Missing data from Revitalising the Gulf consultation
During the October 2022 consultation round on the marine protection proposals for Revitalising the Gulf I asked Govt a few questions. Some of them were quickly answered but a few others were converted into an Official Information Act request. From that I was able to draft this table showing changes in spatial use of the Gulf proposed by the plan, this is important given it’s a Marine Spatial Plan.
A new idea proposed in the plan (based on Sea Change 2017) was that customary fishing could take place withing the High Protection Areas (HPAs). There was no advice provided on how much customary take might happen in the HPAs, this is important as it impacts level of protection provided by the policy. I asked:
“Are you able to supply how much customary fishing (including commercial customary) was undertaken in the proposed HPAs in previous years? This would aid conversations with people concerned about future levels of customary take. I understand catch records may not have precise associated location data, an estimate is fine.”
I received a painfully detailed response. Here is the map and raw data, I spent a few hours with it trying to answer my question. In my opinion the data is unusable. For nearly every population there is a unspecified number given for what was taken. For example:
In 2018 & 219 there were 1,064 kgs of snapper taken as customary catch but there is an additional number of 438 with no unit specified.
If we just stick to the kgs and compare data from 2018 & 2019 to contextualise it with fishing data from the last State of the Environment Report there was about one tonne of tāmure / snapper taken as customary catch. Total commercial take of tāmure in the Gulf was about 1,600 tonnes and recreational take was 2,000 tonnes. So customary catch might only be 0.03% of the total catch and insignificant from a population management perspective. However there is another number of 438 given with unit unspecified. If the number is tonnes then customary catch is 12% of the current catch, spatial changes in this effort would be significant from a population management perspective. The 2022 data is also dominated by unspecified numbers.
I have not been able to use the data to answer my question, the reporting system for recreational and customary take needs an over haul. Its frustrating as there is a great app that has been developed for reporting customary take (IKANET) which must be unused.
How to manage dogs in banned areas
Note this was written from the perspective on an average sized white male in his 40’s, you may need different tactics. The number one rule here is to never put yourself in danger.
Scenario 1. The dog is off-lead and there are threatened breeding birds in the area.
Chase after the dog. This shows the owners that something is really wrong, especially if you don’t look like the kind of person who likes to run. In my experience the dog usually returns to the owner, you can then have an (out of breath) conversation about why it’s important not to have dogs in the area.
Scenario 2. The dog is on a lead, there are no threatened breeding birds in the area.
Introduce yourself to the dog owners like you are an old friend. Be warm and in their face. This shows you are not somebody to be ignored but also not threatening. I like to shake their hand and tell them what I do here, my name, I also ask for theirs. Kindy explain to them that they must have missed the no dogs sign and send them back the way they came. It’s a good idea to walk with them as this shows how serious you are. Asking them about their dog(s) helps you come across as relatable, it’s also useful to find out if they are a local.
Scenario 3. Dealing with repeat offenders.
I have actually never had this problem but I received this advice from Auckland Council after having an argument with a local who was determined he was allowed to walk his dog somewhere where he was not.
1. Record the offenders details.
- Ideally you already have their name from Scenario 2, if not ask for it again in a friendly way and apologies for forgetting.
- Get a description of the dog (its breed, colour, sex, size etc and a description of the collar).
- If the dog is not with its owner and it is safe to do so you might be able to get its tag details, for this you want the tag number and expiry date.
- You might be able to get a photo of the owner or dog.
- You might also be able to follow them to their car or house to record a license plate or address – but never put yourself in danger.
2. Report the details to Auckland Council (09) 301 0101 with the time, date and location. You will also need to report your contact details.
If Council officers are able to locate the owner an infringement may be issued. Keep a record of the incident for yourself. If there are regular incidents you can ask Council to do monitoring. In this case someone from the animal management team will visit the reserve. My understanding is that they can issue infringement notices on the spot.
Tarāpunga / red-billed gulls nest extension
The tarāpunga that nest under the Panmure Bridge are heavily impacted by humans, the national population is in decline. While deploying a nesting structure for tara / white-fronted tern yesterday we also added a small extension to the Panmure tarāpunga nesting structure. We upcycled old wood which fitted the rustic nature of the old bridge. The six nesting areas were c35cm x 25cm. The gulls were already a few weeks into nesting with some three eggs nests. As the colony is currently space limited I think the structure will help, but we may have been a bit late deploying. The gulls also nest on boats in the estuary so if some get disturbed they may move to the main colony. It was promising to see two gulls having a tussle over the new nesting area while we exited the estuary.
I checked many old boats moored in the Estuary and did not find any with nests which is great. One pair of gulls nested on a post, another on a jetty where it’s likely to be disturbed. There is a clear case for extending the nesting platform in 2023.
Added some extensions after taking this video (30 September 2004)
Missing reef balls
24 Reef balls were deployed in two reefs at Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve in 2001.
They were quickly colonised and dramatically increased the biodiversity in the area.
I have wanted to find these artificial reefs for years and made three attempts. The first dive from the shore was unsuccessful (its too far out and I dont have underwater GPS). The second and third efforts below used line and sonar but still came up empty. I think they have been buried (sunk into the substrate) but I would love to be wrong. The photo above shows a lot more shell on the seafloor than I found 20 years later. I’m not planning any future searches.
12 January 2022
4:15pm High Tide
5-10 knots
.5m-1m swell
Shaun Lee & Jordi Tablada
Boat to from Winstons Cove to Long Bay
12:00pm Look for Reef Balls:
Zig Zag Reef
36° 40’ 52” S, 174° 45’ 14.8” E
36.681111, 174.754111
5.5m at Low tide
Octagon Reef
36° 40’ 51.1” S, 174° 45’ 19.6” E
36.680861, 174.755444
6.2 M at low tide
Dropped anchor 5m from Zig Zag using Garmin GPS
Dived down anchor with line on reel
Vis 5m surface, <1m bottom 5.5m deep, tied line around anchor, spiral search pattern Let line out >30m possibly didn’t turn enough and made more of a sweeping arc
Hoped line would have snagged of epibenthic fauna attached to reef balls but following line back found nothing
Quick check near boat found nothing c30mins total bottom time
Noted layer of mud under sand
A few cushion stars, some heart urchins, Jordi saw a Spengler’s Trumpet
Some dead tutua shells under sand
Large snapper under us when we surfaced
Dropped anchor 5m from Octagon using Garmin GPS
7 minute look in the direction of the reef
Nothing in particular
2:30pm head back as wind pickup up (15knots developing in afternoon).
Resolved to search with a boat that has sonar / fish finder next time.
Thursday 9 September 2022
High Tide 5:30pm
With skipper Ed Chignell
Zig Zag Reef 6.7m
2:45pm
c7 spirals out from waypoint. No clear benthic structure seen on downscan or sidescan.
Octagon Reef 8m
3:10pm
c3 spirals out from waypoint. Drifted south over fishy looking shape 5m south of the waypoint on the downscan. It was still there 5 minutes later so we dropped anchor on it.
I descended the anchor line. Vis 3m, bottom 8.8m. I spiralled out from the anchor for 5 minutes then headed north for an additional 5 minutes. The seafloor was sand/mud with some shell. Nine cushion stars and about six large hermit crabs were seen in 10 minutes. After ascending and heading a bit further south I dropped down for another 5 minutes to check out another fishy shape but didn’t see any reef balls or fish. Many fish were seen in the fish finder.
Note visibility much better than last dive even tho it rained heavily just a few days ago. Hardly any swell or wind over the last two days.
UPDATE: WE FOUND THEM!
https://inaturalist.nz/journal/shaun-lee/74488-dive-report-reef-balls-long-bay
Article about the find here https://gulfjournal.org.nz/2023/02/reef-balls-rediscovered/
Thanks to Andreas Proesl who has been in touch and supplied his internship report which shows how the ReefBalls were constructed and deployed
Artificial nesting platform for tara / white-fronted tern in an urban estuary
Problem
Tarāpunga / red-billed gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae scopulinus) and tara / white-fronted tern (Sterna striata) nest on artificial structures in the Tāmaki Estuary, Auckland, New Zealand. The Department of Conservation ranks both species as At Risk / Declining (Robertson et al. 2021). Both species have also nested on moored boats in the estuary which creates human-wildlife conflict.
Hypothesis
A nesting platform on the large piles (72cm diameter) that rise c2m above Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) under Waipuna Bridge. The piles are safe form mammalian predators who could not swim then climb to the nests. This area is less impacted by light pollution than Panmure Bridge where there is a tarāpunga colony.
| Challenge | Solution |
|---|---|
| The nests are exposed to avian predators including the adjacent tarāpunga. | Using vertical canes to stop flying attacks on chicks. See Preston Dock Common Terns below. |
| The nest structures might be used by tarāpunga. | This is not a poor outcome but if the spaces are deep and small they might not be so suitable for tarāpunga. There is a small chance that nearby nesting feral pigeons are also interested in the structure. |
| Colonies are ephemeral (McLean 2018) with birds moving regularly. | This could be an advantage as species with higher site fidelity would be harder to attract. Suggest the addition of a 3D printed decoy to improve the chances of success I the first season. |
| The structure will attract human attention. | Clearly label the structure as a ‘trial bird nest for endangered terns’ include a phone number & URL to a blog post about the project. Centre the decoy to keep it less accessible / visible to humans. The height of the piles will help deter vandals. Even at low tide access requires a boat or a swim. Graffiti on the bridge may have been enabled by retired pontoons. |
| Installation difficulties | The piles are tall and using a ladder on a boat is tricky. A platform that connects the piles is visible 2.5hrs after high tide at the western end. A ladder could be used on the platform but it will be slippery. |
| Monitoring | There is no pedestrian access to the bridge. A land based site inspection from Finn Place identified the western piles as easy to monitor. |
Tara do not use nesting material (NZBirdsOnline), a small amount of sand could cover the floor of the nests. The Preston Tern Nest Boxes use gravel. Drainage holes should be added to keep water out.
Proposed design
Based on the Preston Dock Common Tern nest boxes. Tara are not much larger than Common Tern but we have made the nest boxes smaller to dissuade tarāpunga form nesting here. Boxes dimensions made of ‘Radiata Premium Grade Smooth Decking 140 x 32mm’. The extra depth allows for a max of 40mm of gravel.
How the nest boxes might attach to a platform on top of the piles.
Timing
Tara tend to arrive at a prospective nesting location only a few days before laying, and there is a high degree of synchronisation of laying within a colony (NZBirdsOnline 2022). Eggs are laid between October-December (NZBirdsOnline 2022). Prospecting may begin weeks before egg laying. We plan to deploy the structure by mid September.
Deployment
The structure was deployed on the 14th of September 2022 (with a few modifications). I had a huge amount of help from a friend who is much more handy with an impact driver than me. The decoy is a bit odd looking as its just a scaled up tara iti with a different paint job. Five tara flew past while we were working and roosted on the piles in the center of the channel. We decided not to deploy the canes until we had active nests.
Update 15 Sep 2022. 10:00am-10:45am.
Four tara and three tarāpunga were roosting on the piles in the centre of the estuary. Every ten minutes or so they would be quite loud with both species calling and jostling for space but no confrontations observed. There were three close passes of the decoy and on at least two of these occasions it seemed like the terns were calling at it. No terns landed on the boxes but both species visited the piles near me. One tern was foraging from a pole which gave it a good view of any fish swimming above the platform in the shadow of the bridge, but it did not dive. One tern dived on in the centre area.
Update 18 Sep 2022. 5:15pm-6pm
About three gulls regularly on the piles in the centre of the estuary. Lots of gull movement and calls, more gull activity between the bridges than the 15th. No terns seen.
Update 28 Sep 2022. 2:15-2:20pm
Constant red-billed gull activity. Three gulls roosting on centre piles. Two pied shags feeding on the southern side.
Update 10 Oct 2022. 1:00-1:01pm
Low tide, no activity. Just a pied shag foraging under the bridge.
Update 23 Oct 2022. 5:00-5:01pm
High tide, no activity. Just a few gulls roosting on centre piles.
Update 02 Nov 2022. 1pm.
A pair of tara have nested on one of the center piles.
Update 26 Nov 2022. 11am.
Update 23 Dec 2022. 12pm
Update 15 Jan 2023. 5:30pm
Update 18 Feb 2023. 5:00pm
Update 22 Nov 2023. 11:00am
Update 28 Jan 2024. 2:00pm
Update 29 Sep 2024. 3:40pm
Plan B
Matt Rayner had the idea to add concrete tree rings to the tops of the poles. On the 30th of September 2024 we deployed four pairs of tree ring semicircles to the tops of the poles and added shell to encourage nesting tara. They were deployed on the group of poles next out from this group to avoid disturbing the gulls. There are three on the northern side and one in the south where we have seen tara try to nest unsuccessfully in the past.
Update 12 Oct 2024. 2:23 pm (windy)
Update 18 Nov 2024. 10:30 am
References
NZBirdsOnline 2022. https://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/white-fronted-tern Accessed August 2022.
Robertson et al. 2021. Hugh A. Robertson, Karen A. Baird, Graeme P. Elliott, Rodney A. Hitchmough, Nikki J. McArthur, Troy Makan, Colin M. Miskelly, Colin. J. O’Donnell, Paul M. Sagar, R. Paul Scofield, Graeme A. Taylor and Pascale Michel. Conservation status of birds in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2021. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 36. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 43 p.
Mclean 2018. Successful restoration of an unnatural breeding habitat for white-fronted terns (Sterna striata). Notornis, 2018, Vol. 65: 54-58. The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc.
Unprofessional editorial
An open letter to Keith Ingram.
In your July / August 2022 issue of Professional Skipper you ran an editorial titled “How important are marine reserves?”. You made a bunch of incorrect statements that I thought someone else would correct but I’m told the latest issue does not include any retractions. I have corrected them here:
“Recent statements by prominent yachties Peter Burling and Blair Tuke on Behalf of Living Ocean calling for 30 percent of the Hauraki Gulf to be under marine protection by 2030 are totally ill-founded”
The organisation is called Live Ocean not Living Ocean.
The statement is well founded by the 30×30 goal and the Hauraki Gulf Forums 30% goal which would leave 70% of the Gulf for fishing.
You go on to criticise the marine reserve proposed for Northwest Waiheke without pointing out a single problem with the application. You also ask “what this group has in mind”. Here is the application.
You claim there was “secrecy” but according to this statement from the Friends of the Gulf the application process was in plain sight and far from secret.
[After submitting the draft application for the Hākaimangō – Matiatia Marine Reserve to the Director-General of DOC and simultaneously to the two Ngāti Paoa Trust Boards a month was allowed for their unlobbied consideration. FOHG then went public with presentations to the Waiheke Local Board, The Local Piritahi Marae, Hauraki Gulf Forum, neighbouring property owners, other community organisations both on and off-island and articles, letters and advertisements in the Waiheke local newspapers The Gulf News and The Weekender and widely published on social media, national news media and radio. Following 10 months of pre-notification consultation, the revised application was lodged, advertised in all the main centre daily newspapers and distributed with two months allowed for public submissions or objections. This drew 1,303 public submissions. 1,183 were in full support.]
“Charterboat catch data is hugely valuable in showing how productive the gulf is at the moment and what it was like over the past 20 years, which I suggest is very different to the negative assessments of the state of the Hauraki Gulf that the environmentalists typically publish”
It’s not logical to decide the state of an ecosystem the size of the Hauraki Gulf Marine park using a single source of data like ‘charterboat catch’. The state of the environment reports are required every three years under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. They cover a broad range of indicators and massive data sets.
“Some recent nasty marine invaders that have adapted to our waters include the Asian paddle crab, the Chinese mitten crab, Stela clava. the Mediterranean tube worm. the Asian nesting clam, Caulerpa taxifolia and Undaria (Japanese kelp).”
There are no Chinese mitten crabs or Asian clams in Aotearoa / New Zealand, if you do find either of these species please phone Biosecurity NZ (0800 80 99 66) immediately.
You say: “Locking up marine areas won’t solve these problems” Marine reserves are more resilient to climate change impacts including invasive species because there are no gaps in the ecosystem created by overfishing. They can also help overfished areas recover after a pollution or climate event because they have more old animals that make a disproportionate contribution to recruitment. Here are some graphics I produced to explain the concepts.
Let me know if you need more examples.
“Marine Protected Areas are not a fisheries management tool.”
I agree MPAs are a conservation tool, but MPA’s can also have fisheries benefits. For example this research from the University of Auckland and NIWA estimates that spawn originating in the small Marine Reserve at Leigh contributed “commercial fishery of $NZ 1.49 million catch landing value per annum and $NZ 3.21 million added from recreational fishing activity associated spending per annum” (Qu et al. 2021). The short term loses are offset by future gains. It will be interesting to see if Fisheries New Zealand take a long term view of the proposal in their impact assessment. I suggest you read this great article by Good Fishing which looks at the proposed High Protection Areas.
“The marine reserve legislation administered by DoC prohibits … the movement of vessels carrying flora and fauna through MPAs or reserves.”
“An amendment to the Fisheries Act could provide for… the same result as Marine Reserves”
Unfortunately this won’t help as the agency has been captured by industry. One new tool we can use is the RMA which gives areas a break from fishing 10 years at a time. It’s disappointing that Legasea have not embraced the tool, which can stop bottom impact fishing once it is in discrete areas (for example ‘corridors’).
“We need honest, sound and reasonable leadership in this debate”
Agreed, if you want help fact checking any future editorials about marine biodiversity I would be happy to help.
Replica Tūturiwhatu / Northern New Zealand Dotterel
It was a joy to work on these tūturiwhatu which were a gift to Alison Stanes QSM for her work at the Tāwharanui Open Sanctuary Society Incorporated. Alison taught me a lot when I began minding dotterel. Sharon Kast and Sally Richardson did a great job of banding the models and adding a shell base.
Photo kickstarts stream restoration
I recently had a great experience with Waikato Regional Council (WRC) which showed the value of just letting council know whats happening.
I was driving past 270 Kuaotunu, Wharekaho in the Coromandel and saw cattle defecating in the stream. I was in a hurry but decided to take a quick photo and reported it a few days later. I got a great response from WRC. The land is owned by the crown, managed by Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) and leased to a farmer. The stream is a priority one waterway given it’s proximity to the coastal marine area which cannot have stock access without a resource consent.
Staff discussed the issue and the farmer running cattle on the property will now remove cattle from the land. TCDC envisage releasing the tenure to the Department of Conservation who may review activities at the site and consider restoring it. What a great outcome! I am very impressed with all agencies involved.
Graphics from the State of our Seabirds 2021
Produced by the Northern New Zealand Seabird Trust with support from G.I.F.T and the Hauraki Gulf Forum. Read the report here.
