EMP Appendix 2 He Mahere Taiao Assessment Tool Template

He Mahere Taiao Application, Activity, Policy, Process Assessment Tool Template Date Received Internal contact Name of Applicant Contact Name & Phone number Overview Names of Land Owners and Occupiers Applications, consents, policy, process sought (including description)

Assessment of Environmental Effects Report attached?

Date received The tāngata whenua person(s) and/or entity/ies responsible for progressing this assessment.

Applicant name.

Applicant contact details and details of any consultant Applicant provided summary of proposal, policy, application Details of landowner, if known, or note ‘applicant’ if the applicant is the landowner.

Application code

The council or processing authority application code (there won’t be a code if the application has not been filed).

The current land zoning (e.g. Urban, rural, etc) (if known) The activity category (if known) The location Attach a map, if applicable List any other relevant general information.

Zoning Activity Category Location Map attached?

Other general information?

Has an Assessment of Environmental Effects (‘AEE’) been completed? Ideally, the AEE will be completed as part of progressing the tāngata whenua assessment of the activity.

©Copywrite, Maximize Consultancy Ltd (Nov 2015); adapted and used by Maniapoto with explicit permission. Maniapoto are free to use this tool if needed.

1

He Mahere Taiao Application, Activity, Policy, Process Assessment Tool Template

Issue/ document section1 Effect on Urupā

Describe effect2 Proposed roadway encroaches on historic urupā Permanent effect

Effect +/-

-

3

2

Risk assessment Likelihood4 Magnitude5 -2, -1, +1, +2 0, 1, 2, 3, 4

+2

4

Evidence6 Kaumātua recollection of urupā location

Mitigation measures7  



EMP: 14.3.2.3 (b) Protect aquatic ecosystems and use best practice to restore ecosystems (Example from Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan pg 68)

Water discharge quality is better than stream receiving environment.

NOTE: mana whenua still require a higher standard of discharge Cumulative improvement, permanent.

+

+1

2

 

Engineer, water scientist report.

Mana whenua comment

©Copywrite, Maximize Consultancy Ltd (Nov 2015); adapted and used by Maniapoto with explicit permission. Maniapoto are free to use this tool if needed.



Realign roadway to avoid urupā.

(Preferred option) Using discovery protocols, work with mana whenua to exhume koiwi in the area and relocate with appropriate karakia.

Work with mana whenua to design, commission and erect monument, pou, or suitable memorial to urupā and people of the area.

Continue as water quality better than receiving environment.



Work with mana whenua to determine best practicable option for improving water quality discharge.



Regular reviews of consent or short consent duration to ensure best practicable option for water quality is being used.

He Mahere Taiao Application, Activity, Policy, Process Assessment Tool Template

Issue/ document section1

Describe effect2

Effect +/-

3

Risk assessment Likelihood4 Magnitude5 -2, -1, +1, +2 0, 1, 2, 3, 4

3

Evidence6

ŠCopywrite, Maximize Consultancy Ltd (Nov 2015); adapted and used by Maniapoto with explicit permission. Maniapoto are free to use this tool if needed.

Mitigation measures7

He Mahere Taiao Application, Activity, Policy, Process Assessment Tool Template Column heading

4

Description

Issue/ document section

Note the issue or the specific part of the reference document

2.

Describe effect

Briefly summarise and describe the effect from the proposed activity, application, policy or process. Note if the effect is cumulative (an effect that arises over time or in combination with other effects), temporary or permanent) Note if the effect of the proposed activity, application, policy or process on the issue or document section is likely to be positive or negative ‘+’ if the effect is positive ‘-‘ if the effect is negative List how likely it is that the effect would occur. The measure of likelihood may be objective (based on measurable, tangible physical evidence) or subjective (based on nonphysical intangible evidence) depending upon the evidence relied upon to complete this section: -2 – highly unlikely to occur -1 – unlikely to occur +1 – likely to occur +2 – highly likely to occur If the effect occurs, list how serious the effect will be on the issue or document section. The measure of magnitude may be objective (based on measurable, tangible physical evidence) or subjective (based on non-physical intangible evidence) depending upon the evidence relied upon to complete this section 0 – no measurable effect 1 – less than minor effect (‘minor’ may be objective and measured according to established criteria or subjective and dependent upon the opinion of the person(s) completing the assessment framework, particularly for qualitative effects. An example of a qualitative effective is the ‘feeling’ a person would have at seeing the proposed activity near a wāhi tapu or other significant site.)

2 – more than minor effect 3 – significant effect 4 – major effect (a major effect could be extremely positive or catastrophically negative depending on whether the effect is considered positive or negative) What evidence is relied upon to fill out this assessment. This may be wide ranging. For example evidence, such as technical quantitive engineering evidence using generally accepted formulae to calculate effect. In contrast, this could be the words of a tohunga from the area who speaks of the impact of the proposed activity on the spiritual connection that mana whenua have with the area.

List the suggested mitigation measures to manage the effects. Mitigation measures should be developed in conjunction with tāngata/mana whenua. There may be more than one mitigation measure for each effect. The magnitude of the mitigation measure should depend on whether the effect is negative or positive, the likelihood and magnitude of the effect occurring and how reliable and rigorous the evidence is that was relied upon. Please note that ‘reliable and rigorous evidence’ can be any qualitative or quantitative evidence and the degree to which evidence can be relied upon will depend upon the source of the evidence. Suggested mitigation measures could include:  Abandoning the activity as the negative effects are too severe  Amending the activity to decrease the effect to less than minor  Avoiding the effect by managing the effect in such a way that the effect does not occur  Remedying the effect so that the effect is eliminated  Mitigating the effect so that it is less than minor  Minimising the effect through necessary means to reduce the effect to less than minor  Offsetting or balancing the effect through undertaking mitigation measures elsewhere while accepting that the effect of the activity is more than minor.  Ignoring the effect as it is less than minor

Risk Assessment: ‘Risk’ means the combination of the magnitude of the adverse effect and the likelihood of its occurrence

1.

3.

Effect

4.

Likelihood

5.

Magnitude

6.

Evidence

7.

Mitigation measures

Preferred and agreed mitigation measures should be discussed between all parties, including tāngata/mana whenua.

©Copywrite, Maximize Consultancy Ltd (Nov 2015); adapted and used by Maniapoto with explicit permission. Maniapoto are free to use this tool if needed.