abstract - tasmanbayguardians.org.nz … · web viewthe rationale behind an artificial reef (ar)...

MV KAY DEEThe how to and why guide to artificial reefs in New

Zealand

Figure 1 FV Kaydee Photo; Bruce Polkinghorn

Rachel Morrison 2018 Marine reporting

Toi Ohomai institute, Tauranga bay of plenty

Rachel Morrison 10009914

Abstract The vessel the MV Kaydee has been propose as an artificial reef in the Abel Tasman, top of the south island, New Zealand. Before this proposal could go ahead there are a number of things that need to happen, with research being one of the important issues. The following report looks at the history and back ground of artificial reefs. The pros and cons. Materials, conditions and the many purposes of artificial reefs. A literature review assesses many of the important issues to establishing a successful artificial reef. New Zealand case studies look at artificial reefs, the Taioma, the Rainbow warrior and the Opotiki reef project to see what worked or did not work.The report then looks at the history and ecology of the Abel Tasman and the spiritual and conservation values of Maori, to better understand the area, it’s importance, it’s community and its inhabitants. The legislation and consent process for establishing an artificial reef in New Zealand was then looked at, and the methods and results thus far to lay the ground work for establishing the Kaydee as a reef.

2 | P a g e


Acknowledgements

Firstly Many thanks must go to Stewart Robertson for the opportunity to get involved in such an exciting project, for his endless effort, hard work and passion for the natural environment. For all the work he and his wife Helen have achieved in the Tasman area, for the marine environment and for terrestrial and holistic conservation. Secondly many thanks must go Keith Gregor for his support and guidance. For his expertise and his patience.Also Toi Ohomai Institute of technology and all its wonderful marine science tutors and staff, I have learnt so much, your work is inspiring. Lastly I would like to thank Papatuanuku (mother earth) and especially Tangaroa (god of the sea) for helping me find my way, your beauty and complexity is a source of ever ending inspiration and awe.

3 | P a g e


Table of Contents

Abstract Acknowledgement’s

Abstract....................................................................................................................................2

Table of figures.........................................................................................................................5

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Aims and Objectives..............................................................................................................6

1.2 Rationale..............................................................................................................................6

1.3 Artificial reef background and history...................................................................................7

2.0 Case Studies..................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 CASE STUDY 1.....................................................................................................................13SS Taioma...................................................................................................................................................13

2.2 CASE STUDY 3.....................................................................................................................16Rainbow warrior.........................................................................................................................................16

2.3 CASE STUDY 4.....................................................................................................................19Opotiki reef project.....................................................................................................................................19

2.5 Abel Tasman.......................................................................................................................20

2.6 Mātauranga Maori, Mauri, Tikanga Maori and treaty of Waitangi.......................................23

3.0 Methods...........................................................................................................................25

3.1 FV Kay Dee....................................................................................................................25

3.2 Preparation and site selection.......................................................................................25

3.3 Permits, counsel Permission and community support....................................................28

4.0 Results..............................................................................................................................28

5.0 Discussion.........................................................................................................................29

6.0 Conclusion........................................................................................................................30

6.1 Recommendations..............................................................................................................30

Glossary of Maori terms............................................................................................................32

References................................................................................................................................33

Appendix..................................................................................................................................37

4 | P a g e

RACHEL MORRISON, 24/04/18,

RACHEL MORRISON, 18/10/18,


Table of figuresFigure 1 FV Kaydee Photo; Bruce Polkinghorn........................................................................1Figure 2 different artificial reef forms retrieved from www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Artificial_reefs................................................................................8Figure 3 Chemistry of Ocean Acidification Photo: Harrould-Kolieb & Savitz, 2009...............9Figure 4 Reefball Photo: retrieved from www.reefball.org.....................................................10Figure 5 elephant statue ko racha yai Photo: Brian Calvert.....................................................10Figure 6 Taioma Photo: Mount Maunganui underwater club..................................................13Figure 7 Taioma, being transported for sinking Photo: Mount Maunganui underwater club..14Figure 8 Anemones on the taioma Photo; Mount Maunganui underwater club......................14Figure 9 Anemones on the taioma Photo; Daniel Sharp 2004.................................................14Figure 10 Starboard bow, providing habitat for a community of porifera, hydrozoa, and ascidiacea. Photo: Robertson, 2012.........................................................................................15Figure 11 Oblique triple fins Photo: Paul Warren, 2012.........................................................15Figure 12 Pagrus auratus & Upeneichthys lineatus on the taioma Photo: Keith Gregor, 2012..........................................................................................................................................15Figure 13 Rainbow warrior after the fatal bombing Photo: retrieved from www.stuff.co.nz..16Figure 14 The rainbow warrior. Photo :Grace/Greenpeace. Retrieved from Dive New Zealand website......................................................................................................................................17Figure 15 jewel anemones. Photo. retrieved from seafriends.org.nz.......................................17Figure 16 Rainbow warrior Photo: Retrieved from Smith et al,.2011.....................................17Figure 17 rainbow warrior Retrieve from seafriends.org.........................................................19Figure 18 REAF mould Photo: Rachel Morrison....................................................................19Figure 19 REAF module Photo: Rachel Morrison...................................................................19Figure 20 Abel Tasman in Moordenaars baay, Photo: nelson museum...................................20Figure 21 Abel Tasman and Tong island map.........................................................................21Figure 22 Maori carving. Photo: www.canterbury.ac.nz.........................................................23Figure 23 Kaydee Photo: Bruce Polkinghorn..........................................................................25Figure 24 Site for the Kaydee on edge of marine reserve Photo: Stew Robertson..................26Figure 25 larger reef proposal retrieved from Stew Robertson................................................26Figure 26 descending to survey benthic substrate, Abel Tasman Photo: Kieran McKay 2018..................................................................................................................................................27Figure 27 Post Dive Photo: Kieran McKay 2018....................................................................27Figure 28 Mean sediment depth at dive site 1 & 2, Error bars = +SE.....................................28Figure 29 Facebook generated poll..........................................................................................29Figure 30 Seminar poster from Stew Robertson......................................................................30

5 | P a g e

https://d.docs.live.net/a097f74b91d79696/Documents/MV%20KAY%20DEE.docx#_Toc527624018























1.0 Introduction 1.1 Aims and Objectives

The aims and objectives of this report is to provide mana whenua, iwi, the local community, stakeholders and interested parties with a easy to understand background on the worldwide and New Zealand history of artificial reefs (AR), with an honest look at the pros and cons. The report also looks at history of the Abel Tasman, European and Maori involvement and their relationship with the land and sea, with the objective of a better understanding of the area. The report will also look at the science, the rules, laws and regulations needed to achieve a successful AR. This report hopes to act as a guide for anyone wanting to understand more about AR. It is also for those who may be wanting to be a part of establishing the man initiated reef proposed in the Abel Tasman or reefs in other parts of New Zealand.

1.2 RationaleThe rationale behind an Artificial reef (AR) in the Abel Tasman is to help restore some of the damage done from anthropologic activity over the last 800 hundreds, practically since the arrival of European settlers in the area, in the 1840s. Due to deforestation, over harvesting of shellfish and fish and destructive fishing methods, such as trawling, the seabed in the Abel Tasman is in a sad state, many of the bryozoans corals and bivalves that were once present in the area are now gone. It is hoped that by deploying an AR in the marine environment, it can help mitigate some of the damage done, by providing a hard substrate on an otherwise soft sedimented barren bottom, to encourage succession of marine organisms and fish species. This report looks at some of the questions that need to be ask such as, is the Abel Tasman a suitable location for an Artificial reef? will a reef be successful given the amount of benthic sedimentation? Is there mana whenua and local community support for the concept of an artificial reef in the Abel Tasman?

6 | P a g e


1.3 Artificial reef background and history

The definition of an artificial reef as stated by an anonymous writer in (Claudet & Pelletier, 2004) is as follows “Any material or matter deliberately placed in an area of the marine environment where that structure does not exist under natural circumstances for the purpose of protecting, regenerating, concentrating or increasing populations of living marine resources, or for enhanced recreational use of the area” (P130). Or alternatively“An artificial reef is one or more objects of natural or human origin deployed purposely on the seafloor to influence physical biological or socio-economic processes related to living marine resources. Artificial reefs are defined physically by the design and arrangement of materials used in construction and functionality according to their purpose. Items used in reef construction add vertical construction to the benthic environment” as stated by Seamen (in Maglio, 2001)

There are millions of artificial reefs around the world, including New Zealand. Not so long ago, it was common place to discard unwanted materials in to the ocean, things such as decommissioned vessels or other unwanted materials (Harris, 2001) have ended their terrestrial life, with a burial at sea. Today in most parts of the world there are stricter regulations to what can be deposed of at sea. As some of the objects that have become artificial reefs (AR) in the past were later discovered to contain chemicals detrimental to the health of the ocean, things such petrol, fuels, antifoul, toxic paint and other toxic chemicals such as Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (BCPs) (“National Guidance” 2006)., PCBs are man-made organic chemicals, known as chlorinated hydrocarbons, they were used from 1929 to 1979 when they were banned. They were used extensively in many materials like flame retardants, in paints, plastics and rubber products, they are toxic and bio-accumulative in the environment and in the fat tissues of animals and humans. PCBs have carcinogenic properties, as well as causing other ill effects. Even though this toxic chemical was banned in

7 | P a g e


the 1970s its still exists in boats and materials made before the time of the ban, Many navy vessels in the USA that were used as AR were found to contain PCBs, these chemicals can leech in to the ocean, having long lasting negative effects on marine organisms (“National Guidance” 2006). Many scientists in the past have had concerns “that reefs made from surplus materials might contribute to ocean pollution and destroy natural fish habitats” as stated by Weisburd in (Maglio, 2001). It is important to make sure that objects deployed in the sea don’t do more damage than good. It is essential to strip all toxic materials from objects before they enter the marine environment (Maglio, 2001). Artificial reefs should only be deployed where they will enhance native marine resources adding beneficial effects to the natural marine environment (“National Guidance” 2006) Years of study and research has provided evidence to supported the theory that AR

can provide habit for marine life and attract fish (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) artificial reefs have also proven to aid in the recovery of degraded marine ecosystems (Hunter & Sayer, 2009). “Artificial reefs function by either aggregating existing scattered individuals, or they allow secondary biomass production through increased survival and growth of new individuals because of shelter and food resources provided by the reef” (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) (p17). The outcome of the reef will depend on a number of factors like the structure, placement, protection and purpose of the reef. When establishing AR it is important to also look at fishing pressure, and whether a fishing ban is going to be placed around the object or not. Marine reserves, marine protected areas, no take zones, fishing restrictions and so forth have been used far and wide as a way of protecting fish stocks, giving them a chance to recovery from fishing pressure. This in conjunction with artificial reefs has proven to be very effective tool. (Claudet & Pelletier, 2004). There are also reports and studies to support that theory that artificial reefs can be

more effective than some natural reefs, as they often offer more complexity, and often cover more area than that of the surrounding natural environment

stated by Smith et al, (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985). A literature review by Bohnsack and Sutherland, found that in a 1982 report by Walton, there had been eight times the biomass and density of fishes on artificial reefs in comparison to that of control reefs. It was also found that only a few studies reported artificial reefs to have had no effect stated by Lindenberg (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985). According to Kojima (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) Fish and marine species use man made reefs as feeding sites, for navigational purposes and orientation, as spawning grounds or areas in which to breed. It has been documented that Artificial reefs can be highly beneficial for restoring some of the anthropologic damage inflicted on coastal and in the marine environment, including estuaries and freshwater (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985). Areas of seafloor that have been damaged due to activities like trawling can benefit from having these structures put in place to give topography back to the seabed (Maglio, 2001). Artificial reefs have been used as a tool to regulate or stop damaging activities such as trawling and gill netting from taking place as the reef will damage or destroy the nets and equipment used. (Santos & Monteiro, 2007) A study in Portugal, conducted over a 14 year period which looked at gill netting on artificial reef

8 | P a g e

Figure 2 different artificial reef forms retrieved from www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Artificial_reefs


systems (ARS) and surrounding control sites, found that ARS’s consistently yielded higher mean numbers and species diversity than the control sites. The use of already existing objects, such as ships and subway cars, deployed as AR are referred to as secondary reefs (“National Guidance” 2006). It is often cheaper to dispose of these objects in the sea than in the landfill and it may have be a valid question to ask, is this really an artificial reef that is going to enhance the seabed or is it just a way of dumping unwanted goods? Even though many waste materials have been dumped with little regard for the ecological effects in the past, there are thousands of secondary reefs that have contributed positively to the marine environment, when planned and manage efficiently, even some that have accidently made their way to the seafloor though way of shipwreck have turn out to be valuable reefs. Sunken vessels have traditionally been considered to be beneficial to the marine environment as they provide new habitat and a refuge for marine organisms (Pickering et al., 1999). Due to the worldwide evidence that reefs can enhance and restore ecosystems, having positive effects ecologically, economically and socially (Jackson et al, 2004) especially if researched and designed properly, there has been a significant change in the way we look at artificial reefs and we have seen a shift towards using materials and objects built specifically for artificial reefs, people have taken a much more informed approach, designing and building artificial reefs, these are referred to as primary (“National Guidance” 2006), this often means, more effective reefs, with better designs, that can serve a single purpose or a multitude of purposes (Maglio, 2001). “It is evident that to maximize the potential of artificial reefs they must be designed to fulfil certain objectives” quoted by Pickering (Maglio, 2001). There are many objectives for AR such as, surf breaks, breakwaters, as protection for coastal erosion (Harris, 2009), for tourism, as art installations, dive sites, fish aggregation, fisheries enhancement, Prevention of habitat damage by trawling (Feary et al, 2011) and conservation and ecosystem enhancement (Maglio, 2001) and for scientific research. Things such as vessels, Subway cars,

military vehicles, decommissioned oil rigs, concrete blocks, ReefballsTM and

wire frames have been used as AR in the past. There are also many different materials that have been deployed, such as, rubber (tires), wood, concrete, steel, PVC, fiberglass and plastic as stated by Chou (in Maglio 2001). Some materials have proven more effective than others. Materials such as rubber and plastic can leech toxins (Maglio, 2001) and inhibit colonisation (Figley, 1999). Millions of tire reefs have been constructed over the years only to cause environmental disasters, resulting in years of man power and millions of dollars spent on clean-up efforts (Gaskill, 2016), even though tires will exist in the environment indefinitely finding a way to secure them in place has proven difficult and these reefs have often been strewn across the seafloor damaging natural reef and causing more harm than good (Gaskill, 2016). Materials such as steel, can make suitable AR as it is heavy and can be made in to complex forms, however steel does corrode in sea water (Maglio, 2001) and will eventually be claimed by nature and disappear (Szabo & Grace, 1994). Concrete appears to be the most suitable material for AR as it is durable, long lasting, stable, It does not degrade in seawater, it can possess additives to make it pH neutral and be made to have a similar texture as natural reefs, it is also easily mouldable as stated by Pickering (in Maglio, 2001). Cement is made up of calcium carbonate. Which has same chemical makeup as rocks, coral and many marine invertebrates, that have skeletons or shells (Yip 1998). Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is also part of the Carbon dioxide (CO2) cycle. As the world’s population continues to grow and more greenhouse gases are emitted in to the atmosphere the planet and the ocean is warming.

9 | P a g e


We are experiencing more dramatic storm events and natural disasters. One of the major impacts to the sea, is Ocean Acidification (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d) which alters the pH levels of the ocean. The acid created by excess carbon dioxide in the oceans and it takes the materials (aragonite and calcite) these organisms would otherwise use to create shells and skeletons, and makes it unavailable. The oceans are the largest carbon sink on the planet, for anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide. The oceans are currently taking up some 30

million metric tons of carbon dioxide daily (Harrould-Kolieb & Savitz, 2009). Cold water absorbs more CO2

than warm water, making the north and the south poles more vulnerable to ocean acidification (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d) There are different types of corals in the ocean, there are non-reef building corals called ahermatypic corals, they are normally found in cold water with low light levels at greater depths than reef building corals, which are known as hermatypic corals as stated by Nybakken (in Maglio, 2001). It’s not just the corals in the tropics that are in danger but also these cold water coral species and everything that has a CaCO3 shell or skeleton, relies on the free carbonate ions for producing their

aragonite and calcite skeletons and shells. Some of the smallest creatures in the ocean have CaCO3 structures, organisms such as some phytoplankton, diatoms, some seaweeds and cold water corals (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d). Many of these marine organism are the

beginning of the food chain, with the oceans top predators, such as sharks, whales and marine mammals and sea birds relying on them for their survival (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d). Coraline algae which is a calcareous algae, is also affected. Coraline algae is an important step in the tropic cascade, it is often the first to colonise a reef, making a base available for other organisms to then follow suit and attach to (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d). The acidity of the ocean is now also thought to have possible effects on the reproduction, respiration and general health of non-calcifying organisms (Harrould-Kolieba & Herrb, n.d). This means that the ocean and our planet is out of balance and the our whole ecosystem is in danger, creatures from the smallest to the biggest are in trouble and therefore so are humans. Could concrete reefs play a critical role in the mitigation of global warming and ocean acidification? When looking at the role concrete could play in helping mitigate global warming and ocean acidification, we need to remember all concrete is not created equal. Not only is concrete production one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, as it is produced at temperatures approximately 1,500 degrees Celsius (“Portland cement association” (PCA), n.d) but some cement has had other substances added to it. Substances such as plastic. There is new process of creating cement called the caldera process, this process involves

10 | P a g e


making cement using CO2 from the atmosphere, it uses pollution from flume stacks, combined with seawater to mimic the natural process seen in the ocean by marine creatures (PCA, n.d). Therefore acting as a carbon sink. Once these cement structures have been made in to Artificial reefs and deployed in the ocean, given all the conditions are right they will make suitable homes for an array of creatures, whilst possibly sequestering excess Co2 from the surrounding seawater (PCA, n.d). Concrete artificial reefs can take on many different forms, shape and sizes. They can even be made in to works of art like the above photo of the elephant statue in Ko Racha Yai, Siam Bay Thailand. In ko Racha Yai there are two elephant statues, a large Oyster shell and a temple gate, these structures were placed here in memory of those who died in the 2004 Tsunami, which killed 230,000 people and injured half a million others throughout India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand (Osborne, 2017) It attracts divers to the area and facilitates seabed rehabilitation from the damage of the tsunami. One company which has gained popularity over the years is the ReefballTM (Harris, 2009) they make and patent concrete structures for ocean deployment. There are many

different uses for these structures, and they can be built with specific species

and habits in mind. Many ReefballsTM placed together have created large areas, with many uses like sea bed enhancement or for the purpose of shore protection or to create a surf break (Reefball, n.d). In many cases AR have had a little extra help, with the use of aquaculture techniques, such as sewing bivalve spat and sea urchins on to artificial reefs, These practises have been used often in Japan (Mottet, 1981), in the tropics corals are often transplanted and tied onto wire frames and structures (Bouchon et al., 1981). In the states the practise of attaching seaweeds and abalone to AR’s has been experimented with (Grant et al., 1982). Another very interesting technique being trialled and experimented with is seawater electrolysis, this is where a small low voltage charge is sent into the water from a solar powered amp on the surface to a wire frame on the seafloor. The electricity encourages calcification, it has been proven to be useful for coral and shell fish and could be another useful tool in relation to AR’s being part of the CO2 sequestration process. The first established artificial reefs recorded were in Japan, In the 1790s where rocks and bamboo sticks were placed in the water to grow seaweed and to attract fish (Maglio, 2001). Not only did Japan have the first recorded AR they also have the most extensive area and number of artificial reefs, with 706 million cubic feet of man-made reefs (Gaskill, 2016). They are world leaders of scientific research and have spent millions of dollars on research, reef design and deployment (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985). The Japanese artificial reef program is funded

by the Japanese national government, mainly built for fisheries, they have been designed and constructed reefs without using waste materials (Grove and Sonu, 1983). The reef projects began in 1976 with a $700 million USD, 6 year plan to improve fisheries in Japanese waters. $250 million of that was dedicated to artificial reefs (Mottet, 1981) with $65.2 million spent on research and planning (Tanikawa, 1977). A second 6 year project began in 1982, this time $1.5 billion was set aside with $500 being spent on AR’s (Grove and Sonu, 1983)

50% to 70% of these projects used national government funding the rest was topped up by local government and other organisations. The National government would not fund reefs

11 | P a g e

Figure 5 Reefball Photo: retrieved from www.reefball.org


made by waste materials and only approved reefs constructed of reinforced steel, fiberglass reinforced plastic, rubber, pre stressed and polyethylene concrete. (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985)Many of the world’s oceans have been over fished and destructive activities such as bottom trawling (Handly, 2006) has left the sea floor stripped of its fragile corals and under water forests. Leaving no hard substrate for benthic organisms to settle on or attach to. The lack of these seaweeds and corals means there is very little suitable habit for invertebrates and fish to congregate, breed, spawn or hide from predators. By building artificial reefs and mimicking nature these organisms are given somewhere to colonise. However it’s not as simple as some might think. There are many considerations besides deciding what materials are suitable and removing toxic chemicals. There are also matters such as location, size, structure, shape and design (“National Guidance” 2006). It has been said large reefs are better, however it has also been said that complexity and location are more important than size. Higo et al., cited (in Bohnsack & Sutherland,1985) that the more complex the structure of the object being deployed the more complex the biodiversity of that reef will be. Studies found that larger reefs have bigger predatory fish and more diversity than small reefs, which have small fish with more biomass (Bohnsack, 1994). Whereas studies showed that networks of smaller complex reefs, had more fish and more diversity of species than singular large reefs with the same complexity (Maglio, 2001). More complex, larger or networks of reefs provide more niches for a more diverse variety of species. Three dimensional reefs provide more suitable substrate for colonisation than two dimensional reefs (Edmonds, 2004). When looking at the complexity of a reef you need to take in to account issues such as the arrangement and number of reefs, the number and size of openings as stated by Chou (in Bohnsack & Sutherland,1985) , as well as chambers and open spaces as stated by Chang et al (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) According to Grove and Sonu (in Bohnsack & Sutherland,1985) rough surfaces are important for abalone, whereas sharp edges make it easier for seaweeds and kelps to attract themselves too. Metal substrates appear to lack suitability for corals as stated by Chang et al (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985), as they prefer calcareous materials such as cement. Vertical surfaces have also been identified as an important niche for certain species, vertical surface are not as susceptible to the formation of silt and sediment like horizontal surfaces as stated by Dobson & Frid (in Harris 2003) they can provide a substrate for filter feeders, as well as for primary producers, such as autotrophic algae and seaweed species, which need to be in the photic zone to utilise photosynthesis for energy (Yip, 1998). These vertical surfaces are also utilised by pelagic fish and species that are found in the mid water zone (Maglio, 2001). Studies have found that vertical structures often have higher fish densities than comparable sloping reefs(Robertson, 2012) As found by Ogawa (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) “certain species were attracted by the height of reefs while others were equally attracted by increased horizontal size” (Page 21). Bottom substrate has been identified as extremely important, reefs are usually deployed in areas where there is very little accept sandy barren sea floor. However it is important that the sea floor is not too soft, as heavy reefs may sink into the mud and be ineffective as stated by Culter (in Maglio, 2001). The substrate will dictate what can be placed there. An object placed on a hard bottom, where currents and swell are present will need to be heavier (Harris, 2002) and more durable than one placed in a sheltered or soft bottom environment stated by Culter (in Maglio, 2001). However one of the first questions that needs to be asked is weather the object is structurally sound enough to survive the fall to the seafloor? (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985). Ogawa and Kuwatani (in Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985) stated that oceanographic conditions such as wave force, tides and currents are also a very important factor to whether an AR will be successful or not. (Nakamura, 1982) added that the best conditions for AR should have currents and upwellings. However it

12 | P a g e


has been said that artificial reefs can create their own area of nutrient upwelling according to Andrew & Frances, (in Edmonds 2004). Research shows that reefs are best placed on gently sloping or relatively flat profile areas (Grove and Sonu, 1983). When looking at an artificial reef as a suitable dive site, is whether it is at recreational diving depth, is it in a populated area, in a commercial fishing zone, or shipping lane and are there over hangs, sharp edges or narrow opening that need to be removed or altered as to not cause damage or injury to divers (“National Guidance” 2006). Once an artificial reef has been deployed it will go through are series of changes and successions, shortly after deployment, a fine algae will settle, coralline algae will be one of the first to make an appearance, then other algae’s and seaweeds, barnacles and invertebrates and anemones as stated by Redman & Szeldmeyer (in Robertson & Jacobs, 201) The benthic biota that forms on the reefs substrate will provide a habitat and food for fish communities, as well as bivalves, molluscs, and other marine species. Often fish and other species will arrive within moments of the new objects arrival (Szabo & Grace, 1994), the reef will go through stages until it reaches a “climax community” It will go through ebbs and flows and will begin to even out. Often in the beginning there is a mad flurry of activity, with species filling a niche. Some species may only be present on the reef for a time, there are stages (Figley, 2003) and seasonal changes that happen, just as it does for terrestrial beings. In the waters around New Zealand, sunken wrecks have already demonstrated that they can be used to establish viable fish and benthic communities (Robertson & Jacobs, 2011).

2.0 Case Studies NEW ZEALAND

There have been some very successful artificial reefs here in New Zealand. Such as The Taioma The Rainbow warrior Opotiki reef project

In this report we research these case studies and look at their success, struggles, the pros and cons to artificial reefs. As well as the methods and process to establishing an artificial reef in New Zealand.Firstly we will look at the Taioma

2.1 CASE STUDY 1SS Taioma.

Figure 6 Taioma Photo: Mount Maunganui underwater club

13 | P a g e


The Taioma was originally built in Aberdeen Scotland in 1942 and was originally named ‘The Empire Jane’ she is 35m in length, 9m across and weighs 383 tonnes, as stated by Belcher in (Edmonds, 2004). She was bought by the Union steam ship company of New Zealand and renamed to Taioma. According to Fitzgibbon in (Edmonds, 2004) the Taioma was relocated to Wellington in 1968, where she spent 30 years working as a tug boat. In 1979 she was bought for $2 by Sir Robert Owens and spent the following 20 years at the Tauranga Historic village museum. The Tauranga museum was set to close down and the SS Taioma was destined for the scrap heap. In 1998 Steve Weidmen formed the

Taioma Society which mainly consisted of Members from the Mount Maunganui Underwater association, they purchased the vessel for the price it would have received for scrap, with the concept of sinking her as an dive site in mind (Edmonds, 2004). After much planning and organisation. They received consent from mana whenua and council and the Taioma was transported by truck and trailer to Sulphur point. She was towed and scuttled on the 19th of March 2000.The Taioma sits 800m south east of Motiti island, Tauranga Bay of Plenty. With the GPS

coordinates 39o39.00’S 179o 24.40’E (Edmonds, 2004). She is in 27 meters of water and sits in a cradle on the featureless soft sea bed. The highest point on the Taioma is at 17m depth. The vessel has a Voluntary code of conduct and no-take restriction around it (Payne, 2007). However in a study carried out in 2013, fishing line was found on the wreck (Robertson, 2012) and even though it was not a common site here, it is difficult to ascertain whether the voluntary no take is adhered too. The resource consent contains a voluntary code of conduct making the area the wreck a

voluntary marine reserve. the management conditions that apply are listed below

All vessels must use the provided mooring

Must not anchor within 50m of the mooring buoys

One hour time limit at the mooring buoys

No litter or sewerage is to be discharged

This is a no take area

One of the requirements to the sinking of the Taioma, was that regular monitoring of the

wrecks process be maintained. There were annual studies and reports written, since her

14 | P a g e

Figure 7 Taioma, being transported for sinking Photo: Mount Maunganui underwater club


sinking practically in the beginning and while she was establishing a climax community, many of the studies were carried out by the bay of plenty polytechnic (Payne, 2007) Now known as Toi Ohomai institute. A report conducted in 2003 three years after the vessel was sunk off Motiti island, found that scallops Pecten novazelandiae were more abundant around the base of the Taioma than they were in 2001 and 2002, however by 2004 they had seen a significant decline. Rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii otherwise known as crayfish, were not as abundant in 2003 or 2004 and their number

had continued to decrease since shortly after the Taioma’s sinking, this may be due to the fact that the conditions had changed and the environment was no longer ideal

for juvenile Crayfish. The sinking may also have coincided with the larval dispersal of larval crayfish, in the right place at the right time so to speak. This may also be part of the natural progression for Artificial reefs, as it has been fore mentioned, that at the time a reef is deployed there is often heightened activity that later declines and stabilises. In 2003 twenty four species were found on the Taioma, with the most abundant species being Snapper, Pagurus auratus, Goatfish, Upeneichthys lineatus, Two spot demoiselles, Chromis dispilus, Sweep, Scorpis lineolatus and other species found included Leatherjacket, Parika scaber, Blue maomao, Scopis violaceus, Spotty, Notolabrus celidotus, Red moki, Cheilodactylus spectabilis and Butterfly perch, Caesioperca lepidoptera. The majority of species observed on the Taioma in 2003 were juveniles and young adults. There were also twenty six species of invertebrates, and five species of macroinvertebrates present on the wreck. Density changed with the seasons and in September of 2003 the most abundant species were anemones. The Density of anemones increase continued into October. Algae species Corrallina spp and celleporaria aggulutinans abundance also continued to grow in the spring months. Finger sponges and golf ball sponges were relatively abundant on the hull of the vessel. The deck which was in the photic zone had macroalgae’s species Ecklonia radiata, Glossophora kunthii and Zonaria augustata. Due to siltation and sedimentation forming on the horizontal deck, there was a low abundance of sessile invertebrates. In 2001 shortly after the Taioma was scuttled there was an abundance of barnacles, hydroids, bryozoans and anemones, however over time this changed, making its natural progression though the phases of succession it was though and stated by 2004 the taioma was in the upper phases of succession. According to Robertson (in Robertson, 2012) 11 years after the sinking the Taioma had been observed to be maintain its structural integrity. The abundance of Cnidaria, Coralline sp, porifera, hydrozoa, and ascidiacea were also observed on the deck of the Taioma in 2012, which point to the fact that there was little sedimentation at the site. Possibly due to the sufficient movement of currents and waves though the vessels. Forsterygion maryannae, Oblique triple fins were significantly the most abundant species at SS Taioma, Upeneichthys lineatus, Goatfish, Trachurus novaezelandiae, Pagrus auratus, Snapper, Parika scaber, Leather jackets and Nemadactylus macropterus, Terakihi were also abundant on the Taioma.

15 | P a g e


macroalgae’s species Ecklonia radiata, Glossophora kunthii and Zonaria augustata. Due to siltation and sedimentation forming on the horizontal deck, there was a low abundance of sessile invertebrates. In 2001 shortly after the Taioma was scuttled there was an abundance of barnacles, hydroids, bryozoans and anemones, however over time this changed, making its natural progression though the phases of succession it was though and stated by 2004 the taioma was in the upper phases of succession. According to Robertson (in Robertson, 2012) 11 years after the sinking the Taioma had been observed to be maintain its structural integrity. The abundance of Cnidaria, Coralline sp, porifera, hydrozoa, and ascidiacea were also observed on the deck of the Taioma in 2012, which point to the fact that there was little sedimentation at the site. Possibly due to the sufficient movement of currents and waves though the vessels. Forsterygion maryannae, Oblique triple fins were significantly the most abundant species at SS Taioma, Upeneichthys lineatus, Goatfish, Trachurus novaezelandiae, Pagrus auratus, Snapper, Parika scaber, Leather jackets and Nemadactylus macropterus, Terakihi were also abundant on the Taioma.

16 | P a g e

Figure 12 Pagrus auratus & Upeneichthys lineatus on the taioma Photo: Keith Gregor, 2012.


2.2 CASE STUDY 3

Rainbow warrior

Figure 13 Rainbow warrior after the fatal bombing Photo: retrieved from www.stuff.co.nz

“There would come a time when the earth would be ravaged, the seas blackened, the streams poisoned and the birds fall from the sky. Just before it was too late, said the prophecy, people of all races and creeds would rise up and band together to become Warriors of the Rainbow and return the earth to its natural beauty and harmony".

The Rainbow Warrior’s name was taken from this North American Indian prophecy (Antoni, 2009)

17 | P a g e


The rainbow warrior, originally known as the sir William hardy was built in Aberdeen Scotland in 1955, she is 40 metres in length and weighs 418 gross ton. She was a north sea fishing trawler used for research by the British ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (MAFF). In 1977 the ship was bought by Greenpeace, (Antoni, 2009) it was renamed the Rainbow warrior and it participated in conservation campaigns such as anti-whaling and anti-seal hunting. The New Zealand government announced NZ nuclear free under the labour government, lead by prime minister David Lange in 1985, in that same year the Rainbow Warrior was relocated to Auckland

New Zealand to take part in demonstrations against French nuclear testing, taking place in French Polynesia. In the middle of the night on July 10th 1985, as the rainbow warrior sat at Marsden wharf in Waitemata harbour Auckland, she was bombed while awaiting its return mission to Moruroa atoll in French Polynesia. Two explosive devices were attached to the boat hulls the second of the explosion killed photographer Fernando Pereira as he tried to retrieve his camera equipment (Wilson, 2010). The rainbow warrior was unsalvageable. It was later discovered that the limpet mine explosives were attached to the hull by way of scuba by undercover French agents working for the French military security service. The agents involved were arrested and the French government payed $13 million in damages to Greenpeace (Antoni, 2009). A new vessel named the Rainbow Warrior II (RWII) was acquired and in 1992 this vessel sailed to Moruroa, the RWII was arrested by French commandos and on its release the French government announced the end to nuclear testing in French Polynesia. After the bombing of the rainbow warrior, Prime Minister David Lange was quoted saying it was “nothing more than a sordid act of international state backed terrorism” Lange called for a boycott of French goods. In bombing of the RW led to increased support for the growing anti-nuclear movement in the Pacific and New Zealand. A month later, in

August 1985, nations New Zealand, Kiribati, Cook Islands, Niue, Australia, Western Samoa,

18 | P a g e

Figure 14 The rainbow warrior. Photo :Grace/Greenpeace. Retrieved from Dive New Zealand website.

Figure 15 jewel anemones. Photo. retrieved from seafriends.org.nz


Tuvalu and Fiji, signed the historic Rarotonga Treaty, the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Treaty, which banned the use of nuclear explosives, and the dumping of radio-active waste in the Pacific (Wilson, 2010). On December 2nd 1987 the rainbow warrior was towed north to the Cavalli Islands, in the Bay of Islands, on December 12th 1987 she was sunk the off the island of Motutapere. She sits in 22 metres of water and has 15° list to the starboard side (Smith et al., 2011). The rainbow warrior is in the path of the subtropical East Auckland Current, sea surface water temperatures vary between 14–16 °C in winter and 20–22 °C in summer according to Brook, (in Smith et al., 2011) the Cavalli islands are consider to be of moderate biodiversity according to Gordon et al., (in Smith et al., 2011). The area supports approximately 140 species of marine invertebrates as stated by Grace & Hayward (in Smith et al., 2011) and over 70 species of fish, as noted by Nicholson (in Smith et al., 2011). Dover Samuels was in the water as the rainbow warrior was sunk and he stated (in Szabo & Grace, 1994, P84) “within 30 minutes there were curious trigger fish swimming around”.

FIGURE 11. Bryozoans, corals, algae and sponges dominate the surfaces of the sunken Rainbow Warrior, October 2008 (Austral springtime): (a–c) sponges, soft coral, hydroid (Solanderia sp.) and anemones; (d) macroalgae; (e) algae, hydroids and anemones; (f) sponges, soft coral, bryozoans and anemones; (g) macroalgae growing on ship deck; and (h) orange finger bryozoan Steginoporella neozelandica among algae, hydroids and anemones.

While the RW sat in Auckland harbour the colonisation of barnacles began. Within hours

of the vessel being scuttled in the Cavalli islands a succession of biota began to make suitable surfaces their home. Firstly with the arrival of bacteria and diatoms. Seaweeds began to grow on the upper decks, where they were able to make the most of the sunlight for photosynthesis, and sponges, sea anemones, bryozoans and other filter feeders were able to colonise off hangs and railings (Szabo & Grace, 1994). Each organism finding its niche. Creating a trophic cascade, attracting more marine life to the wreck. The rainbow warrior was soon covered in white anemones Actinothoe albonincta, jewel anemones, Corynactis viridis, and Seaweed, Ecklonia radiata. The horizontal dark areas, where there is little water movement, was covered in silt, making it difficult for settlement by marine organisms, however more suitable for mobile marine creatures such as crayfish, conger eels, rock rod and slender roughie as their day time hangout. It has been said by Grace (in Szabo and Grace, 1994), that the climax community of the rainbow warrior was reached with 7 years of the vessel being sunk with the colonisation of corals, bryozoans and sponges. Even though the rainbow warrior has been successful as a place for marine recruitment there are many reef organisms that are absent from the wreck (Szabo & Grace, 1994). Coralline algae Lithothamnion sp and coralline turf are an important part of the trophic cascade, Coralline algae is often the first to arrive on the scene of a new reef, making it easy for seaweeds and sponges to attach to. However it appears that these calcareous algae’s does not like the steel/aluminium substrate and therefore was not found on the RW (Szabo & Grace, 1994). Also the common Urchin Evechinus chloroticus was not present on the reef, this may due to the fact that it is too deep as the Urchins Known in New Zealand as Kina prefer shallower waters. Crayfish, spiny lobster, Jasus edwardsii were also absent despite the efforts of local fisherman who seeded the underwater vessel with juveniles, in the hopes the crayfish would thrive, yet they didn’t not remain, this could be due to the fact that there was just not enough food for the crayfish, Jasus edwardsii are scavengers, who often feed on dead fish and kina. Approximately three hundred metres north of the rainbow there are large numbers of schooling fish, yet not on the reef itself, this is thought be a result of little current flowing past the wreck (Szabo & Grace, 1994). As we can see there are many factors to what makes an abundant reef even though some species might thrive others may not. The Rainbow warrior has proven to be a very successful dive spot and it has attracted divers from all over the world, due to the rich history

19 | P a g e

Figure 16 Rainbow warrior Photo: Retrieved from Smith et al,.2011


of this vessel, its shallow depth suitable for diving and its beauty as a recreational dive. One of the problems that the RW has faced, was the issue of protection, there was no marine protection placed around her and divers had been known to take souvenirs from their visit, the local Maori community of Kaitiakitanga and Greenpeace hoped to make a Marine protected area around her (Szabo & Grace, 1994).

Much of the super structure has disappeared and lies scattered around on the sand. Because it was made of light aluminium sheets, waves were able to break the sheets down and distribute them over a wide area. Over the years the vessel has sunk deeper and deeper in to the sand, it is unlikely to be moved by large storms. The fact its lists to the starboard means it has exposed the port side, which faces the north, to the sunlight. The difference between the portside and starboard side of the ship is large. The sunlit portside finds all kinds of seaweeds attached whereas the shaded starboard side is covered with filter feeders such as sponges and an absence of seaweeds. The Rainbow warrior will eventually break down and collapse on the seafloor, the first to go will be the teak deck and then the steel hull and structures (Szabo & Grace, 1994). As it breaks down it will open up new surfaces for species to inhabit, for example the interior will become accessible and suitable to organisms that it had not been to before, but in the end there will be no trace of the RW (Smith et al., 2011) it will be nothing but a memory and a part of New Zealand and Greenpeace history.

Figure 17 rainbow warrior Retrieve from seafriends.org

20 | P a g e


2.3 CASE STUDY 4Opotiki reef project

REAF being an anagram for ‘Recreating Enhanced Areas for Fish’ is a community based organization in Opotiki in the bay of plenty. The Opotiki Reaf project was established and given consent to deploy artificial structures in 2007, the objective for this organisation as the name would suggest was to enhance fisheries off the coast of Opotiki in the bay of plenty for the wider community (www.reaf.com). The area that was granted permission was a featureless seafloor which consisted of mud and silt. The owner, Mr Hoskens has seen the decline of fish stocks in the area and he wanted to help the marine environment and the local community. The REAF project obtained funding from the environment bay of plenty enhancement grant. Many community groups and volunteers have been involved with the project over the years. L. Hoskens (Personal communication may 16, 2017). The REAF organiser and founding member chooses to refer to the Artificial reefs as

“seabed enhancement” and “man initiated reefs” Rather than the word Artificial which he beliefs can

have negative conations L. Hoskens (Personal communication may 16, 2017). REAF is a grass roots organisation with modules being made in the backyard, initially Reefballs TM were used, however they were not suitable for what Reaf wanted to achieve, there was a costly price to use the design and they proved to be too heavy for the organisations vessel. So REAF started to design and make their own modules, using a mould made from timber,

concrete was poured into the moulds. The modules are then able to be stacked in various way to add size and complexity. Lots of different textures are used, to appeal to different species. With areas suitable for Jasus edwardsii, Spiny rock lobster, Haloitis sp. Paua, as well as many other species. Opotiki is an area of low socio economic standing. Hosken believes that unity and working together with the community is essential if we are to be successful in the future given the issues that face humanity today. Many local community groups and school have been involved over the years, as have international students groups. REAF offers the chance to come make your own reef, you can

personalise your reef, by adding photos, shells, or writing you name in the cement. There is also the opportunity to sponsor a reef, from near or far you can see a reef being deployed in your name, you will be given GPS coordinate and give up dates. Hoskens would like to see this program being used in other parts of the country and is happy to pass on his knowledge L. Hoskens (Personal communication may 16, 2017).

21 | P a g e

Figure 18 REAF mould Photo: Rachel Morrison

Figure 19 REAF module Photo: Rachel Morrison


2.5 Abel Tasman The Abel Tasman is situated at the top of the south island of New Zealand, New Zealand is otherwise known as Aotearoa, which means land of the long white cloud, named after the nor west arch cloud that covers the south islands southern alps. The Abel Tasman national park is New Zealand’s smallest and most visited National park. The coastal tracks winds its way through beautiful beach’s and lagoons. There is also the less used inland track making its way through beech forest to rustic huts. The southern end of the Abel Tasman park starts at

Marahau and ends in the north, at Wainui in golden bay. The Abel Tasman and golden bay has a rich history, Archaeological sites such as pits, middens, terraces, gardens and even wall drawings are evidence of approximately 800 hundred years of Maori occupation, however oral traditions would suggested longer (Smith,1997). The ancient name for the south island is Te waka O Aorangi, translated means the waka of Aorangi, as the legend has it the waka (canoe) of Aorangi, his crew and their cargo were turned to stone, this was believed to form the South island with the tau ihu (prow or stern) of the waka forming Farewell Spit, Golden Bay, Tasman Bay, the Marlborough Sounds and Cloudy Bay. In 1550 the top of the south was inhabited by the tribe Ngai Tara but by the 1960s Ngati Tumatakokiri had over thrown Ngai Tara. Tumatakokiri remained strong in the area until 1790s (Smith,1997). Chief Te Rauparaha’s confederation,

the Kurahaupo alliance made their way down from the north island with Taranaki and Tainui tribes, Ngati Apa, Ngati kuia and Ngai tahu attacking and displacing the already existing tribe of Tumatakokiri. The area was popular due to the land being suitable for Pa sites with headlands for lookouts, Kumara pits, many sheltered bays with fresh water and abundant pipis beds. Approximately 120 archaeological sites have been discovered in the area (Smith,1997)

including a Maori cave drawing in Tonga quarry, Tonga bay (Smith, 1997). In 1828 the area was settled by Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama and Te ati Awa. There is evidence to suggest that the iwi and hapu of the area exercised mobile lifestyles, using areas seasonally, for the purpose of fishing, gathering and horticulture. European’s first made contact with the area in 1642, at that time Ngati Tumatakokiri still inhabited the area (Smith, 1997). Abel Janszoon Tasman travelled to Aoteaora with the Dutch east Indian company on sailing vessels Zeehaen and Heemskerck, he arrived on the west coast of the south island in Punakaiki on December 13th 1642, five days he later after making his way up the coast to the

22 | P a g e

Figure 20 Abel Tasman in Moordenaars baay, Photo: nelson museum.


top of the south rounding farewell spit, he anchored off the coast of Wainui inlet. Abel Tasman never set foot on land in Tasman, due to an altercation he and his crew fled the area, three of his crew were killed and one injured by tangata whenua (people of the land) as the two ships set sail he named the area Moordenaars bay (murders or massacres bay), now Golden bay. Later the area from Marahau to Wainui was named after the Dutch explorer. Abel Tasman also gave Aotearoa the name New Zealand. James Cook made his way through the area in 1770 and 1773, and Dumont D’Urville reach New Zealand in 1826. D’Urville rounded farewell spit into golden bay from the west coast on the 14th of January 1827. D’Urville was on a voyage commissioned by the French government, on sailing vessel, the corvette Astrolabe. Dumont D’Urville spent 10 days in the area documenting flora and fauna, a friendly relationship between D’Urville, his crew and the mana whenua was formed. With the French and Māori trading and exchanging items before the Astrolabe set sail taking its findings back to France (Smith,1997). Soon after Dumont D’Urville returned to Europe, the New Zealand company began bring the first settlers to Aotearoa’s shores and in 1841 European settlement to the area had begun. Land in the Tasman began to be sold off and with the arrival of settlers came development, cultivation and exploitation of the natural resources (Smith,1997). With native bush being cut and burned to make way for houses, roads, horticulture and agriculture. Separation point granite thought to be 100 million years old was mined, and Canaan creek was damned so that gold could be mined. Timber was milled to build homes and boats. Timber mills were set up and the sale of this native Kahikatea and Rimu trees began. Over the next 100 hundred years the effects on the land though out Aotearoa and in the Tasman were huge. Deforestation, the loss of wetlands, over fishing, trawling, seabed destruction and sedimentation all issues that has drastically changed the area. On December 16th 1942 the Abel Tasman national park was formed, Mrs Perrine Moncrief was instrumental in setting up the national park, as she saw a need for its protection. 237km2

59,00 acres of land become property of New Zealand and the Crown, protected from further development. In November 1993 the Tonga island Marine reserve was established, being a marine reserve it is a no take area, it is 1835 hectares and it extends one nautical miles offshore from mean water tide. It starts at the northern end of includes all islands and the shoreline. It is adjacent to the Abel Tasman national park and starts north of bark bay and

ends at Awaroa head (Davidson & Richards, 2013). The Abel Tasman is home to very large tides, with tides up to 4.7m, there is a high sediment load from the hill, the Motueka river and the Otuwhero estuary. Forestry plays a large part in this sedimentation. Water temperature ranges from 10-22O Celsius. However the summer of 2017 saw temperatures 6O degrees warmer than usual. There are gently sloping soft sediment, broken shell and sand beaches. Granite and bedrock boulders are dominate along the Abel Tasman coast (Davidson & Richards, 2013). There is 1% limestone north of separation point. In a twenty year study of the Tonga island marine reserve it was found that Blue cod Parapercis colias were 40 times more abundant in the reserve than outside. Spotty, Notolabrus celidotus and Terakihi Nemadactylus macropterus, Blue Moki, Latridopsis ciliaris were also more abundant in the reserve and Blue cod and Blue moki mean sizes were significantly larger in the reserve. (Davidson & Richards, 2013). Snapper Pagrus auratus have also been seen in the reserve in large numbers. There were also positive changes seen within the reserve for Spiny rock lobster, Jasus edwardii and Paua Haliotis sp, there were more Lobster seen in the reserve and mean Paua size was significantly larger. Even though there were positive changes witness, they are small at Tonga island marine reserve in comparison to other no take areas in New Zealand. Some of the reason identified may be that there was heavy fishing pressure and low stocks prior to the establishment of the marine protection. Heavy fishing pressure is still present close by, the area is relatively isolated from

23 | P a g e

Figure 21 Abel Tasman and Tong island map.


Tasman and golden bay, it is a low energy coastline and the adjacent catchment have low productivity and fertility (Davidson & Richards, 2013). This is believed and stated to be due to sedimentation, habitat degradation with the loss of riparian vegetation and the loss of eelgrass and other important grasses which catch sediment and hold soil together. The benthic ecology of the Abel Tasman and golden bay has been largely impacted by the effects of human colonisation, the effects of activities such as deforestation, agriculture and urbanisation. Damaging fishing practises such as shellfish dredging and fishing by way of trawling have had detrimental effects on the seabed. The bryozoan corals, mussel, scallop and oyster beds, along with invertebrates and fish stocks that were once abundant in the area, have been significantly affected (Handly, 2006). It was noted by Vooren (in Handly, 2006) that these area of abundant bryozoan coral, were important habitats for juvenile fish especially for species such as snapper, Tarakihi Nemadactylus macropterus and John dory Zeus faber. Pre quota management system (QMS), the 1980s saw many of New Zealand’s fisheries, including the top of the south, in the Tasman bays overexploited.

2.6 Mātauranga Maori, Mauri, Tikanga Maori and treaty of Waitangi.

Figure 22 Maori carving. Photo: www.canterbury.ac.nz

24 | P a g e


*glossary of Maori terms

The Maori culture has a strong connection to the land. The story of Papatuanuku (Earth mother) and Ranginui (Sky father), is the story of how the world as we know it, came to be (Patterson, 1992) (Platia). It tells of the earth mother and sky father living together in an everlasting embrace with their children living in darkness between them. Tanemahuta (the god of the forest) Tangaroa (god of the sea) Tawhirimatia (god of wind) and Tumatauenga (god of war) grew tired of living in the perpetual darkness. Tumatauenga wanted to kill his parents, yet the other children wanted to separate them, so they could bring light and knowledge to the world and grow in that light and knowledge (Patterson, 1992). It was Tanemahuta that managed to separate his parents with his strength, he then clothed his naked mother with his trees and plants. Tane breathed life into the first woman and with her he created the Maori race. Maori believe they come from the earth and that the forest, the ocean and all of nature are their nga tupuna (ancestors), it is believed that all things have a Mauri (life force) (Morgan, 2004) that must be respected. The Māori culture defines mauri as the energy that binds and animates all things in the physical world (Te Ahukaramu Charles Royal, 2009). Mauri is the ability for air, water or soil to support life (Marsden 2003). It is believed the mauri is the connection between all physical and spiritual things, and when that connection is damaged it also damages te mauri and the well-being of people (Hamsworth, 1997). Traditional Maori values believe that all things, sites, plants, trees, animals and human beings, have a certain amount of tapu, mana, and mauri (Hamsworth, 1997). There are many places that are considered to be wahi tapu (sacred sites), areas where ancestors and loved ones are buried (urupa), ancient settlements and reserve areas (papa kainga), or areas used for traditional food gathering, (mahinga kai and mahinga mataitai).There are also many important archaeological sites, in Aotearoa, areas in which adzes, waka/canoe and rock art have been discovered, significant and natural resource areas many also be considered as wahi tapu, areas with indigenous flora and fauna and important minerals such as the precious pounamu (greenstone) (Hamsworth, 1997). As stated (P4) by Te Puni Kokiri, Manatu Maori, and the former Ministry of Maori Affairs, “Maori cultural sites are a windows to the past‘. These places help give meaning and values to the environment in which we live”(Hamsworth, 1997) It is believed that nothing dies but moves from one life stage or realm to another, that when a relative dies he/she becomes part of papatuanuku and the mauri of their ancestors lives on in all that surrounds them (Patterson,1992). There are certain rituals and traditions that must be adhered to when living on the land and taking from the land, for example Karakia (prayer/blessing) is an important part of tikanga Maori. The appropriate god/deity and tupuna must be acknowledged (Patterson, 1992) and thanked for what is about to be received. There are stories of patupaiarehe (supernatural beings) that protect the environment from exploitation, these beings and that which they protect must be treated with mana (respect) and treated as tapu (sacred) (Patterson,1992). The art of weaving and working Harakeke exercises many of those rituals, due to the mauri it holds. Before the weaver harvests the harakeke or the pingao they must say a Karakia to Tanemahuta. The plant must be harvested at the right time, in regard to harakeke many weavers would only harvest the leaves that were ready to be taken, instead of using a blade they would only use a flick of the wrist, the harakeke that is ready would give up its strong hold to rest of the plant. The middle the harakeke, called the rito would never be cut or taken to ensure that it continued to survive and give for future generations and the leaves or kaikaha (scraps) that were not used would be gifted back to the pa harakeke, the flax planation, as were any kete (basket) or woven objects that had worn out of time (Patterson, 1992). All aspects of life had associated rituals and traditions, showing respect for the land and nature. When fish or shell were harvested from the ocean, a karakia

25 | P a g e


was resighted to Tangaroa, before and after, asking permission and giving thanks. Unlike the harakeke or pingao kaikaka, which were taken back to the place they had come from, the harakeke was returned to the pa harakeke and the pingao scraps was buried in the sand at the base of the plant. Shellfish were not opened below the high tide mark and the fish frames and shell did not go back into the sea but were buried in Papatuanuku. Many believe things such as pollution that run into the water ways effect the Mauri of the water. Often Tangata whenua would put a Rahui (temporary ban) on harvesting. They looked for signs of health and if any signs of decline or ill health were seen they would put a ban on the area, so it may recover (Patterson, 1992). The ban was also place on areas if there had been a death and an area was seen as Tapu. Maori had their own way of managing the resources and exercised conservation as they believed the earth and nature to be permanent and man to be temporary. It is believed that all people are born into the role of Kaitiakitanga (guardians), responsible for taking care of Papatuanuku, our tipuna, and our mokopuna (grandchildren). They saw themselves as part of the ecosystem and knew that balance was an important part of their existence and important for the well-being of all. Even though many believes remained the same and a part of Maoridom. Each iwi/hapu (tribe and subtribe) had/have different believes, customs and tikanga Maori. Many of the traditions and stories are passed down from tohunga (tribal expert), this knowledge is seen as a taonga (gift, treasure) passed from one generation to the next, each hapu has a right to preserve these stories and to reserve the right to keep these stories within their genealogy. Many stories of the past have been lost due to it mainly being a spoken language with mātauranga being passed down from Kaumatua (alders) (Hamsworth, 1997) through misinterpretation or due to only one side of the story being told, therefore it can be difficult to fully understand or uncover the truth. Throughout New Zealand the blood that bleed into papatuanuku though intertribal wars and conflict, as well as the blood and wrong doings that were caused at the hands of the early settlers, has not yet been laid to rest. Making the topic of whakapapa or genealogy, Tino rangatiratanga* and land ownership a complicated issue. Traditionally, Maori values did not see land as not something that could be owned or traded as a commodity (Hamsworth, 1997) but as turangawaewae*. Traditionally Maori work together as a whanau, iwi, hapu (family, tribe, sub-tribe). Even through there are Rangatira (chiefs) and there is an order of Hierarchy, decisions were often made together and in consultation with those whom the decisions effected. Or at least with the greater good of all in mind. There is a lot of history along its shores of Aotearoa, area in which Maori believe to be tapu and to hold special significance, as fore mentioned. Each area has its own story and its own customary rituals and customs. Therefore it is important that when honouring Maori and their connection with the land, Tangata whenua be involved in the consultation process, not only is it written into New Zealand with the treaty of Waitangi, stating that the crown must take these issues effecting Maori into account, it is also important as a conservation tool to draw on all the knowledge at hand and to work with all whom it concerns. Mātauranga Maori (Maori historical knowledge) is a powerful and important tool if we are to move forward and be successful in our goal of kia wharite (restoring balance). We must work together.

26 | P a g e


3.0 Methods3.1 FV Kay Dee

Tasman Bay Guardians were offered the FV Kay Dee, a 16m x 5m disused fishing boat currently at Port Nelson marina, for use as an experimental artificial reef. The vessel has been gutted personal communication with Polkinghorn, 13th October, and it will be cleaned ensure not containments remain on the vessel, it will then be towed to a position in Western Tasman Bay on the edge of Tonga Island Marine Reserve. She would be placed on the sea bed in Approximately 30m of water. A Rahui (temporary fishing ban) will be place around the wreck for a period of time, with the option to extend the ban if necessary, rigorous long term Before After Control Impact studies will be conducted on the seafloor inside the new exclusion zone, outside in fished areas and in the marine reserve. The wreck itself would be monitored for community succession and fish aggregations in comparison to natural reef areas. We encourage commercial fishers to continue their work around the edge of the new

exclusion zone and monitor any change in CPUE (Catch per unit effort). We recommend a complete no-take rule around the structure to be able to sufficiently monitor the natural succession of the ecosystem. If treaty partners, industry and community are supportive of a larger project, several reefs could be installed, with recreational, cultural and commercial fishing opportunities available around the edges. This will offer an opportunity to test the effectiveness of excluding different types of fishing and provide increased opportunities for science, fisheries management, cultural,

recreational and commercial fishing opportunities.

3.2 Preparation and site selection

The proposed site is on the eastern edge of the Tonga island marine reserve in the Abel Tasman national park approximately half way between the southern and northern boundaries. The concept of placing the Kaydee inside the marine reserve is also currently being explored with communications with the Department of Conservation underway. The Two sites were dived to check the suitability. The site was surveyed looking at depth, substrate and position. A stick was taken on the dive to measure the depth of the substrate.

27 | P a g e

Figure 23 Kaydee Photo: Bruce Polkinghorn


Figure 24 Site for the Kaydee on edge of marine reserve Photo: Stew Robertson

Figure 25 larger reef proposal retrieved from Stew Robertson.

28 | P a g e


Figure 26 descending to survey benthic substrate, Abel Tasman Photo: Kieran McKay 2018

Figure 27 Post Dive Photo: Kieran McKay 2018

29 | P a g e


3.3 Permits, counsel Permission and community support. Before being able to proceed with an artificial reef there are numerous of people that need to be informed and there are consents that need to be obtained prior. First before anything Mana whenua and local Iwi must be consulted. Then consents need to be looked at. The process for establishing an artificial reef is that consent must be applied under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The consents are categorised under the coastal permit sections 12, 13 and 15. The applicant must submit a description of the proposed activity, including a map or photos of the area. A resource consent application form must be filled in with the appropriate information. An assessment of environmental effects (AEE) must be included, giving a detailed description of potential adverse effects and how these potential effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Before any of this can happen consent needs to be granted by mana whenua. As an obligation to the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the treaty must be taken in to account and iwi with mana moana must be consulted when proposing activity which relate to their rohe moana. “In New Zealand there are legislative requirements under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Historic Places Act 1993, and the Maori Land Act 1993 to include Maori cultural, historic, spiritual, and physical values in environmental/land-use and social planning” (Hamsworth, 1997). As a part of the Resource management act, the public will need to be notified and a period of time will be made available for the public can make submissions for or against the purposed activity. It is important to do as much research as possible, talk to as many people in the community as you can, the more information and support you have before going to the council the better off and the more successful your application will be. In regards to the Kaydee, there has been open communication with iwi and with the local community, as well as the department of conservation. Tasman bay guardians held a public forum addressing marine conservation in Motueka at the top ten camp ground on the 9th of October. A Facebook page was developed in the hopes of continuing an open discussion with an opportunity for the public to express thoughts and concerns and a poll was also set up on the page to get a better understanding of public perception.

4.0 Results

site one site two 0

5

10

15

20

25

Mea

n S

edim

ent d

epth

in cm

Figure 28 Mean sediment depth at dive site 1 & 2, Error bars = +SE

Site one had an average sediment depth of 12cm (+ 1.69SE) and site two had an average sediment depth of 23cm (+ 2.49SE)

30 | P a g e


91%

9%

Strong yes

if done properly

unsure

no

Figure 29 Facebook generated poll

Of the individuals who ansered the poll on Facebook a 91% said they strongly supported the proposal, with 9% saying they only supported if done properly and 0% said they were unsure and 0% said they did not suport the idea.

5.0 DiscussionOn the 9th of October 2018 the Kaydee proposed sites were dived, the sea state was calm with a variable 10 knot south easterly wind, the water temperature was 130 Celsius. The first site surveyed GPS coordinates were 40o53.324’S 173o05.534’E which is on the outside edge of the Tonga island marine reserve. The divers went to a depth of 33.6 metres. This area is often trawled by fishing vessels. At the surface the visibility was 10m, visibility degraded at 20m and at 33 metres there was a lot of suspended sediment in the water making visibility very limited. A ruler was placed in to the substrate measuring an average of 12cm (+ 1.69SE) of soft muddy seabed which also consisted of broken shell.The second sites GPS coordinates were 40o53.376’S 173o05.110’E which is inside the Tonga island marine reserve, divers descended to the seafloor which was at a depth of 30.3 metres, there was 10 meter visibly on the surface and 2-3meters on the seafloor, before sediment was disturbed by divers. The mud was much deeper and sticker at the second dive site with an average sediment depth of 23m (+ 2.49SE) were no trawling has accrued since the establishment of the reserve. A p value of 0.00 was generated by a one tailed T test. Showing there to be a change in sites at a 1% level (P=<0.01).

The seminar on the 9th of October, saw approximately 50-60 individuals from the local community attend, there were five speakers, who delivered presentations and many marine and conservation experts in the audience. This was an opportunity for us to present the Kaydee proposal to the public and get feedback from them as to how they felt about the idea of an artificial reef in the Abel Tasman. Even though there were some concerns presented by a small minority of individuals from the commercial fishing industry, the response to the proposal was mainly positive. There has also been discussions and a positive response from the department of conservation. The Facebook page that was developed and opened to the public prior to the event, has seen a positive response with 100 members joining the page in two days, the poll has also shown that most are in favour with 91% saying they strongly support the proposal and think it is a great idea. The communication that has been had with Mana whenua is very valuable, support from Tangata whenua is of significant importance to us, the proposal has support from members of the Maori community and it seems to be

31 | P a g e


moving in a positive direction, however this is a complex issue involving many and it is expected to take time.

Figure 30 Seminar poster from Stew Robertson

6.0 Conclusion Over the years we have seen more and more artificial reefs being deployed to try and restore some of the anthropologic damage done to the marine environment. Many with of these reefs have had great success. While these reefs have been successful worldwide there are those who believe we shouldn’t be dumping things in the ocean and that we should leave the ocean natural. Unfortunately due to anthropologic activity the ocean is no longer in its natural state and it needs our help, if sufficient research is carried out, with special attention to the materials used and the area in which the man initiated reef is placed, then Artificial reefs can be a valuable tool for restoring and assisting the marine environment in it recovery.

6.1 RecommendationsAs mana whenua and local community involvement are of the utmost importance we recommend continued, ongoing communication and public engagement, though way of meetings, social media and seminars. There is also a possibility to work with the Cawthron institute, the Cawthron Institute based in nelson is New Zealand's largest independent science organisation, offering its services to help protect the environment and support sustainable development of primary industries (https://www.cawthron.org.nz/). Members of the Cawthron scientific community have involvement with the Tasman bay guardians and therefore with their help and support there is an opportunity to do benthic monitoring and sampling of the Abel Tasman seabed, to look at its health. Continued communication with the

32 | P a g e


department of conservation would also be very valuable and it is recommended this communication continue into the for the future. After personal communication with De Hamel, R. on 9th October, We recommend placing imitation grass, measuring 50cm2 on the seafloor for a period of approximately a week, weighing the grass before and after to look at the rate and weight of sedimentation in the area. We also recommend that a pilot study be carried out in the area, placing a structure similar to that of the Kaydee on the seabed, monitoring succession and sedimentation effects. Concrete structures similar to the modules that are proposed to surround the Kaydee at a later date, could also be deployed to monitor succession. Similar to the REAF organisation, a sponsorship program could be set up, with the local community and visitors donating reefs to the area. The REAF Opotiki program is happy to see their model being used in other parts of New Zealand and due to the large number of visitors that are drawn to the Tasman area, every year this system could work very well. There are already a number of conservation programs in the National park, doing valuable work, many of who may have an interest in becoming part of the sponsorship program.

There is a sunken barge in Golden bay 40o39.829’S 172o58.690’E, it is in a similar environment to the Kaydee’s proposed site, it sits in 25meters of water on a muddy sedimented bottom, it has been in this position for approximately 30 years. It has a healthy succession of corals and anemones (YouTube), as well as fish on it, it would be advantageous to dive this site, measuring the sediment and carrying out a comparison study.

33 | P a g e


Glossary of Maori terms

Aotearoa; land of the long white cloud, New ZealandAwa; riverHapu; clans, descent groups, sub tribeIwi; tribe Kaikaha; left over scraps of harakekeKaitiakitanga; Spiritual/cultural and physical guardianship based on tikanga. The root word is tiaki which means ―look after. Karakia; prey or blessing Kete; flax basket Kia wharite; restore balanceMana moana; Maori historic and territorial rights over the landMana whenua; Maori historic and territorial rights over the landMana; Authority, influence, prestigeMaori; indigenous people of Aotearoa Mauri; Life forceMoana; ocean, seaMokopuna; grandchildrenNga tupuna; Ancestors Pa harakeke; Flax plantationPapatuanuku; Earth motherPatupaiarehe; fairy like people of forest and mountainsRahui; Regulation on the use of resources for conservation purposesRangatira; chief or leaderRanginui; Sky fatherRito; shoot of the plant, harakekeRohe moana; Area of the ocean within a generally recognised boundaryRohe; Area of land within a generally recognised boundaryTanemahuta; man, and god of the forestTangaroa; God of the seaTangata whenua; people of the land Taonga; a gift, an object or natural resource which is highly prizedTapu; The principle of respect which enables good and proper decisions to be made regarding the use of resourcesTawhirimatia; god of weather, including thunder and lightning, wind, clouds and storms. Tino rangatiratanga; is a Māori language term that can be interpreted as 'absolute sovereignty'. It appears in the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, signed by the British Crown and Māori chiefs (rangatira) in 1840. Tikanga Maori; Social norms, customs, practices and lore adhered to by Maori.Tohunga; an expert practitioner of any skill or art, either religious or otherwise. Tohunga include expert priests, healers, navigators, carvers, builders, teachers and advisors.Tumatauenga; is the god of war, hunting, food cultivation, fishing and cookingTurangawaewae; are places where we feel especially empowered and connected. They are our foundation, our place in the world, our home.Urupa; Burial ground Whanau; Family

34 | P a g e


ReferencesAhukaramu Charles Royal.(2009). 'Te Ao Mārama– the natural world - Mana, tapu and mauri', Te Ara - the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Retrieved from www.teara.govt.nz

Anthoni J Floor. (2009). The Rainbow Warrior Shipwreck Retrieved from www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/res/rainbow_warrior.htm

Bohnsack, J. A., & Sutherland, D. L. (1985). Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of marine science, 37(1), 11-39.

Bouchon, E., J. Jaubert and Y. Bouchon Navaro. (1981). Evolution of a semi-artificial reef built by transplanting coral heads. Tethys 10: 173-176.

Chang, K., S. C. Lee and K. T. Shao. (I977). Evaluation of artificial reef efficiency based on the studies of model reef fish community installed in northern Taiwan. Bull. Inst. Zool., Academia Sinica 16: 23-36.

Claudet, J., & Pelletier, D. (2004). Marine protected areas and artificial reefs: A review of the interactions between management and scientific studies. Aquatic Living Resources, 17(2), 129-138.

Cawthorn Institute. (n.d). retrieved from https://www.cawthron.org.nz/

CO2 and the Concrete Industry: Cement and Concrete as a Carbon Dioxide Sink (n.d) retrieved from Portland Cement Association www.cement.org/

Davidson, R.J. and Richards, L.A. (2013). Tonga Island Marine Reserve, Abel Tasman National Park: update of biological monitoring, 1993 – 2013

Edmonds, R. (2004). Colonisation of the artificial reef: Taioma, Diploma in marine studies Bay of plenty polytechnic.

Feary, D. A., Burt, J. A., & Bartholomew, A. (2011). Artificial marine habitats in the Arabian Gulf: review of current use, benefits and management implications. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(10), 742-749.

Figley, B. (2003). Marine life colonization of experimental reef habitat in temperate ocean waters of New Jersey. New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Bureau of Marine Fisheries.

Gaskill, M. (2016). Scuba Divers Left Picking Up Pieces After Tire Artificial Reef Projects Fail, Sport diver magazine.

Grove R.S and C. J. Sonu. (1983). Review of Japanese fishing reef technology. Southern California Edison Company, P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, CA 91770, Tech. Rep. 83-RD-137.

Harmsworth, G.R. (1997). Maori values for land-use planning. Broadsheet, newsletter of the New Zealand Association of Resource Management,. Pp 37-52.

35 | P a g e

https://www.cawthron.org.nz/

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/res/rainbow_warrior.htm


Harris, L. E. (2009). Artificial reefs for ecosystem restoration and coastal erosion protection with aquaculture and recreational amenities. Reef Journal, 1(1), 235-246.

Harris, L.E. (2002). Engineering design aspects of artificial reefs. Florida institute of technology, USA, Http;//ocean.marine.fit.edu

Harris, L.E. (2003) Artificial Reef Structures for Shoreline Stabilization and Habitat

Enhancement, Proceedings of the 3rd. International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, June 22-25, 2003. p176-178

Harris, S. (2003). Colonisation of the artificial reef: Taioma, marine reporting II, Diploma in marine studies. Bay of plenty polytechnic.

Harrould-Kolieb, E., & Savitz, J. (2009). Acid test, Can we save the oceans from Co2, Oceana protecting the oceans.

Harrould-Kolieba, E., & Herrb, D. (N.d). Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.

Harte, H. M. (2007). Ship is catalyst for Maori. Te Rawhiti Marae. Iwi Website, . Retrieved from http://www.terawhitimarae.maori.nz/canterbury_catalyst

Handley, S. (2006). An analysis of historical impacts and composition of the benthic environment of Tasman and Golden Bays. NEL2006-002. Nelson: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, 28.

Hunter, W., & Sayer, M. (2009). The comparative effects of habitat complexity on faunal assemblages of northern temperate artificial and natural reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66, 691 - 698.

Maglio, C. (2001). The effects of environment on artificial reefs in Sarasota Bay, Doctoral dissertation, BA thesis, Division of Biology, New College, Sarasota.

Marsden, M. (2003). The natural world and natural resources: Māori value systems and perspectives. In C. Royal (Ed.), The woven universe. Masterton: The Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden.

Marsden, M., & Henare, T. A. (2002). Kaitiakitanga: A definitive introduction to the Holistic world view of the Maori. Masterton: The Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden.

Morgan, B. (2004). "A Tangata Whenua Perspective on Sustainability usingthe Mauri Model." International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science.

Mottet, M. G. (1981). Enhancement of the marine environment for fisheries and aquaculture in Japan. Washington Dept. Fish., Tech. Rep. 69. 96 pp.

Nakamura, M. (1982). The planning and design of artificial reefs and tsukiio. Pages 49-66 in S. F. Vik, ed. Japanese artificial reef technology. Aquabio, Inc., 2957 Sunset Blvd., Bellair Bluffs, FL. Tech. Rep. 604.

36 | P a g e


National guidance: best management practices for preparing vessels intended to create artificial reefs (2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Maritime Administration

Northland Dive. (2007). HMNZS Canterbury: History. Northland Dive. Dive, . Retrieved from http://www.northlanddive.com/canterbury-wreck/history.html

Oh, C. O., Ditton, R., & Stroll, J. (2008). The Economic Value of SCUBA-diving Use of Natural and Artificial Reef Habitats. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 455 - 468.

Osborne, H. (2017). Boxing Day tsunami: The facts about the 2004 Indian Ocean disaster, international business times, retrieved from www.ibtimes.co.uk

Patterson, J. (1992). Exploring Maori values.

Payne, M. (2007). Taioma - Colonization of the artificial reef. Tauranga, Bay of Plenty: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.

Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D., Jensen, A. (1999). Artificial reefs as a tool to aid rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: investigating the potential. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37, 505–514.

Pickering, H., & Whitmarsh, D. (1997). Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the “attraction versus production” debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research, (31), 39 - 59.

Platia, O. (n.d). Using the Mauri Model to Assess the Impact of the Rena Grounding on the Mauri of the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand.

ReefballTM. Retrieved (n.d). from http://www.reefball.org/

Resource Management Act .(1991). Document retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/223.0/DLM230265.html

Roach, J. (2006). Artificial reefs made with sunken subway cars, Navy ships. National Geographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060818-subway-reef.htm

Robertson, S .(2012). SS Taioma and SS Taupo report, Waikato Unversity

Robertson, S. ( 2017). kaydee proposal, Tasman bay guardians

Roberston, S. & Jacobs, L. (2011). Annual Monitoring of the Marine Community on the artificial reef HMNZS Canterbury and Maunganui Bay, Investigation of colonisation, succession and community enhancement in the Bay of Islands, Northland, New Zealand. Diploma of marine studies, bay of plenty polytec.

Santos, M., & Monteiro, C. (2007). A fourteen-year overview of the fish assemblages and yield of the two oldest Algarve artificial reefs (Southern Portugal). Hydrobiologia, 580(1), 225-231. doi:10.1007/s10750-006-0451-2

Smith, D (1997). Abel Tasman Area History, Department of conservation

37 | P a g e


Smith, A. M., Kregting, L., Fern, S., & Fraser, C. I. (2011). Sedimentology of a wreck: The Rainbow Warrior revisited. Marine pollution bulletin, 62(11), 2412-2419.

Szabo, M. & Grace, G. (1994). Wreck to reef the transfiguration of the rainbow warrior, New Zealand geographic, Issue 023 Jul- sept

Tanikawa, K. (1977). Fisheries promotion and coastal fishing grounds improvement operations. Suisak Doboku (Spec. ed.): 2-6. (In Japanese)

Treaty of Waitangi. (1975). retrieved from https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty-of-waitangi

Scuba Diving in Golden Bay, Wreck / Barge (2011). Retrieved from, Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgzMwlz2vg&t=96s

Walker, S., Schlacher, T., & Hoenlinger, M. (2007). Spatial heterogeneity of epibenthos on artificial reefs: fouling communities in the early stages of colonization on an East Australian shipwreck. Marine Ecology, 435 - 445.

Wilson, J. (2010). The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior: Responses to an international act of terrorism. Journal of Post-Colonial Cultures and Societies, 1(1), 81-92.

Yip, M. (1998). An overview of Artificial Reefs, Advantages and Disadvantages of Artificial Reefs Design, Material and Concepts of Realization around the Globe. In Colloquial Meeting of Marine Biology I, Salzburg (http://www. sbg. ac. at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/ar/reef. htm).

38 | P a g e

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHZgzMwlz2vg%26t%3D96s&h=AT09i8M99flL2ufmnEozNeuhEMd-jU5p29ZtHwdvmcwjgbaEAIARfOn-gNu3FaCmNHEyVYvL3l-94GFvxvym7LB_KnlLNSWbfWI3OVqbKy01dmaR45q5cRoJhz9I


Appendix

Resource management Act

Part 2 Purpose and principles5 Purpose(1)The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.(2)In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.6 Matters of national importanceIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna:(d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:(g) the protection of protected customary rights:(h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards.Section 6(f): inserted, on 1 August 2003, by section 4 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 23).Section 6(g): replaced, on 1 April 2011, by section 128 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (2011 No 3).Section 6(h): inserted, on 19 April 2017, by section 6 of the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (2017 No 15).

39 | P a g e

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM6669158




7 Other mattersIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to—

(a) kaitiakitanga:(aa) the ethic of stewardship:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:

(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy:(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:(e)[Repealed](f)maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:(h)the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:(i)the effects of climate change:(j)the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.Section 7(aa): inserted, on 17 December 1997, by section 3 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1997 (1997 No 104).Section 7(ba): inserted, on 2 March 2004, by section 5(1) of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 (2004 No 2).Section 7(e): repealed, on 1 August 2003, by section 5 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 23).Section 7(i): inserted, on 2 March 2004, by section 5(2) of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 (2004 No 2).Section 7(j): inserted, on 2 March 2004, by section 5(2) of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 (2004 No 2).

8 Treaty of WaitangiIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

40 | P a g e








Part 3

Coastal marine area12Restrictions on use of coastal marine area(1)No person may, in the coastal marine area,—(a)reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed; or(b)erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed; or(c)disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal); or(d)deposit in, on, or under any foreshore or seabed any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed; or(e)destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on plants or animals or their habitat; or(f)introduce or plant any exotic or introduced plant in, on, or under the foreshore or seabed; or(g)destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on historic heritage—unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent.(2) No person may, unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan or in any proposed regional coastal plan for the same region, or a resource consent,—(a)occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area; or(b) remove any sand, shingle, shell, or other natural material from that area.(3)Without limiting subsection (1), no person may carry out any activity—(a)in, on, under, or over any coastal marine area; or(b)in relation to any natural and physical resources contained within any coastal marine area,—in a manner that contravenes a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan, or a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one) unless the activity is expressly allowed by a resource consent or allowed by section 20A (certain existing lawful activities allowed).

41 | P a g e

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html#DLM232526



12A Restrictions on aquaculture activities in coastal marine area and on other activities in aquaculture management areas15Discharge of contaminants into environment(1)No person may discharge any—(a)contaminant or water into water; or(b)contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or(c)contaminant from any industrial or trade premises into air; or(d) contaminant from any industrial or trade premises onto or into land—unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent.(2) No person may discharge a contaminant into the air, or into or onto land, from a place or any other source, whether moveable or not, in a manner that contravenes a national environmental standard unless the discharge—(a) is expressly allowed by other regulations; or(b)is expressly allowed by a resource consent; or(c)is an activity allowed by section 20A.(2A)No person may discharge a contaminant into the air, or into or onto land, from a place or any other source, whether moveable or not, in a manner that contravenes a regional rule unless the discharge—(a)is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations; or(b)is expressly allowed by a resource consent; or(c)is an activity allowed by section 20A.(3)This section shall not apply to anything to which section 15A or section 15B applies.Section 15(1): amended, on 1 October 2009, by section 15(1) of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009(2009 No 31).Section 15(2): replaced, on 1 October 2009, by section 15(2) of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009(2009 No 31).Section 15(2A): inserted, on 1 October 2009, by section 15(2) of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009(2009 No 31).Section 15(3): inserted, on 20 August 1998, by section 5 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1994 (1994 No 105).

15ARestrictions on dumping and incineration of waste or other matter in coastal marine area(1)No person may, in the coastal marine area,—(a)dump any waste or other matter from any ship, aircraft, or offshore installation; or(b)incinerate any waste or other matter in any marine incineration facility—unless the dumping or incineration is expressly allowed by a resource consent.

42 | P a g e










(2)No person may dump, in the coastal marine area, any ship, aircraft, or offshore installation unless expressly allowed to do so by a resource consent.(3)Nothing in this section permits the dumping of radioactive waste or radioactive matter (to which section 15C applies) or any discharge of a harmful substance that would contravene section 15B.Section 15A: inserted, on 20 August 1998, by section 6 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1994 (1994 No 105).

15B Discharge of harmful substances from ships or offshore installations(1)No person may, in the coastal marine area, discharge a harmful substance or contaminant, from a ship or offshore installation into water, onto or into land, or into air, unless—(a)the discharge is permitted or controlled by regulations made under this Act, a rule in a regional coastal plan, proposed regional coastal plan, regional plan, proposed regional plan, or a resource consent; or(b)after reasonable mixing, the harmful substance or contaminant discharged (either by itself or in combination with any other discharge) is not likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters:(i)the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials:(ii)any conspicuous change of colour or visual clarity:(iii)any emission of objectionable odour:(iv)any significant adverse effects on aquatic life; or(c)the harmful substance or contaminant, when discharged into air, is not likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable to such an extent that it has or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment.(2)No person may, in the coastal marine area, discharge water into water from any ship or offshore installation, unless—(a)the discharge is permitted or controlled by regulations made under this Act, a rule in a regional coastal plan, proposed regional coastal plan, regional plan, proposed regional plan, or a resource consent; or(b)after reasonable mixing, the water discharged is not likely to give rise to any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.(3)Where regulations are made under this Act permitting or controlling a discharge to which subsections (1) or (2) apply, no rule can be included in a regional coastal plan, proposed regional coastal plan, regional plan, or proposed regional plan, or a resource consent granted relating to that discharge unless the regulations provide otherwise; and regulations may be made prohibiting the making of rules or the granting of resource consents for discharges.(4) No person may discharge a harmful substance or contaminant in reliance upon subsection (1)(b) or (c) or subsection (2)(b) if a regulation made under this Act, a rule, or a resource consent applies to that discharge; and regulations or rules may be made prohibiting a discharge which would otherwise be permitted in accordance with subsection (1)(b) or (c) or subsection (2)(b).

43 | P a g e





(5) A discharge authorised by subsection (1) or subsection (2), regulations made under this Act, a rule, or a resource consent may, despite section 7 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, be prohibited or controlled by that Act to exclude, eradicate, or effectively manage pests or unwanted organisms.Section 15B: replaced, on 20 August 1998, by section 6 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1997 (1997 No 104).

15CProhibitions in relation to radioactive waste or other radioactive matter and other waste in coastal marine area(1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, no person may, in the coastal marine area,—(a) dump from any ship, aircraft, or offshore installation any radioactive waste or other radioactive matter; or(b) store any radioactive waste or other radioactive matter or toxic or hazardous waste on or in any land or water.(2) In this section,—radioactive waste or other radioactive matter has the same meaning as in section 257 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994toxic or hazardous waste means any waste or other matter prescribed as toxic or hazardous waste by regulations.Section 15C: inserted, on 20 August 1998, by section 6 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1994 (1994 No 105).Adverse effects17 Duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects(1) Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried on by or on behalf of the person, whether or not the activity is carried on in accordance with—(a) any of sections 10, 10A, 10B, and 20A; or(b) a national environmental standard, a rule, a resource consent, or a designation.(2) The duty referred to in subsection (1) is not of itself enforceable against any person, and no person is liable to any other person for a breach of that duty. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), an enforcement order or abatement notice may be made or served under Part 12 to—(a) require a person to cease, or prohibit a person from commencing, anything that, in the opinion of the Environment Court or an enforcement officer, is or is likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable to such an extent that it has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment; or(b) enforcement officer, is necessary in order to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment caused by, or on behalf of, that person.(4)Subsection (3) is subject to section 319(2) (which specifies when an Environment Court shall not make an enforcement order).Section 17(1): replaced, on 1 October 2009, by section 17 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 (2009 No 31).

44 | P a g e









http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM337372#DLM337372





Section 17(3)(a): amended, on 2 September 1996, pursuant to section 6(2) (a) of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1996 (1996 No 160).Section 17(3)(b): amended, on 2 September 1996, pursuant to section 6(2) (a) of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1996 (1996 No 160).Section 17(4): inserted, on 7 July 1993, by section 15(2) of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1993 (1993 No 65).Section 17(4): amended, on 2 September 1996, pursuant to section 6(2) (a) of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1996 (1996 No 160).

require a person to do something that, in the opinion of the Environment Court or an Recognised customary activities[Repealed]

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

site One site two Mean 12.11 23.44Variance 28.61 61.78Observations 9.00 9.00Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00df 14.00t Stat -3.58P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00t Critical one-tail 1.76P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00t Critical two-tail 2.14

45 | P a g e



