2016-01-11 General Committee Agenda

Page 10 of 50

ATTACHMENT 2
Community Jury Report — supporting explanations for recommendations
Compiled by a working group of 3 jurors on December 18, 2015

Each supporting explanation relates to jury discussions about a specific recommendation stated in
 the Noosa River Community Jury Final Report, December 2015. Each is numbered according to how
each appears in the report.

 1.    Review, update and implement the Noosa River Plan in a new framework and have it ratified with a
       formal status to ensure it has authority (recognising that is not currently a legal document). Ensure the
       Plan is clearly linked to relevant cultural, social and, transport strategies and plans.
       e     The jury discussed that they wanted the Noosa River Management Plan to be a document that
             the community was involved in on an ongoing basis
       e     The main focus was that the jury wanted the community to continue to have a say on The
             Noosa River Plan with a community engagement process like Council currently undertakes
             when developing any of its major plans such as the Local Economic Plan, the Social Strategy
             etc. And adopted as an official Council document that informs other Council plans and
             strategies.

2.     Undertake effective monitoring and facilitation of waste removal/disposal, for example through use of
       rebates for compliance or outsourcing to a third party on a user pays basis.
       e     We have had guest speakers present who suggested that illegal dumping from boats occurs on
             the river
       e     One of the jurors confirmed that one of his friends did it (illegal discharge of waste from a vessel
             in the river)
       e     Anecdotal evidence that illegal dumping does take place
       e     A third party to be employed to carry out the removal of waste from vessels was discussed
       e     The discussion was that perhaps the current facilities are too hard/inconvenient to use by vessel
             owners
       e     Concerns about revenue- raising prompted a discussion about raising the LOB fees. It was
             suggested that a rebate could be awarded to vessel owners if they fully complied with all
             regulations - specifically being able to present receipts/log book as evidence of pump —outs.

3.     Establish an effective duty of care (as per Cultural Heritage Act) with respect to sites of cultural
       heritage and ensure a specific policy or strategy on cultural matters including effective indigenous
       engagement on all aspects of river management.
       e     Guest speakers advised that there is not currently a process in place for  consultation with
             cultural leaders about cultural heritage sites (Kabi elders) on the river
       °     The jury felt that these groups should be included in the determination of location of
             moorings/anchorings/jetties and other works such as boat ramps and any other developments
             that may impact on these sites

4.     Implement a role similar to a park ranger (for example a national park model) with authority on the
       river around compliance and monitoring.
       e     The jury saw that such a ranger role had existed in the past but they also discussed how this
             role did not have any authority and that is why they wanted a role similar to a park ranger —
             someone with authority

                                                                                            Page 10 of 50