Final MANA Report 2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    1/46

    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 TeRawhiti 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

    The three Manawahuna Project survey sites in the bay called Maunganui.

    Site 2 Putahataha

    Island

    Site 1 Waitaha Reef

    Maunganui Bay

    (Deep Water Cove)Site 3

    Rakaumangamanga to the left ,not inphoto

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    2/46

    TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

    The Project Team 4

    INTRODUCTION 6WAITAHA CANTERBURY REEF 6CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 7SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 8

    METHODOLOGY 8Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology 8Oral Interviews 8SUMMARY OF ORAL INTERVIEWS SHELLFISH SPECIES 9

    Tipa-scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) 9Kina-Sea Urchin (Evechinus chloroticus) 9Koura crayfish (jasus edwardsii) 9SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES 10Tamure Snapper (pagrus auratus) 10Takeke-Garfish (hypohamphus ihi) 10Blue maomao-(aequipinnis) 11

    PRE AND POST SURVEYS 11Field Survey Methodology 11Dive Survey Methodology 11Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid 12Fish Bait Station Methodology 12

    Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera 12Hand Line Method & Scales 13Objectives 13DIVE SURVEY RESULTS 13Maunganui Bay Dive Surveys Sites 13Map 3: Te Kupenga Manawahuna Survey Maunganui Bay - Site

    locations September 2007. 14Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reef 14Site 2: Putahataha Island 14Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island 15Summary of survey results at Maunganui Bay 15

    Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys........................15Grid Photographic survey 15Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid 16

    1m x 1m Square 16Visual Observation 16Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass survey sites 17Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass Survey bay and sites 17Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorni 17Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991 17

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

    FINAL REPORT2

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    3/46

    Map 5: Ecosystem in Urupukapuka Bay: Source Grace et al 1991 18Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass 18Photo 1: Urupukapuka Bay, circle indicating depletion of eel grass 18Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment 19Summary of Survey Results at Urupukapuka Bay 19Site 1 Survey results 19

    Site 2 Survey results 19Eel Grass Survey Conclusions 20

    LITERATURE REVIEW 20CONCLUSION 22RECOMMENDATIONS 23BIBLIOGRAPHY 24Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu Ki Te Rawhiti Management Plan, Ed 3.

    25Appendix 2: Consent Form and Information sheet 33Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Participant Consent Form 35Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sites 37

    Appendix 4: Photographs 41

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

    FINAL REPORT3

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    4/46

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    The Project Team

    Project 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. Wewish also to thank everyone else who gave their time and korero to help theresearch.

    We thank the Survey team:Russell Hook Open water diver of 15 years Ngati Kuta

    Teina Hook learner diver, Ngati Kuta hapuPaul Henare-researcher, Patukeha hapuShane Housham PADI Julia Riddle PADI instructors, owners Northland Dive Company

    commercial divers and site managers of the reefHannah Newcombe and Monique Retter completed a Diploma of Marine Studies atthe Bay of Plenty Polytechnic. Their survey plan of the Wreck-Reef was approved bytheir 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 andIpipiri 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 withinthe rohe moana of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha. The recordings captured specificinformation on the gathering, harvesting and preparation of kaimoana traditionallyused by hapu members. Significantly, the oral interviews listed an additional 28species which can no longer be found at the survey sites areas. This suggests thatdepletion of stocks has occurred over a 30 to 40 year period. Importantly for NgatiKuta and Patukeha is that the oral history can be passed on to future generationsand utilised in making sound management decisions for our rohe moana andkaimoana 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 somespecies in the Maunganui and Urupukapuka Bays. The Waitaha reef has seen anincrease in populations which adds to the body of information that artificial reefs doincrease and encourage population of fin fish, shellfish and seaweeds. The postsurvey and pre-surveys confirmed that there is an increase of marine species at thissite. The two control sites, showed a decline at one site and an increase of speciesat the other site. The surveys will contribute to a long term research programme

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

    FINAL REPORT4

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    5/46

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

    This research report has provided Ngati Kuta and Patukeha with valuableinformation which will contribute to informed decision making and management forour rohe moana to provide for customary traditional practices and customaryharvest.

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

    FINAL REPORT5

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    6/46

    INTRODUCTIONTe Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Survey Project is a baseline study for customaryfishing for and on behalf of Ngati Kuta and Patukeha Hapu ki Te Rawhiti. The projectis 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 HapuManagement Plan2.

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

    This research study is based on customary knowledge and practices, taken fromoral interviews with kuia and kaumtua, a literature review and site surveys.

    Capable hapu members and non members carried out the dive surveys andresearch. This baseline survey will form support documentation for theestablishment of a Mahinga Mataitai reserve currently being developed by the haputo ensure the sustainability of fisheries within the rohe, to provide for our customaryfishing rights.

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

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

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

    FINAL REPORT6

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    7/46

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

    Source: NABIS Crown Copyright courtesy MFish

    CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

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

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

    PROJECT OBJECTIVES

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

    2. To provide customary f isheries information to enhance and add value tosustainable fisheries management processes

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

    FINAL REPORT7

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    8/46

    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 tomeasure the effectiveness of a proposed Mahinga Mataitai programme

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

    3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) aspart of a proposed mahinga mtaitai effectiveness programme that assists tangatawhenua to enhance kaimoana and sustainable fisheries that also benefits the

    Ministry of Fisheries.

    METHODOLOGY

    The methodology used in this research consisted of three approaches: oralinterviews, 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 abait station using video technology for the sites in the bay and also of the artificialreef, the Waitaha Canterbury. The methodological approach for this research wasboth qualitative and quantitative using a comparative analysis approach to thefindings.

    Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology

    Oral Interviews

    Oral interviews were carried out with kaumtua and kuia of Ngati Kuta andPatukeha. Interviewers were selected from descendants of Ngati Kuta andPatukeha. The interviewers were trained so that appropriate and respectful tikangaapproaches were made to key kaumtua and kuia. All interviews were recorded andtranscribed and transcripts were given back to interviewees for sign-off as a correctrecord of the oral recording.

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

    The key species studied in this research are:

    3 See Appendix 2

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

    FINAL REPORT8

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    9/46

    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 1950s and 60s that tipa were prolific in Manawahuna, butthey were deep down. Manawahuna once had tons of fish during this time also.Kaumatua noted that purse-seining were always present and there were indicationsover-trawling had occurred in this area. And that this contributed to the over-fishingof tipa. Purse-seining was common in the 50s and 60s, with vessels sweepingthrough 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 wherethey lived in Rawhiti itself. Tipa in Manawahuna were remembered as being verylarge and plentiful. There has been a decline in these in the last 21 years. In each ofthe 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 ManawahunaBay, and were freely harvested. Now these are over abundant and the kina barrensin Maunganui Bay Kaumatua/Kuia attribute to a lack of snapper breeding stockwhich ate kina and controlled the populations. Recent surveys also note that thereare banks of kina at Maunganui a bio-indicator of a lack of snapper breeding stockthat would have controlled the levels of kina.

    Koura crayfish (jasus edwardsii)

    Koura were found in caverns or holes within the bays. Kuia and kaumtua interviewsnoted that free divers would only go to 5 metres or so to allow for conservation ofkoura at lower depths. This was part of the tikanga and kaitiaki practices of thehapu 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 wasa pocket of air. She would fill a kete tied to a rope and when it was fill it was pulled

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

    FINAL REPORT9

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    10/46

    up and then she came up. She lived on Motukokako (Piercy Island) with herhusband for a while, as lookout for whales.This occurred in the early 1900s.

    During the 1960s kaumtua recorded catching 5 in a pot but 2 to 3 was the normalcatch limit in any season. These were of a size that could feed a family. It should benoted that family sizes were large during this time, approximately 8 -15 children in

    each family. One kaumtua recorded his father catching 30 in a craypot. Parore andtrevally were used as bait to catch koura. Kuia and kaumtua spoke of abundantsupplies 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 leavingtoo few large fish to breed. It is assumed that this decline in numbers and largebreeders 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 beleft in this sheltered bay.

    SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES

    Tamure Snapper (pagrus auratus)

    Interviews with kuia and kaumtua note the abundance of tamure during the1970s. The interviews recorded the following:

    Grampa (Walter Mountain) said that when there was a hui, Uncle Henry (Clendon, b 1890s)would collect a boat (small launch) load of the men and drop them off at certain places uptowards the Cape (Brett). He stored long number 8 wires for spears high in the rocks wherethe 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 hadcaught a good lot of Tamure for the hui.

    Maunganui bay was a good place for Tamure as they were abundant there, but kuiaand kaumatua suggest that over-fishing by commercial and recreational fishers hasseen a decline in the species at Maunganui and the inner bays. It was noted thatCharter operators have over used the coast and especially at Maunganui. Whanauused to fish down the coast to Taupiri, particularly, Whangamumu. Kaumatua notethat 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 recordthat Rawhiti was famous for its dried Takeke and that whenever there was a huiinland strings of Takeke (the flax leaf was ripped in to strips or strings and the hardend 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 softenthem for eating or chewed like gum. The Takeke are very few now and it is notedthat the Rimurimu takeke-eel grass has disappeared also. Forty or more stringscould be caught in a day. They were shared out or dried for hui inland. Takeke werefished commercially in the 80s but the disappearance of the eel grass coincidedwith the reduction of Takeke.

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

    FINAL REPORT10

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    11/46

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

    Blue maomao-(aequipinnis)

    Maomao were found in huge numbers in schools within the bays. They wereplentiful through out the bays and at Maunganui bay. An 84 year old Kuia, NgahueHau 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 themout 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 followedus.

    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 forcommercial take. This has resulted in few areas where schools of maomao can befound.

    PRE AND POST SURVEYSPre-surveys were dive surveys undertaken prior to the scuttling of the ex-frigateWaitaha Canterbury within Maunganui bay. The proposed Site 1 of the scuttling wassurveyed and two comparative sites 2 and 3 were also chosen (see Map 3). Datawas 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 whnautook place about target species. Identifying other species and customary practices

    traditionally practiced in Maunganui were studied within Ipipiri, in addition to thetarget species

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

    Dive Survey Methodology

    Methods to record the survey of kaimoana in Manawahuna were discussed andestablished with the hapu and divers from Dive HQ and Northland Dive. It wasagreed 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 in2007, and then a GPS was used for the surveys in 2008.

    The Kick Cycle Grid for the purpose of this survey, incorporated the establishment ofa grid area marked out with rope in a 15m x 15m area on the ocean floor, in thelocation where the ship was to be scuttled. The divers then worked their way

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

    FINAL REPORT11

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    12/46

    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.

    Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid

    15m x 15m

    =

    Indicates Dive path inside the grid used by Divers

    Fish Bait Station Methodology

    A fish bait station device was engineered to video record fish underwater to identifyfish species and gauge approximate sizes. The bait container was filled with pilchardbait and lowered 10 meters beneath the water surface for 20 minute periodsrecording any fish lured to the bait.

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

    Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera

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

    FINAL REPORT12

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    13/46

    Video Camera

    Rope

    Bait Container

    RulerWeights

    Hand Line Method & Scales

    Hand 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 andsquid. Fish were weighed on scales and measured with a ruler.

    Objectives

    1. 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 andcompare these findings to similar areas within Ipipiri

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

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

    3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) aspart of a proposed mahinga mtaitai effectiveness programme that assists tangatawhenua to enhance kaimoana and sustainable fisheries that also benefits theMinistry 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 thescuttling of an ex-frigate and the prolific presence of kina barrens.

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

    FINAL REPORT13

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    14/46

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

    Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reef

    The pre survey dives listed 37 species in this particular site that would set thebaseline research for future studies. In January 2007 the first survey recorded onefish present in the pre-survey by 19th September 2007 eight shellfish species andone 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. Theaverage number of fish was 1225.

    Site 2: Putahataha Island

    Putahataha Island was a control point for Site 1. In September 2007 the surveysrecorded 53 fin fish species and 61 shell fish species found at a depth of 20.6metres6. By August 2008 the surveys recorded 104 fin fish species and more than40 shellfish. Of these, 118 were less then 10 cm including shellfish and only 25species ranged from 10 up to 40 cm in length7. There is an increase in speciespopulations 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

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

    FINAL REPORT14

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    15/46

    Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island

    The first survey undertaken in September 2007 recorded 19 shellfish and 116 finfish species found at a depth of 15 metres8. By August 2008 there were only 71 finfish species surveyed at this site9.

    Summary of survey results at Maunganui BayThe calculation of the average frequency of observed fish at each site was madeby dividing the total count for each species at each site by the total number ofsurveys conducted at each site. The data at site 1 was kept separate. The averagefrequencies for sites 2 and 3 were then combined to provide contrast toobservations at site 110, the Waitaha reef. Ergo the difference in rates of observationis a comparison of the Waitaha reef population to other populations in closeproximity. In this way a negative value for the difference represents depletion onthe 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 werecompleted. Notably eel grass and various sea grasses recorded in the oral historiesfor this area, and the survey results show no record of these being present at thesites.11

    There has been an increase in the species population and an increase in size at site1 and site 2. In contrast site 3 showed a decline in species, it is proposed that thelocation of site 3 can be affected by various currents and environs that are morecomplimentary 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 specieswhich could be attributed to the easterly tides These environmental conditionswere not present at site 3.

    Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys

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

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

    FINAL REPORT15

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    16/46

    Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid

    1m x 1m Square

    Corner PointsMarked with rocksFor future studies

    Eel Grass located within

    the square is photographed

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

    Visual Observation

    In addition to photographs, an investigation of the surrounding environment wasobserved and recorded. This information included land erosion with run off and slips

    in to Urupukapuka Bay. Land developments such as housing, roads and open drainsystems near the site and possible contaminant effect at Urupukapuka Bay. Thetype of vegetation and environmental effects e.g. presence or not of pine trees werealso recorded. The presence of human related recreational and commercialactivities 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 baywas traditionally known to have been host to a healthy ecosystem which hassignificantly declined over the past 20 years.

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

    FINAL REPORT16

    http://www.google.earth/http://www.google.earth/
  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    17/46

    Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass survey sites

    Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass Survey bay and sites

    Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorni

    The reduction of Eel grass worldwide is mirrored in the eastern bay of Islands. Kuiaand Kaumatua report that all the bays were once black with eel grass below low tidemark. The eel grass lined the floor of Maunganui bay. Fish schooled in the bay andthe scallops were abundant.

    Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991

    In 1991, the eel grass filled Urupukapuka bay. Historically, this bay was known forits 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 givesan indication of vegetation that was present in 1991. This study was undertaken byDOC who mapped the ecosystems present in and around Ipipiri.

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

    FINAL REPORT17

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    18/46

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

    Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass

    In 1991, 17 years ago, Urupukapuka bay was filled with Eel grass. The circle in thePhoto 1 below indicates that 90 percent of the Eel grass has disappeared in thisbay. In the 1980s DOC opened this bay for public camping. During summer, for 6 to8 weeks, the bay is filled with tents, chemical toilets, pit toilets and dozens ofvessels 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 theincrease of tourism and utilities required to accommodate campers this has had animpact on the environment and the eel grass.

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

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

    FINAL REPORT18

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    19/46

    Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment

    An environment assessment was undertaken at Urupukapuka Bay, on the southernside of Urupukapuka Island at its eastern end. It was noted that bare grasssurrounded the area leading down to the beach where sheep were observed tooccasionally 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 flaxesare sparse throughout the bay.In the summer months there is a major increase intourists, particularly campers and boats in this bay. Throughout the rest of the yearthere is minimal tourist activity.

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

    Summary of Survey Results at Urupukapuka Bay

    Site 1 Survey results

    Site 1 is located in the northern corner of the Bay. At sites 1 and 2, a 1 metresquare grid13 was placed in the survey sites, and a photograph was taken of thegrass14. During the recent surveys heavy rained had occurred and impacted on thewater 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 Site1.The eel grass is not thick in growth at this site, the water being about 1 m deep athigh 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 samemethod applied at Site 1, photographs were also taken to record the density of theeel 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 changein the density of the bed since March, and there was more eel grass floating in andabout the Urupukapuka bay. This site is in the centre of the bay and suffers fromheavier use in the summer months than the other sites in the outer reaches of thebay.

    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 617GPS Co ordinates: E 2623856 / N 6663645

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

    FINAL REPORT19

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    20/46

    This site is most removed from the beach area but has the direct problemsassociated with the passing large commercial vessels18. Fishing lines and visualidentification were used. It was noted that no target species were caught,Neptunes necklace (Hormosira Banksii) and Ekalonia Radiata are abundant. Kinawere seen along with oysters, and non target fish species. This site is located in anarea where the wash from commercial boats breaks against the rocks and

    surrounding area. Three commercial boats including one large tourist vessel andtwo 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 extend20 to 30 m beyond the rear of the boat19.The large swell buffeted the rocks adjacentto the site for some time. This vessel and six other large commercial boats passingthis 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 UrupukapukaBay approximately 6 weeks after the last survey. The weeks prior to the survey hadseen minimal recreational activity within the Urupukapuka Bay area.

    The current survey found the beach area to be once again heavily covered in eelgrass debris, along its entire length. This area was littered with dislodged eel grasswhich, 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 theKuia 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 iscomparative analysis to corroborate the historical evidence of decline, and the oralhistories recorded by kuia and kaumtua. Increased recreational activity during thesummer months coincides with the spawning of the Takeke. The literature reviewssuggests that a greater increase in the environmental contamination from outboardmotors, boat effluent, and general recreational use, may have affected the growthof eel grass in Urupukapuka Bay.

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

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

    18 See Appendix 4: Photo 819 See Appendix 4: Photo 920 See Appendix 4: Photo 10

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

    FINAL REPORT20

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    21/46

    The Brook and Carlin report was based on an extensive series of dives throughoutthe Bay of Islands sampling 41 reef sites and divided these in to six sub-tidal reefecological 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 inand 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 ofthese were sub-tropical in origin, brought in by the East Auckland Current whichstrikes Cape Brett Peninsula. None was observed in our surveys of the three sitesbut many were present divers say around the two islands at the mouth ofMaunganui bay.

    The monitoring survey of the Canterbury Wreck by Fairweather and McKenzieprovided a comparison in methods and results. We have looked at the species andnumbers at different depths specifically at the location of the wrecks site (Area 1).

    They observed twelve species at the area and their sizes corresponded with thespecies and sizes in our study. Their aggregated totals are within 2 or 3 e.g. in area2 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 partof existing surrounding reef stocks. The artificial reefs create their own diversecommunities and in this way boost failing fish stocks.

    The Grace report shows that a succession of marine plants and animals began tooccupy the Rainbow Warrior wreck in the Cavalli islands. Twenty years later thewreck was covered in invertebrate life and schooling fish and now attracts diversfrom 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 usefulinformation which assisted in identifying marine species specifically in Motukokakoand Maunganui Bay. It also provided biological classification for fish species andprovided 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 andnumbers from identifiable fish bones found in 126 archaeological sites spreadthrough out New Zealand, mostly in the south island and lower north island. Theinformation was used to provide a comparative analysis with the oral history ofkaumtua and kuia. In addition, cross references of pre- historical information wasreferred to kaumtua and kuia who confirmed with that certain species were knownor not and the applicability of the proposed principles of pre-European conservationfrom Leachs research. This provided an excellent reference for analysis of the oralrecordings of kaumtua and kuia who discussed the data when asked.

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

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

    FINAL REPORT21

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    22/46

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

    The Eel Grass information from the online sites indicated the extent of the worldwide destruction of the grass and the fundamental function the grass plays in thebreeding 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 fishspecies and shellfish at sites 1 and 2. There was however, minimal to no increase atsite 3. Indications for site 1 show an exponential growth in population and size offin 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 thatparticular site. This will contribute, in the long term to the increase of fish speciessuch 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 thedifference in ecosystems present at site 1 and 2. Site 3 showed high levels ofnegative variance of species. It is however, for future studies, an appropriate site tomonitor any fluctuations in changes to the ecosystems at sites 1 and 2. Site 3would be a trigger point for sites 1 and 2. The various methods used to conduct thisresearch project, provided data and information which show a comparison of datasets to test and verify results. There is future scope for further research in this areawith indications of rejuvenation of kaimoana in Manawahuna being a promising signfor customary harvest.

    The reduction in eel grass meadows is of serious concern to Ngati Kuta andPatukeha 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 willneed to be monitored, the loss of eel grass meadows has seen a flow on effect onthe population of takeke and that of snapper and other species within theUrupukapuka Bay and other bays.

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

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

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

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

    FINAL REPORT22

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    23/46

    RECOMMENDATIONSIt is recommended that a scientific study be undertaken of water samples, to tests

    for heavy metal concentrates or other biological environmental contaminates. Thiscan be used to analyse if any of these have impacts on eel grass. Finding solutionsto 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 forthe increase or decline in the fin fish and shellfish species, as well as flora in thisBay. Ngati Kuta and Patukeha are training their hapu members to become certifieddivers to carry out any continued research on the Waitaha reef as part of a plan ofsocial economic development for the hapu. We highlight this here so that if furtherresearch be contracted with MFish, the availability of hapu divers to assist be noted.

    A final recommendation is to have a research programme which can integratecontinued research at both Maunganui and Urupukapuka Bay to contribute to thecustomary research resources for both Ngati Kuta and Patukeha hapu and the

    Ministry of Fisheries.

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

    FINAL REPORT23

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    24/46

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

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

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

    Kerr V Near Shore Marine Classification System Northland Conservancy2005

    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 NationalInstitute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd NIWA .,Project for the Department of Conservation, DOC 05101May 2005Ministry of Fisheries Catch Data East Northland Fisheries Management Area

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

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

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

    FINAL REPORT24

    http://www.marinenz.org.nz/http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.htmlhttp://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.htmlhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/eelgrass.htmlhttp://www.marinenz.org.nz/http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.htmlhttp://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.htmlhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/eelgrass.html
  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    25/46

    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 fisheriesand traditional techniques

    3.1 Ngati Kuta traditions and lifestyle are primarily based around our waterresources. The fish and shellfish stock are extremely precious therefore preventativemeasures 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. Dailyfishing was never a method practised by our whanau mai rano as it is seen as a methodof depleting fish stocks. Instead, seasonal fishing was practised and once the fishingseason closed, seasonal hunting of birds and wild pigs would begin. Preserving orsmoking seasonal catch would keep the hapu in food stores until the next fishingseason. Certain fish species were hunted at different times depending on plentiful supplyand when spawning began and ended.

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

    3.3.1 We would like to see stricter management of the daily take. Many other protection methods havebeen recommended such as marine, taiapure and mataitai reserves, however seeking an agreement onthe different options remains unresolved.3.3.2 Rahui are effective methods of protecting all aspects of marine life. A rahui can be short, mediumor long term dependent upon the desired objectives. A rahui provides flexibility and is an ideal toolespecially within the Bay of Islands as we have so many different interest groups. For example, areas canbe shut down for fishing or for shellfish gathering while the daily take of shellfish or fish would be allowedin 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 andincorporate them within modern legislation or by new legislative processes to ensure that maximumsustainable 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 species4 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.)

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

    FINAL REPORT25

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    26/46

    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 holdmuch 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 bettermethods of sustaining, in particular, the fish and shellfish stocks is required. Growing water tourismactivities and increased recreational interaction also requires assessment and stricter methods ofmanagement initiated to protect enhance and maintain our conservational inheritance and clean waterquality.

    4.3 Our management objectives are based on the benchmarks of this plan. We aim to provide fordevelopments that allow public and recreational users to interact with the resources and fishery forcommercial users providing the activities are environmentally sustainable for all users. With growingconcerns regarding treated sewage discharge, stress to wild fish species and the other adverse impactsthat 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 seabedand 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 wharves7 Recreational water safety and compliance8 Overall environmental and fisheries compliance9 Lack of a cohesive foreshore management plan

    10 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 couldbe established within the area. Our unique water resources offer unlimited opportunities to learn moreabout the underwater world. At present two baseline studies are being completed showing past andpresent stocks in Ipipiri. Stock counts of shellfish and fish will be undertaken to create a database forNgati 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 plentiful2 All types of fishing and their overall impact on stocks is unknown3 Sea grass areas where small fish breed are declining4 Invasion of star fish and their impact5 Mud fish migration to deeper waters

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

    FINAL REPORT26

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    27/46

    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 resultsagainst 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 impact4 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 source7 Train Ngati Kuta together with professionals to carry out the survey8 Establish a Ngati Kuta database of and from the survey findings

    9 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 provideguidelines 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 policiesenable Ngati Kuta to monitor customary take practices to sustain the resources.The issuing of customary permits is an ongoing concern. Communication between permit issuers fromeach Hapu has not been developed. Customary take is currently managed by the Kaimoana CustomaryFishing Regulations 1998. Ngati Kuta has delegated this responsibility to authorised kaitiaki who issuecustomary 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

    AIMS

    1 To recognise each hapu kaitiaki in their own rohe2 To engage with other kaitiaki to formalise good communication3 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

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

    FINAL REPORT27

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    28/46

    2 Establish a Kahui Kuia/Kaumatua in which each hapu with a customary interest in the rohe3 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 take5 Review permitted take when necessary6 Implement a sustainable customary fisheries management plan7 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 NgatiKuta/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 ourwhanau have been involved in commercial fishing and tourism for periods of time. Our goal is to createwealth through employment for our community, however with low fish stocks and significant changes inthe water environment; commercial fishing is becoming a marginal business.

    Our approach to economic opportunities has to change. We must understand more about ourenvironment and fish species in order for us to create profitable commercial activities that are sustainableinto long term employment opportunities. Effective management and planning can only come after properresearch 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 soundeconomic 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 ensuresa sustainable environment and balanced fish stock management

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

    FINAL REPORT28

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    29/46

    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 forNgati 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 andcrayfish 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 itidentifying the date on which the permit was issued and the expiry date. The Kaitiaki will have acopy 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 mustinstigate 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 shellfishspecies. The kaitiaki will use their discretion to decide whether or not permits will be authorized to collectdelicacy seafood for certain hui and also the catch amounts.

    9.51 DELICACY SEAFOOD

    Scallops

    Paua

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

    FINAL REPORT29

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    30/46

    Crayfish

    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 CocklesAmount: 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 MilConditions: 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. Thefollowing document, Customary Fisheries Permit Terms and Conditions, is a document that must begiven 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 toadhere to or uphold the rules and conditions may result in an investigation and/or formal complaint to theMinistry of Fisheries of any misconduct and/or other issues relevant to customary take.

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

    FINAL REPORT30

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    31/46

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

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

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

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

    5 Should the divers of the other boat/s be investigated by MOF while out diving/fishing, the boatowner 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 placedby the Kaitiaki. You must return with your net, long line and/or crayfish pot, at the stated time tothe Kaitiaki

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

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

    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 ownersand 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 totalcatch you should be aware that, if you take more kaimona than stated on your permit, all the diversand boat owners will also become liable for prosecution under the Recreational Fisheries Regulationsand 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

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

    FINAL REPORT31

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    32/46

    Whanau Gatherings

    Wananga

    9.8 KAITIAKI SUMMARY REPORTSKaitiaki are required to make out a summary report when seafood collectors return to the landing areawith 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 hasbeen harvested.

    AIMTo better manage customary fisheries and encourage better practices and kaitiakitanga of the fish andshellfish 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 whos who from each Hapu3 Identifying who should issue permits4 Establish a common set of rules on customary take

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

    FINAL REPORT32

    NGATI KUTA CUSTOMARY FISHERIES UNITKaitiaki Monthly Summary Report

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

    Date | PermitNumber

    Type of Seafood Amount Permitted Amount Taken

    TOTALS

    Seafood Types Total Amount Taken

    Date of Evaluation _____/____/____ Signed:________________________

    (SAMPLE FORM)

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    33/46

    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 HookInterview Team: Marara Te Tai Hook, Helen Mountain Harte.

    Transcriber: Michelle ElbozResearcher 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 mtaitai. 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 willattract 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.nz

    We 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.

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

    FINAL REPORT33

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    34/46

    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 dont 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 andthis may be deleted or the use of the information restricted in it use.

    What if Im unable to give permission because Im 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 dont 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 thesediscussions.

    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, JoeBristowe, 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.Whats 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:

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

    FINAL REPORT34

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    35/46

    PARENTS DETAILS:

    MOTHERS NAME:

    D.O.B: PLACE OF BIRTH:

    OCCUPATION:

    FATHERS 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 havehad. 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 willprotect my anonymity, if I so wish.

    I understand that the researchers may not use any information, images or resources givento 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 beunavailable, only after extensive attempts have been made to communicate with me.

    I understand and have completed the Formal Record sheet.

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

    FINAL REPORT35

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    36/46

    Full name

    Contact address

    Phone no.

    Email

    SignatureDate

    Contact person

    Interviewer

    Interviewers

    signature

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

    FINAL REPORT36

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    37/46

    Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sites

    TE KUPENGA MANAWAHUNA BASELINE SURVEY PROJECTPAGE 1

    SURVEY RESULTS MANAWAHUNA19th September2007

    LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZE

    WEIGH

    T AGE SEX OTHER

    0aSite One- Location where Ship will be scuttledSite 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 WatSite one Visual Mollusc Shells seven Unidentifie

    ral Comments:

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

    0pSite Two IslandSite Two KCG Kina 61 3x3m 4-6

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    38/46

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

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

    PAGE 2LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZE WEIGH

    TAGE SEX OTHER

    Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 1 Female

    20.6m de

    Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 3 Male 20.6m deSite Two Visual Painted Moki 1 20.6mSite Two Visual Red Moki 8 20.6m deSite Two Visual Snapper 2 Undersiz

    e20.6m de

    Site Two Visual Leather Jackets 6 20.6m deSite Two Visual Spotted

    Demoiselle2 20.6m de

    Site Two Visual Big Eyes 15 Under BouSite Two Bait Station Video to be

    assessed

    10m dept

    Site Two Visual El Grass 0 20.6m de

    pm Site Three Opposite Side ofBaySite Three KCG Kina 18 3x3m 8mSite Three KCG Kina-King large

    spikes1

    Site Three Visual Scallops 0 15m dept

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

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    39/46

    Site Three Visual Crayfish 0 15m deptSite Three Visual Demoiselle 50+ School/15Site Three Visual Leather Jacket 5 15m deptSite Three Visual Butter Fish 1 15m deptSite Three Visual Banded Wrasse 1 15m deptSite Three Visual Red Moki 3 15m deptSite Three Visual Scarlet Wrasse 3 15m deptSite Three Visual Kelp Fish 1 15cm 15m deptSite Three Visual Porcupine 1 15m deptSite Three Visual Scorpion 1 3cm 15m deptSite Three Visual Koheru 50+ School/15Site Three Visual Ekalonia Kelp 50% 15m deptSite Three Visual Unidentified Green Kelp 15m deptSite Three Visual Agar kelp 15m deptSite Three Visual Grey Pillow/Finger Sp 15m deptSite Three Visual Orange Sp/Hyoid? 15m deptSite Three Visual Yellow Sp./Golf Ball 15m dept

    Site Three Visual El Grass 0

    Site Three Bait Station Misc. 0 10m

    ral Comments:

    ral species of kelp and sponge samples were taken. Kelp has been identified however sponges remain unidentified. Common namidentified but these names are only based on the physical appearances of the sponge. Furtherrch is required.

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

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    40/46

    Species namesSite1Sept07

    Site1

    Jan08

    Site2Sept07

    Site2April08

    Site3Sept07

    Site3April08

    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 M

    Tio 0 y 0 0 HSnapper 0 6 2 0 H

    Takeke 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/Kokiri1 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/f

    0 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 L

    Butterfly 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 H

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    41/46

    15mAgar 0 0 0 Y

    15mH

    Grey Pillow sponge 0 0 0 y H-MOrange Sponge 0 0 0 y H-M

    Yellow 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)

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

    FINAL REPORT41

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    42/46

    Photo 4 Site 1, September 2007

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

    FINAL REPORT42

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    43/46

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

    Photo 6: Site 2 Dense growth of eel grass at Urupukapuka Bay in April2008.

    Photo 7: Beach front area with compositing toilet.

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

    FINAL REPORT43

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    44/46

    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

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

    FINAL REPORT44

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    45/46

    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-foulpainted 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

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

    FINAL REPORT45

  • 8/14/2019 Final MANA Report 2

    46/46

    Document ENDS.