Te Kupenga Manawahuna: A Baseline Study for traditional and customary fisheries practices in Te...

FORM 5

Date: August 2007Research Provider: Ngati Kuta Charitable TrustProject Code: CUS2007-2008Project Title: Te Kupenga Manawahuna: A Baseline Study for

traditional and customary fisheries practices in Te Rawhiti – CUS 2007 -2008

Principal Investigators: Helen Mountain Harte, Anya Hook, Paul HenareProject Start Date: 8/08/07Expected Project End Date: 20 September 08

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5The Project Team 5The Survey Team Error! Bookmark not defined.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5INTRODUCTION 7WAITAHA CANTERBURY REEF 7

Map 1: Ngati Kuta and Patukeha rohe moana. (Two sites in red) 8CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 8PROJECT OBJECTIVES 9SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 9

METHODOLOGY 9Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology 10Oral Interviews 10Objectives Error! Bookmark not defined.SUMMARY OF ORAL INTERVIEWS SHELLFISH SPECIES 11Tipa-scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) 11Kina-Sea Urchin (Evechinus chloroticus) 11Koura – crayfish (jasus edwardsii) 11SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES 12Tamure – Snapper (pagrus auratus) 12Takeke-Garfish (hypohamphus ihi) 13Blue maomao-(aequipinnis) 13

PRE AND POST SURVEYS 13Field Survey Methodology 14Dive Survey Methodology 14Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid 14Fish Bait Station Methodology 15Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera 15Hand Line Method & Scales 16Objectives 16DIVE SURVEY RESULTS 17Maunganui Bay – Dive Surveys Sites 17Map 3: Te Kupenga Manawahuna Survey Maunganui Bay - Site locations

September 2 17Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reef 18Site 2: Putahataha Island 18Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island 18Summary of survey results at Maunganui Bay 18

Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys.................................................................19Grid Photographic survey 19Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid 19Visual Observation 20Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass survey sites 21

Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Charitable Trust – Te Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Customary Fisheries Project FINAL REPORT

2

Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay – Eel Grass Survey bay and sites 21Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorni 21Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991 21Map 5: Ecosystem in Urupukapuka Bay: Source Grace et al 1991 22Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass 22Photo 1: Urupukapuka Bay, circle indicating depletion of eel grass 23Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment 23Summary of Survey Results at Urupukapuka Bay 24Site 1 Survey results 24Site 2 Survey results 24Site 3 Survey results 24Eel Grass Survey Conclusions 25

LITERATURE REVIEW 26CONCLUSION 27RECOMMENDATIONS 29BIBLIOGRAPHY 30Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu Ki Te Rawhiti Management Plan, Edition 3. 32Appendix 2: Consent Form and Information sheet 40Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sites 44Appendix 4: Photographs 50


3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Project TeamProject Leaders: Matu Clendon, Moka PuruResearchers, interviewers: Marara Hook, Anya Hook, Robert Willoughby, Paul

Henare, Richard WitehiraProject Co-ordinators Helen Harte, Peti Ahitapu

We wish to thank the Te Kahui Kuia/Kaumatua o Te Rawhiti for their knowledge. We wish also to thank everyone else who gave their time and korero to help the research.

We thank the Survey team:Russell Hook Open water diver of 15 years Ngati KutaTeina Hook learner diver, Ngati Kuta hapu Paul Henare-researcher, Patukeha hapuShane Housham PADI Julia Riddle PADI instructors, owners Northland Dive Company commercial divers and site managers of the reef Hannah Newcombe and Monique Retter completed a Diploma of Marine Studies at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic. Their survey plan of the Wreck-Reef was approved by their Course Director.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research report is a compilation of oral interviews, dive surveys, flora surveys, fish counts and analysis of the data sets to provide research for Manawahuna and Ipipiri in the Bay of Islands.

The oral interviews provided important historical information on target fin fish species for this report that will contribute to future management practices within the rohe moana of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha. The recordings captured specific information on the gathering, harvesting and preparation of kaimoana traditionally used by hapu members. Significantly, the oral interviews listed an additional 28 species which can no longer be found at the survey sites areas. This suggests that depletion of stocks has occurred over a 30 to 40 year period. Importantly for Ngati Kuta and Patukeha is that the oral history can be passed on to future generations and utilised in making sound management decisions for our rohe moana and kaimoana for customary harvest.

In collating the data information by all the various methods listed in the document and analysing results against the various sites, there is a notable decline of some species in the Maunganui and Urupukapuka Bays. The Waitaha reef has seen an increase in populations which adds to the body of information that artificial reefs do increase and encourage population of fin fish, shellfish and seaweeds. The post survey and pre-surveys confirmed that there is an increase of marine species at this site. The two control sites, showed a decline at one site and an increase of species at the other site. The surveys will contribute to a long term research programme


4

and as a baseline study has provided information which assisted hapu to identify key factors contributing to sustainable harvests for the future.

This research report has provided Ngati Kuta and Patukeha with valuable information which will contribute to informed decision making and management for our rohe moana to provide for customary traditional practices and customary harvest.


5

INTRODUCTIONTe Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Survey Project is a baseline study for customary fishing for and on behalf of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha Hapu ki Te Rawhiti. The project is a product of the aims and objectives documented in Part Two – Roopu Moana Fisheries Management, sections 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 & 9.0 of the Ngati Kuta Hapu Management Plan2.

The hapu objectives for this project are a combination of the management plans aims and objectives to conduct oral interviews and conduct surveys relating to Maunganui [Deep Water Cove] and Ipipiri [Bay of Islands] to collect and compile data which gives an indication of the current fin fish and shellfish statistics within the rohe. This research will assist Ngati Kuta and Patukeha to make informed decision to manage our customary fishery within our rohe moana.

This research study is based on customary knowledge and practices, taken from oral interviews with kuia and kaumätua, a literature review and site surveys. Capable hapu members and non –members carried out the dive surveys and research. This baseline survey will form support documentation for the establishment of a Mahinga Mataitai reserve currently being developed by the hapu to ensure the sustainability of fisheries within the rohe, to provide for our customary fishing rights.

WAITAHA CANTERBURY REEFNgati Kuta and Patukeha hapu partnered with the Canterbury Trust to scuttle the Waitaha Canterbury, a decommissioned naval frigate on 3rd November 2007 in Maunganui Bay.

The purpose of scuttling the ex –frigate was to form an artificial reef within Maunganui Bay. The hapu intend to build the fishery upon the establishment of the Waitaha reef using the ex-frigate as a nursery habitat for juvenile fish. The site of the Waitaha reef forms part of this survey and is identified as Site 1 in the photo on the cover page. As an artificial reef, it was important to carry out a baseline survey to provide information to contribute to future research in Maunganui and Ipipiri. It is this baseline research which will contribute to a wider body of research on artificial reefs. The research study was located in the area outlined in map 1 below.

2: See Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu ki Te Rawhiti Manangement Plans Edition 3.


6

Map 1: Ngati Kuta and Patukeha rohe moana. (Two sites in red)

Source: NABIS Crown Copyright courtesy MFish

CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

a) To provide customary fisheries information to enhance and add value to sustainable fisheries management processes

b) To collate information on customary fishing practices of Maori that may need to be considered in making fisheries management decisions.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1. To collate information on customary fishing practices of Maori which may need to be considered in making fisheries management decisions

2. To provide customary fisheries information to enhance and add value to sustainable fisheries management processes


7

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. To conduct baseline surveys of the flora and fauna in Manawahuna and Ipipiri

a. To complete a baseline survey of the flora and fauna in Manawahuna and compare these findings to similar areas within Ipipiri

b. To complete a ‘post’ survey of an artificial reef in Manawahuna and to measure the effectiveness of a proposed Mahinga Mataitai programme

2. To monitor the effectiveness of any enhancement to kaimoana in Ipipiri and to compare and analyse that data against data collected at Manawahuna before and after an artificial reef has been submerged.

3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) as part of a proposed mahinga mätaitai effectiveness programme that assists tangata whenua to enhance kaimoana and sustainable fisheries that also benefits the Ministry of Fisheries.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this research consisted of three approaches: oral interviews, a literature review and pre and post dive surveys at specific sites.

Data from the pre and post dive surveys was largely quantitative but also included a bait station using video technology for the sites in the bay and also of the artificial reef, the Waitaha Canterbury. The methodological approach for this research was both qualitative and quantitative using a comparative analysis approach to the findings.

Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology

Oral InterviewsOral interviews were carried out with kaumätua and kuia of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha. Interviewers were selected from descendants of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha. The interviewers were trained so that appropriate and respectful tikanga approaches were made to key kaumätua and kuia. All interviews were recorded and transcribed and transcripts were given back to interviewees for sign-off as a correct record of the oral recording.

Consent forms and an information sheet3 were sent prior or taken to kuia and kaumätua, to inform them of the purpose and use of their information. Some interviews were recorded by video but this was dependent on the willingness of the interviewee.

The key species studied in this research are:

3 See Appendix 2


8

1 Fin Fish Tamure-Snapper (pagrus auratus) Takeke-Garfish (hypohamphus ihi) Maomao-Blue maomao (aequipinnis)

2 Shellfish Koura-crayfish (jasus edwardsii) Tipa-Scallop (pecten novaezelandiae) Kina-sea urchin (evichinus chloroticus)

3 Flora & Fauna Rimurimu Takeke- Eel Grass (Zostera capricorni)

SUMMARY OF ORAL INTERVIEWS SHELLFISH SPECIES

Tipa-scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae)It was recorded in the 1950’s and 60’s that tipa were prolific in Manawahuna, but they were deep down. Manawahuna once had tons of fish during this time also. Kaumatua noted that purse-seining were always present and there were indications over-trawling had occurred in this area. And that this contributed to the over-fishing of tipa. Purse-seining was common in the 50’s and 60’s, with vessels sweeping through the bays and taking out tons of fish and shellfish, from Motukokako to Tapeka. In the same era, younger members recall gathering tipa in the bays where they lived in Rawhiti itself. Tipa in Manawahuna were remembered as being very large and plentiful. There has been a decline in these in the last 21 years. In each of the bays out to Motukokako, Tpa were gathered but this is now a memory, except for a small bed near Te Rawhiti itself.

Kina-Sea Urchin (Evechinus chloroticus)Kina have always been abundant in the bays from Te Rawhiti out to Manawahuna Bay, and were freely harvested. Now these are over abundant and the kina barrens in Maunganui Bay Kaumatua/Kuia attribute to a lack of snapper breeding stock which ate kina and controlled the populations. Recent surveys also note that there are banks of kina at Maunganui a bio-indicator of a lack of snapper breeding stock that would have controlled the levels of kina.

Koura – crayfish (jasus edwardsii)Koura were found in caverns or holes within the bays. Kuia and kaumätua interviews noted that free divers would only go to 5 metres or so to allow for conservation of koura at lower depths. This was part of the tikanga and kaitiaki practices of the hapu of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha. One kuia of 75 years of age records the following, ‘My grandmother used to dive for crayfish in a cavern under water where there was a pocket of air. She would fill a kete tied to a rope and when it was fill it was pulled up and then she came up. She lived on Motukokako (Piercy Island) with her husband for a while, as lookout for whales’. This occurred in the early 1900’s.


9

During the 1960’s kaumätua recorded catching 5 in a pot but 2 to 3 was the normal catch limit in any season. These were of a size that could feed a family. It should be noted that family sizes were large during this time, approximately 8 -15 children in each family. One kaumätua recorded his father catching 30 in a craypot. Parore and trevally were used as bait to catch koura. Kuia and kaumätua spoke of abundant supplies of koura in Te Rawhiti all the way out to Motukokako. Since this time, Interviewees have reported that too many undersized koura had been taken leaving too few large fish to breed. It is assumed that this decline in numbers and large breeders is a result of the introduction of scuba equipment and commercial fishing. Maunganui Bay was considered a good place to catch koura as craypots could be left in this sheltered bay.

SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES

Tamure – Snapper (pagrus auratus)Interviews with kuia and kaumätua note the abundance of tamure during the 1970’s. The interviews recorded the following:

‘Grampa (Walter Mountain) said that when there was a hui, Uncle Henry (Clendon, b 1890’s) would collect a boat (small launch) load of the men and drop them off at certain places up towards the Cape (Brett). He stored long number 8 wires for spears high in the rocks where the Tamure schooled. The men would stab the paapaka (paddle crabs-Ovalipes catharus) for Tamure bait. By the time the launch returned from the Cape (Brett), each of the men had caught a good lot of Tamure for the hui.’

Maunganui bay was a good place for Tamure as they were abundant there, but kuia and kaumatua suggest that over-fishing by commercial and recreational fishers has seen a decline in the species at Maunganui and the inner bays. It was noted that Charter operators have over used the coast and especially at Maunganui. Whanau used to fish down the coast to Taupiri, particularly, Whangamumu. Kaumatua note that Tamure were over rated and were not the preferred fish to eat.

Takeke-Garfish (hypohamphus ihi)Takeke is held in high regard by kuia and kaumatua in Te Rawhiti. Kaumatua record that Rawhiti was famous for its dried Takeke and that whenever there was a hui inland strings of Takeke (the flax leaf was ripped in to strips or strings and the hard end pushed through the gills so that a length held about 40-50 takeke) were prepared for drying. Nets were used to catch them. These were steamed to soften them for eating or chewed like gum. The Takeke are very few now and it is noted that the Rimurimu takeke-eel grass has disappeared also. Forty or more strings could be caught in a day. They were shared out or dried for hui inland. Takeke were fished commercially in the 80’s but the disappearance of the eel grass coincided with the reduction of Takeke.

James Cook in 17692, records seine nets of 9metres deep and a thousand metres long. There were small humps of nets everywhere near houses and villages. Netting was the major method of gathering fish, particularly Takeke.


10

Blue maomao-(aequipinnis)Maomao were found in huge numbers in schools within the bays. They were plentiful through out the bays and at Maunganui bay. An 84 year old Kuia, Ngahue Hau Te Paa said:

‘When I was a child me and my brothers used to row out to Maunganui for maomao. We caught as many as possible. If we had lots and we usually did we shared them out when we returned. We always knew when to come home because the papahu (porpoise) would come in to the bay and we would start off home and they followed us.’

There was much affection for the maomao, as it provided sustenance for the hapu, and could be found in large numbers. Kaumatua note that they are difficult to bait. Kaumatua agreed that the decline in maomao was when they were introduced for commercial take. This has resulted in few areas where schools of maomao can be found.

PRE AND POST SURVEYSPre-surveys were dive surveys undertaken prior to the scuttling of the ex-frigate Waitaha Canterbury within Maunganui bay. The proposed Site 1 of the scuttling was surveyed and two comparative sites 2 and 3 were also chosen (see Map 3). Data was recorded in relation to fish age, sex, size, weight and numbers of species. Post-scuttling surveys were carried out on the ex- frigate and in the other two sites.

At the same time concurrent, interviews with hapu kuia, kaumatua and whänau took place about target species. Identifying other species and customary practices traditionally practiced in Maunganui were studied within Ipipiri, in addition to the target species

Field Survey MethodologyThe field surveys were carried out to survey specific sites at Manawahuna and Ipipiri. Manawahuna was chosen because it is the site for the Waitaha reef, and Ipipiri to determine the levels of eel grass within the bays. Ipipiri was known for large areas of eel grass meadows, based on historical information held within Ngati Kuta and Patukeha.

Dive Survey MethodologyMethods to record the survey of kaimoana in Manawahuna were discussed and established with the hapu and divers from Dive HQ and Northland Dive. It was agreed that the most practicable method was a “Kick Cycle Grid Line Transit” [KCG] with the aid of compass bearings. Compass bearing were used in the dive surveys in 2007, and then a GPS was used for the surveys in 2008.

The Kick Cycle Grid for the purpose of this survey, incorporated the establishment of a grid area marked out with rope in a 15m x 15m area on the ocean floor, in the location where the ship was to be scuttled. The divers then worked their way through the grid, in the formation shown in the diagram (along the dotted line) identifying and recording marine life, as they were recorded within the grid.


11

Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid

15m x 15m

=

Indicates Dive path inside the grid used by Divers

Fish Bait Station MethodologyA fish bait station device was engineered to video record fish underwater to identify fish species and gauge approximate sizes. The bait container was filled with pilchard bait and lowered 10 meters beneath the water surface for 20 minute periods recording any fish lured to the bait.

As fish attempted to nibble at bait, they were measured by video with a ruler measuring 10cm connected to the bait container. By utilizing a frame by frame approach underwater video footage allow for approximate measurements of fish. A DVD of this footage will form part of the data collection that is enclosed with this report for MFish.

Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera

Video Camera


12

Rope

Bait Container

RulerWeights

Hand Line Method & ScalesHand line fishing methods were also used. Fish caught were raised to the surface, identifying sex where possible, weight and length. The fish were weighed on scales, measured by ruler then released back into the wild. Bait used pilchard, bonito and squid. Fish were weighed on scales and measured with a ruler.

Objectives1. To conduct baseline surveys of the flora and fauna in Manawahuna and Ipipiri

c. To complete a baseline survey of the flora and fauna in Manawahuna and compare these findings to similar areas within Ipipiri

d. To complete a ‘post’ survey of an artificial reef in Manawahuna and to measure the effectiveness of a proposed Mahinga Mataitai programme

2. To monitor the effectiveness of any enhancement to kaimoana in Ipipiri and to compare and analyse that data against data collected at Manawahuna before and after an artificial reef has been submerged.

3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) as part of a proposed mahinga mätaitai effectiveness programme that assists tangata whenua to enhance kaimoana and sustainable fisheries that also benefits the Ministry of Fisheries.

DIVE SURVEY RESULTS

Maunganui Bay – Dive Surveys SitesThe sites chosen for the dive surveys are situated and identified on Map 3. As indicated earlier in this report Maunganui Bay was chosen because of the scuttling of an ex-frigate and the prolific presence of kina barrens.


13

Map 3: Te Kupenga Manawahuna Survey Maunganui Bay - Site locations September 2007.

Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reefThe pre survey dives listed 37 species in this particular site that would set the baseline research for future studies. In January 2007 the first survey recorded one fish present in the pre-survey by 19th September 2007 eight shellfish species and one fin fish were found at a depth of 28 metres and one sea bird. Kelp was also recorded at this site4. By January 2008 there were 243 fish recorded at this site. The average number of fish was 1225.

Site 2: Putahataha IslandPutahataha Island was a control point for Site 1. In September 2007 the surveys recorded 53 fin fish species and 61 shell fish species found at a depth of 20.6 metres6. By August 2008 the surveys recorded 104 fin fish species and more than 40 shellfish. Of these, 118 were less then 10 cm including shellfish and only 25 species ranged from 10 up to 40 cm in length7. There is an increase in species populations and an increase in size.

4 See Appendix 3: Table : Survey results-Manawahuna 19 Sept 075 See attached: Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 086 See Appendix 3: Table : Survey results-Manawahuna 19 Sept 077 See attached Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 08


14

Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke IslandThe first survey undertaken in September 2007 recorded 19 shellfish and 116 fin fish species found at a depth of 15 metres8. By August 2008 there were only 71 fin fish species surveyed at this site9.

Summary of survey results at Maunganui BayThe calculation of the ‘average frequency of observed fish’ at each site was made by dividing the total count for each species at each site by the total number of surveys conducted at each site. The data at site 1 was kept separate. The average frequencies for sites 2 and 3 were then combined to provide contrast to observations at site 110, the Waitaha reef. Ergo the difference in rates of observation is a comparison of the Waitaha reef population to other populations in close proximity. In this way a negative value for the difference represents depletion on the reef relative to existing ‘natural’ populations. In contrast to the oral histories which noted 58 species for those sites the survey data reflects a decline of 21 species no longer present at the time the surveys were completed. Notably eel grass and various sea grasses recorded in the oral histories for this area, and the survey results show no record of these being present at the sites.11

There has been an increase in the species population and an increase in size at site 1 and site 2. In contrast site 3 showed a decline in species, it is proposed that the location of site 3 can be affected by various currents and environs that are more complimentary to sites 1 and 2. The literature review showed more abundant eco-systems at site 1 and 2 which, had a large abundance of sub tropical fish species which could be attributed to the easterly tides These environmental conditions were not present at site 3.

Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys

Grid Photographic surveyA photographic diary method was used to identify and record Eel Grass. Specific areas were selected and a 1m x 1m square wooden grid was engineered and placed on the area (see Diagram 3) Photographs were taken showing the status of the grass within the grid over a period of time. GPS was used to identify the area that was marked out with rocks so that the square could be placed in the same location to be photographed in 6 months time.

8 See Appendix 3: Table : Survey results-Manawahuna 19 Sept 079 See attached Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 0810 See attached Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 0811 See attached Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 08


15

Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid

1m x 1m Square

Corner PointsMarked with rocksFor future studies

Eel Grass located withinthe square is photographed

Photo Diary documentation were compared with new photographs taken at six monthly intervals to identify any changes to the grass crops within the selected sites and with aerial photographs of the bay. An aerial photograph was taken from the website: www.google.earth.

Visual ObservationIn addition to photographs, an investigation of the surrounding environment was observed and recorded. This information included land erosion with run off and slips in to Urupukapuka Bay. Land developments such as housing, roads and open drain systems near the site and possible contaminant effect at Urupukapuka Bay. The type of vegetation and environmental effects e.g. presence or not of pine trees were also recorded. The presence of human related recreational and commercial activities were also recorded such as, density of humans, boat drag on seabed, chemical contamination from engine petrol, and anchoring of boats in Urupukapuka, and discharge of untreated human waste.

Eel grass surveys were conducted within Urupukapuka Bay at three sites. The bay was traditionally known to have been host to a healthy ecosystem which has significantly declined over the past 20 years.


16

http://www.google.earth/

Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass survey sites

Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay – Eel Grass Survey bay and sites

Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorniThe reduction of Eel grass worldwide is mirrored in the eastern bay of Islands. Kuia and Kaumatua report that all the bays were once black with eel grass below low tide mark. The eel grass lined the floor of Maunganui bay. Fish schooled in the bay and the scallops were abundant.

Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991In 1991, the eel grass filled Urupukapuka bay. Historically, this bay was known for its pipi bed. The sea snails (zeacolpus), tower shells (pleromeris), tawera bivalves (Spissas, like white pipi) are also found in this bay. Clusters of Eel grass, pipi, Takeke and snapper was a feature of the bays in this district. The map below gives an indication of vegetation that was present in 1991. This study was undertaken by DOC who mapped the ecosystems present in and around Ipipiri.


17

Map 5: Ecosystem in Urupukapuka Bay: Source Grace et al 1991

Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel GrassIn 1991, 17 years ago, Urupukapuka bay was filled with Eel grass. The circle in the Photo 1 below indicates that 90 percent of the Eel grass has disappeared in this bay. In the 1980’s DOC opened this bay for public camping. During summer, for 6 to 8 weeks, the bay is filled with tents, chemical toilets, pit toilets and dozens of vessels of every shape and size. Three years ago, a composting toilet was installed. Bookings have to be made to camp in the bay now due to its popularity. With the increase of tourism and utilities required to accommodate campers this has had an impact on the environment and the eel grass.

Photo 1: Urupukapuka Bay, circle indicating depletion of eel grass


18

Urupukapuka Bay Environmental AssessmentAn environment assessment was undertaken at Urupukapuka Bay, on the southern side of Urupukapuka Island at its eastern end. It was noted that bare grass surrounded the area leading down to the beach where sheep were observed to occasionally graze. The hill slopes toward the beach onto a flat grassy beach front, is heavily used as a camping area during summer months. Native trees and flaxes are sparse throughout the bay. In the summer months there is a major increase in tourists, particularly campers and boats in this bay. Throughout the rest of the year there is minimal tourist activity.

The eel grass bed is located approx 1 – 2 metres out from low tide mark in the northern section of the Bay. The beach and surrounds were found to be littered with dead eel grass on the March survey, after a week of heavy rain. Deep gouging from land run off occurred in this area.12

Summary of Survey Results at Urupukapuka Bay

Site 1 Survey resultsSite 1 is located in the northern corner of the Bay. At sites 1 and 2, a 1 metre square grid13 was placed in the survey sites, and a photograph was taken of the grass14. During the recent surveys heavy rained had occurred and impacted on the water clarity, which is reflected in the photograph taken underwater at Site115. There appears to be little change over the last six weeks to the eel grass at Site 1.The eel grass is not thick in growth at this site, the water being about 1 m deep at high tide, the sediment below ranging from 8cm to 20cm deep.

Site 2 Survey results This site has the most direct impact from visitors to Urupukapuka. Using the same method applied at Site 1, photographs were also taken to record the density of the eel grass16.

Site 2 is in slightly deeper water than site 1 approx 1.5 m to 2 m deep at high tide, the Eel grass is still very thick and abundant at this site. There has been no change in the density of the bed since March, and there was more eel grass floating in and about the Urupukapuka bay. This site is in the centre of the bay and suffers from heavier use in the summer months than the other sites in the outer reaches of the bay.

Site 3 Survey results17

12 See Appendix 4: Photo 213 See Appendix 4: Photo 314 See Appendix 4: Photo 415 See Appendix 4:Photo 516 See Appendix 4: Photo 617 GPS Co ordinates: E 2623856 / N 6663645?


19

This site is most removed from the beach area but has the direct problems associated with the passing large commercial vessels18. Fishing lines and visual identification were used. It was noted that no target species were caught, Neptune’s necklace (Hormosira Banksii) and Ekalonia Radiata are abundant. Kina were seen along with oysters, and non target fish species. This site is located in an area where the wash from commercial boats breaks against the rocks and surrounding area. Three commercial boats including one large tourist vessel and two super Jet boats were observed within five minutes of commencing the survey. The plume and backwash from the engine from one boat was estimated to extend 20 to 30 m beyond the rear of the boat19.The large swell buffeted the rocks adjacent to the site for some time. This vessel and six other large commercial boats passing this bay constantly may have measurable affects on the eel grass.

Eel Grass Survey Conclusions The survey in March 2008 was successful in netting Takeke from the Eel grass beds. This is a traditionally fished bay and has had a large pipi bed from the oral histories. Takeke was prevalent in the past and caught in great numbers, up to 10 years ago.

In April 2008, there was no visual difference within the survey sites at Urupukapuka Bay approximately 6 weeks after the last survey. The weeks prior to the survey had seen minimal recreational activity within the Urupukapuka Bay area.

The current survey found the beach area to be once again heavily covered in eel grass debris, along its entire length. This area was littered with dislodged eel grass which, was observed to have unidentified eggs attached, just visible as white dots20.

The eel grass is an important part of the marine environment for many species the Kuia and Kaumatua interviews indicates a decline in species such as Takeke which are reliant on the eel grass. The 1991 Grace study shows that for this bay, there is comparative analysis to corroborate the historical evidence of decline, and the oral histories recorded by kuia and kaumätua. Increased recreational activity during the summer months coincides with the spawning of the Takeke. The literature reviews suggests that a greater increase in the environmental contamination from outboard motors, boat effluent, and general recreational use, may have affected the growth of eel grass in Urupukapuka Bay.

Near the bay in Te Rawhiti the effects of the unsealed portions of the road on the eel grass meadows have yet to be determined. Growing evidence also suggests that over fishing of large predatory fish could indirectly increase the growth of algae by reducing the grazing control of crustaceans, shellfish and molluscs.

LITERATURE REVIEWThe literature review focused on written information of fish species and eel grass within the Bay of Islands.

18 See Appendix 4: Photo 819 See Appendix 4: Photo 9 20 See Appendix 4: Photo 10


20

The Brook and Carlin report was based on an extensive series of dives throughout the Bay of Islands sampling 41 reef sites and divided these in to six sub-tidal reef ’ecological types’. This study is seminal for studying reef fish in the Bay of Islands. Of particular interest to this study, were the named species and their numbers in and around Urupukapuka Island and Maunganui bay which exist at different depths on the reefs. In terms of reef fish assemblages, 98 species were recorded, and 29 of these were sub-tropical in origin, brought in by the East Auckland Current which strikes Cape Brett Peninsula. None was observed in our surveys of the three sites but many were present divers say around the two islands at the mouth of Maunganui bay.

The monitoring survey of the Canterbury Wreck by Fairweather and McKenzie provided a comparison in methods and results. We have looked at the species and numbers at different depths specifically at the location of the wreck’s site (Area 1). They observed twelve species at the area and their sizes corresponded with the species and sizes in our study. Their aggregated totals are within 2 or 3 e.g. in area 2 we had an aggregate total of 118 of fish less than 10cm and in their report the species and sizes corresponded in the same area. The Gravitz article points out that the reefs may enhance the fishery but not as part of existing surrounding reef stocks. The artificial reefs create their own diverse communities and in this way boost failing fish stocks.

The Grace report shows that a succession of marine plants and animals began to occupy the Rainbow Warrior wreck in the Cavalli islands. Twenty years later the wreck was covered in invertebrate life and schooling fish and now attracts divers from around the world. The fish stocks have improved in the area. A report produced by Vince Kerr of the Department of Conservation focused on a marine classification system for near shore species. This report provided useful information which assisted in identifying marine species specifically in Motukokako and Maunganui Bay. It also provided biological classification for fish species and provided a source for further information.

An important record of pre-historical fish identification was recorded by Foss Leach, a palaeo-archaeologist at Te Papa Museum. He studied the fish species and numbers from identifiable fish bones found in 126 archaeological sites spread through out New Zealand, mostly in the south island and lower north island. The information was used to provide a comparative analysis with the oral history of kaumätua and kuia. In addition, cross references of pre- historical information was referred to kaumätua and kuia who confirmed with that certain species were known or not and the applicability of the proposed principles of pre-European conservation from Leach’s research. This provided an excellent reference for analysis of the oral recordings of kaumätua and kuia who discussed the data when asked.

Morrison’s marine overview of northern New Zealand covers the literature detailing the marine life in each area of the north. In the Bay of Islands he leans heavily on the Brooks & Carlin 1992 research. He also adds the findings from other researchers


21

in the eastern Bay of Islands. He reported some interesting information about some bivalves and urchin.

The Eel Grass information from the online sites indicated the extent of the world wide destruction of the grass and the fundamental function the grass plays in the breeding of innumerable species. The experiments for replanting are very applicable to our region.

CONCLUSIONThe surveys carried out in Manawahuna show an increase of populations of fin fish species and shellfish at sites 1 and 2. There was however, minimal to no increase at site 3. Indications for site 1 show an exponential growth in population and size of fin fish species, with recording of increase of other species not part of the surveys21. The Waitaha reef shows promising results and increase in fish species within that particular site. This will contribute, in the long term to the increase of fish species such as snapper which will be the control for the kina barrens in and around this area. Site 3 may not have been a good location to carry out surveys due to the difference in ecosystems present at site 1 and 2. Site 3 showed high levels of negative variance of species. It is however, for future studies, an appropriate site to monitor any fluctuations in changes to the ecosystems at sites 1 and 2. Site 3 would be a trigger point for sites 1 and 2. The various methods used to conduct this research project, provided data and information which show a comparison of data sets to test and verify results. There is future scope for further research in this area with indications of rejuvenation of kaimoana in Manawahuna being a promising sign for customary harvest.

The reduction in eel grass meadows is of serious concern to Ngati Kuta and Patukeha and has long been so. The survey results showed that decline is prevalent throughout the bays and needs to be addressed. On going use in the areas will need to be monitored, the loss of eel grass meadows has seen a flow on effect on the population of takeke and that of snapper and other species within the Urupukapuka Bay and other bays.

The loss of the eel grass meadows has impacted on the abundance of available snapper for customary harvest, which in turn has reduced the ability for Ngati Kuta and Patukeha to gather takeke as they had customarily practised. The loss of snapper populations has seen an increase of kina barrens in Maunganui Bay. Ngati Kuta and Patukeha will continue to monitor this region and increase customary harvest at Maunganui for kina as a means to control the kina barrens.

The traditional and customary practices to manage impacts on the flora and fauna within Maunganui and Ipipiri is a practice which will become part of the management framework that Ngati Kuta and Patukeha will implement within our rohe moana. The use and practice of maramataka as recorded in the oral interviews will be implemented as a management regime to provide for sustainable utilisation of our kaimoana for customary harvest now and into the future.

21 See Appendix 4: Photo 11, Photo 12, and Photo 13.


22

RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that a scientific study be undertaken of water samples, to tests for heavy metal concentrates or other biological environmental contaminates. This can be used to analyse if any of these have impacts on eel grass. Finding solutions to mitigate the contributing factors to reverse the decline of eel grass is a primary goal for hapu.

Continued research should occur in Maunganui Bay to monitor the environment for the increase or decline in the fin fish and shellfish species, as well as flora in this Bay. Ngati Kuta and Patukeha are training their hapu members to become certified divers to carry out any continued research on the Waitaha reef as part of a plan of social economic development for the hapu. We highlight this here so that if further research be contracted with MFish, the availability of hapu divers to assist be noted.

A final recommendation is to have a research programme which can integrate continued research at both Maunganui and Urupukapuka Bay to contribute to the customary research resources for both Ngati Kuta and Patukeha hapu and the Ministry of Fisheries.


23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brook F J & Carlin G Subtidal benthic zonation sequences and fish faunas of rocky reefs in the Bay of Islands DOC Northland Conservancy. 1992

Fairweather MJ and Mckenzie J W Monitoring of the HMNZS Canterbury artificial reef, July 2008 Diploma in Marine Studies Bay of Plenty Polytechnic

Gravitz L The Double-edged lure of man-made reefs Christian Science Monitor, 92(177),16. EBSCO SearchHost Premier

Grace,R Rainbow Warrior-twenty Years after the Big Bang 2007 www.marinenz.org.nz

Kerr V Near Shore Marine Classification System Northland Conservancy 2005

Leach Foss Fishing in Pre European New Zealand Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Publishers: NZ Jnl of Archaeology and Archaeofauna. 2006

Morrison M The Marine Features and Ecology of Northland National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd NIWA ., Project for the Department of Conservation, DOC 05101 May 2005 Ministry of Fisheries Catch Data East Northland Fisheries Management Area

Retter, M & Newcombe, H. The Scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury Bay of Plenty Polytechnic. NZ 2007

Wikipedia Zostera Sea Grasses. – Author Unknown http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html Graduate College of Marine Studies University of Delaware “Eel Grass” zostera marinaFrom Wikipedia online; http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html Graduate College of Marine Studies University of Delaware “Eel Grass” zostera marinahttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/eelgrass.htmlDepartment of Ecology, Puget Sounds Shorelines


24

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/eelgrass.html

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html

http://www.marinenz.org.nz/

Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu Ki Te Rawhiti Management Plan, Ed 3.EXTRACTED FROM THE MOANA MANAGEMENT, PART TWO OF THE PLAN

3.0 TAURANGA IKA ME NGA TIKANGA TUKU IHO | Customary fisheries and traditional techniques

3.1 Ngati Kuta traditions and lifestyle are primarily based around our water resources. The fish and shellfish stock are extremely precious therefore preventative measures will be taken to ensure the absolute well being of the moana.

3.2 Traditional fishing techniques have been forced to stop, due to legislation. Daily fishing was never a method practised by our whanau mai rano as it is seen as a method of depleting fish stocks. Instead, seasonal fishing was practised and once the fishing season closed, seasonal hunting of birds and wild pigs would begin. Preserving or smoking seasonal catch would keep the hapu in food stores until the next fishing season. Certain fish species were hunted at different times depending on plentiful supply and when spawning began and ended.

3.3 With the introduction of European fishing legislative methods, we have seen fish stocks deplete significantly. The recreational daily fishing system is one that allows set amounts of fish species to be taken.

3.3.1 We would like to see stricter management of the daily take. Many other protection methods have been recommended such as marine, taiapure and mataitai reserves, however seeking an agreement on the different options remains unresolved. 3.3.2 Rahui are effective methods of protecting all aspects of marine life. A rahui can be short, medium or long term dependent upon the desired objectives. A rahui provides flexibility and is an ideal tool especially within the Bay of Islands as we have so many different interest groups. For example, areas can be shut down for fishing or for shellfish gathering while the daily take of shellfish or fish would be allowed in other areas or the take of a certain species can be restricted for a specified season or quota limits imposed.

AIM

To discuss and negotiate the reintroduction of our traditional style of fishing, such as rahui methods and incorporate them within modern legislation or by new legislative processes to ensure that maximum sustainable levels are maintained.

METHOD

1 Review and reduce the current recreational daily take permitted within the area2 Customise legislation specifically pertaining to recreational fisheries within Ipipiri (BOI)3 Review the current seasonal dates for scallops and initiating new seasons of other

delicacy species 4 Raise awareness and promote the benefits of rahui5 Seek the overall protection objectives of the wider community6 Assess and develop rahui proposals for:

1 no fishing areas2 no shellfish taking areas3 protected species areas4 dolphin safe havens5 full (no take) closures6 seasonal closures ( breeding times, low stocks etc.)


25

7 species quota (limits on species)

4.0 ATAWHAI I TE MOANA I Water Management

4.1 Ngati Kuta survival and culture is based largely on our water resources and for many generations, we have fished the waters as the primary part of our staple diet. This tikanga continues today and we hold much knowledge of the rohe, water conditions and marine wild life.

4.2 With a growing commercial interest in the marine resources, Ngati Kuta insists that better methods of sustaining, in particular, the fish and shellfish stocks is required. Growing water tourism activities and increased recreational interaction also requires assessment and stricter methods of management initiated to protect enhance and maintain our conservational inheritance and clean water quality.

4.3 Our management objectives are based on the benchmarks of this plan. We aim to provide for developments that allow public and recreational users to interact with the resources and fishery for commercial users providing the activities are environmentally sustainable for all users. With growing concerns regarding treated sewage discharge, stress to wild fish species and the other adverse impacts that commercial and recreational activities create, strict management practices will be promoted.

4.1 Key Issues affecting Water Quality

1 Coastal land based development impacting and changing the seabed and foreshore2 Recreational use of the waters increasing3 Increase in water based tourism activities4 Commercial fishing and aqua marine farming activities5 Sewerage and refuse disposal6 Management of moorings, marinas and wharves 7 Recreational water safety and compliance8 Overall environmental and fisheries compliance9 Lack of a cohesive foreshore management plan10 Import/export of sand onto beaches11 Adverse impact of pine pollen on shellfish beds

The issues are complex and unfortunately they do impact negatively on our coastal environment.

4.1 RANGAHAU MOANA | Marine research

Ngati Kuta is very excited about the future possible research developments which have been and could be established within the area. Our unique water resources offer unlimited opportunities to learn more about the underwater world. At present two baseline studies are being completed showing past and present stocks in Ipipiri. Stock counts of shellfish and fish will be undertaken to create a database for Ngati Kuta to work with.

ISSUES

Changes in the water environment are significant and under researched1 Fish numbers and shellfish quantities are unknown. Current practices assume fish stocks will always

be plentiful 2 All types of fishing and their overall impact on stocks is unknown 3 Sea grass areas where small fish breed are declining4 Invasion of star fish and their impact5 Mud fish migration to deeper waters


26

6 decline in seaweed7 impacts on wild fish species through tourism8 impact of silt from land developments including roads on the seabed and sea life9 water quality unknown10 commercial aqua marine farming effects

AIMTo establish a database to quantify fish stocks, flora and fauna, shellfish, and to compare these results against what is currently known.

METHOD1 Initiate a stock count of shellfish, flora and fauna and fish species2 work with Min Fish and NRC to develop the methodology and implement the survey3 Correlate information and trends for invasive species and their impact 4 Identify good practices for tourism interaction to protect the well being of the wild fish species for all

to enjoy5 Gather information about aqua marine farming and its suitability and identify potential areas (if any)6 Initiate a silt build up or sedimentation assessment of the sea bed and pin point the source 7 Train Ngati Kuta together with professionals to carry out the survey8 Establish a Ngati Kuta database of and from the survey findings9 Establish regular Ngati Kuta operated water quality testing9.0 TAURANGA IKA | Customary Fisheries

Ngati Kuta already manages its customary fisheries take under Customary Fisheries Regulations. We have established our own rules pertaining to customary take in order to sustain the shellfish stock. Ngati Kuta is serious about protecting all sea food stocks. We have implemented our tikanga to provide guidelines for our Ngati Kuta kaitiaki to follow. Our rules are currently being implemented by our kaitiaki; however we are unaware of the customary permit issuing practices of other Hapu kaitiaki. Our policies enable Ngati Kuta to monitor customary take practices to sustain the resources. The issuing of customary permits is an ongoing concern. Communication between permit issuers from each Hapu has not been developed. Customary take is currently managed by the Kaimoana Customary Fishing Regulations 1998. Ngati Kuta has delegated this responsibility to authorised kaitiaki who issue customary permits according to these regulations.

ISSUES1 No communication between Ngati Kuta kaitiaki and other kaitiaki in the rohe2 Identify who issues permits for customary take in our area from outside3 Identify the types and amounts of kaimoana being approved4 Identify the areas where kaimoana is being taken5 Identify where fishermen are landing their catch6 Identify how kaitiaki inspect the catch when they land7 Identify the inconsistencies in permit issuing8 Identify the reporting processes

AIMS1 To recognise each hapu kaitiaki in their own rohe2 To engage with other kaitiaki to formalise good communication 3 To establish consistent practices and identify good working relationships to enable a

comprehensive programme for customary take4 Identify areas of cultural significance and Wai tapu5 Monitor all fisheries activities

METHODS

1 Gazette the rohe moana


27

2 Establish a Kahui Kuia/Kaumatua in which each hapu with a customary interest in the rohe 3 Under Kahui direction, formalise a customary working group within nga hapu o Taumarere to

ensure consistent practices are implemented4 Monitor bi-monthly review of customary take 5 Review permitted take when necessary6 Implement a sustainable customary fisheries management plan 7 Make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries to establish rahui and other outcomes of our

management plan8 Train and equip kaitiaki to carry out their roles and monitor overall fisheries together with Min Fish9 Develop working relationships with Min Fish and gain formal acknowledgement of Ngati Kuta/Patukeha authority as kaitiaki of their rohe10 Recognise the authority of other hapu in their rohe and their role as kaitiaki hau kainga

POLICYIn collaboration with Taumarere review practices and upskill Kaitiaki with help of Min Fish.

Our current Customary Permitted Take practices to be reviewed.

6.0 HAPU ROOPU ARATAKI | Hapu Economic Opportunities

Ngati Kuta by tradition is a fishing people. We have lived off the sea for many generations. Many of our whanau have been involved in commercial fishing and tourism for periods of time. Our goal is to create wealth through employment for our community, however with low fish stocks and significant changes in the water environment; commercial fishing is becoming a marginal business.

Our approach to economic opportunities has to change. We must understand more about our environment and fish species in order for us to create profitable commercial activities that are sustainable into long term employment opportunities. Effective management and planning can only come after proper research has been completed. Ngati Kuta aims to work closely with Min Fish, DOC, NIWA, Tertiary institutions and other parties to identify the issues and structure a cohesive plan for this. ISSUES1 No income from water based activities and lack of capital to interact commercially2 Lack of capacity to investigate commercial potential3 Lack of commercial interaction and knowledge of commercial industry4 No research of impacts from current commercial activities and measures of sustainability5 No commercial database

AIMDetermine the potential of commercial fishing and tourism whilst sustaining the environment, as a sound economic base for job creation

METHOD

Step One Research effects from existing commercial activities Cross examine research information against stock count results Identify strengths and weaknesses from results Identify best approach to future planning of recreational and commercial fisheries management

Step Two Develop a plan for recreational fishing, commercial fishing and aqua marine farming that ensures

a sustainable environment and balanced fish stock management


28

Build capacity to support the plan

Step Three Establish the structure to enable the plan implementation Implement the Plan Ongoing research and monitoring Investigate new initiatives i.e.: land based farming/nurseries

9.2 KAUPAPA TAURANGA IKA MO NGATI KUTA | Customary Fisheries for Ngati Kuta

9.3 Set nets, long lines and Crayfish PotsThe following conditions shall apply when proposing to fish with the use of set nets, long lines and crayfish pots.

9.31 Set netsSet nets must meet the specifications as identified in the Recreational Fisheries Rules.Research : Section of the Recreational Fisheries Rules:

9.32 Long LinesLong lines 25 hooks with ID tag

9.33 Crayfish PotsCrayfish pots must meet the specifications as identified in the Recreational Fisheries Rules.

Research: Section of the Recreational Fisheries Rules:

9.34 Holding PotsHolding pots may be used to store seafood providing the pot has an ID Tag attached to it identifying the date on which the permit was issued and the expiry date. The Kaitiaki will have a copy of the permit that allows the seafood to be stored in the holding pot.

9.4 ID Tags for set nets, long lines and Crayfish Pots

METHODFor the setting of nets, long lines and crayfish pots set during the day or overnight the Kaitiaki must instigate the following procedure:

Issue the applicant a permit Record the permit number, expiry date and expiry time on a plastic ID Tag in permanent ink Attach the tag to the net, long line or crayfish pot Advise what time that the applicant must return to the Kaitiaki the next day with his/her net Advise the applicant that the he/she must not remove or alter the ID Tag Kaitiaki removes the ID Tag once the applicant has returned with the netThe ID Tag on a holding

pot must be returned to the Kaitiaki on the day the ID Tag expires

9.5 KAIMOANA CATCH AMOUNTS AND SIZE LIMITSThe following limits are to provide Kaitiaki with a guideline for the authorised take of each shellfish species. The kaitiaki will use their discretion to decide whether or not permits will be authorized to collect delicacy seafood for certain hui and also the catch amounts.

9.51 DELICACY SEAFOOD Scallops Paua Crayfish


29

Seafood Description Catch Limits & Size

MUSSELSAmount: A Maximum of 2 Level 60 litre bins per permitSize: No Set Limit

KINAAmount: A Maximum of 4 Level 60 litre bins of Kina per permitSize: No Set Limit

PIPI – Cockles Amount: The same as set in the Recreational Fisheries RulesSize: See Recreational Fisheries Rules

OYSTER – Rock & PacificAmount: The same as set in the Recreational Fisheries RulesSize:

SCALLOPSAmount: A Maximum of 50 per permitSize: Minimum Size of 4 Inches / 100 Mil Conditions: Scallops may not be taken out of season

PAUAAmount: A Maximum of 50 per permitSize: Minimum Size of 4 Inches / 100 Mil

CRAYFISH

Amount: The same as set in the Recreational Fisheries RulesSize:Conditions: Crayfish marching may not be taken and females

carrying eggs may not be taken

FISH – Hand Line/RodAmount: Limit to permit issueSize:

FISH – Net or Long LineAmount: Limit to permit issueSize: Net must comply with the Recreational

Fishing Regulations

9. 6 PROVIDING APPLICANTS WITH INFORMATION- The Document.

The Kaitiaki are responsible for providing all applicants with information relevant to their expedition. The following document, “Customary Fisheries Permit Terms and Conditions”, is a document that must be given to each applicant and must be held by the applicant with the permit.

NGATI KUTA CUSTOMARY FISHERIES UNITCustomary Fisheries Permit Terms & Conditions

Attention Applicant

When collecting seafood for customary purposes, the following rules and conditions shall apply. Failure to adhere to or uphold the rules and conditions may result in an investigation and/or formal complaint to the Ministry of Fisheries of any misconduct and/or other issues relevant to customary take.


30

1 The person applying for the permit accepts full responsibility for the conduct of all divers, boat owners and the total amount of catch

2 The applicant is also fully responsible for informing divers and boat owners of the conditions of the permit and the permitted catch

3 You must carry your permit and this information sheet on board your boat for the entire duration of your seafood collecting expedition

4 If there is more than one boat, the permit and information sheet must stay on board the boat that the applicant travels on and the applicant must inform the other boat/s of the area where they will be diving/fishing

5 Should the divers of the other boat/s be investigated by MOF while out diving/fishing, the boat owner will have the responsibility to escort MOF to the boat that carries the applicant and permit

6 If you are setting a net, long line or crayfish pot you must not alter or remove the ID Tag placed by the Kaitiaki. You must return with your net, long line and/or crayfish pot, at the stated time to the Kaitiaki

7 Should you be investigated by MOF whilst out diving/fishing you must cooperate with their officers.

8 If MOF question the permit in anyway, you should direct their officers to contact the Kaitiaki who issued the permit

9 You must collect seafood only in areas identified by the Kaitiaki/Permit Issuer

10 You may use dive bottles to collect seafood providing the Kaitiaki has identified this on the permit

11 You must not sell any seafood collected and/or collect the seafood for commercial purposes or use in a commercial kitchen/restaurant

12 Kaitiaki are authorized to count your catch upon your return to shore.

13 You must report back to Kaitiaki immediately upon return with the divers, the boats and owners and also the total catch

14 Your permit is only valid for one day which is the date stated on the permit

Caution: Whilst the applicant is responsible for the customary fisheries permit, the divers and the total catch you should be aware that, if you take more kaimona than stated on your permit, all the divers and boat owners will also become liable for prosecution under the Recreational Fisheries Regulations and boat/dive gear may be confiscated.

9.7 AUTHORISED HUICustomary Fishery Permits can only be issued for the following hui

Tangi Unveilings Weddings Birthdays Koha to other Marae Anniversaries Whanau Gatherings Wananga


31

9.8 KAITIAKI SUMMARY REPORTSKaitiaki are required to make out a summary report when seafood collectors return to the landing area with their catch. The Kaitiaki will estimate how much seafood has been collected and record the information so that Kaitiaki will be able to summarise each month the exact amounts of seafood that has been harvested.

AIMTo better manage customary fisheries and encourage better practices and kaitiakitanga of the fish and shellfish stock

METHOD1 Working with nga hapu o Taumarere to co-ordinate and better manage the Mana Moana resources

and environment2 Formalise a better communication network, working relationships and a who’s who from each Hapu3 Identifying who should issue permits4 Establish a common set of rules on customary take


32

NGATI KUTA CUSTOMARY FISHERIES UNITKaitiaki Monthly Summary Report

SUMMARY FROM _____/_____/______ TO ______/____/_____

Date | Permit Number

Type of Seafood Amount Permitted Amount Taken

TOTALS

Seafood Types Total Amount Taken

Date of Evaluation _____/____/____ Signed:________________________

(SAMPLE FORM)

Appendix 2: Consent Form and Information sheet

NGATI KUTA ORAL HISTORY STORIES OF OCCUPATION AND CUSTOMARY USE IN TRADITIONAL AREAS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS OF CUSTOMARY OWNERSHIP AND AHI KAA STATUS

INFORMATION SHEET

Tena koe.

Primary interviewer: Anya Mountain Hook Interview Team: Marara Te Tai Hook, Helen Mountain Harte. Transcriber: Michelle Elboz Researcher and Report Writer Manawahuna Project: Natasha Clarke Project Co-ordinator and Researcher: Helen Mountain Harte

What is this Project about?

The whole project is about claiming our ahi kaa status in our rohe and claiming our traditional and customary ownership in our rohe. Both our hapu We want to manage the fishery as we customarily and traditionally have done in the past. There are many ways to do this which we are exploring. There are two parts to the project:The first is at Manawahuna which is where we decided we will establish a mahinga mätaitai. The reason for doing this now is that our ex-frigate is being sunk at Manawahuna soon and this will be an artificial reef. The reef will attract fish and will help the fishery will grow. So the first step is to know what is down there now and measure later to see if the reef is successful in increasing fish numbers. This will help us along our coastline. We also have to know what is in the moana now from Taupiri to Tapeka and check on their growth.How are we measuring the stocks?In Manawahuna we are conducting underwater surveys. Our pre-survey had 9 divers photographing, naming and counting fish, shellfish and seaweed. Natasha Clarke coordinated that survey.In Ipipiri, the el grass (sea grass) at Urupukapuka Bay was measured and photographed as this grass is a nursery for takeke, tamure and other fish. The other kaimoana beds will be measured. You can see the report on the website: ngatikutahapu.maori.nz & terawhitimarae.maori.nzWe need to measure what is here now with what was there in the past-the recent past (your lifetime) and the distant past (your parents, grandparents and further) by asking our hapu what was there in the past and how much there was. We will also ask how the stocks were kept at sustainable levels in the past. We also are collecting written research about our rohe and the stocks.

What am I being asked to do?

You are being asked to contribute to our (as in taatou) Project with your knowledge. You will, if you agree, tell us what you know about the fishery from your experience and from what you remember being told by older whanau mai rano.What will I be asked? We will have questions which you may look at and you may choose which ones you will or will not answer. They are there to help you remember stories, not just as questions.What will happen to my information?

Your information will be used to assist in the preparation and production of a report about traditional and customary practices of fishery by Patukeha and Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti for the Ministry of Fisheries. The report is to provide information and evidence to us and to the Ministry of Fisheries that these were the practices we once used and that these will work in Manawahuna and in Ipipiri now to restore the fishery.

Your information will also be recorded, if you wish, on to CD, tape and/or video and kept in our Marae Archives for reference for our hapu now and in the future.


33

Will other people know who I am?Only if you want them to. You may like to choose a stage name if you like.What if I say something I don’t want widely known?You can restrict the spread of the knowledge and your interview can be held in a silent file which can only be opened when you give permission for it to be opened. Or you can say which part you do not want widely known and this may be deleted or the use of the information restricted in it use.What if I’m unable to give permission because I’m absent?You can nominate a whanau contact person who can be contacted when someone asks to open your file or use the information you have given.What if I don’t want my information to be used in a publication or as material which will be sold?You can say this and it will be a condition for your interview.What if I want to share in any profits a person may make from information I have given?You and your whanau can say this on your consent form and the person enquiring will be directed to you for these discussions. What if I change my mind about participating?You can change your mind at any time about participating in this Project and withdraw yourself and any information you have provided which can be traced back to you at any time up to 30 March 2008. You need not give any reasons for this change. How can I find out the results of the Project?These will be put on to our websites and copies of CDs and reports will be available. We will also give staged reports online and at hui at Te Rawhiti Marae.Who else can I talk to about the Project?Helen Harte, Anya Hook, Marara Hook, Natasha Clarke, Robert Willoughby, Ringa Witehira, Richard Witehira, Joe Bristowe, Russell Hook, Karaka & Peti Ahitapu.Will I be asked to sign anything?Yes. Before the interview you will be asked to read through and sign a Consent Form which is attached for your information. This ensures that you understand everything about the Project. What’s in this project for me?Your return investment for sharing your knowledge is that you know that your stories have helped re-build our fishery for now and for your mokopuna. Your name will be recorded for the future, if you want this.Thank you very much for your time and help in making this study possible. Nga mihi mahana ki a koe,

Helen Mountain Harte,Researcher, Project Manager

NGATI KUTA ME PATUKEHA KI TE RAWHITI ORAL HISTORY DETAILS:Traditional Oral History Project

TAPE NUMBERS:DATES RECORDED:PLACE RECORDED:HOURS RECORDED:RESTRICTIONS ON USE:

INTERVIEWEES NAME:ADDRESS:D.O.B AND PLACE OF BIRTH:IWI:HAPU:MARAE:


34

PARENTS DETAILS:MOTHER’S NAME:D.O.B: PLACE OF BIRTH:OCCUPATION:

FATHER’S NAME:D.O.B: PLACE OF BIRTH:OCCUPATION:

SIBLINGS:

MARRIAGE DETAILS:

PARTNERS NAME:D.O.B: PLACE OF BIRTH:OCCUPATION:DATE OF MARRIAGE: PLACE OF MARRIAGE:CHILDREN:

CONTACT PERSON:

Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Participant Consent Form

I have read the information sheet for this study and have had the details of the interview and project explained to me. I have had a chance to ask any questions that I may have had. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction and I understand that I may ask more questions at any time.

I understand that I am free to withdraw from this interview at any time, and to later, withdraw any permissions, information, images or resources if I so wish without penalty or disadvantage.

I agree to provide information to the researchers on the understanding that they will protect my anonymity, if I so wish.

I understand that the researchers may not use any information, images or resources given to them for purposes outside of this project unless I have given my written permission.

I have nominated a contact person who will deal with any information should I be unavailable, only after extensive attempts have been made to communicate with me.

I understand and have completed the ‘Formal Record sheet’.


35

Full name

Contact address

Phone no.

Email

Signature

Date

Contact person

Interviewer

Interviewer’s

signature


36

Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sitesTE KUPENGA MANAWAHUNA BASELINE SURVEY PROJECT

PAGE 1

SURVEY RESULTS – MANAWAHUNA19th September 2007

TIME LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZEWEIGHT AGE SEX OTHER

11.00am Site One- Location where Ship will be scuttled

Site one KCG Scallops 1 7 cm 28m depthSite one KCG Kina 0 28m depthSite one KCG Crayfish 0 28m depthSite one KCG Leafy Kelp Minimal 28m depthSite one KCG Stringy Kelp Minimal 28m depthSite one Visual Leather Jacket 1 28m depthSite one Bait Station Misc. Fish 0 10m depthSite one KCG El Grass 0 28m depthSite one Visual Blue Penguin 1 Above WaterSite one Visual Mollusc Shells seven Unidentified

General Comments:

Two species of kelp were discovered, one leafy and one stringy. 7 various mollusc shells were also discovered. No samples of the kelp or shells were taken and therefore be identified. A verbal description was given however further research conducted to positively ID the species was unsuccessful

12.00pm Site Two – Island

Site Two KCG Kina 61 3x3m 4-6m depth

Site Two KCG Crayfish 1 70cmFemale 3x3m 4-6m depth

Site Two KCG Scallops 0 20.6m depthSite Two KCG Ekalonia Kelp 20.6m depthSite Two Visual Marble Fish 1 20.6m depthSite Two Visual Rock Cod 8 20.6m depthSite Two Visual Blue Maomao 6 20.6m depth

PAGE 2

TIME LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZEWEIGHT AGE SEX OTHER

Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 1Female 20.6m depth

Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 3 Male 20.6m depthSite Two Visual Painted Moki 1 20.6mSite Two Visual Red Moki 8 20.6m depth

Site Two Visual Snapper 2Undersize 20.6m depth

Site Two Visual Leather Jackets 6 20.6m depth

Site Two VisualSpotted Demoiselle 2 20.6m depth

Site Two Visual Big Eyes 15 Under Boulder

Site Two Bait StationVideo to be assessed 10m depth

Site Two Visual El Grass 0 20.6m depth

2.20pmSite Three – Opposite Side of BaySite Three KCG Kina 18 3x3m 8m depth

Site Three KCGKina-King large spikes 1

Site Three Visual Scallops 0 15m depthSite Three Visual Crayfish 0 15m depthSite Three Visual Demoiselle 50+ School/15m

Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Charitable Trust – Te Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Customary Fisheries Project FINAL REPORT 38

Site Three Visual Leather Jacket 5 15m depthSite Three Visual Butter Fish 1 15m depthSite Three Visual Banded Wrasse 1 15m depthSite Three Visual Red Moki 3 15m depthSite Three Visual Scarlet Wrasse 3 15m depthSite Three Visual Kelp Fish 1 15cm 15m depthSite Three Visual Porcupine 1 15m depthSite Three Visual Scorpion 1 3cm 15m depthSite Three Visual Koheru 50+ School/15mSite Three Visual Ekalonia Kelp 50% 15m depthSite Three Visual Unidentified Green Kelp 15m depthSite Three Visual Agar kelp 15m depthSite Three Visual Grey Pillow/Finger Sp 15m depthSite Three Visual Orange Sp/Hyoid? 15m depthSite Three Visual Yellow Sp./Golf Ball 15m depth

Site Three Visual El Grass 0

Site Three Bait Station Misc. 0 10m

General Comments:

Several species of kelp and sponge samples were taken. Kelp has been identified however sponges remain unidentified. Common names used by divers havebeen identified but these names are only based on the physical appearances of the sponge. Further research is required.

Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Charitable Trust – Te Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Customary Fisheries Project FINAL REPORT 39

Species namesSite1Sept 07

Site 1Jan 08

Site 2Sept 07

Site 2April08

Site 3Sept07

Site 3April08

OralPast-Oral-High/Med/lowFish stocks

Kina 0 0 61 19 HPaua 0 0 0 0 HKoura 0 5 1 0 HScallops 1 0 0 0 MTio 0 y 0 0 HSnapper 0 6 2 0 HTakeke 0 0 0 0 M-LMaomao 0 0 6 0 H+Porae 0 6 0 0 H-MTrevally 0 8 0 0 HTarakihi 0 1 0 0 HEel Grass 0 0 0 0 HLeather Jacket/Spotty/Kokiri

1 16 6 5 H

Marble Fish 0 0 1 0 LRock Cod 0 0 8 0 M-HBlue Cod 0 3 0 0 L-MDemoiselle 0 0 2 50+ HBig Eye 0 0 15 0 MSand Wrasse 0 0 2

m/f0 H-M

Banded Wrasse 0 0 0 1 H-MScarlet Wrasse 0 0 0 3 H-MRed Moki 0 1 8 3 MPainted Moki 0 0 1 0 LButterfish 0 0 0 1 LKelp Fish 0 0 0 1 M=HPorcupine Fish 0 0 0 1 LScorpion Fish 0 0 0 1 LKoheru (Pilchards) 0 0 0 50+ HBlue Penguin 1 0 0 0 LButterfly Perch 0 0 0 0 LGoatfish 0 31 0 0 M-LOblique Triplefin 0 170 0 0 HSweep 0 1 0 0 LSea Lettuce 0 y 0 0 HEckalonia Kelp 0 y y 50% HGreen Kelp 0 0 0 Y

15mH

Agar 0 0 0 Y H

15mGrey Pillow sponge 0 0 0 y H-MOrange Sponge 0 0 0 y H-MYellow Sponge 0 0 0 y H-MStringy Kelp Y y 0 0 H-MLeafy Kelp Y y 0 0 H-M

3 248 113 135

Appendix 4: Photographs

Photo 2: Deep gouging at Urupukapuka Beach March 2008

Photo 3: Site 2: GPS Co ordinates : E 2623608 / N 6663910Grid method at site 2 (1 x 1 metre)


41

Photo 4 Site 1, September 2007


42

Photo 5: Site 1 GPS co ordinates E 2623780 / N 6663928

Photo 6: Site 2 Dense growth of eel grass at Urupukapuka Bay in April 2008.

Photo 7: Beach front area with compositing toilet.


43

Photo 8: Location in deeper water and nearer passing boat traffic

Photo 9: Backwash off boat.

Photo 10: Unidentified eggs attached to Eel Grass debris


44

Photo 11: Barnacle on bottom of Waitaha reef

Photo 12: Oysters growing on Waitaha reef.

Oysters are establishing themselves on the Wreck on the edge of the red anti-foul painted areas or on oysters which had died on the anti-foul painted areas.

Photo 13: Blue Cod

Blue Cod swimming along sea bottom under the wreck


45

Document ENDS.


46

Te Kupenga Manawahuna: A Baseline Study for traditional and customary fisheries practices in Te...

Documents

Transcript of Te Kupenga Manawahuna: A Baseline Study for traditional and customary fisheries practices in Te...