1. Environmental Performance Committee 11 February 2015

2. Apologies

3. Confirmation of Agenda THAT the agenda of the Environmental Performance Committee of 11 February 2015 as circulated be confirmed as the business for the meeting.

4. Disclosures of Interest

5. Consent and Incident Response Statistics

7. Resolution That the report ‘Consent and Incident Responses Statistics’ (Doc # 3275482 dated 30 January 2015) be received for information.

8. Pending Changes to the RMA – Implications for Regulatory Processes

9. Introduction Changes part of 2013 amendments Subject to delayed commencement – 3/3/15 Changes to: processing mechanisms and timeframe requirements for notified applications information requirements for applicants when lodging consent applications (applies to all applications)  implementation  implications

10. Policy intent Concerns: The time taken for resource consents to be granted Lack of certainty about the likely actual processing The costs, risks and uncertainties this creates for applicants, investors and communities. Remedy: Greater certainty to the overall timeframe for notified processes; Shift more control over the process to the applicant; Raise the bar on the required quality of applications to be lodged.

11. Speeding up the process - focus on total time not working days

12. Shift of control to applicant Further limits on use of s92 (request for information) Hearing time counts toward timeframe limits Suspensions

13. More information with applications Applies to every application Significant, additional requirements eg assessments against “Part 2” and relevant policy instruments Rejection of “incomplete” applications will be mandatory

14. Implementation  Timeframe provisions: a lot of work to be done but in principle, reasonably straightforward  IRIS will need to cater for both pre-3/3/15 and post-3/3/15 processing requirements  New information requirements: a lot of work to be done and not so straightforward  Interpretable  potentially inconsistent implementation  “one size fits all”  needs considerable customisation in practice

15. Implications/Impacts on customers Notified applications: Well resourced applicants may be advantaged Deficient applications/poorly resourced applicants may be disadvantaged Submitters disadvantaged? All applications subject to new information requirements  Costs increase?  More applications rejected?

16. Conclusions Implementation of new provisions – 3/3/15 Changes are reasonably significant  less procedural flexibility Lots of work to do, underway Seamless transition will be challenging Some changes will be challenging for applicants Some applicants will be disadvantaged We will assist applicants as best we can.

18. Resolution That the report ‘Pending Changes to the RMA – Implication for Regulatory Processes’ (Doc # 3272415 dated 29 January 2015) be received for information.

19. Key Science Investigations 2014- 2015

20. Key Science Investigations 2014-15 Key investigations are: Specific information currently missing New/improved SoE indicators New/improved decision-making tools Baseline for prioritisation Options to mitigation

21. Land and Water Key investigations include: Land: Sediment yield predicator Nitrogen loss from cropping farms Water: Water limits in the Waihou catchment Denitrification

22. Coastal Key investigations include: Firth of Thames water quality, ecosystem health and sediments Marine Management Model

23. Resolution That the report “Key Science Investigations 2014- 2015” (Doc # 3271783 dated 11 February 2015) be received for information.

24. Environmental Monitoring: An Overview of the Programme

25. Science and Strategy Monitoring What do we do? Who do we do it for? and a little bit about why we do it like this…

26. Water Quantity - Field Hydrology Flood Warning sites (all telemetered) Hydrology sites (on map) Regular runs Low-flows High Flows Groundwater Who uses this info? Water-take consent holders Council - CDEM, RUD, HRWO, SAS, ICM WRA Iwi Electricity generators NIWA

27. Water Quality Rivers and streams Waikato River 10 sites, (grey on map) Regional Rivers 100 sites (red on map) Annual bathing beach surveys 10 Lakes (of ~ 90) Groundwater > 400 sites Regional Ecological Monitoring (REM) programme Macroinvertebrate Index MCI >180 sites Who uses this info? Council - SAS, HRWO, ICM WRA Iwi NIWA

28. Sediment load ICM, WRA, HRWO, SAS Coastal Ecology SAS Freshwater Ecology/Fish SAS Coastal Profile surveying SAS, TAs Air Quality SAS, TAs Geothermal Surface Features SAS Database maintenance Info requests

33. Resolution That the report ‘Environmental Monitoring: An Overview of the Programme’ (Doc # 3269956 dated 26 January 2015) be received for information.

34. Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Waikato and Waipa Rivers 2003-2012

35. Water quality monitoring networks River monitoring, 20 locations (WRC, NIWA) Flow – continuous (m 3 /s) Concentration – monthly (g/m 3 ) Point sources, 19 locations (“consent monitoring”) Flow – reported daily-to-monthly Concentration – daily-to-monthly Load = Σ(flow × concentration) (g/s, kg/d, t/yr)

37. For example, various sites, 2003-12

38. Sources of nutrients, Waikato/Waipa, 2003-12 Loads in river and from point sources are measured Point sources: about 7% of the overall nitrogen load and 18% of the overall phosphorus load Background – 29% and 35%; landuse – 61% and 45%

39. Conclusions Sources of N and P Sewage/industry: 7% of N, 18% of P Developed land: 61% of N, 45% of P

40. Resolution That the report ‘Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Waikato and Waipa Rivers 2003-2012’ (Doc # 3370835 dated 11 February 2015) be received for information.

41. Algal Growth Bioassays in the Waikato River

42. Routine monitoring – changes since 1990 Algae decreased Total N increased Total P decreased TN/TP increased New grazer

43. Nutrient bioassays, 4 sites, 6 times +N +PIncreased growth, esp. in hydrolakes +NLittle or no change +POccasional increases, mostly small “Co-limited” both are needed for extra growth removing either can reduce growth

44. Zooplankton grazing Progressively reduce number of grazers present Grazing often removed a substantial proportion of the algal growth Exotic species was common in hydrolakes (dominant in November) But no historic information

45. Conclusions Sources of N and P Sewage/industry: 7% of N, 18% of P Developed land: 61% of N, 45% of P Algal growth experiments Both N and P now limit algal growth Grazing helps limit algal growth

46. Resolution That the report ‘Algal Growth Bioassays in the Waikato River’ (Doc # 3268930 dated 11 February 2015) be received for information.