Hawaiian Bird Bibliography
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, ↗
SEARCH · USGS Science
Results for “Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Technical Report”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Hawaiian Bird Bibliography
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, ↗
Geospatial Technology Applications and Infrastructure in the Biological Resources Division
Executive Summary -- Automated spatial processing technology such as geographic information systems (GIS), telemetry, and satellite-based remote sensing are some of the more recent developments in the long history of geographic inquiry. For millennia, humankind has endeavored to map the Earth's surface and identify spatial relationships. But the precision with which we can locate geographic features has increased exponentially with satellite positioning systems. Remote sensing, GIS, thematic mapping, telemetry, and satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are tools that greatly enhance the quality and rapidity of analysis of biological resources. These technologies allow researchers, planners, and managers to more quickly and accurately determine appropriate strategies and actions. Researchers and managers can view information from new and varying perspectives using GIS and remote sensing, and GPS receivers allow the researcher or manager to identify the exact location of interest. These geospatial technologies support the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division (BRD) and the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) by providing a cost-effective and efficient method for collection, analysis, and display of information. The BRD mission is 'to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources.' A major responsibility of the BRD is to develop and employ advanced technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological and ecological information. As the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) states, 'fulfilling this mission depends on effectively balancing the immediate need for information to guide management of biological resources with the need for technical assistance and long-range, strategic information to understand and predict emerging patterns and trends in ecological systems.' Information sharing plays a key role in nearly everything BRD does. The Strategic Science Plan discusses the need to (1) develop tools and standards for information transfer, (2) disseminate information, and (3) facilitate effective use of information. This effort centers around the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), components of the National Information Infrastructure. The NBII and NSDI are distributed electronic networks of biological and geographical data and information, as well as tools to help users around the world easily find and retrieve the biological and geographical data and information they need. The BRD is responsible for developing scientifically and statistically reliable methods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. Scientists also conduct important inventory and monitoring studies to maintain baseline information on these same resources. Research on those species for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has trust responsibilities (including endangered species and migratory species) involves laboratory and field studies of individual animals and the environments in which they live. Researchboth tactical and strategicis conducted at the BRD's 17 science centers and 81 field stations, 54 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in 40 states, and at 11 former Cooperative Park Study Units. Studies encompass fish, birds, mammals, and plants, as well as their ecosystems and the surrounding landscape. Biological Resources Division researchers use a variety of scientific tools in their endeavors to understand the causes of biological and ecological trends. Research results are used by managers to predict environmental changes and to help them take appropriate measures to manage resources effectively. The BRD Geospatial Technology Program facilitates the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and informat
Information and Technology Report↗
Assessing habitat use and population dynamics of fisheries resources at Kaloko Fishpond
Throughout Hawai'i, fishponds are considered by their local communities as important cultural touchstones, a source of local, sustainably produced food, and an important component to the development of community-based management for nearshore fisheries. Within Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park, the restoration of Kaloko Fishpond for traditional aquaculture management is a goal of both the National Park Service (NPS) and Hui Kaloko-Honokōhau, a community-based group of kia'i, i.e., caretakers and native Hawaiian cultural practitioners. However, existing data on the demographics and condition of the fish populations within the pond, and the fish-habitat quality are poor to non-existent. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: catalog fish species composition and distribution in the pond; estimate the abundance of focal species/taxonomic groups; and evaluate the occupancy patterns of the invasive algae Acanthophora spicifera and Upside-down Jellyfish Cassiopea andromeda. As part of these objectives, a survey protocol and analysis framework were designed and evaluated to ensure that the NPS and community group would be able to refine and implement them to continue their monitoring efforts. We conducted dual-observer shore-based visual surveys multiple times per week during September-October 2020 and April-September 2022. A total of 41 species/taxonomic groups were recorded over the course of the surveys. The largest number of species/taxonomic groups were observed at survey stations located on or near the kuapā, or wall separating the fishpond from the ocean. N-mixture models fitted to the data estimated a total population of 353 – 392 mullets, 134 – 192 flagtails (āholehole), and 189 – 277 Milkfish (Awa) Chanos chanos occurring within the 1.2-ha portion of Kaloko Fishpond that could be surveyed visually from the shoreline. Multi-season occupancy models fitted to the surveyed presence of A. spicifera and Upside-down Jellyfish indicted sites throughout most of the pond exhibited moderate and consistent occupancy (ψ = 0.30 – 0.40) throughout much of the pond, except for the northeast corner of the pond (Kaloko Iki) where colonization rates were lower and extinction rates higher than other areas within Kaloko. The visual survey method developed for this study provides a low-cost and effective starting point for the development of methodology that can be used both by NPS personnel and volunteers from the community group. However, we were only able to estimate fish populations for approximately 24% of the area of Kaloko Fishpond with this method. Given that the deeper areas of Kaloko Fishpond are completely inaccessible to the visual survey method used, generating population estimates for the entire pond based on the parameters estimated in the current study is not recommended without further investigation into fish movement and habitat use. Various means to refine this protocol to better meet the needs and abilities of the NPS and community group are proposed.
Hawaii↗
Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) acoustic monitoring at Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG) installations statewide
Acoustic sampling for occurrence of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) was conducted at 18 “long-term” acoustic monitoring stations on 12 Hawai‘i Army National Guard (HIARNG) installations across the islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i between 2012 and 2018. Bats were confirmed as present at 10 of these installations: Kealakekua Armory, Keaukaha Military Reservation (KMR), Hanapēpe Armory, Kekaha Firing Range (KFR), Pu‘unēnē Training Facility, Ukumehame Firing Range (UFR), Kaunakakai Armory, Bellows Regional Training Institute, Kalaeloa, Barber’s Point, and the 487th Military Parking Facility, Wahiawā. Seasonal frequency of bat detection was similar to previous acoustic studies for the islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, and O‘ahu. Hawaiian hoary bats were recorded at HIARNG installations during periods of pregnancy, lactation, and pup fledging. Our acoustic sampling did not record bat vocalizations at Fort Ruger and Waiawa Armory. Foraging activity was observed at nine acoustic monitoring stations on the islands of Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, and Maui. No foraging activity was observed on Moloka‘i and a single station on O‘ahu recorded one feeding buzz in September 2017 at Kalaeloa, Barber’s Point. Within-night detections showed bat activity was mostly confined to the first six hours of the night but was also variable among stations. In addition to long-term bat acoustic monitoring at HIARNG installations, Hawaiian hoary bat insect prey sampling with paired acoustic monitoring was conducted at KMR on Hawai‘i Island from May through August 2018. Insect abundance and bat activity were sampled within areas where goats and sheep were used to control weeds to determine if grazing by these ungulates attract and support potential prey for the insectivorous Hawaiian hoary bat. The assessment focused on types of flies that are often associated with livestock (muscoid flies, including house flies [Muscidae], blow flies [Calliphoridae], flesh flies [Sarcophagidae], and biting midges [Ceratopogonidae]), and moths that may be impacted by changes in the availability of grass. Insect abundance was found to vary in both space and time across the study area, with numbers of muscoid flies and biting midges increasing in the presence of livestock at some stations. Although these insects appeared to respond to livestock grazing in some instances, we did not find statistically significant responses in bat foraging as measured by echolocation activity between grazed stations and the ungrazed reference station. Thus, we found no evidence that suggested bats are drawn to foraging resources in grazed areas. This result may be influenced by several factors, including the size of Hawaiian hoary bat foraging ranges compared to the scale of study area, the type of ungulate and their dung, and the timing of insect activity. Hawaiian hoary bats use KMR and forage seasonally as evidenced by long-term acoustic studies and their presence in the ungulate grazing areas; however, the relatively small size of the ungulate herd and the area that they graze may not be able to support enough prey to have a significant influence on bat foraging rates.
Hawaii↗
U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017
Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.
Scientific Investigations Report↗
National Park Service Vegetation Inventory Program, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio
The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Inventory Program (VIP) is an effort to classify, describe, and map existing vegetation of national park units for the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS VIP is managed by the NPS Biological Resources Management Division and provides baseline vegetation information to the NPS Natural Resource I&M Program. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Vegetation Characterization Program lends a cooperative role in the NPS VIP. The USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, and NPS Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CUVA) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of CUVA. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to identify and describe vegetation types within the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) and to determine how best to map them by using aerial imagery. The team collected data from 221 vegetation plots within CUVA to develop detailed descriptions of vegetation types. Data from 50 verification sites were also collected to test both the key to vegetation types and the application of vegetation types to a sample set of map polygons. Furthermore, data from 647 accuracy assessment (AA) sites were collected (of which 643 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer). These data sets led to the identification of 45 vegetation types at the association level in the NVCS at CUVA. A total of 44 map classes were developed to map the vegetation and general land cover of CUVA, including the following: 29 map classes represent natural/semi-natural vegetation types in the NVCS, 12 map classes represent cultural vegetation (agricultural and developed) in the NVCS, and 3 map classes represent non-vegetation features (open-water bodies). Features were interpreted from viewing color-infrared digital aerial imagery dated October 2010 (during peak leaf-phenology change of trees) via digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems (GIS). The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial database layers usable in GIS. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5 ha or 0.25 ha minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type. A geodatabase containing various feature-class layers and tables shows the locations of vegetation types and general land cover (vegetation map), vegetation plot samples, verification sites, AA sites, project boundary extent, and aerial photographic centers. The feature-class layer and relate tables for the CUVA vegetation map provides 4,640 polygons of detailed attribute data covering 13,288.4 ha, with an average polygon size of 2.9 ha. Summary reports generated from the vegetation map layer show map classes representing natural/semi-natural types in the NVCS apply to 4,151 polygons (89.4% of polygons) and cover 11,225.0 ha (84.5%) of the map extent. Of these polygons, the map layer shows CUVA to be 74.4% forest (9,888.8 ha), 2.5% shrubland (329.7 ha), and 7.6% herbaceous vegetation cover (1,006.5 ha). Map classes representing cultural types in the NVCS apply to 435 polygons (9.4% of polygons) and cover 1,825.7 ha (13.7%) of the map extent. Map classes representing non-NVCS units (open water) apply to 54 polygons (1.2% of polygons) and cover 237.7 ha (1.8%) of the map extent. A thematic AA study was conducted of map classes representing natural/semi-natural types in the NVCS. Results present an overall accuracy of 80.7% (kappa index of 79.5%) based on data from 643 of the 647 AA sites. Most individual map-class themes exceed the NPS VIP standard of 80% with a 90% confidence interval. The CUVA vegetation mapping project delivers many geospatial and vegetation data products in hardcopy and/or digital formats. These products consist of an in-depth project report discussing methods and results, which include descriptions and a dichotomous key to vegetation types, map classification and map-class descriptions, and a contingency table showing AA results. The suite of products also includes a database of vegetation plots, verification sites, and AA sites; digital pictures of field sites; field data sheets; aerial photographic imagery; hardcopy and digital maps; and a geodatabase of vegetation types and land cover (map layer), fieldwork locations (vegetation plots, verification sites, and AA sites), aerial photographic index, project boundary, and metadata. All geospatial products are projected in Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 17, by using the North American Datum of 1983. Information on the NPS VIP and completed park mapping projects are located on the Internet at <http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/veg> and <http://www.usgs.gov/core_science_systems/csas/vip/index.html>.
Natural Resource Technical Report↗
Analysis and review of fishery-dependent data for Hawaiian nearshore noncommercial fisheries
Noncommercial, shore-based fisheries provide economic, social, and cultural services to communities throughout the Hawaiian Islands. The State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) routinely conducts surveys to monitor noncommercial fisheries such that estimates of fishing effort and catch by gear type can be generated and used to implement more sustainable management practices. DAR executes both the Hawai‘i Marine Recreational Fishery Survey (HMRFS), a nationally standardized survey that focuses on intercepting fishers at access points (i.e., boat ramps) across the main Hawaiian Islands, and a set of roving creel surveys on O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i that observe and intercept fishers at locations along the shoreline outside of those targeted by HMRFS. The latter set of creel surveys were designed to complement HMRFS by expanding its geographic coverage and thus providing a more representative picture of noncommercial fishing in Hawai‘i. Sustainable management priorities set by DAR rely on the availability of statewide, fishery- dependent data. Thus, we collate information from island-based roving creel surveys into a cohesive Statewide Creel Survey Database. Further, we provide preliminary analyses and describe ways that surveys could be streamlined to improve future data collection, analysis, and utility. In so doing, we synthesize the most detailed information to-date about noncommercial shore-based fisheries of Hawai‘i. The unprecedented spatial and temporal coverage of DAR’s dataset reveals the value of their survey efforts over the last decade to address fishery management needs. Our primary objectives, results, and conclusions are summarized below: 1) Integrate DAR roving creel survey data from different islands into a single Statewide Creel Survey Dataset (Chapter II). We describe the collation of creel survey data from O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i into a statewide dataset. We also offer ways in which these surveys could be streamlined to meet the needs of managers and decision makers. Briefly, these are to create a statewide strategic plan, standardize the execution of standard operating procedures, centralize the creel survey database and associated metadata, and consider using technology that improves the data pipeline, including transitioning from paper-based to electronic systems for data entry and processing. 2) Assess whether the new Statewide Creel Survey Dataset can provide inputs for length-based stock assessments (Chapter III). Only on Maui were interviews conducted with associated catch data. There was reasonably high taxonomic coverage (42 species from 186 interviews with 310 fishers), but low sample sizes for nearly all species precluded the development of length-based stock assessments. We provide summary statistics from the existing data and briefly discuss how technologies could be used to automate analysis of images of noncommercial catch. 3) Analyze the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset for spatial and temporal patterns in fishing effort (Chapter IV): a. Visualizing noncommercial fishing pressure . We found that fishing effort (mean number of fishers observed per survey event at a site) on O'ahu was over three times greater than that recorded during similar surveys conducted on Maui or Kaua'i. We create maps that display the distribution of angling and spearfishing effort around each of the three islands. b. Factors that predict fishing “hotspots” around Maui . Fishing effort on Maui was associated with areas with more wave power and less parking availability. There were half as many fishers in areas with parking lots than in areas with parking on the road shoulder only. c. Changes in fishing effort during the COVID-19 pandemic . There was no change in fishing effort on O‘ahu during the first year of the pandemic, but there was a 20% decline in year 2 and a 33% decline in year 3, both in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. Pre-pandemic creel survey data were unavailable for Maui and Kaua‘i, but fishing effort on these islands also declined as the pandemic progressed at similar or greater rates than those observed on O‘ahu. 4) Quantify potential bias in survey methods by experimentally deriving fisher detection probabilities of shore-based and drone-based surveys (Chapter V): a. Shore-based surveys . We conducted roving creel surveys for four months at three locations around Hilo Bay, designed to emulate and estimate the efficacy of DAR standard operating procedures. There was high agreement between paired observers in counting fishers, leading to near-perfect detection probabilities of both anglers (94%) and spearfishers (97%), but relatively low agreement and detection probabilities of other fishers (throw net, ‘opihi picking, etc.) (52%). b. Drone-based surveys . We used an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV; operated by DAR staff) to collect imagery of fishers along the Hilo Bay shoreline. We used still images and video clips (with known fishing activity) to build an online survey that was distributed to DAR and HCFRU personnel, asking them to count and categorize resource users as a snorkeler, spearfisher, angler, or other fisher. Only 40.0% of the responses correctly counted and categorized resource users in the image. Anglers were correctly identified and enumerated in 90.0% of the responses, but the correct response rates of the other three user categories ranged from 67.8% – 79.4%. Snorkelers and anglers tended to be undercounted while spearfishers and other fishers were overcounted. 5) Review the potential for incorporating emerging technologies that will improve, augment, and evolve creel survey data collection, especially for spearfishing (Chapter VI). Within the context of monitoring shore-based noncommercial fishing, we review the use of electronic data entry/processing systems with geospatial and image capabilities, field cameras, drones, smart buoys, citizen science apps, data mining social media, artificial intelligence and machine learning. We highlight several of the challenges and considerations when implementing these technologies into creel surveys and provide a synthesis of options that could be used to better estimate spearfishing. The general conclusion of this assessment is that the DAR roving creel survey program is collecting valuable data that supplement the existing HMRFS efforts. However, there are a number of areas that could be improved to make these efforts a more effective tool for decision-making processes in resource management and conservation: 1) Establishment of clear statewide and island objectives for the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset. Currently, data collection efforts are focused towards addressing a very broad purpose – supplementing the HMRFS data collection efforts. However, the results of the preliminary analyses conducted as part of this project suggest that the data could be used to address other areas of need if these objectives were clearly defined. Further, the design of the creel survey would benefit from greater standardization of survey protocols between islands and an effort to define a) the acceptable margins of error associated with the estimates generated by these data and b) the minimum level of change that the surveys would need to detect to be useful to managers. 2) Centralization of data entry, data quality assessment, and data accessibility. Currently, each DAR office manages data entry, checks the data for errors, and is responsible for managing and storing the data. Instituting a centralized data entry system, particularly an online database that can receive survey data from tablets or smartphones running a standardized data collection application would improve efficiency, reduce data entry errors, and accelerate the availability of data to managers. A substantial amount of time and effort from the project described in this report was devoted to checking the dataset for errors. The development and application of data quality assurance protocols would ensure that the data are reliable and available in a timely fashion to support management decisions. 3) Address lingering questions regarding the efficacy of current survey protocols to capture and characterize the spearfishing component of the noncommercial fishery. The results presented in the report suggest that the current creel survey protocols do a good job detecting spearfishers when present but are not capturing sufficient data about their catch or total effort. There are also questions remaining as to whether the survey times and sites are sufficiently capturing the behavior of spearfishers in Hawai‘i. A more thorough assessment – whether through additional research, alteration of survey design, or review of data by representatives of the spearfishing community – would provide insight on how to use the Statewide Creel Survey Database to inform management of spearfishing. 4) Investigate the integration of technological advancements into the creel survey methods. As priorities and needs are developed and formalized, it would be valuable to consider how various technological advancements might enhance and streamline data collection or open new avenues of inquiry.
Hawaii↗