Agenda of Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Review Committee



Pūrongo Ki: Report To:	Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Review Committee
Rā Hui: Meeting Date:	30 July 2024
Kaituhi Pūrongo: Report Writer:	Toni Briggs, Senior Project Manager
Kaiwhakamana Pūrongo: Report Authoriser:	Reuben Fraser, General Manager, Regulatory Services
Kaupapa: Purpose:	To provide the Committee with analysis of options posed to the community during consultation of the draft Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws 2024.

Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Deliberations

Whakarāpopototanga
Executive Summary

This paper, and the accompanying attachments, outline the analysis of the consultation questions, submissions, and hearings on the draft Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws.

Staff have endeavoured to provide recommendations on preferred options for the key changes posed as part of the consultation.

Ngā tūtohutanga
Recommendations

That the Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Review Committee:

1 Receives the report, Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Deliberations;

2 Directs staff to make changes to the bylaws as outlined during the Deliberations;

3 Notes the matters outlined in sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of this report which are required to be considered during the next Navigation Safety Bylaws Review.

1. Kupu Whakataki
Introduction

1.1 The purpose of the Committee

The Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws Review Committee was established by the Regional Council, 23 June 2022; for the purpose of undertaking engagement, options analysis, submissions, hearings, and deliberations of the review process; and making a final recommendation to Council on revised Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws.

This meeting is to deliberate on the options by considering submissions made through the consultation and hearings processes against the key scope of the Maritime Transport Act mandate (to ensure maritime safety in the region by developing navigation safety bylaws under section 33M). Regional Council do this to minimise the risk of fatalities, injuries, accidents, collisions, and damage in the Bay of Plenty navigable waters.

1.2 Bylaws

New Zealand manages and controls maritime safety under a range of international and national law, including a national set of maritime rules.

Regional Councils have a discretion under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to make Bylaws however these must adhere to the mandate under the Act - “For the purpose of ensuring maritime safety…”.

Section 33 M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 has a defined list of matters that a bylaw can cover.

Owing to the way s33M is framed, the use of a bylaw must be for the purpose of navigation safety. This means that care is needed to ensure that rules are not imposed for some other purpose, such as the protection of amenity or the wider environment.

Submitters have raised a range of points on the various options raised in the Statement of Proposal for the draft bylaws. While many if not most matters are directly or indirectly related to maritime safety issues, and able to be considered by you, some matters raised did not relate to maritime safety issues. The recent workshop on these bylaws covered how to assess relevant and irrelevant considerations in the context of the bylaws.

1.3 Pou Tarāwaho ā-Ture
Legislative Framework

1.3.1 The Maritime Transport Act 1994

Under Part 3A of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Regional Council is mandated to ensure maritime safety in its region by appointing Harbourmasters, making Bylaws, and carrying out enforcement on offences. The specific bylaw making power for Navigation Safety comes from section 33M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Maritime Rules

Bylaws made under section 33M of the Maritime Transport Act must not be inconsistent with Maritime Rules.

While the Maritime Transport Act stipulates broad principles of maritime law, the Rules contain detailed technical standards and procedures. Compliance with the rules is required because they form part of New Zealand maritime law. Failure to comply with the rules may be an offence under the Act.

The Maritime Rules are statutory instruments (or secondary legislation) made by the Maritime New Zealand under the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Maritime Rules relate to the safety of ships (vessels) and people. The rules prescribe requirements for ship design, construction, equipment, crewing, operation, tonnage measurement, and for the carriage of passengers and cargoes. Many of the standards are based on international ship safety conventions.

Of particular importance to Regional Councils are:

· Maritime Rules – Part 90 – Pilotage^{^[1]}

Maritime Rules Part 90 specifies compulsory pilotage areas and thresholds for pilotage. It also covers qualifications and training for pilots and pilotage exempt masters, and the issue of pilot licences and masters’ pilotage exemption certificates (PECs) by the Director of Maritime New Zealand. This is of particular importance for the Port of Tauranga.

· Maritime Rules – Part 91 – Navigational Safety^{^[2]}

Part 91 outlines navigation safety rules, specifically for personal floatation devices, anchoring and mooring, give way rules, wakes and proximity to oil tankers and ships carrying dangerous goods.

· Maritime Rules – Part 22: Collision Prevention^{^[3]}

Part 22 outlines the navigation safety rules (and gives effect to the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea). These rules outline the standardised (international) system for prevention of collisions and apply to all watercraft, including ships, pleasure craft, and seaplanes. The rules outline international conventions around steering and sailing, and the use of lights and sound for collision avoidance.

1.3.2 The Local Government Act 2002:

Although the bylaw-making power is authorised under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, aspects of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 also apply to navigation safety bylaws.

Regional councils make bylaws under the LGA 2002 under the general procedure for making bylaws (sections 155-161) and consult on bylaws using the special consultative procedure (section 86). Consultation has occurred as required by section 86 of the LGA. Public consultation was carried out between 18 December 2023 and 29 February 2024. 576 submissions were received. Hearings were held from 2 April to 4 April 2024.

The specific requirements of s 155 of the LGA 2002 are of note.

Under s 155(1) a local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

If that is the case, under s 155(2) the local authority has to, before making the bylaw, determine whether the bylaw:

(a) Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

(b) Gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Bylaws also cannot be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - s 155(3).

The Statement of Proposal prepared as part of the consultation on these bylaws considered s 155(1) and other non-bylaw options to address maritime safety issues in the Region. It determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing this issue.

While the Statement of Proposal also assessed the remaining s 155 matters, the way that section of the LGA 2002 is framed effectively requires further analysis prior to any bylaw being made (i.e. finalised) by a local authority.

As such, the attached Options tables have a s 155(2) assessment where a position is recommended by staff. This assesses whether there are other less restrictive ways to regulate the issues.

One issue – Hunters Creek/Otapu – does not have a recommended staff position, and so you will need to turn your mind to s 155(2) before finalising a position on that matter. As with the other options, considering if the same end can be achieved by less restrictive means is recommended as part of s 155(2).

In terms of s 155(2)(b) and (3), it is not considered that any of the potential provisions or options in the draft bylaws give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and nor are they inconsistent with that Act.

Adopting bylaws cannot be delegated by Council to a Committee, so the Committee ‘recommends’ a course of action to Council for adoption.

1.3.3 Marine Transport (Infringement Fees for Offences – Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws 2017) Regulations 2017:

Under section 33O of the Maritime Transport Act, Regional Council can set infringement fees by Order in Council^{^[4]}. At present we have 2017 regulations, which outlines offences under the Bay of Plenty Region Navigation Safety Bylaws 2017 and the fees applicable for those offences. These will need to be updated through a separate process of application to the Minister of Transport.

Staff have previously provided the Committee with draft infringement fees. The Committee endorsed the infringement fees being submitted to the Ministry (a separate process) with two areas signalled to be explored for increases (prohibition of entry into exclusion zone, and not anchoring in front of large ships – a moving prohibited zone).

1.3.4 Other Legislation:

Staff have also ensured that any other legislation that may affect the legitimacy of the new Bylaws is considered. For example, one key influence will be from the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and the recognition of customary marine titles and protected customary rights.

1.4 Te Hāngai ki te Pou Tarāwaho Rautaki
Alignment with Strategic Framework

Safe and Resilient Communities

We support community safety through flood protection and navigation safety.

The Maritime Operations Activity provides a 24/7 navigation safety and maritime oil spill response across the region, as required by regulations and Regional Council requirements. This involves operating an around-the-clock call centre and duty roster, administering moorings and commercial/event licences, and maintaining navigational aids, lights, and beacons around the region.

The Activity promotes navigational safety through a combination of regulation enforcement and education with an aim to ensure people are kept safe on the water and our maritime environments are protected from spills. The Navigation Safety Bylaws is a key component of this work.

1.4.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

Low - Positive

þ Cultural

Low - Positive

þ Social

Low - Positive

þ Economic

Low - Positive

The review of the Navigation Safety Bylaws 2017 will affect all the well-beings directly. A significant focus is put on the safety of the community on all navigable waters in the region.

2. Draft options analysis

Attached are tables outlining the options for each of the consultation questions. Staff have added context and impacts of each option for consideration.

2.1 Kaituna River Options

See Kaituna River options table attached.

2.1.1 Staff position

Though the clear majority of submitters wished to keep the status quo of permanent speed uplifting to the river, staff consider that the increase in speed from the standard 5 knots increases the risk to persons using the water in specific areas identified as popular with swimmers and other water users.

Regional Council makes Bylaws for the purpose of ensuring navigation safety.

The Maritime Transport Act 1994, section 33M outlines among other things, that ensuring navigation safety can be undertaken in the following way:

· Regulating and controlling the use or management of [vessels] (33M(1)(a))

· Reserving the use of any waters for specified persons, [vessels]… (33M(1)(e))

· Prescribing [vessel] separation and management schemes; (33M(1)(h)).

Given the range of future proposed development projects and an increasing desire for access to the river there is a potential increased risk to navigation safety and increased danger to people using the water. Section 33M allow Council to manage this.

With this in mind staff recommend:

a. Adding a map specifically indicating the 5 knot area at Ford Road in the Bylaws (this is currently 5 knots but this needs to be highlighted in the Bylaws document).

b. Designating the Waitangi Area from 200m downstream of the Waitangi railway bridge to 400m upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge a 5 knot zone. Note the accompanying drone footage of the area indicated in the map below.

c. Note the projects occurring at Bell Rd and the advancement of the urban growth areas (the feasibility report outlines a longer time timeline for these projects). Consider implementing navigation safety review at next Bylaws review (@ 2029).

d. Maintain the speed uplifting of 10 knots from the Bell Road boat ramp to the Ford Road cut (status quo).

e. Maintain the speed uplifting from Ford Road cut to the river mouth (status quo).

2.1.2 Overall Assessment

Option 2 is preferred.

Swimming (and non-motorised activities) are a legitimate recreational activity. For the Kaituna the reach through the Waitangi area is regularly used for swimming and safety of river users is an increasing concern. There is a consequence of reduced opportunity for motorised vessels (specifically jet boats) however this is a limited impact as vessels can continue to travel through the area just not at speed.

2.2 Tarawera River

See Tarawera River options table attached.

2.2.1 Staff Position

In terms of Speed Upliftings, consideration is given to whether the uplift would unacceptably increase the risk to navigation safety or endanger persons using the waters. Navigation safety must be the key consideration in decision-making. Staff consider that the increase in speed from the standard 5 knots increases the risk to persons using the waters in specific areas identified as popular with swimmers and other water users.

Regional Council makes Bylaws for the purpose of ensuring navigation safety.

The Maritime Transport Act 1994, section 33M outlines among other things, that ensuring navigation safety can be undertaken in the following way:

· Regulating and controlling the use or management of [vessels] (33M(1)(a))

· Reserving the use of any waters for specified persons, [vessels]… (33M(1)(e))

· Prescribing [vessel] separation and management schemes; (33M(1)(h)).

Access to static water resource by an increasing number of power driven vessels makes it challenging to manage the safety of people in the water (i.e. swimmers).

With this in mind staff recommend:

· Designating the area from the State Highway 34 (Tamarangi Drive), through the Kawerau township to the end of the Kawerau Golf course (rock edge assets present) a 5 knot zone.

· Install signage clearly marking the boundaries of the area.

· Being cognisant of national and international kayak and raft competitions held on the same stretch of river as the proposed 5 knot zone, and the focused communication needed to ensure awareness that events can still take place.

2.2.2 Overall Assessment

Option 2 is preferred.

Swimming (and non-motorised activities) are a legitimate recreational activity. For the Tarawera the reach through Kawerau township is regularly used for swimming and safety of river users is an increasing concern. There is a consequence of reduced opportunity for motorised vessels (specifically jet boats) however this is a limited impact as vessels can continue to travel through the area just not at speed.

2.3 Ōhiwa Harbour

See Ōhiwa Harbour options table attached.

2.3.1 Staff Position

Regional Council makes Bylaws for the purpose of ensuring navigation safety. A number of submitters reported witnessing bad behaviour of jetskiiers (including some with video and photo evidence) supporting the need for continuing navigation safety management of those disregarding Bylaws.

Because of how s 33M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 is framed, it is not possible to make a navigation bylaw for the purpose of protecting amenity. Though staff can no longer support a ban of jetskis for amenity or noise values; the Bylaws still allows for application of standard speed rules to manage jetski behaviour in certain areas of the Harbour.

Staff recommend:

· The strict application of the standard speed rules (Clauses under Bylaws 4.2)

· Education of the meaning of “shore”:

Maritime Rule 91.6(1)(b) No person shall go at a speed exceeding 5 knots… within 200 m of shore….

Shore is not defined in the MTA, however… Shore is defined in the draft bylaw as: “Shore” means the edge of a sea, lake, river or other body of water.

The edge of the water will vary depending on tides and water levels. Much of Ōhiwa Harbour will be subject to the 5 knot speed restriction, particularly at low-tide.

2.3.2 Overall Assessment:

Option 2 is recommended.

The primary reason for this is that the current ban on PWC use to protect amenity values cannot be sustained under the Maritime Transport Act for the reason outline above. The nature of the Ōhiwa Harbour – specifically its extensive sand bars and mud flats - means that the 5 knot/200m rule restricts the use of PWCs throughout the harbour – extensively at low tide and within a number of areas of potential conflict at high tide.

2.4 Hunters Creek/Otapu

Staff have not suggested a recommended position for this topic as the options are very finely balanced. In making your decision, you will need to consider the points raised in submissions and at the hearings. You must consider the safety concerns expressed in submissions and hearings. In addition, the nature of reserved areas, and the significant restrictions on other users that come with this approach, means you are able to consider the impacts on other potential maritime uses of the area. Hunters Creek/Otapu is relatively remote, and so some distance from any public facilities such as toilets or fuel-stations. Submissions have indicated concerns about poor behaviour from some boats using the ski lane. You will need to consider whether this factor is significant in the overall decision-making process given that it may be attributable to boat-use in general (not just those who are engaged in water skiing).

Since there is no recommended option on this topic, staff have not included a recommended s 155(2) assessment. Prior to finalising your position, you will therefore need to consider if the option you chose is the most appropriate form of the bylaw (i.e. the most appropriate way to regulate maritime safety matters for Hunters Creek/Otapu).

2.5 Pilot Bay Swim Area

See Pilot Bay Swim Area options table attached.

2.5.1 Staff Position

In order to install a dedicated swim area at Pilot Bay, Maritime staff would need to designate an area as “reserved” under the Maritime Transport Act s 33M (1)(e) and apply the Maritime Rules for reserved areas – Maritime Rule 91.12. Of particular note is 91.12 (5) and (6):

“(5) No person may obstruct another person while the other person is using a reserved area for the purpose for which it is reserved.

(6) If a person is using a reserved area for the purpose for which it is reserved, no other person may enter, remain in, or use the reserved area.”

This effectively prohibits all other users.

2.5.2 Overall Assessment

Option 1 is preferred.

While it is recognised that there can be challenges for swimmers where vessels may not be following the rules, installing a swim lane would be significantly disruptive to current users. Not all swimmers would use a dedicated area meaning the safety risk may reduce but would not be eliminated.

3. Other considerations

3.1 Upper Kaituna commercial consent

3.1.1 History

In 2013, Aerius Limited (trading as Kaituna River Jet) applied to Regional Council to uplift the 5 knot speed limit on the Kaituna River from the confluence of the Mangorewa River to the to the first set of rapids some 12.5km upstream of that confluence. The Council decided to appoint a panel of commissioners to hear public submissions for and against the application and to thereafter make a recommendation to the Council on the granting or declining of the application.

The applicant held a Resource Management Act 1991 deemed section 9 resource consent to undertake their jet boat operation, granted by the antecedent authority to the now Western Bay of Plenty District Council. The deemed resource consent authorised activities on the surface of the Kaituna River, that being a specific function of territorial authorities under section 31(1)(e) of the RMA.

However, this did not cover the ability for the jetboats to operate at speed, as at the time the standard 5 knot rules applied to the area.

A Hearing on the speed uplifting application was held in Mount Maunganui on Tuesday, 29 October 2013.

The Hearing panel recommended to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council that pursuant to Maritime Rule 91.20(2)(d) it uplifts the 5 knot speed limit on the Kaituna River from the confluence of the Mangorewa River to the to the first set of rapids some 12.5 km upstream of the confluence subject to the following conditions:

a. The uplifting of the speed limit shall be restricted to commercial operators operating under Maritime Rule Part 82 provided that those operators also hold a relevant resource consent from the Western Bay of Plenty District Council or its successor or delegate authority;

b. The speed limits shall be uplifted between the hours of 9am to 5pm inclusive;

c. The speed limits shall not be uplifted 50m either side of the Maungarangi Road bridge;

d. The speed limits shall not be uplifted on the first Sunday of each month.

The Hearing Panel recommendations are in the current (2017) Bylaws document as clause 6.7.1.

3.1.2 Submissions

Jet Boating NZ (submitter 0573) was the only submitter to comment on the Upper Kaituna Commercial restrictions and Bylaws Clauses 6.7.1.

JBNZ do not support a restriction on the upper Kaituna (from the Mangorewa confluence to a point 12.5 km up stream) for a single commercial business.

3.1.3 Staff position

Though the original land use consent is still active through Western Bay of Plenty District Council (as a land use consent it will not expire), the business formally functioning under Springloaded Fun Park has ceased to operate and the business de-registered.

The Bylaws clauses (specifically relating to the commercial jetboat) could be removed however the river is subject to a Gazetted speed uplifting (2014-au3530 pg 1693). This uplifting would continue to apply irrespective of the Bylaw having a speed uplifting open to all users.

The existing bylaw mirrors the Gazetted uplifting provisions.

This specific issue was not highlighted in the consultation process, so it is recommended that this should be a specific issue that is reviewed by staff in the future with the options of both no uplifting and an open uplifting being explored (including consultation). Any future implementation would require the removal of the Gazette notice. No change to the Draft Bylaw text is recommended.

3.2 Submarine cables/PowerCo submission.

3.2.1 Submission

Powerco owns and operates several submarine electricity cables within the Tauranga Harbour. Their submission outlines their support for the general intent of clause 3.7.1, however they wish Council to change and strengthen the clauses pertaining to submarine cables.

Remembering that the Bylaws are about navigation safety, not protection of third-party infrastructure; the clauses in the current bylaws and proposed in the draft are intended to allow vessels to anchor within 200m of a marked submarine cable in the event of an emergency only.

Electricity, gas and phone cables and pipelines are protected by the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Act 1996.

The Act is administered by the Ministry of Transport directly, though some powers are delegated to Maritime NZ.

Regional Councils have no delegated authority or direction to include protection of cables and pipelines in Bylaws.

3.2.2 Staff position

Staff recommend declining to accept the changes suggested in the Powerco submission and refer them to the Ministry if they wish to protection their infrastructure through the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Act 1996.

4. Considerations for next Bylaws review

4.1 Extension of the Astrolabe exclusion zone

Since the formal consultation, it has come to light that there have been a few instances of international ships over 500 gross tonnes passing between the Rena exclusion zone and Motiti Island (the last instance was 21 Mar 24 when the cargo vessel Ken Bos inbound for POT was cautioned by Maritime NZ). In this case the ship did not breach any exclusion zone hence the Harbourmaster could not infringe the vessel The vessel was approx. 700 – 800 m from Motiti shore when she transited the passage.

If this becomes a more frequent practice, it could pose as a significant risk to our regions waters and result in another ‘Rena’ incident.

Advice from Maritime NZ suggested the best course of action was to engage with the International Maritime Organisation, as this involved international shipping lanes.

Staff anticipate this could be a lengthy process and propose this it is documented in Meeting minutes as a topic for the next Bylaws review.

4.2 East Coast shipping route

Shipping moving North-South (and into Tauranga) travels close to the East Coast shoreline. This is not understood to be a significant risk – and is more of a risk for the Gisborne part of East Coast. This matter is however something to continue to monitor. If the risk was seen to increase Harbourmaster powers could be used to enhance safety aspects of this coastal route.

4.3 Prohibiting anchoring in Shipping Channel – Tauranga Harbour

Another issue that has surfaced after consultation is the risk of recreational vessels anchoring in the Shipping channel into Tauranga Harbour and the Port.

In the next review, it would be beneficial to make this a ‘prohibited anchorage’ zone rather than just ‘restricted anchorages’ in clause 8.10 in the draft Bylaws.

Staff anticipate this could be a popular consultation topic and propose this it is documented in Meeting minutes as a topic for the next Bylaws review.

5. Tracked Changes

5.1 Minor editing changes

Please note the minor editing and numbering changes are also highlighted in the tracked changes copy attached.

5.2 Clarification around speed upliftings

Clause 6.5.1 has been clarified to ensure there is understanding that despite the application of a speed uplifting, some of standard speed rules still apply (Clause 4.2):

· 50 metres from any other vessel;

· 50 metres from any person in the water;

· 200m from any structure;

…whether it is a permanent 5 knot zone or not.

5.3 Wording changes to clarify lifejackets, and surfing and boardsports

Staff recommend changing the wording of Clauses 1.4 definition of Boardsport; and Clause 3.1.4 in tracked changes Bylaws document (Attached).

Feedback received via our social media campaign pointed out that this clause was ambiguous and overly constraining of surfers and bodyboarders.

Staff canvased other regional bylaws and updated the wording to:

· better reflect the Maritime rule:

Maritime Rule 91:

(2) Rule 91.4(1) and (6) shall not apply to—

(a) any surfboard or similar unpowered craft; and

(b) any sailboarder or windsurfer, if a wetsuit is worn at all times;

· align with other bylaws ensuring better national consistency.

· be consistent with the enforcement approach under the existing 2017 Bylaws.

· enable better interpretation by a layperson.

5.4 Maritime NZ (Submission 504)

Staff recommend changing the definition of Anchoring as outlined in Maritime NZs submission.

See tracked changes Bylaws document (Clause 1.4) (Attached).

6. Ngā Whakaarohanga
Considerations

6.1 Ngā Mōrea me Ngā Whakangāwaritanga
Risks and Mitigations

Given the legacy issues connected to this project, the project is considered to be high risk. Detailed risk analysis and management was built into the project management of the review and any new issues and risks that affected the decision-making of the Committee were presented to the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

6.2 Huringa Āhuarangi
Climate Change

Climate change has an impact on all Council does and is considered in all that we do, and the effects are considered across the length of the project.

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

6.3 Ngā Pānga ki te Māori
Implications for Māori

The Treaty principles and the partnerships upon which they are founded are an established part of our local government framework. As Treaty partners, Māori hold a unique role in shaping and contributing to regional leadership and direction.

As some of the legacy issues are of particular importance to tangata whenua it is important to include them in the consultation, and decision-making process.

6.4 Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori
Community Engagement

CONSULT

Whakauiuia

To obtain input or feedback from affected communities about our analysis, alternatives, and /or proposed decisions.

Consultation has occurred on the Draft Navigation Safety Bylaws.

6.5 Ngā Pānga ā-Pūtea
Financial Implications

Financial implications are dependent on the final decisions for each consultation topic.

Most options would entail some cost around updated signage, education material, communications campaigns and possibly additional summer patrol personnel.

These costs can conceivably be covered by current operating costs, however if as part of decision making the committee choose to recommend additional full time Maritime staff, resources (i.e. patrol vessels and equipment), or Aids to Navigation this would need to be highlighted to Council at Adoption.

7. Ngā Mahi Whai Ake
Next Steps

Adoption of the finalised Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws is a two step process:

29 August 24: Final Committee meeting to endorse the final tracked changes version for adoption by full Regional Council.

12 September 24: Final adoption of new Bay of Plenty Regional Navigation Safety Bylaws 2024

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Kaituna River Options Analysis ⇩

Attachment 2 - Tarawera River Options Analysis ⇩

Attachment 3 - Ōhiwa Harbour Options Analysis ⇩

Attachment 4 - Hunter Creek Options Analysis ⇩

Attachment 5 - Pilots Bay Options Analysis ⇩

Attachment 6 - 2021 Otaiparia Reserve Decision Story ⇩

Attachment 7 - Kaituna River Drone Footage Timing ⇩

Attachment 8 - Tarawera River Drone Footage Timing ⇩

Attachment 9 - Ōhiwa Harbour Mean High Water Springs 2024 ⇩

Attachment 10 - Ōhiwa Harbour Option 2 Option Map ⇩

Supporting Document 1 - 2024 03 14 Kaituna-Waiari River Access Feasibility Report_FINAL ⇩

Supporting Document 2 - Tracked Changes Document Deliberations Copy minus commentry 22 Jul 24 ⇩

[4] An Order in Council means this regulation must go through Parliament to provide the legal force (see MTA 1994 s33O).

Chairperson	Cr Andrew von Dadelszen
Members	Bay of Plenty Regional Council: Cr Toi Kai Rakau Iti (Deputy Chair) Cr Jane Nees Cr Kevin Winters Tangata Whenua Representatives: Raewyn Bennett Micah Tawhara Patrick Young
Ex Officio	Chairman Doug Leeder
Quorum	Four members, consisting of a minimum of two tangata whenua members and two councillors
Meeting frequency	As required in agreed work programme