $50         direction of where the funds go into the river management.

                     -   $30 per year.

                     -   Yes, I am willing to pay extra in my rates. $50 a year I don’t think is asking too much. I know that Noosa is dependent upon tourism, but I think there
                         needs to be a limit as to how much tourism and how it impacts on our environment, and our day to today lives. People are drawn to Noosa because of
                         its beauty, we can’t afford to lose that beauty through greed.

                     -   Yes happy to pay a levy if you add the dredging of the river mouth $50.

2            $100    -   Less than people spend on stupid coffee.

7            Other   -   I do not currently live in the Noosa district however I would be happy to pay $20+ for an effective plan as I have lived on the coast for 37 years now
                         and the NR and nearby surfing points have been a massive part of my life through this time.

                     -   I support the Environment Levy being used for activities such as projects that help reduce sediment movement from upstream and other initiatives
                         that help protect wetlands and important marine habitats but nor for issues such as control of moorings and the like.

                     -   Would prefer an Environmental Levy hence rate payers know where it is going and it can be switched on and off. I would not add to the Tourism Levy
                         as I think it is very high on rental properties that are not located on Hastings Street already.

                     -   If I were a ratepayer, I would pay $50-$100 per annum.

                     -   I would prefer to pay a once off levy to get the management framework sorted, and then revisit the costs of implementing the plan and how these
                         could be spread among polluters. Many of the actions really could be subsidised by the polluters – i.e. is there any opportunity for rates on the shops
                         that sell single use plastic etc. to fund the activities associated with river management, then rates on farmers be increased by the area of land and
                         based on their estimates soil loss etc. And then these rates reduce where they implement practices to reduce the pollution – i.e. shops that don’t use
                         straws or only sell cans or glass and don’t use plastic utensils or plastic bags, get their rates discounted.

                     -   Refer to the fee structure for Environmentally Relevant Activities and emission score.
76                   -   Includes responses from YSN and feedback forms from pop ups
submitters           -   31 = no
                     -   38 = yes (some with caveats)
                     -   7 = other




                                                                                                                                                                                  19