Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 4 November 2015

Time: 9:30am Tangata whenua Representatives Hui

10:45am Morning tea

11:00am Public Committee meeting commences

12:30pm Lunch

1:00pm Public Committee meeting recommences

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 16 September 2015

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 16 September 2015

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

7. NPS for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme Revision 9

8. Mohaka Water Quality and Ecology 27

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal 31

10. September-October 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update 33

11. November 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update 39

12. Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016 41

13. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 53

Please note – Pre Meeting for Tangata whenua members of the committee begins at 9:30am

1. Two hour on-road parking is available in Vautier Street at the rear of the HBRC Building

2. The public park in Vautier Street costs $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry of Vautier Street – it would be appropriate that the “visitors” parks be available for the members travelling distances from Waiora and CHB

NB: Any carparks that have yellow markings should NOT be used to park in.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka (co-chair)	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Walter Wilson	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Christine Scott	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Dave Pipe	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson (co-chair)	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 17[1]

QUORUM AND VOTING ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 13 members.

Voting Entitlement ( clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all membes of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

13 10

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1.	Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings	Terms of Reference set out in the Regional Planning Committee legislation	L Lambert	Report to be considered at February 2016 RPC meeting
2.	Clean Air Compliance Strategy	staff to investigate the efficacy of a ‘no visible smoke’ rule	I Maxwell	Work on this is ongoing and will be reported to a future meeting
3.	Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri Hapu Management Plan	response to be sent to the presenter acknowledging the good work and some feedback and the presentation is to be circulated	G Ide	Email circulation of the presentation 22 October – copy of email following, reference Follow-up Item 3

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
	Water Quantity Allocation Policy and Consenting Processes	Workshop for RPC members to be held	L Lambert/ I Maxwell

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 November 2015

Subject: NPS for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme Revision

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present an updated Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (the ‘NPS-FM’) to the Regional Planning Committee and for the Committee to consider recommending it to Council for adoption.

2. Policy E(f) of the amended 2014 version of the NPS-FM requires that a staged implementation programme be formally adopted by Council and publicly notified by 31 December 2015.

3. The updated implementation programme will replace the existing programme adopted by Council in September 2012. The existing 2012 programme is included for reference in Attachment 1.

NPS-FM 2011 and progressive implementation programme 2012

4. The first NPS-FM came into effect on 1 July 2011. The NPS-FM charges regional and unitary councils with amending regional planning documents so that communities’ objectives relating to freshwater quality and quantity are achieved over time.

5. Section E of the 2011 NPS-FM contained policy relating to the progressive implementation of the NPS-FM. Council developed, adopted and gave public notice of its original NPS-FM Progressive Implementation Programme in September 2012. Exactly how this Programme looked and what it contained was up to the Council’s own discretion at the time – the NPS-FM does not prescribe the look, feel, and content of progressive implementation programmes, but does anticipate some degree of flexibility is necessary to say, accommodate changes in dates and resourcing decisions.

6. This flexibility has been reflected in the Council’s latest Long Term Plan, which contains a number of changes from the 2012-2022 LTP regarding planned statutory plan changes, and other activities, initiatives and methods that give effect to the NPS-FM.

7. Besides the 2012 Progressive Implementation Programme’s core content of various regional plan changes, a number of other activities were also outlined, but those activities in isolation from regional plan changes, do not ‘give effect’ to the NPS-FM. They were included in the Programme for contextual purposes, largely to indicate the range of non-regulatory initiatives being undertaken by the Council in relation to land and freshwater resource management.

8. In terms of progress, Council can be encouraged that steady implementation of the NPS-FM has been made, and continues to be rolled out. This progress has been previously documented in the Council’s Annual Reports.

9. For example a number of core plan changes have been completed (or substantially completed) under the 2012 programme. Examples include:

9.1. Plan Change 4: Managing the Built Environment, operative 1 January 2014.

9.2. Plan Change 5: Land and Freshwater Management – publicly notified in October 2012 and currently subject to parts of one remaining appeal, anticipated to be resolved early 2016.

9.3. Plan Change 6: Tukituki catchment, operative 1 October 2015.

NPS-FM 2014

10. Amendments were made to the NPS-FM and the revised version came into effect on 4 July 2014. The updated 2014 NPS-FM has a number of changes from the previous version and in terms of the implementation plan required to be adopted by HBRC under section E. The most notable amendment is a tighter 2025 timeframe for full implementation rather than the original 2030 timeframe. Other amendments are otherwise relatively minor. The changes to Section E are shown below (2014 updates shown in bold/~~crossed through~~):

a) This policy applies to the implementation by a regional council of a policy of this national policy statement.

b) Every regional council is to implement the policy as promptly as is reasonable in the circumstances, and so it is fully completed by no later than 31 December 2025 30.

ba) A regional council may extend the date in Policy E1(b) to 31 December 2030 if it considers that:

i. Meeting that date would result in lower quality planning

ii. It would be impracticable for it to complete implementation of a policy by that date

c) Where a regional council is satisfied that it is impracticable for it to complete implementation of a policy fully by 31 December 2015 14, the council may implement it by a programme of defined time-limited stages by which it is to be fully implemented by 31 December 2025 or 31 December 2030 if Policy E1(ba) applies.

d) Any programme of time-limited stages is to be formally adopted by the council by 31^st December 2015 and publicly notified. ~~within 18 months [ie: by 12 November 2012] of the date of gazetting of this national policy statement, and publicly notified.~~

e) Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

f) Any programme adopted under Policy E1 c) of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 by a regional council is to be reviewed, revised if necessary, and formally adopted by the regional council by 31 December 2015 and publicly notified.

11. Policy E(f) requires that HBRC review and revise (as required) its progressive implementation of the NPS-FM and that this shall be formally adopted and notified by 31 December 2015.

12. ‘Notification’ in this context does have the same meaning as it does in reference to a proposed plan or a plan change. There is no requirement in the NPS-FM or RMA to provide an opportunity for the public to submit on the revised programme.

HBRC NPS-FM Progressive Implementation Programme 2015

13. As noted above, the 2014 NPS-FM has prompted the need to revise the 2012 implementation programme. The 2015-25 Long Term Plan has been fundamental to the revising the programme. The 2015-25 LTP specifies a number of key milestones for regional plan changes – some of which relate to land and freshwater resource management policy.

14. Based on those 2015-25 LTP milestones, senior planning staff have prepared a draft revised programme. This draft is set out in Attachment 2, but the final publication would be presented in the typical HBRC publication format and also published online. The format of the draft 2015 programme is very similar to the 2012 programme providing a simple and direct programme and indicative timeframes that sometimes require flexibility.

Decision Making Process

15. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

15.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

15.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation, but the NPS-FM does require public notice to be given of the decision to adopt the revised Implementation Programme. There will opportunities in the future for any person to make submissions on the subsequent proposed plan changes to the RPS and regional plans outlined in the Implementation Programme.

15.3. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

15.4. There is no option but to prepare an implementation programme and notify its adoption given that this is a prescribed requirement in the 2014 NPS-FM.

15.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision. If there are material changes to the Programme in future, the drivers for any such changes are likely to have been consulted on directly or indirectly through future LTP and/or Annual Plan processes.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2. Adopts the updated 2015 Progressive Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Implementation Programme for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
2	NPSFM Implementation Programme

NPSFM Implementation Programme

Attachment 2

Purpose

The purpose of this updated progressive implementation programme^{^[2]} is to outline the continued staged implementation of key projects that the Hawkes Bay Regional Council will undertake to implement the 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM).

The previous HBRC approved implementation programme was under the 2011 NPS-FM. A number of the programmes have been implemented, are underway and in some cases have been amended/delayed due to various changes in focus arising from Long Term Plan and Annual Plan reporting and decisions.

The Regional Council was previously required to prepare and notify the implementation programme in accordance with Policy E1 of the NPSFM. With amendments to the NPS-FM coming into effect in July 2014, the Regional Council has updated the implementation programme, and this complements annual plan reporting in implementation as required by Policy E1(e).

NPSFM Policy E1 reads (2014 updates shown in bold/~~crossed through~~):

a) This policy applies to the implementation by a regional council of a policy of this national policy statement.

b) Every regional council is to implement the policy as promptly as is reasonable in the circumstances, and so it is fully completed by no later than 31 December 2025 30.

ba) A regional council may extend the date in Policy E1(b) to 31 December 2030 if it considers that:

i. Meeting that date would result in lower quality planning

ii. It would be impracticable for it to complete implementation of a policy by that date

e) Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

Context

Freshwater is one of our region’s most precious natural resources and much of the Regional Council’s work revolves around it. On the 4^th July 2014 the Government issued the reviewed and updated the NPS-FM. Subsequently in August 2015, the Ministry for the Environment updated its guidance notes about the 2014 NPS-FM.

Further ongoing review of the NPSFM is programmed and expected in 2016.

Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (the PCE) has provided a leading interest in the NPS-FM, reflecting the strong national interest in freshwater quality. The PCE has released a number of reports on freshwater quality including:

· Managing Water Quality: examining the 2014 National Policy Statement (June 2015)

· Update Report: Water Quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution (June 2015)

· Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (Feb 2014)

· Water Quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution (Nov 2013)

· Update Report: Water Quality in New Zealand: Understanding the science (June 2013)

· PCE Freshwater Reforms Submission (April 2013)

· Water Quality in New Zealand: Understanding the science (March 2012)

The NPS-FM sets the national policy direction for improving water quality and protecting life in our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and aquifers.

It is a prime responsibility of Hawkes Bay Regional Council to implement the NPS-FM as it relates to our region.

The NPSFM does not specify exactly how it shall be implemented, but sets the policy framework within which the regional community can determine how the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plans should be amended. The MfE guidelines help provide advice on the ways in which the NPSFM can be implemented

Key elements already in place

In support of the NPS-FM implementation programme, the following key supporting elements are already in place^{^[3]}:

· Operative Second Generation Regional Policy Statement. The RPS is included within the ‘Regional Resource Management Plan’

· Operative second generation combined regional plan (RRMP)

· Monitoring strategies are in place that form the basis of the state of the environment programmes and reporting of monitored trends in our waterbodies

· A management plan is in place for the Karamu Stream to improve drainage and water quality

· Investments in forestry to enable wastewater to be removed from influencing groundwater and surface water in Mahia

· Irrigation user groups have been set up by irrigators with Regional Council assistance in the Ruataniwha, Ngaruroro and Twyford areas. The initiative is intended to ensure water is used efficiently, and in some cases, transferred between users where this will result in greater efficiencies and less pressure on the water resource

· Regional Planning Committee^{^[4]} formed and operating since June 2012 as the model (preferred by the Crown, Regional Council and majority of Treaty Claimant Groups in Hawke’s Bay) of co-governance for natural resource management in our region. This is particularly relevant to NPSFM Policy D1

· Nine Treaty Claimant Groups are represented on the RPC

· Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy adopted 2011

· Collaborative processes and numerous stakeholder groups active in various catchments across our region (for example: Taharua Stakeholder Group, TANK Stakeholder Group)

· Continued investment over next 10 years (2015-25) into scientific data collection, analysis and reporting

· Regional assessments of values of rivers completed using RiVAS methodology^{^[5]}.

Since the 2012 NPSFM Implementation Programme was adopted on the 26^th September 2012, the following progress has also been made:

· Plan Change 4: Managing the Built Environment, made operative on 1 January 2014.

· Plan Change 5: publicly notified in October 2012 and only parts of one appeal remain in relation to the definition of ‘wetland’, anticipated to be resolved early 2016.

· Plan Change 6: Tukituki catchment, operative on 1 October 2015.

· TANK group: continually progressing the collaborative approach to plan change preparation for the Greater Heretaunga /Ahuriri Catchment Area (Clive/Karamu, Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Heretaunga aquifer)

· Taharua catchment group and Mohaka consultation to plan change preparation for the Mohaka River catchment

· East Coast Hill Country Conference October 2015: adding momentum towards a collaborative ECHC strategy

· Publication of the 5-yearly State of the Environment monitoring ‘Trends’ summary report spanning the 2010-2014 period.

Programme for Implementation 2015-2025

There are three key documents which provide directions as to what the Regional Council does in relation to freshwater management in Hawke's Bay. These documents are:

· The Hawke's Bay Regional Council Strategic Plan (October 2011)

· The Hawke's Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (November 2011)

· The 2015-25 Hawke's Bay Regional Council Long Term Plan (June 2015), and subsequent annual plans and long term plans over the implementation period.

These documents direct that the Regional Council will implement^{^[6]} the NPS-FM using a variety of methods, in particular:

· Amendments to the Regional Policy Statement;

· Amendments to regional plans (Regional Resource Management Plan and Regional Coastal Environment Plan);

· Assessment of, and decisions on, resource consent applications; and

· A range of non-regulatory initiatives that sit outside of the tools and requirements of the Resource Management Act. Examples of these initiatives are identified in the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Strategic Plan.^{^[7]}

Reporting

Annual reporting on Programme Implementation is required by Policy E1(e) of the NPS-FM.

The Council has been, and will continue, reporting annually on programme implementation progress in its Annual Report.

Over the course of preparing and making decisions on the 2015-25 LTP, and each annual plan since the first progressive implementation programme in 2012, a number of modifications have been made to the programme. Figure 1 has been updated from the original 2012 programme to include the changes that the Council has made.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

If, as a result of annual reporting of the implementation programme, the programme requires further flexibility to change, or is falling behind, the programme will be reviewed along with financial and resourcing requirements as part of the next Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process.

The NPS-FM requires overall policy implementation by 2025. This timeframe may be extended out to 2030 if necessary and required (refer Policy E1(ba)).

NPSFM Implementation Programme

Attachment 2

FIGURE 1 – Progressive Implementation Programme’s indicative timeline (Years based on the July to June financial year)

Associated science investigations to support RMA plan change policy decision-making		Statutory process – appeals on decisions (assumes up to 2 years)
Statutory process – policy development		Some key initiatives that contribute to NPS-FM implementation (and in Long Term Plan 2015-25)
Statutory process – notification to decisions (assumes up to 2 years)	#	Other related milestone specified in Long Term Plan/Annual Plan

October 2015

HBRC Activity	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-24	2025-27	2028-30
RPS Change 4 (Built Environment) – OPERATIVE*
RPS Change 5 (Land and Fresh water management) – SUBJECT OF APPEAL
Plan change 6 (Tukituki Catchment) – OPERATIVE*
Plan change: Mohaka River catchment
Plan change: Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Catchment Area (a.k.a. ‘TANK catchments’)
Plan change: Urban stormwater
Commence review of Regional Coastal Environment Plan									#
Plan Change: Outstanding freshwater bodies
Plan Change: Remaining catchment areas (i.e. not Mohaka, TANK catchments or Tukituki catchments)									#
Commence review of RRMP and RPS content not previously amended since becoming operative									#
Statutory Advocacy and reporting (ongoing)**
Plan Change 6 Tukituki catchment Implementation annual reporting**
Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy review**
State of the Environment monitoring and reporting (5 yearly, plus annual reporting)**
Regional Energy Strategy preparation**
River Ecological Management and Enhancement Plans**
East Coast Hill Country Strategy preparation**							#
Facilitation of Water user groups**
Land Management Operational Plan (with integrated monitoring)**
Land Management sub catchment plans (for priority hotspots)**
Land Management collaborative initiatives (including non-regulatory implementation plans)**
Regional wetland inventory and monitoring strategy**
Regional Afforestation Scheme**

* These workstreams/activities have been completed. They are included in the Programme for reference purposes only and will not be reported on annually.

** These workstreams/activities may have some components that are directly or indirectly related to freshwater management planning and policy development. They are included in the Programme for reference purposes only and will not be reported on annually.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 November 2015

Subject: Mohaka Water Quality and Ecology

Reason for Report

1. The HBRC Water Quality and Ecology team have been collecting information on water quality and ecology across the Mohaka catchment for over a decade. Recently two reports have been compiled that analyse and discuss this information.

Background

2. The report titled “Mohaka River Catchment State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology” summarises state and trends in river water quality and ecology across the Mohaka River catchment. The report analyses and presents data collected from long-term State of Environment (SoE) sites and targeted investigative research studies.

3. The report titled “Influence of the Taharua River on the Upper Mohaka River Food Base for Adult Trout”, authored by the Cawthron Institute, presents a detailed analysis and summary of effects of Taharua River outflows on trout food resources in the Upper Mohaka River. The Cawthron report analyses benthic invertebrate and environmental data at two sites upstream of the Taharua River confluence, and at up to fourteen sites downstream over four sampling occasions. The survey programme was titled ‘Mohaka River Longitudinal Survey’ by HBRC.

4. Together, these reports provide detailed and useful information on water quality and the ecological characteristics of the Mohaka River catchment and will help inform the community and consultation process leading into the proposed Mohaka Plan Change.

Discussion

5. Overall, the following conclusions can be drawn from the data, analysis and information presented in the “Mohaka River Catchment State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology” report.

5.1. Most sampling sites across the Mohaka River have excellent water quality.

5.2. Overall, the ecological health of the Mohaka River is excellent.

5.3. The results show periphyton biomass levels to be in excellent condition throughout the upper and middle catchment, based on measurements taken by HBRC over the course of the SoE monitoring programme.

5.4. Current water quality issues upstream of the Ripia River are largely due to intensive farming on free draining pumice soils in the Taharua sub-catchment.

6. The effects of Taharua outflows on water quality downstream can be summarised as follows.

6.1. Nitrogen contributed from the Taharua River dominates the in-stream nitrogen levels of the upper Mohaka River.

6.2. Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) concentrations increase markedly downstream of the Taharua confluence and remain elevated for over 60 km downstream.

6.3. Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) concentrations, although showing slight elevation downstream of the Taharua confluence, return to very low levels after approximately 15 km.

6.4. Changes in water quality at surface water monitoring sites in the Taharua River can be summarised as follows:

6.4.1. Over the last 10 years, there have been significant increases in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations measured at the Wairango and Twin Culverts SoE monitoring sites, which relate to land-use changes and historical farming practices.

6.4.2. Improved farming practices over the last 6 years appear to have improved nitrate-nitrogen concentrations measured in-stream (and in groundwater monitoring wells) at the Wairango and Twin Culverts monitoring sites markedly.

6.4.3. Nutrient mitigation measures undertaken over recent years have improved in-stream DRP concentrations.

6.5. Reductions in water clarity are the most significant change in water quality through the lower zone.

7. Overall, the following conclusions can be drawn from the data, analysis and information presented in the “Influence of the Taharua River on the Upper Mohaka River Food Base for Adult Trout” report.

7.1. Invertebrate community assemblages in the Mohaka River were statistically significantly different downstream of the Tahaura River confluence, compared to upstream of that confluence. This was the case for all samples taken during the study. This indicates that Taharua River water is affecting the invertebrates in the Mohaka River. This is probably caused by an increase in algal biomass in the Mohaka River due to higher nutrient levels derived from the Taharua River.

7.2. The size and abundance of food available to trout does not appear to be limited by the impacts of changing water quality on invertebrates in the Mohaka River, downstream of the Taharua confluence, but the data suggest trout may benefit more from using a benthic-browsing feeding strategy than a drift-feeding strategy.

7.3. The quality of adult trout food (from a trout prey index – TPI) observed on three of four sampling occasions, was reduced below the Taharua confluence (for at least 0.5 to 1.0 km downstream).

7.4. The Mohaka River has generally good quality food available for trout. The densities of prey observed in the Mohaka River, the TPI and the quantitative TPI all compare favourably with 88 other rivers examined in New Zealand.

Summary

8. Both reports found significant degradation in a number of water quality parameters directly downstream of the Taharua River outflow that, with the exception of dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations, recovered to background levels 3-15 km downstream of the Taharua River confluence.

9. In the remainder of the Mohaka catchment, water quality and ecology are generally very good. However, suspended sediment concentrations in the lower Mohaka catchment are high. The origin of this material is not clear at present.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

10.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

10.2. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

10.3. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

10.4. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendation

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2. Adopts the “Mohaka River Catchment State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology” report for publication.

3. Adopts the “Influence of the Taharua River on the Upper Mohaka River Food Base for Adult Trout” report for publication.

Adam Uytendaal

Team Leader
Water Quality & Ecology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 27 October 2015)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
23 October 2014	HDC	1	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to subdivide part of the property at 996 State Highway 2, Whirinaki into 15 residential sites.	Applicant The Evans Family Trust Agent Cardno	HDC decision issued, subject to appeal	Previously… · Environment Court has directed that subdivision consent appeal and any related rezoning appeal proceedings be heard jointly. Court has set a timetable for parties to prepare and exchange evidence prior to hearing. Hearing dates scheduled as 22-24 February 2016. · HBRC lodged an appeal to the Environment Court against the HDC decision on 12th February 2015. Environment Court assisted mediation took place on 3rd July 2015 with each party maintaining its position. · HBRC’s submission and subsequent appeal opposes the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. The precedent of HDC’s decision is also a concern. A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions
5 December 2013	NCC	2	Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan. A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Notified NCC decisions issued, subject to appeal	Previously… · NCC issued decisions on PC10 on the 24^th June 2015. Council staff have reviewed the decisions and are satisfied that HBRC’s submission has been appropriately reflected in changes to the District Plan. · Appeals have been lodged by Surveying the Bay Ltd and the NZ Transport Agency. HBRC has joined as a party to the appeal by Surveying the Bay as it potentially raises issues about implementation of the Regional Policy Statement (esp. Chapter 3.1B) and the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy regarding subdivisions in rural areas. · NCC held a hearing on 23rd March 2015. HBRC appeared at the hearing in support of its submission. The HBRC’s original submission can be found at HBRC Submissions
8 November 2013	HDC	3	Proposed Hastings District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.	HDC	Notified HDC decisions issued	27 October 2015 · HBRC has been notified by the appellants of five (5) appeals lodged against HDC decisions. Council staff have 15 working days to determine whether Council should join as a party to the appeals (16^th November 2015.). Previously… · HDC issued its decisions on 12 September 2015. Council staff have reviewed the decisions and are satisfied that HBRC’s submission has been appropriately reflected. · HDC held hearings on a topic by topic basis. The HBRC Submission and Further Submission on the HDC Plan Review can be found here HBRC Submissions http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC Document Library/20140214 Submission HDC District Plan.pdf
1 August 2013	NA	4	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)	Notified High Court proceedings on-hold at applicant’s request	Previously… · The Applicant has asked the High Court to ‘park’ the proceedings while Rongomaiwahine iwi attempt to enter into direct negotiations with the Minister of Treaty Settlements. Crown Counsel have indicated that the direct negotiations pathway will take at least until early 2016 to determine it the iwi can negotiate directly with the Minister. · Originally, Council opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought. Submissions were also made by the Crown and Gisborne District Council, both seeking clearer specificity of the scope and nature of the orders being applied for.
9 June 2015	NCC	5	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to create four additional lots (total 5) to subdivide Lots 7-10 Deeds Plan 96 (1.8919 ha) into five (5) lots.at 258 Meeanee Road.	Applicant A & F Partnership Agent OPUS	Notified NCC hearing pending	Previously… · HBRC opposed the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy and it is in an area with limiting physical characteristics and limited infrastructure and servicing · A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions

Final Draft NZ Petroleum and Minerals Proposed Block Offer 2016

Attachment 1

Our Ref: RMP 2-2

29 October 2015

Josh Adams

New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

PO Box 1473

Wellington 6140

via email to: blockoffer2016@mbie.govt.nz

Dear Mr Adams

Comments on Proposed Block Offer 2016

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Block Offer 2016 (‘BO2016’).

You had invited comments on a number of specific matters. Those comments are provided in section 2.

These comments were considered and agreed by the Council at its meeting on 28 October 2015

Yours sincerely

liz lambert

Interim Chief Executive

Phone: (06) 835 9214

Email: liz@hbrc.govt.nz

Address for Service: Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Private Bag 6006

NAPIER 4142

Attn: Gavin Ide

e: gavin@hbrc.govt.nz

p: (06) 833 8077

1. General comments

1.1 Capacity and engagement

In recent years, HBRC has continued to develop capacity and liaise with other councils and central government agencies regarding oil and gas exploration activities in Hawke's Bay. Examples include participation in a public forum event hosted by Hastings District Council on the topic of oil and gas exploration industry. HBRC has been collaborating with the territorial agencies within the region on reviewing all the statutory controls in place relating to oil and gas. Another example is the ongoing liaison at various levels with government officials and departments, including NZP&M.

Oil and gas exploration has clearly emerged over recent years as a hot topic in public submissions made on HBRC’s Long Term Plan and 2014-15 Annual Plan. We are conscious that the issue of oil and gas exploration is one in which there is significant public interest, and there is much debate within our community around the environmental issues and risks associated with these activities. The Oil and Gas Symposium hosted by Hastings District Council just over two years ago confirmed the high level of public interest.

HBRC recognises that significant local and national economic benefits may accrue should oil and gas production develop commercially in the East Coast Region. We are also conscious of the potential impact on our broader economy and social environment and take this opportunity to provide comments on some additional matters.

Our comments are presented in two distinct parts. The first being comments on particular matters as per NZP&M’s invitation, and secondly, comments on additional considerations we think are also important for the future management of offshore petroleum exploration along the North Island’s east coast.

2. Comments on particular matters

Comments in this section are provided in response to your invitation to comment on particular matters including:

(a) an indication of how HBRC classifies petroleum exploration activities in regional planning documents;

(b) sensitive areas; and

2.1 Classification of petroleum exploration activities in RMA planning documents

In relation to the BO2016, we provide comments in relation to the region’s coastal plan (i.e. the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan, or ‘RCEP’) and not our other regional plan applicable onshore (i.e. the Regional Resource Management Plan).

HBRC’s RCEP contains very little policy direction that specifically relates to petroleum exploration. Instead, most RCEP provisions relate to a type of effect or activity generally - they do not allow, restrict or prohibit petroleum exploration or production activities per se. As mentioned in section 3 below, HBRC is going through a process of reviewing the effectiveness of current policy direction in the RCEP and the appropriateness of implementing the changes recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

There are a number of resource consent requirements likely as a result of activities associated with petroleum exploration. In general terms, the presumption in the RMA is that many activities in the coastal marine area (s12), and any discharges of contaminants to water (s15) must either comply with a rule in a regional plan, or gain resource consent^{^[8]}.

2.2 Consent requirements for petroleum exploration

Table 1 outlines the possible consent requirements for petroleum exploration activities^{^[9]}. This is a list of the likely activities that will be involved in their operation.

In some cases, an exploration permit holder may determine that they can comply with all conditions of the relevant permitted activity rules and therefore can carry out those activities without requiring consent. This level of detail is anticipated to be determined by permit holders nearer the time of operations, or when other consent applications are lodged.

TABLE 1: Indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore^{^[10]} petroleum exploration in Hawke's Bay CMA

Activity Type	Relevant RCEP rule(s)^{^[11]} INDICATIVE ONLY	Rationale for consent requirements	Likely consent requirements
Disturbances, depositions and extractions in CMA
Removal or Deposition of Material	Removal: Rule 144 [D] Deposition: Rule 147 [RD] Rule 151 [D]	Removal of sand or gravel other than small scale. Deposition of any substance on the foreshore or seabed. Relevant threshold 50,000m³at a site in any 12 month period.	Discretionary activity. Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary activity.
Drilling, construction or alteration of bores for gas and oil resources, seabed explorations and geotechnical investigations	Rule 138 [P] Rule 130 [D]	Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, including location in relation to management areas: § Port or Harbour Management Area § Significant Conservation Area § Historic Heritage Area § Aquaculture Management Area	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Disturbance of foreshore and seabed affecting historic heritage	Rule 141 [RD]	Disturbance in a manner that will destroy, damage or modify an historic heritage feature. Refer to Schedule M and planning maps for locations.	Restricted Discretionary activity.
Disturbances within specified Significant Conservation Areas	Rule 143 [Pr] Rule 144 [D]	Disturbance or removal of materials in fours SCAs, - exemption for applies scientific purposes.	Prohibited activity.
Disturbances of seabed arising from manoeuvring of ships (e.g. propeller wash)	Rule 135 [P]	Disturbance of foreshore and seabed arising from passage and manoeuvring ships.	Permitted activity.
Discharges to land and water in CMA
Discharge of contaminant or water into water in CMA, or discharge of contaminant into land (e.g. hydraulic fracturing)	Rule 160 [D]	Discharge of contaminant which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water in the CMA	Discretionary activity (unless specifically classed by another rule in the RCEP as non-complying or Prohibited activity).
Discharge of drilling muds, cuttings and fluids for purposes of investigating oil and gas resources	Rule 161 [P] Rule 160 [D]	Control over location, contamination level and risk of discharge of groundwater to surface water.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Discharges to air
Flaring of hydrocarbons from petroleum exploration or mining	Rule79 [C] Rule 86 [D]	Discharge of contaminants to air impacting surrounding areas.	Controlled or Discretionary activity.
Discharges of contaminants to air in Coastal Environment	Rule 81 [P] Rule 63 [RD] Rule 64 [D]	Other discharges of contaminants to air.	Permitted (minor discharges) or Restricted Discretionary (not complying with Permitted activity conditions) or Discretionary (not regulated by other rules).
Structures in CMA
Structures for storage of petroleum products or other contaminants within a SCA	Rule 129 [Pr]	Any activity involving erection or placement of such a structure in, on, under or over the foreshore or seabed within a SCA.	Prohibited activity (consent cannot be applied for).
Removal and demolition of structures in , on, under or over the foreshore or seabed	Rule 121 [P] Rule 117 [D]	Disturbance and any associated deposition.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Occupation of space in CMA
Occupation of space associated with exploration operations and structures	Rule 180 [P] Rule 178 [D]	Effects of excluding public and other activities from use of coastal space, including potential conflict with other uses and users.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Storage and dumping of hazardous substances in CMA
Hazardous substances in the CMA (storage or dumping)	Storage: Rule 172 [P] Rule 171 [RD] Rule 174 [Pr] Dumping: Rule 173 [Pr]	Manage risk according to character, scale and intensity of activity and any associated effects of potential spillage or discharge, including sensitivity of environment.	Permitted, Restricted Discretionary or Prohibited activity (in a SCA). Prohibited activity.
Noise emissions in CMA
Emission of noise for marine seismic surveying purposes	Rule 176 [P], Rule 175 [RD]	Potential impact of underwater noise (including vibration) on marine life.	Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity. Rule 176 includes “effects on marine mammals” as a matter for discretion.
Noise emissions in CMA	Rule 176 [P] Rule 175 [RD]	Level, characteristics and frequency of noise (construction and other) including compatibility with surrounding environment. Rule 175 includes effects on marine mammals as a matter for discretion.	Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity.
Take and, use of coastal water
Taking and use of coastal water	Rule 156 [P] Rule 154 [D]	Effects of water take on SCAs and their values. Permitted rule does not apply to taking of water in six SCAs.	Permitted or Discretionary activity (in some SCAs).

2.3 Additional considerations

Table 1 is intended as an indicative summary of rules in the RCEP. There may be other activities that trigger the need for consent (or compliance with a permitted activity rule).

In relation to offshore installations and ships, we are aware that the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 are applicable within the coastal marine area to some of the operations undertaken during mineral exploration. For some operations and activities covered by these Regulations, rules in the RCEP also apply.

2.4 Sensitive areas

HBRC has previously indicated to NZP&M in relation to earlier Block Offers that we would be uncomfortable with any offer made across the region’s productive aquifers. We welcomed the Minister’s decision on the 2014 Block Offer to exclude the aquifers from the finalised areas.

We note that the BO2016 does not propose any onshore areas, so we do not have to revisit exclusions of the region’s productive aquifers.

From the maps available with the BO2016 documentation, it appears that the BO2016 Offshore Pegasus area extends into relatively small areas of the Hawke's Bay region, with much of the area lying further east of the region beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

Based on the map titled ‘Proposed Block Offer 2016 Offshore Pegasus 16PEG-R1’ available from NZP&M, none of the ‘Proposed Release Areas’ appears to be directly located within any of the RCEP’s Significant Conservation Areas or Historic Heritage Areas.

2.5 HBRC’s Tier2 Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan

As we have previously advised in our comments on the 2015 Block Offer, HBRC has a statutory responsibility under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA) to conduct a Tier 2 response to marine oil spills that occur within the coastal marine area under our jurisdiction. As part of this responsibility, and in accordance with the MTA, we are required to maintain a plan which details how a Tier 2 response operation is to be undertaken in response to a marine oil spill. The Plan can be viewed on HBRC’s website. Annex 4 of that Plan sets out sensitive areas and twenty priority areas for protection (in the event of an oil spill incident).

2.6 Wāhi tapu and other sites of significance to Māori

In relation to the coastal marine area, the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) is the relevant regional planning document. The RCEP identifies 21 Significant Conservation Areas that have important ecological, historic, scientific and/or cultural value. The RCEP also identifies a number of historic heritage areas and features. Some of those historic heritage areas relate to wāhi tapu areas registered on the Historic Places Register. It should also be noted that iwi and hapu often do not wish to publicly disclose all wāhi tapu, taonga or sites of significance. In addition to those areas which have been mapped in the RCEP, Ngati Kahungunu has proclaimed that the “whole of the coastal marine area is of significance to Ngati Kahungunu. The Coastal Margin is also of importance to Ngati Kahungunu.” ^{^[12]}.

3. Regional leadership and advocacy

HBRC’s work programme adopted in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan indicates HBRC will:

1. develop a Hawke's Bay Energy Strategy (with a draft strategy adopted by Council by March 2016);

2. complete a report on the effectiveness of the Regional Resource Management Plan and Regional Coastal Environment Plan in relation to managing the effects of oil and gas exploration and development and the related district plans within the region (Wairoa District Plan, Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan, Hastings District Plan, Napier District Plan);

3. prepare a community engagement plan for potential oil and gas exploration and development in Hawke's Bay;

4. complete a report for the Regional Planning Committee to consider whether a limited scope regional plan change is necessary and appropriate to address any relevant recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s June 2014 report “Drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand: environmental oversight and regulation.”

These initiatives clearly illustrate that energy issues along with petroleum exploration and development are considered by the HBRC as important issues ahead for the region. Notably, the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee plays an active role in these initiatives.

3.1 Regional Planning Committee

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee (RPC) is a permanent Committee of the Regional Council that has been established by Government legislation as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations. The committee is made up of 18 people, half of which are representatives from large groupings of Treaty Claimant Groups or Post Settlement Entities, the other half are appointed Regional Councillors. The RPC has two Co-chairs, Mr Fenton Wilson (Council Chairman), and Mr Toro Waaka (Ngati Pahauwera).

The purpose of this equal representation is to assist Tangata Whenua to fulfil their role as Kaitiaki of their taonga and ancestral lands. In this way the natural environment interests of Maori are protected for future generations.

The RPC has a strong regional leadership mandate for representing Tangata Whenua and Kaitiakitanga in relation to natural resource management policy issues in the Hawke's Bay region.

As part of the environmental leadership of the region, it is the RPC’s view that we should be very cautious on how we deal with offshore exploration and drilling, until we can be provided with the safety assurances we need for our regions ocean environment.

The RPC has recommended that Council make these comments on the BO2016 in order to advocate strong environmental guardianship on petroleum exploration matters within the Hawke's Bay region, and on exploration activities that might have high consequences (albeit with very low likelihoods) just beyond our region’s 12 nautical mile area.

3.2 Environmental issues and offshore oil spill risks

It is important from the perspective of the HBRC in terms of regional leadership and guardianship that environmental concerns are at the forefront of all decisions made in regard to the Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016.

HBRC urge NZP&M to give particular consideration to environmental concerns when finalising block offer areas and in assessing future exploration proposals. The environmental effects of exploration activities are principally managed under the RMA (by Councils) or the EEZ Act (by the EPA). Decisions made regarding the extent and location of exploration permits however, can be a proactive tool in managing the options which might be open to the environmental agencies and applicants in subsequent exploration applications. It is understood that activities within certain areas can be subject to additional requirements and that capability to meet environmental requirements is taken into account in the Block tendering process.

A blowout at an off shore exploratory drilling operation is of low likelihood but very high consequence in terms of environmental risks. This is a significant concern to our Hawke’s Bay community and would be devastating for our local people, environment and economy. There is no evidence to guarantee oil leaks in deep sea areas can be capped.

The Rena grounding has also highlighted for many New Zealanders the difficulties and costs in managing large scale offshore oil spills.

New Zealands’ seismic and earthquake hazard risks add additional concern, in particular the tectonic plate location on the east coast of the North Island.

It has also been noted that in the Governments Marine Protected Areas consultation document September 2015, that there are issues with the NZ Marine protection regime and that there are question marks that it may no longer be fit for purpose.

From the HBRC’s perspective, we urge NZP&M to ensure that the technical capability of any Block permit applicant is of a sufficiently high standard to ensure well integrity is guaranteed and of the highest priority in assessing all block offer tenders.

Aside from the consideration of an (unlikely) well blowout, exploration activities have potential for a wide range of environmental effects. These include oil spills, sediment disturbance, disruption to wildlife, discharges to air, discharges of drilling chemicals and loss of natural character.

The risk of any scale event in Hawkes Bay must be taken into account, and anything in vicinity of Hawke Bay is likely to be highly contentious from our communities’ perspective.

The high consequences of a blowout are in our view, justification for excluding exploration in close proximity to Hawke Bay. Attached is an annotated version of the block offer map to show the areas within the Hawke’s Bay. On this map, we identify a number of proposed Blocks that we request be removed from the 2016 block offer process (and future offshore block offer proposals). Our reasons for requesting this include:

a) The blocks’ removal ensures no exploration within the visual and physical bay basin,

b) The blocks’ removal ensures a minimum notional distance from those significant conservation areas already identified,

c) The blocks’ removal ensures similar minimum distance from the highly culturally valued Mahia Peninsula at the northern end of Hawke Bay,

d) All areas within the coastal marine area (12 mile nautical limit) are also ensured to be removed,

e) Embodies environmental guardianship plus of our highly valued coastal marine area, coastal margins and the water of the bay,

f) The Mauri, the life sustaining force of natural and physical resources in the coastal water and environments must be safeguarded,

g) This supports Tangata Whenua in their role as Kaitiaki of the region’s coastal waters and resources.

3.3 Territorial Authorities

In preparing our comments on the 2016 proposed Block Offer, HBRC’s senior planning staff have sought comment from each of the coastal District and City Councils in our region.

Napier City Council have advised that they will be making their own submission on the BO2016 and timeframes for lodging of comments do not allow for a joint submission to be made with endorsement from elected representatives.

4 Request

We therefore submit that for the BO2016 Offshore Pegasus area, those blocks shown in the attached map (marked with crosses) should be excluded from the block offer, thus limiting the issuing of any exploration permits within the wider Hawke Bay vicinity.

5. Attachments:

1. Location map of Significant Conservation Areas (from RCEP planning maps) in Hawke's Bay coastal marine area and blocks requested to be excluded from BO2016.

ATTACHMENT – Location map of Significant Conservation Areas (‘SCAs’) in Hawke's Bay coastal marine area, blocks requested to be excluded from BO2016 (shown by crosses) and proposed Offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin Release Areas in Block Offer 2016.

[1] Ngai Tuhoe has chose not to appoint a member to the Committee at this time, although they have the right to at any time. Once the Regional Planning Committee is passed He Toa Takitini will have the ability to appoint a second member to the Committee bringing the total number of appointees to 18.

[2] The first NPSFM Implementation Programme was adopted and published by HBRC September 2012

[3] The Hawke's Bay Regional Council’s Strategic Plan (HBRC Plan number 4282) adopted in October 2011, identifies a more comprehensive listing of key achievements under the headings of land; water quality; water allocation; water security; natural hazard management and infrastructure; people and communities; foresight and strategies; investment for sustainable regional growth; strategic alliances; and fit for purpose organisation.

[4] Regional Planning Committee is a standing committee of the Regional Council. The Committee has a further legislative mandate by the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act 2012. This has been established in legislation and it endures through local government triennial terms.

[5] RiVAS methodology has been developed by Lincoln University to provide a standardised method that can be applied to multiple river values. It helps to identify which rivers are most highly rated for each value and has been applied in several regions throughout the country.

[6] The Guide to the NPS-FM 2014 notes:

a) Recognition that each region will have different circumstances in determining when and how to give effect to the NPS-FM

b) That where policies of the NPS-FM require regional councils to make or change RPS or regional plans, these changes must be fully operative for this Policy to be considered implemented;

c) The NPS-FM does not need to be given effect to within one plan change, nor in the first available plan change; and

d) Timelines in NPS-FM Policy E1 relate to putting in place the necessary policies, plans and/or methods by 2025.

[7] October 2011 (HBRC Plan number 4282). These include for example, establishing partnerships with a range of sector and institutional organisations founded on common values and long term benefits.

[8] Activities can also occur if they can comply with a relevant National Environmental Standard, but in this case there are none likely to apply. The Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 may also apply to ships and offshore installations in the coastal marine area.

[9] This summary is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible consent requirements, nor details of every rule and associated conditions. The purpose is to provide an outline of the likely consents required based on HBRC’s understanding of exploration activities. Final consent requirements will be determined once applications are lodged.

[10] Table 1 is an indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore exploration within the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area (i.e. between mean high water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit). Rules in the HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan would apply to any offshore exploration activities in the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area. The proposed Offshore Pegasus Block Offer 2016 area appears to be largely beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

[11] Letters in square brackets refers to classification of activity in each rule as follows: [P] permitted; [C] controlled; [RD] restricted discretionary; [D] discretionary; [NC] non-complying; and [Pr] prohibited.

[12] See, inter alia, Chapter 6 of HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan - explanations and reasons for objectives and policies.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.