Final MANA Report 2

FORM 5
Date: August 2007

Research Provider: Ngati Kuta Charitable Trust
Project Code: CUS2007-2008
Project 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 Henare
Project Start Date: 8/08/07
Expected Project End Date: 20 September 08
Final Report
Rakaumangamanga to the left ,not in
photo
(Deep Water Cove)

Site 3
Site 1 – Waitaha Reef
Maunganui Bay
Site 2 – Putahataha
Island
The three Manawahuna Project survey sites in the bay called Maunganui.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
The Project Team 5

The Survey Team Error! Bookmark not defined.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
INTRODUCTION 7
WAITAHA CANTERBURY REEF 7
Map 1: Ngati Kuta and Patukeha rohe moana. (Two sites in red) 8
CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 8
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 9
Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Charitable Trust – Te Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Customary Fisheries Project 2
FINAL REPORT
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 9
METHODOLOGY 9
Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology 10
Oral Interviews 10
Objectives Error! Bookmark not defined.
SUMMARY OF ORAL INTERVIEWS SHELLFISH SPECIES 11
Tipa-scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) 11
Kina-Sea Urchin (Evechinus chloroticus) 11
Koura – crayfish (jasus edwardsii) 11
SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES 12
Tamure – Snapper (pagrus auratus) 12
Takeke-Garfish (hypohamphus ihi) 13
Blue maomao-(aequipinnis) 13
PRE AND POST SURVEYS 13
Field Survey Methodology 14
Dive Survey Methodology 14
Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid 14
Fish Bait Station Methodology 15
Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera 15
Hand Line Method & Scales 16
Objectives 16
DIVE SURVEY RESULTS 17
Maunganui Bay – Dive Surveys Sites 17
Map 3: Te Kupenga Manawahuna Survey Maunganui Bay - Site locations September 2 17
Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reef 18
Site 2: Putahataha Island 18
Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island 18
Summary of survey results at Maunganui Bay 18
Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys......................................................................................19
Grid Photographic survey 19
Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid 19
Visual Observation 20
FINAL REPORT
Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass survey sites 21
Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay – Eel Grass Survey bay and sites 21
Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorni 21
Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991 21
Map 5: Ecosystem in Urupukapuka Bay: Source Grace et al 1991 22
Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass 22
Photo 1: Urupukapuka Bay, circle indicating depletion of eel grass 23
Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment 23
Summary of Survey Results at Urupukapuka Bay 24
Site 1 Survey results 24
Eel Grass Survey Conclusions 25
LITERATURE REVIEW 26
CONCLUSION 27
RECOMMENDATIONS 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY 30
Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu Ki Te Rawhiti Management Plan, Edition 3. 32
Appendix 2: Consent Form and Information sheet 40
Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sites 44
Appendix 4: Photographs 50
FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Project Team

Project Leaders: Matu Clendon, Moka Puru
Researchers, interviewers: Marara Hook, Anya Hook, Robert Willoughby, Paul Henare, Richard
Witehira
Project 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 Kuta
Teina Hook learner diver, Ngati Kuta hapu
Paul Henare-researcher, Patukeha hapu
Shane 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
FINAL REPORT
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 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.
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Te 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 REEF

Ngati 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
2
: See Appendix 1: Ngati Kuta Hapu ki Te Rawhiti Manangement Plans Edition 3.
FINAL REPORT
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.
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.
FINAL REPORT
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
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.
FINAL REPORT
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 Interviews
Oral 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:
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
See Appendix 2
FINAL REPORT
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
FINAL REPORT
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.
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.
FINAL REPORT
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.
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 SURVEYS

Pre-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
FINAL REPORT
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 Methodology

The 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 Methodology

Methods 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.
Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid
FINAL REPORT
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 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
FINAL REPORT
Video Camera
Rope
Bait Container
Ruler
Weights
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 and squid. 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 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
FINAL REPORT
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 Sites

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

2007.
FINAL REPORT
Site 1: Waitaha Canterbury ex-Frigate artificial reef
The 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 site 4. By January 2008 there were 243 fish
recorded at this site. The average number of fish was 1225.
Site 2: Putahataha Island

Putahataha 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 metres 6. 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 length 7. There is an
increase in species populations and an increase in size.
Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island

The 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 Bay

The 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 1 10, the Waitaha reef. Ergo the difference in
4
See Appendix 3: Table : Survey results-Manawahuna 19 Sept 07
5
See attached: Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 08
6
7
See attached Table Excel Area 1, 2 & 3 t 08
8
9
10
FINAL REPORT
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 survey

A 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.
Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid
11
FINAL REPORT
1m x 1m Square
Corner Points
Marked with rocks
For future studies
Eel Grass located within

the 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 Observation
In 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.
FINAL REPORT
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. 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 1991

In 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.
FINAL REPORT
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 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.
FINAL REPORT
Photo 1: Urupukapuka Bay, circle indicating depletion of eel grass
Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment

An 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
12
See Appendix 4: Photo 2
FINAL REPORT
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 metre square grid 13 was
placed in the survey sites, and a photograph was taken of the grass 14. 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 grass 16.
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

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
13
14
15
See Appendix 4:Photo 5
16
17
GPS Co ordinates: E 2623856 / N 6663645
18
FINAL REPORT
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 boat 19.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 dots 20.
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
19
20
FINAL REPORT
predatory fish could indirectly increase the growth of algae by reducing the grazing control of
crustaceans, shellfish and molluscs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review focused on written information of fish species and eel grass within the Bay of
Islands.
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.
FINAL REPORT
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 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.
CONCLUSION
The 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
21
See Appendix 4: Photo 11, Photo 12, and Photo 13.
FINAL REPORT
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.
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
FINAL REPORT
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.
FINAL REPORT
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
FINAL REPORT
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html Graduate College of Marine Studies University of
Delaware “Eel Grass” zostera marina
From Wikipedia online;
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/eelgrass.html Graduate College of Marine Studies University of
Delaware “Eel Grass” zostera marina
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/eelgrass.html
Department of Ecology, Puget Sounds Shorelines
FINAL REPORT
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 area
2 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 rahui
5 Seek the overall protection objectives of the wider community
6 Assess and develop rahui proposals for:
1 no fishing areas
2 no shellfish taking areas
3 protected species areas
4 dolphin safe havens
5 full (no take) closures
FINAL REPORT
6 seasonal closures ( breeding times, low stocks etc.)
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 foreshore
2 Recreational use of the waters increasing
3 Increase in water based tourism activities
4 Commercial fishing and aqua marine farming activities
5 Sewerage and refuse disposal
6 Management of moorings, marinas and wharves
7 Recreational water safety and compliance
8 Overall environmental and fisheries compliance
9 Lack of a cohesive foreshore management plan
10 Import/export of sand onto beaches
11 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 researched

1 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 declining
4 Invasion of star fish and their impact
FINAL REPORT
5 Mud fish migration to deeper waters
6 decline in seaweed
7 impacts on wild fish species through tourism
8 impact of silt from land developments including roads on the seabed and sea life
9 water quality unknown
10 commercial aqua marine farming effects
AIM
To establish a database to quantify fish stocks, flora and fauna, shellfish, and to compare these results
against what is currently known.
METHOD
1 Initiate a stock count of shellfish, flora and fauna and fish species
2 work with Min Fish and NRC to develop the methodology and implement the survey
3 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 enjoy
5 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 survey
8 Establish a Ngati Kuta database of and from the survey findings
9 Establish regular Ngati Kuta operated water quality testing
9.0 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.
ISSUES
1 No communication between Ngati Kuta kaitiaki and other kaitiaki in the rohe
2 Identify who issues permits for customary take in our area from outside
3 Identify the types and amounts of kaimoana being approved
4 Identify the areas where kaimoana is being taken
5 Identify where fishermen are landing their catch
6 Identify how kaitiaki inspect the catch when they land
7 Identify the inconsistencies in permit issuing
8 Identify the reporting processes
AIMS
1 To recognise each hapu kaitiaki in their own rohe
2 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 take
4 Identify areas of cultural significance and Wai tapu
5 Monitor all fisheries activities
METHODS
FINAL REPORT
1 Gazette the rohe moana
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 implemented
4 Monitor bi-monthly review of customary take
5 Review permitted take when necessary
6 Implement a sustainable customary fisheries management plan
7 Make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries to establish rahui and other outcomes of our
management plan
8 Train and equip kaitiaki to carry out their roles and monitor overall fisheries together with Min Fish
9 Develop working relationships with Min Fish and gain formal acknowledgement of Ngati
Kuta/Patukeha authority as kaitiaki of their rohe
10 Recognise the authority of other hapu in their rohe and their role as kaitiaki hau kainga
POLICY
In 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.
ISSUES
1 No income from water based activities and lack of capital to interact commercially
2 Lack of capacity to investigate commercial potential
3 Lack of commercial interaction and knowledge of commercial industry
4 No research of impacts from current commercial activities and measures of sustainability
5 No commercial database
AIM
Determine 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
FINAL REPORT
 Develop a plan for recreational fishing, commercial fishing and aqua marine farming that ensures
a sustainable environment and balanced fish stock management
 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 Pots

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

Set nets must meet the specifications as identified in the Recreational Fisheries Rules.
Research : Section of the Recreational Fisheries Rules:
9.32 Long Lines

Long lines 25 hooks with ID tag
9.33 Crayfish Pots

Crayfish pots must meet the specifications as identified in the Recreational Fisheries Rules.
Research: Section of the Recreational Fisheries Rules:
9.34 Holding Pots

Holding 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
METHOD
For 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 LIMITS

The 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
FINAL REPORT
 Scallops
 Paua
 Crayfish
Seafood Description Catch Limits & Size

Amount: A Maximum of 2 Level 60 litre bins per permit
MUSSELS Size: No Set Limit
Amount: A Maximum of 4 Level 60 litre bins of Kina per

KINA permit
Size: No Set Limit
Amount: The same as set in the Recreational Fisheries Rules
PIPI – Cockles Size: See Recreational Fisheries Rules

OYSTER – Rock & Pacific Size:
Amount: A Maximum of 50 per permit

SCALLOPS Size: Minimum Size of 4 Inches / 100 Mil
Conditions: Scallops may not be taken out of season
Amount: A Maximum of 50 per permit
PAUA Size: Minimum Size of 4 Inches / 100 Mil

Size:
CRAYFISH Conditions: Crayfish marching may not be taken and females
carrying eggs may not be taken
Amount: Limit to permit issue
FISH – Hand Line/Rod Size:
Amount: Limit to permit issue

FISH – Net or Long Line Size: 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 UNIT

Customary Fisheries Permit Terms & Conditions
Attention Applicant
FINAL REPORT
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.
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 HUI

Customary Fishery Permits can only be issued for the following hui
 Tangi
 Unveilings
 Weddings
 Birthdays
FINAL REPORT
 Koha to other Marae
 Anniversaries
 Whanau Gatherings
 Wananga
9.8 KAITIAKI SUMMARY REPORTS

Kaitiaki 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.
NGATI KUTA CUSTOMARY FISHERIES UNIT

Kaitiaki Monthly Summary Report
SUMMARY FROM _____/_____/______ TO ______/____/_____
Date | Permit Type of Seafood Amount Permitted Amount Taken

Number
TOTALS
Seafood Types Total Amount Taken
Date of Evaluation _____/____/____ Signed:________________________
(SAMPLE FORM)
AIM
To better manage customary fisheries and encourage better practices and kaitiakitanga of the fish and
shellfish stock
METHOD
1 Working with nga hapu o Taumarere to co-ordinate and better manage the Mana Moana resources
and environment
2 Formalise a better communication network, working relationships and a who’s who from each Hapu
3 Identifying who should issue permits
4 Establish a common set of rules on customary take
FINAL REPORT
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.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.
FINAL REPORT
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:
FINAL REPORT
PARENTS DETAILS:
MOTHER’S NAME:
D.O.B: PLACE OF BIRTH:
OCCUPATION:
FATHER’S NAME:
OCCUPATION:
SIBLINGS:
MARRIAGE DETAILS:
PARTNERS NAME:
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’.
FINAL REPORT
Full name
Contact address
Phone no.
Email
Signature
Date
Contact person
Interviewer
Interviewer’s
signature
FINAL REPORT
Appendix 3: Table of Pre- Survey and Post Survey sites
TE KUPENGA MANAWAHUNA BASELINE SURVEY PROJECT
PAGE 1
SURVEY RESULTS – MANAWAHUNA
19th September 2007
TIME LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZE WEIGHT AGE SEX OTHER
11.00am Site One- Location where Ship will be scuttled

Site one KCG Scallops 1 7 cm 28m depth
Site one KCG Kina 0 28m depth
Site one KCG Crayfish 0 28m depth
Site one KCG Leafy Kelp Minimal 28m depth
Site one KCG Stringy Kelp Minimal 28m depth
Site one Visual Leather Jacket 1 28m depth
Site one Bait Station Misc. Fish 0 10m depth
Site one KCG El Grass 0 28m depth
Site one Visual Blue Penguin 1 Above Water
Site 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 70cm Female 3x3m 4-6m depth
Site Two KCG Scallops 0 20.6m depth
Site Two KCG Ekalonia Kelp 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Marble Fish 1 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Rock Cod 8 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Blue Maomao 6 20.6m depth
PAGE 2
TIME LOCATION METHODOLOGY SPECIES QUANTITY SIZE WEIGHT AGE SEX OTHER
Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 1 Female 20.6m depth

Site Two Visual Sand Wrasse 3 Male 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Painted Moki 1 20.6m
Site Two Visual Red Moki 8 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Snapper 2 Undersize 20.6m depth
Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti Charitable Trust – Te Kupenga Manawahuna Baseline Customary Fisheries Project FINAL REPORT 45
Site Two Visual Leather Jackets 6 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Spotted Demoiselle 2 20.6m depth
Site Two Visual Big Eyes 15 Under Boulder
Video to be
Site Two Bait Station assessed 10m depth
Site Two Visual El Grass 0 20.6m depth
2.20pm Site Three – Opposite Side of Bay

Site Three KCG Kina 18 3x3m 8m depth
Kina-King large
Site Three KCG spikes 1
Site Three Visual Scallops 0 15m depth
Site Three Visual Crayfish 0 15m depth
Site Three Visual Demoiselle 50+ School/15m
Site Three Visual Leather Jacket 5 15m depth
Site Three Visual Butter Fish 1 15m depth
Site Three Visual Banded Wrasse 1 15m depth
Site Three Visual Red Moki 3 15m depth
Site Three Visual Scarlet Wrasse 3 15m depth
Site Three Visual Kelp Fish 1 15cm 15m depth
Site Three Visual Porcupine 1 15m depth
Site Three Visual Scorpion 1 3cm 15m depth
Site Three Visual Koheru 50+ School/15m
Site Three Visual Ekalonia Kelp 50% 15m depth
Site Three Visual Unidentified Green Kelp 15m depth
Site Three Visual Agar kelp 15m depth
Site Three Visual Grey Pillow/Finger Sp 15m depth
Site Three Visual Orange Sp/Hyoid? 15m depth
Site 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 have
been identified but these names are only based on the physical appearances of the sponge. Further research is required.
Site1 Site Site Site Site Site 3 Oral
Species names Sept 1 2 2 3 April Past-Oral-
07 Jan Sept April Sept 08 High/Med/low
08 07 08 07 Fish stocks
Kina 0 0 61 19 H
Paua 0 0 0 0 H
Koura 0 5 1 0 H
Scallops 1 0 0 0 M
Tio 0 y 0 0 H
Snapper 0 6 2 0 H
Takeke 0 0 0 0 M-L
Maomao 0 0 6 0 H+
Porae 0 6 0 0 H-M
Trevally 0 8 0 0 H
Tarakihi 0 1 0 0 H
Eel Grass 0 0 0 0 H
Leather 1 16 6 5 H
Jacket/Spotty/Kokiri
Marble Fish 0 0 1 0 L
Rock Cod 0 0 8 0 M-H
Blue Cod 0 3 0 0 L-M
Demoiselle 0 0 2 50+ H
Big Eye 0 0 15 0 M
Sand Wrasse 0 0 2 0 H-M
m/f
Banded Wrasse 0 0 0 1 H-M
Scarlet Wrasse 0 0 0 3 H-M
Red Moki 0 1 8 3 M
Painted Moki 0 0 1 0 L
Butterfish 0 0 0 1 L
Kelp Fish 0 0 0 1 M=H
Porcupine Fish 0 0 0 1 L
Scorpion Fish 0 0 0 1 L
Koheru (Pilchards) 0 0 0 50+ H
Blue Penguin 1 0 0 0 L
Butterfly Perch 0 0 0 0 L
Goatfish 0 31 0 0 M-L
Oblique Triplefin 0 170 0 0 H
Sweep 0 1 0 0 L
Sea Lettuce 0 y 0 0 H
Eckalonia Kelp 0 y y 50% H
Green Kelp 0 0 0 Y H
15m
Agar 0 0 0 Y H
15m
Grey Pillow sponge 0 0 0 y H-M
Orange Sponge 0 0 0 y H-M
Yellow Sponge 0 0 0 y H-M
Stringy Kelp Y y 0 0 H-M
Leafy Kelp Y y 0 0 H-M
3 248 113 135
FINAL REPORT
Appendix 4: Photographs
Photo 2: Deep gouging at Urupukapuka Beach March 2008
Photo 3: Site 2: GPS Co ordinates : E 2623608 / N 6663910

Grid method at site 2 (1 x 1 metre)
FINAL REPORT
Photo 4 Site 1, September 2007
Photo 5: Site 1 GPS co ordinates E 2623780 / N 6663928
FINAL REPORT
Photo 6: Site 2 Dense growth of eel grass at Urupukapuka Bay in April 2008.
Photo 7: Beach front area with compositing toilet.
Photo 8: Location in deeper water and nearer passing boat traffic
FINAL REPORT
Photo 9: Backwash off boat.
Photo 10: Unidentified eggs attached to Eel Grass debris
FINAL REPORT
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
FINAL REPORT
Blue Cod swimming along sea bottom under the wreck
Document ENDS.
FINAL REPORT

Final MANA Report 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final MANA Report 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FORM 5

Date: August 2007

(Deep Water Cove)

Site 1 – Waitaha Reef

The Project Team 5

The Project Team

WAITAHA CANTERBURY REEF

Source: NABIS Crown Copyright courtesy MFish

CUSTOMARY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

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

b) To collate information on customary fishing practices of Maori that may need to be

1. To collate information on customary fishing practices of Maori which may need to be

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

b. To complete a ‘post’ survey of an artificial reef in Manawahuna and to measure the

3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) as part of a

Traditional & Customary Fisheries Practices Methodology

The key species studied in this research are:

SUMMARY OF ORAL INTERVIEWS SHELLFISH SPECIES

Tipa-scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae)

Kina-Sea Urchin (Evechinus chloroticus)

Koura – crayfish (jasus edwardsii)

SUMMARY ORAL INTERVIEWS FIN FISH SPECIES

Tamure – Snapper (pagrus auratus)

PRE AND POST SURVEYS

Field Survey Methodology

Dive Survey Methodology

Diagram 1: The Kick Grid Cycle Grid

Indicates Dive path inside the grid used by Divers

Fish Bait Station Methodology

Diagram 2: The stationary Bait Station with Video camera

Hand Line Method & Scales

d. To complete a ‘post’ survey of an artificial reef in Manawahuna and to measure the

3. To use an artificial reef (the Waitaha-Canterbury ex- frigate in Manawahuna) as part of a

DIVE SURVEY RESULTS

Maunganui Bay – Dive Surveys Sites

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

Site 2: Putahataha Island

Site 3: Adjacent to Motuwheteke Island

Summary of survey results at Maunganui Bay

Eel Grass- Zostrera Capricorni Surveys

Grid Photographic survey

Diagram 3: Diagram of the Grid

Eel Grass located within

Map 4 Urupukapuka Bay – Eel Grass Survey bay and sites

Summary of Eel Grass-Zostera capricorni

Extent of Eel Grass Urupukapuka Bay 1991

Estimated Area of Decline Urupukapuka Bay Eel Grass

Urupukapuka Bay Environmental Assessment

Site 1 Survey results

Site 2 Survey results

Site 3 Survey results17

Eel Grass Survey Conclusions

Gravitz L The Double-edged lure of man-made reefs Christian Science

Grace,R Rainbow Warrior-twenty Years after the Big Bang 2007

Kerr V Near Shore Marine Classification System Northland Conservancy

Morrison M The Marine Features and Ecology of Northland National Institute

Ministry of Fisheries Catch Data East Northland Fisheries Management Area

Wikipedia Zostera Sea Grasses. – Author Unknown

3.0 TAURANGA IKA ME NGA TIKANGA TUKU IHO | Customary fisheries

4.0 ATAWHAI I TE MOANA I Water Management

4.1 Key Issues affecting Water Quality

1 Coastal land based development impacting and changing the seabed

4.1 RANGAHAU MOANA | Marine research

Changes in the water environment are significant and under researched

SUMMARY FROM ___/_/ TO //___

Date of Evaluation _// Signed:____________________