National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Final Programmatic Report

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Final Programmatic Report Project Name and Number: Program for Coral Reef Conservation (2007-0083-009) Recipient Organization/Agency: Community Conservation Network, transferred in March 2009 to Community Links Hawai i Recipient Contact: Debbie Gowensmith Recipient E-mail: debbie@hcsnetwork.org Recipient Phone: 808-626-5490 Recipient Web Address: www.communitylinkshawaii.org 1) Summary In four to five sentences, provide a brief, cumulative summary of the project. The goal of the project was to enhance coral reef conservation in Hawai i by establishing community-based marine managed areas and strengthening the Program, which engages community members in the day-to-day management of coral reef areas. At the end of the project, programs were active in Hā ena and Hanalei on Kaua i, Pūpūkea on O ahu, and Hōnaunau and Ho okena on Hawai i Island. In addition, three communities have developed management rules that they are working to have passed as law. Getting to this point has been more difficult than we had planned, and we have learned a great deal over the course of this project about the sound implementation of projects and about working with the State s Department of Land and Natural Resources. These lessons will improve future efforts to conserve coral reef habitat through community engagement. 2) Introduction Describe the original conservation need and objectives. Despite the importance of Hawai i s coral reefs biologically, culturally, and economically, they have been severely impacted by a variety of threats. In the past 100 years, the populations of most commercially important coral reef fish and others species have declined by more than 75%. Many local communities still depend on coral reef resources and are extremely concerned about the decline in coral reef ecosystem health and abundance. These communities are well-suited to play an important role in coral reef management because they are on-site, they know the resources well, and they are highly motivated to see a reverse in the decline. Two of the main approaches that have been developed to channel these communities interest into practical management are the Program and community-based marine managed areas. In the Program, community members provide outreach to ocean users, monitor the human use of ocean resources, monitor fish populations, and watch out for and report violations

of marine resource regulations. The Program is led by a Steering Committee with representation by several nonprofit organizations and the State DLNR, which adopted the program in 2005. The Hawai i Community Stewardship Network (formerly the Hawai i Program of the Community Conservation Network and now a project of Community Links Hawai i) convenes the Steering Committee. After the DLNR adopted the program, the Committee s nonprofit members have recommended improvements to the program such as safety policies, financial sustainability through regular government funding, and a clearer role for the DLNR. At the site level, we at HCSN found that implementation needed strengthening through broader community engagement, formalized training and supervision consistent with quality volunteer programs, better planning, and improved data management. In community-based marine managed areas, communities work together to develop site-based marine management plans that include new resource rules to recommend that the Board of Land and Natural Resources and Governor pass into law. Miloli i on Hawai i Island was the first community to receive designation, in 2005. Hā ena on Kaua i was the second, in 2006. At the beginning of this project, neither community had developed a management plan or rules to govern their designated areas. Meanwhile, several additional communities pursued similar designation but failed as Legislators and others cited the need to analyze whether the approach was successful based on the Miloli i and Hā ena examples. Based on these conditions, the objectives of this project were to 1. Strengthen initiatives with five communities covering approximately 22 miles of coastline. 2. Strengthen the statewide Program through a more formalized partnership with DLNR, stricter safety policies, and regular government funding. 3. Support four communities as they work to create governance and rules for Community-Based Marine Managed Areas. 3) Methods Describe all activities and methods. Give a yearly breakdown if this is a multi-year grant. We addressed Objective 1, to strengthen initiatives with five communities, through the following activities and methods: Hire and retain coordinators. Experience has shown that local coordination is essential to the Program s success, especially in their role to recruit and train volunteers. o Hā ena: We retained Atta Forrest as Hā ena Coordinator from the beginning of this project through February 2009. Atta successfully engaged a core group of about eight young adults and youth in establishing a consistent presence in Hā ena. The group conducted human-use monitoring and provided outreach, and they watched out for fisheries rules violations. In September 2008, six received training and participated in a baseline assessment of the benthic habitat

of the entire six-mile coastline and conducted fish counts. We also provided them with American Red Cross training and certification in first aid and lifeguarding. When CCN closed its doors in January 2009, Atta offered to coordinate on a volunteer basis until the grant transfer was completed. During the transfer period, we met with community leaders and for several reasons determined that a revised approach was needed to engage the broader community. Since the end of February 2009, community leaders have advertised the program through radio, newspaper, flyers, community events, and word of mouth, and more than 20 people have attended training and 15 have signed up as regular volunteers. o Hanalei: We hired and retained the Hanalei Watershed Hui; its Executive Director, Maka ala Ka aumoana; and staff member Palala Harada to coordinate and execute the new Hanalei Program. They have four regular volunteers who collect human use data for Hanalei Bay and Hanalei River, they provide outreach via a kiosk constructed with NFWF-Tesoro assistance, and they teach youth about Hanalei s coastal resources and the role monitoring plays. o Pūpūkea: We retained Coordinator Butch Helemano and contracted with Drew Wheeler to coordinate the biological monitoring and observation and compliance portions of. We were also pleased to contract Kirsten Bluehdorn of AlphaBytes Computer Services, a database and Web site specialist. Kirsten helped us to develop and pilot a new interactive, Web-based system of data management and reporting. Butch and Drew have organized 33 regular volunteers with more than 60 people receiving regular email updates through the new Web-based system that Kirsten developed. Seventeen new volunteers have been recruited in 2009. Butch and Drew have provided regular training in volunteer procedures, the history and ecology of the Pūpūkea-Waimea area, outreach techniques, human-use monitoring, biological monitoring, fish identification, rules for the Pūpūkea-Waimea Marine Life Conservation District, and how to recognize and report violations. o Hōnaunau: We contracted Leinani Navas-Loa to get the community s Makai Watch program off the ground. She has recruited a regular group of twelve volunteers who conduct monthly beach cleanups. The group received training in human-use monitoring and outreach. The group recognized its need for strategic planning and decided to start with an event to engage the broader community and gather their input about natural resources related issues in Hōnaunau to be prioritized. During event planning, only beach cleanups and meetings continued on a regular basis. The event, Mālama Hōnaunau, was held in May 2009. Since then and through Leinani s leadership, the Hōnaunau group decided to prioritize activities and engaging youth in those activities. They began implementing the renewed program in June 2009. o Ho okena: We contracted Damien Kenison, a high school teacher and vicepresident of local community organization Kama āina United to Protect the Āina (roughly translated as the local people united to protect the land and sea). Damien primarily has engaged youth in activities and has maintained an active roster of six students who volunteer with him on a regular basis to conduct human-use monitoring, biological monitoring, and dolphin

monitoring. We also assisted them to develop a natural resources map and a cultural resources map for their community, which they are using for outreach materials. o Miloli i: We contracted Gilbert Kahele to coordinate activities in Miloli i and Alika Grace to conduct outreach, observation and compliance, and human-use monitoring there. Alika, along with HCSN s Luna Kekoa, also participated with The Nature Conservancy in biological monitoring activities. As mentioned in our Phase reports, Miloli i has struggled to come to consensus around site-specific fisheries rules and has chosen to discontinue the program while working on the rules. Develop community-specific work plans and handbooks based on the curriculum. o We develop annual work plans with each community we work with, and we evaluate our progress on those plans on at least a quarterly basis. o We developed simple, volunteer-friendly handbooks for Hā ena and Hanalei (first a Hā ena-specific handbook and later a revised handbook that combined both programs due to volunteer interest in serving in both locations), Pūpūkea, and Ho okena. We have a draft handbook for Hōnaunau that needs added cultural information from Leinani, and we have a Miloli i handbook that will need to be updated if that community decides to restart their program. We had learned from our first handbook, a large and comprehensive volume published for Pūpūkea, that a short and simple handbook works better. Implement outreach and education about the rules, ecology, and history of the different involved communities. o Hā ena: Our best outreach and education in Hā ena has occurred through training events, community events, and meetings. We have been less successful at reaching out to visitors and the local public at the beach. The original volunteers recruited by Atta Forrest for were youth and youth adults. They received training in outreach established a presence in the area. Though we were told that they approached visitors with information, the volunteers did not use the outreach tracking sheets that we provided to keep track of the number of visitors they spoke with. Data tracking continues to be a significant challenge in Hā ena. o Hanalei: A Hanalei volunteer constructed a bamboo kiosk that is easily transported, and they set it up at Hanalei Bay, schools, and community events to provide outreach. Several of their volunteers are very comfortable talking with people and do so while conducting human-use monitoring. As is true in Hā ena, the difficulty has been in finding a system people will use to record their outreach efforts. o Pūpūkea: Coordinators set up an outreach tent at the Pūpūkea-Waimea Marine Life Conservation District each Saturday. These coordinators have remained steadfast and dedicated, putting in their own time and finding volunteers to put in time each and every Saturday during the life of this grant. This group has also comfortably implemented the outreach tracking system and so has an accurate count of how many people approach the tent each Saturday. In addition, the group has provided outreach and education via school visits to the MLCD, visiting

school groups themselves, and community events such as the Hale iwa Arts Festival. o Hōnaunau: The Hōnaunau group has provided outreach and education mainly through an agreement with Keoua Canoe Club, located at Hōnaunau Bay, and through their own youth program. Leinani, the coordinator, teaches young paddlers once a week about the culture, history, and ecology of Hōnaunau. She also runs the two-week youth summer program that is being expanded to a yearround program (to occur during fall break, winter break, spring break, and summer in addition to one Sunday per month). The students learn the cultural practices of Hōnaunau along with the ecology of the area. Volunteers provide outreach on an informal basis when they are at the Bay, but we were not successful in establishing a consistent presence for outreach at Hōnaunau Bay. o Ho okena: An information station at Ho okena Beach Park has been a convenient method of getting educational materials to the public. In addition, the Friends of Ho okena Beach Park runs a concession stand, and some of their volunteers provide information to visitors about the ecology of the area. FOHBP also has an agreement with the County to issue the camping permits and provide light security at the beach park, so community members working the camping sites provide outreach to campers. o Miloli i: Contractor Alika Grace provided outreach to visitors at Miloli i Bay for 12 months before his contract was not renewed. He utilized the data sheets provided to turn in information about how many people he spoke with. Undertake human-use monitoring. o Hā ena: Volunteers at Hā ena were to conduct human-use monitoring twice per week at a minimum. Unfortunately, only five months of data were provided, as several months of data were reportedly lost by the former coordinator. o Hanalei: The contractor and several volunteers have been conducting regular human-use monitoring of Hanalei Bay and Hanalei River. The primary issue in Hanalei has been a system of getting the data input into the provided spreadsheet. The Hanalei Watershed Hui has just recently found a person, Ua Hashimoto, to do this. o Pūpūkea: Volunteers at Pūpūkea have collected human-use data every Saturday throughout the life of the grant. Our pilot data management program has been refined several times to work out the kinks, so the coordinators are now comfortable inputting the data. The Web-based system allows for limited reporting based on the users selection of dates, and we would like to expand the type of data users can retrieve from the system. o Hōnaunau: This community has not engaged in regular human-use monitoring. The approach they have chosen, based primarily on volunteer availability, has been to conduct a week-long human-use study twice per year. They largely utilize high school students and parents who are off of work and school during school breaks. o Ho okena: High school students collected human-use information during school breaks and at least once per month. We also contracted two fishermen to collect human-use information from their fishing boats so that we could get a better sense of how people were using the offshore areas of Ho okena. In addition, we

conducted a four-day socioeconomic household survey of Ho okena that collected a variety of information including people s use of the area. o Miloli i: Contractor Alika Grace collected a year s worth of human-use information before his contract ended. Undertake biological monitoring. o Hā ena: In September 2008, HCSN (then CCN) trained and supported six community members to conduct a baseline benthic habitat assessment and biological monitoring of key sites. o Hanalei: The bay is extensively studied by expert scientists, and the community is engaged in water quality monitoring through the Hanalei Watershed Hui. This grant provided seed funding for a pilot program in Hanalei and was meant only to include human-use monitoring. Therefore related biological monitoring was not a product of this grant for Hanalei. o Pūpūkea: Volunteers at Pūpūkea conducted fish counts each Saturday for six months out of each year (April through September), weather permitting. We also provide a fish identification training at least once per year and produced a fish ID video, which we use as a training tool, that was filmed exclusively at the MLCD. Pūpūkea volunteers, including youth, participated in the first community-based collection of water quality data for the MLCD during Water Quality Monitoring Snapshot Day in October 2008. o Hōnaunau: Volunteers at Hōnaunau started with compiling a list of all the different species of fish they saw in the Bay. When our Hawai i Island Coordinator, Luna Kekoa, attempted to help these volunteers set up transects and data sheets for monitoring, the volunteers resisted. This was one of the events that led the group to enter into a strategic planning phase. Just now, the group is starting biological monitoring again. A training is scheduled for October 11, 2009. o Ho okena: Students volunteered to conduct biological monitoring at Ho okena during school breaks. We also trained and supported the youth to conduct a baseline benthic habitat assessment and monitoring of transects throughout 12 miles of coastline the traditional fishing grounds of Ho okena fishermen in January 2009. o Miloli i: Contractor Alika Grace and Hawai i Island Coordinator Luna Kekoa assisted with biological monitoring led by The Nature Conservancy. Carry out observation and compliance. o Hā ena: The group of youth and young adults that Atta Forrest recruited did conduct patrols for observation and compliance. Again, the struggle was in data collection and management, as they did not keep careful records of the violations they witnessed and their response. o Hanalei: Observation and compliance was not part of Hanalei s pilot program. However, a result of their human-use monitoring has been a new awareness of the level of violations occurring, especially in the river fishery. The result is that the Hanalei Watershed Hui is printing a small postcard-sized brochure with information about the fishing rules to hand out to fishermen on the river and at the bay. o Pūpūkea: Contractor Drew Wheeler assists the group in their number-one goal of eliminating poaching from the Pūpūkea-Waimea Marine Life Conservation

District. Drew has trained volunteers in the MLCD s rules and personally conducts observation and compliance patrols on a regular basis. We have worked with Kirsten Bluehdorn to include data from these efforts into the Web-based data management system. As a dive instructor, Drew has done extensive outreach to dive shops utilizing the MLCD, so all the dive shops have received information about the MLCD s rules and how to report violations. We regularly hear colloquial reports from dive instructors and conservation officers that dive instructors are calling in violations and educating would-be poachers about the area s protected status. o Hōnaunau: Hōnaunau has not carried out observation and compliance activities formally. They colloquially report that they speak to people who they see breaking the rules, but their program has not collected data on violations or how those violations have been addressed. o Ho okena: The community members who work at the concession stand and with the camping observe for violations. As in Hōnaunau, however, the Ho okena community has not collected data on violations or reported how the violations have been addressed. o Miloli i: Contractor Alika Grace was tracking and reporting violations in Miloli i Bay during his contract period. Violations in Miloli i were very uncommon. Improve data collection, management, and analysis for all communities. o Our pilot data management system in Pūpūkea is working very well. We now have a Web-based system through which certain individuals can access the system and enter data. Using a password, other individuals can access the data using search fields. We can now enter dates and find out how many volunteers worked how many hours, how many people approached the outreach tent, what violations were observed and the results, basic human-use data, and basic biological data. Our next step is to improve the human-use data and biological data return and test the system for a different site. We had hoped to transfer the system to additional sites before the conclusion of the grant, but the bugs in the system were still being addressed during the beginning of summer 2009, when the observation and compliance component first went online. The key to transporting the system to other communities will be identifying at least one person on each island to regularly gather the data sheets (ideally at the time of monitoring) and regularly enter the data into the system. If students are involved in data collection, it is educational for them to enter the data on-site and see the results in graph form. This, again, will require an individual to have a laptop computer at the beach and ensure that data entry is completed. Results can later be transferred from Excel to the Web-based system. Ideally, it would not be an HCSN staff member but a community member who volunteers to enter the data so that the project remains community-driven. o On Hawai i Island, our Hawai i Island Coordinator was the key to data entry and management. He ensured that students collecting the data also entered it onto his laptop the very day the data was collected. o Our Kaua i sites have experienced the greatest challenges with this aspect of the Program. Starting in June 2009, we have instituted a new system for collecting and managing the data. We have posted two plastic boxes with lids

(similar to the boxes containing real estate flyers on the front lawns of homes for sale) at two places the Hanalei Watershed Hui office and the office of Limahuli Garden and Preserve. Blank data sheets are available in the boxes for volunteers to pick up and use. When they are filled out, volunteers are to leave the data sheets in the boxes. Every day, staff at the two offices check for data sheets and save them for our new data entry contractor, Ua Hashimoto. At least twice a month, Ua enters the data into an Excel spreadsheet. We also revised the humanuse forms to one page and have added volunteer time worked and number of people spoken with in order to better capture volunteer effort and outreach. We have also revised the violations sheet based on one that works for Pūpūkea in hopes of better collecting the violations data. Finally, our training has been changed to greatly emphasize the importance of having the data how it is used, what it tells us, and what happens to the program without it.

We addressed Objective 2, to work with the Steering Committee to strengthen the statewide initiative, through the following activities and methods: Hold regular (twice a year) Steering Committee meetings. o We held Steering Committee meetings on January 25, 2008 and November 10, 2008. We worked with the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and other committee members to develop the agenda based on concerns, issues, and priorities. In our January 2008 meeting, we discussed safety protocols and procedures. Through the discussion, it became clear how important it would be that the roles and responsibilities of the DLNR for the Program be articulated. Our November 2008, which we held specifically for DLNR Chair Laura Thielen to attend, focused on communicating that need to Chair Thielen. She agreed to consider it and come to the next meeting with answers. We have since scheduled three meetings; each time, the Chair has asked for us to postpone at the last minute due to scheduling conflicts. Our next meeting is set for November 18. Develop standard operating and safety protocols for. This was the focus of our January 2008 meeting, and we got stuck based on defining the role of the DLNR. The question is whether volunteers statewide are considered DLNR volunteers since DLNR approved the program. If so, then any standard operating and safety protocols would have to be DLNR-approved. The second complicating factor is that some of the different nonprofit organizations that support have their own legal requirements for volunteer programs and therefore have their own safety protocols and procedures. So the question came down to whether we need a safety protocol and procedure or whether each entity s protocols and procedures are sufficient. In response, DAR secured a legal intern for the summer of 2008 to work with us on this question. The legal intern produced research with items for DLNR and Steering Committee consideration, which we presented to Chair Thielen during the November 2008 meeting. We are to follow up on this question during the November 2009 meeting. Work with the State to secure long-term funding for and CMMAs. o During the legislative session of 2008, The Nature Conservancy worked to introduce a bill that would have provided funding for. This bill was caught up in political wrangling, as its language was gutted in the House and replaced with language restricting new fishing rules from being created by DAR. The bill eventually died as the Senate and House could not agree on language to support or restrict the creation of new fishing rules. o As we reported in our phase reports, the financial crisis that hit in October 2008 has removed sustainable government funding of from consideration. In an environment in which positions are being cut, left empty, and furloughed, funding for community programs will not be written into the DLNR s budget. In response, HCSN is working with each community to explore other sources of sustainable funding and is working to minimize expenses. We addressed Objective 3, to support four communities as create governance and rules for CMMAs, through the following activities and methods:

Assist communities to develop management plans including rules and zoning. o Hā ena: Through a series of meetings with the community, the draft management plan has been written and is being reviewed by scientists and other volunteer consultants so that we can make improvements. Community meetings in 2009 were advertised on the radio, newspaper, and in flyers to encourage broad stakeholder turnout. HCSN facilitated meetings with the community, the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Land Division, DAR, and commercial recreational operators on these dates: November 10, 2007 November 16, 2007 November 30, 2007 January 7, 2008 January 9, 2008 February 15, 2008 March 22, 2008 May 23, 2008 June 13, 2008 July 23, 2008 August 6, 2008 September 10, 2008 November 1, 2008 December 15, 2008 January 31, 2009 March 18, 2009 March 31, 2009 April 4, 2009 April 15, 2009 April 24, 2009 June 15, 2009 o Ho okena: Ho okena, together with Hōnaunau, attempted to be designated by the State Legislature as a Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area during the 2008 session. The attempt failed, largely due to politics. Ho okena secured 86 families signatures in support of the legislation. The attempt ended up bringing additional fishermen into the conversation, so in the aftermath the community decided to move forward with a management plan and rules through a nonlegislative avenue. The management plan for Ho okena is now in draft form and is being reviewed by the panel of consultants for improvements. We held a series of meetings facilitated by contractor Damien Kenison, who also interviewed fishermen. We also conducted a survey of fishermen in June 2008 for their ideas and feedback on some proposed rules, and we conducted a four-day socioeconomic household survey that asked for people s feedback on several rule ideas. Meetings were held on these dates: February 17, 2008 March 2, 2008 May 18, 2008 June 17, 2009

June 23, 2009 June 30, 2008 July 24, 2008 July 27, 2008 December 12, 2008 January 5-7, 2009 January 30, 2009 February 18, 2009 April 2, 2009 April 29-May 3, 2009 June 18, 2009 June 23-24, 2009 o Hōnaunau: As reported above, Hōnaunau went in with Ho okena to be designated as a Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area in 2008. The failed effort had the opposite effect in Hōnaunau, as the community struggled with what to do in the aftermath. We attempted to continue working through the management planning process for Hōnaunau, but the meetings exposed the fact that more general strategic planning was needed in the face of the failed legislative attempt. The community felt disjointed by the process and needed to regroup and reengage. HCSN attended and supported monthly meetings of Ka Ohana O Hōnaunau and supported the Mālama Hōnaunau event in May 2009, where we collected information from participants about their concerns for the coastal resources of Hōnaunau and their ideas to address those concerns. Through this process and through the consistency of the youth program we help to support in Hōnaunau, a simple strategic plan has been created, community members are reengaged, and Ka Ohana is renewing their activities. o Miloli i: HCSN helped to draft a management plan for the Miloli i Community- Based Subsistence Fishing Area with our partner organization there, Pa a Pono Miloli i. As reported during phase reports, however, our strong recommendation that the rules and plan be vetted openly with the community were not wellreceived. Together, we decided that HCSN should disengage from the process and that Pa a Pono Miloli i would continue its efforts to see the passage of the rules. o Pūpūkea: Though we had not intended to support policy-making in Pūpūkea, two policy issues emerged and are being addressed: We discovered that one portion of the MLCD, the tidepools of Sharks Cove, was not included in the MLCD but was leased to the City and County from the DLNR. Increasing numbers of savvy fishermen, knowing this fact and that the tidepools were home to dozens of species of fish (many in their juvenile life stage) along with octopus and eels, were fishing with immunity in the tidepools. The community group approached the DLNR, and at a public meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, the tidepools area was transferred back into DLNR jurisdiction. The law creating the MLCD clearly states the boundaries, but we discovered that the rules being published on the DLNR Web site and other

places contains a flawed boundary line that decreases the size of the MLCD. We are working with the DLNR to correct this mistake. Assist communities in routing their rules through the DLNR rule-making process. o Hā ena: The rules package the community developed, which includes 11 new rules, has been submitted to DAR and was reviewed by five staff members a legal fellow, two rule-writers, the Coral Program Planner, and the Division head. In a follow-up meeting, they advised HCSN on how to improve the rules to facilitate their passage through the cumbersome process the rules face before becoming law. We are currently working with the community to make those small changes. o Ho okena: The rules package the community developed was submitted to the Kona office of DLNR and the Division head. They have offered suggestions on how to improve the rules, and we are following up. This grant also supported two workshops held by HCSN/CCN: 4) Results Sixty-seven participants from 18 communities participated in a June 19-22, 2008 workshop on Moloka i, which included 25 youth participants. This workshop focused on traditional biological monitoring methods and fishpond management, and it solidified the group s commitment to engaging youth in hands-on activities that transmit cultural resources management practices. Also at this workshop, community members asked that the second gathering in 2008 focus on sustainability and building organizational capacity for community groups. Twenty-five participants from 12 communities participated in an October 19-12, 2008 workshop on sustainability and organizational capacity-building, which confirmed that this subject was one of the most pressing for many community groups. The workshop evaluations were overwhelmingly positive, with requests for much more assistance in organizational management for community-based organizations. a) Outputs i) Using the logic framework model presented with your application (Fig. 1), enter in actual values of short-term outputs. Enter in any additional indicators not included in the full proposal used in the analysis. If your application did not include the logic framework, describe project outputs, any realized post-project outcomes and quantify the results using indicators and baselines. ii) Attach any supplemental graphs, maps, photos and other types of analytical output for the project evaluation. iii) Identify and briefly explain discrepancies between what actually happened compared to what was predicted to happen in the grant proposal using information presented above. Fig. 1: Logic framework table with indicators. For additional guidance and examples, see http://www.nfwf.org/evaluation/.

Activities Hire and Maintain Coordinators for Each of the Five Communities. Hire and Maintain Coordinators for Each of the Five Communities Short-Term Outputs Oversee all Activities. Recruit volunteers for 5 sites. Long-Term Outcomes Well Coordinated Programs with Outreach and Education, Biological and Human Use Monitoring, and Observation and Compliance Volunteers to cover all components of the Program in 5 sites Indicator Baseline Value Predicted Value of Project Output Actual Value of Project Output Number of Makai Two coordinators Five coordinators Five coordinators Watch Coordinators in Place Number of active volunteers per site 10 active volunteers in Pupukea; 7 active volunteers in Honaunau; 0 active volunteer in Miloli'i, Ho'okena, Ha'ena 20 trained and active volunteers in Pupukea; 10 trained and active volunteers in Honaunau; 2 active volunteers in Miloli'i and Ha'ena; 5 active volunteers in Ho'okena Pūpūkea: 33 regular Hōnaunau: 12 Miloli i: 0 (was 1) Hā ena: 6 and now 15 Hanalei: 4 Ho okena: 6 students Hire and Maintain Coordinators for Each of the Five Communities Cover outreach and education, biological and human-use monitoring, and observation and compliance at 5 sites. All components of implemented at 5 sites. Hours of outreach and education; hours of observation; instances of monitoring Pupukea: 4 hours weekly outreach and education, 4 hours weekly observation; onceper-week human use monitoring; once-per-week biological monitoring as weather permits; Ha'ena: 1 hour outreach and education, humanuse monitoring three times per week, 0 biological monitoring, 0 observation; Honaunau: onceper-quarter human-use monitoring and biological monitoring, 0 Pupukea: 8 hours weekly outreach and education, 10 hours weekly observation; twice-perweek human-use monitoring, once-perweek biological monitoring as weather permits; Ha'ena: 5 hours outreach and education, human-use monitoring four times per week, biological monitoring once per quarter as weather permits, 5 hours per week observation; Honaunau: once-a-week human-use monitoring, once-per-quarter biological monitoring, 4 hours per week observation and outreach; Ho'okena: once-perquarter biological monitoring, once-a-week Pūpūkea: 5 hours weekly outreach, 10 hours weekly observation, once-perweek human-use monitoring, once-perweek biological monitoring weather permitting Hā ena: 0 formal hours outreach, twice weekly human use, once annual biological monitoring, 0 formal hours observation Hanalei: Only doing human use per grant, once per week Hōnaunau: 0 formal outreach, twice annual (weeklong each time) human use monitoring, 0 biological monitoring (starting up October 11), 0 formal observation Ho okena: Biological and human-use monitoring

Train volunteers for each of the five communities Develop Community Work plans and Site Handbooks Develop Community Site Handbooks Carry out regular Outreach and Education Patrols At least one training in each of the three components of in each community Five Work plans and Site Handbooks Five site handbooks At least twice monthly Outreach and Education Patrols at each Makai Watch Site Trained volunteers to reach out and educate visitors to communities' coral reef sites, conduct human-use and biological monitoring, and observe and report violations Highly organized, objective- oriented Projects Volunteers and coordinators that utilize the handbooks to convey to the public the history, culture, biology, and general importance of the sites Decrease in incidences of inappropriate behavior or poaching per unit time Percentage of increase in trainees' knowledge of culture, history, and biology for each site Number of Work plans and site handbooks Percentage of coordinators and volunteers utilizing Site Handbooks Number of instances of inappropriate behavior or poaching per unit time observation, 0 outreach; Ho'okena: onceper-quarter biological and human-use monitoring, 0 outreach and observation; Miloli'i: oncemonthly humanuse and biological monitoring, 0 observation and outreach Average pretraining test score for participants; test score to be determined Two of each complete 0 volunteers and coordinators utilizing Site Handbooks Current levels of inappropriate behavior/poaching (current levels of poaching at 1 every 2 hours; current levels of human-use monitoring, 4 hours per week outreach and observation; Miloli'i: once-a-week human-use monitoring, monthly biological monitoring, 4 hours per week observation and outreach Average post-training test score for participants of 95% Five of each complete 100% of coordinators and 80% of volunteers utilizing Site Handbooks Decrease by 50% quarterly and monthly during summer, 21 hours observation weekly Miloli i: Was at least twice per week everything but biological monitoring; discontinued We had at least one training in every community but Miloli i, where we just trained the contractor. The average test score among all takers including youth was 87%. Hā ena, Hanalei, Pūpūkea, Ho okena, Miloli i complete; Hōnaunau still in process Handbooks utilized by Hā ena, Hanalei, Pūpūkea coordinators. Not as much in Ho okena, and we are working on it. NA for Hōnaunau and Miloli i. Only Pūpūkea kept good track of this. 2007: 0.155 violations/hr 2008: 0.17 violations/hr 2009: 0.25 violations/hr (with three times the amount of patrol time)

Carry out regular Outreach and Education Patrols Carry out a minimum of quarterly Biological Monitoring at all five sites Carry out human use monitoring at least twice a month at five sites Carry out Observation and Compliance patrols At least twice monthly Outreach and Education Patrols at each Makai Watch Site Quarterly biological monitoring of important marine species Twice monthly human use monitoring at five sites Minimum weekly observation and compliance Increase of awareness of protected status, if applicable, rules, and appropriate behaviors Understanding of changes in populations of important species Enhanced understanding of patterns of human use at each site Decrease in poaching Pre- and post-test of rules and appropriate behaviors for people approached and willing to do a survey Awareness of changes in populations (This is a long-term indicator; any permanent changes will not be validated for several years of data collection.) Awareness of human use of the coral reef ecosystems in 5 sites Percent decrease in poaching per unit time of patrol inappropriate behaviors to be determined) Original knowledge of people approached and willing to do the survey 0 awareness of changes at Ha'ena (requires baseline survey); 1 year of data at 4 sites Varying degree of data at each site (all 1 year or less) Current level of poaching per unit time of patrol Increase of 50% in awareness/knowledge of people approached and willing to do a survey 100% improvement in awareness of changes: At least quarterly monitoring needed to provide the consistent data needed to determine changes over time 100% improvement in awareness of the human use of coral reef ecosystems at 5 sites We did not accomplish the collection of this data at any site. Awareness is ineffective indicator. Monitoring data is being collected by the communities: Pūpūkea: once-per-week biological monitoring weather permitting Hā ena: once annual biological monitoring Hōnaunau: 0 biological monitoring (starting up October 11) Ho okena: quarterly and monthly during summer, Miloli i: We support TNC s efforts Awareness is ineffective indicator. Monitoring data is being collected by the communities: Pūpūkea: Once per week Hā ena: Twice weekly Hanalei: Once per week Hōnaunau: Twice annual (weeklong each time) Ho okena: Quarterly, with monthly during summer Miloli i: Was at least twice per week; discontinued 50% decrease Only Pūpūkea kept good track of this. 2007: 0.155 violations/hr

at five sites at least once per week Carry out Observation and Compliance patrols at five sites at least once per week Carry out Observation and Compliance patrols at five sites at least once per week Hold Steering Committee meetings at least twice annually Develop Standard Operating and Safety Procedures for Secure long-term funding from State sources Assist Communities to Develop Management Plans including Rules and Zoning for four Marine Managed Areas Assist communities to gain State approval of new rules as articulated in patrols Community coverage of the coastal areas associated with coral reef ecosystems at 5 sites Community coverage of the coastal areas associated with coral reef ecosystems at 5 sites Much better coordination and oversight of the Program A Standard Operating Procedure Document for Secured funding from State Sources four community Management Plans that including rules and zoning Submission of rules to the State Land Board for individual Increase in coverage of coastal areas associated with coral reef ecosystems at 5 sites Increase in community coverage of coastal areas associated with coral reef ecosystems at 5 sites A well coordinated, effective, and efficient Makai Watch Program A systematic approach to Makai Watch that ensures safety and professionalism A sustainable Program An efficient system for managing the Marine Managed Areas A much stronger set of resource rules to help enhance coral reef Number of hours of observation coverage for coastal areas associated with coral reef ecosystems in 5 sites Length of coastline monitored/patroled by community members Number of meetings Completion and use of the documents Amount of secured funding from State Sources Number of completed Management Plans Number of MMA rules submitted to the Sate Land Board (approval Pupukea: 4 hours weekly observation; Ha'ena, Miloli'i, Honaunau, Ho'okena: 0 hours weekly observation Pupukea: 1.5 miles covered by compliance patrols; Ha'ena, Miloli'i, Honaunau, Ho'okena: 0 miles covered by Pupukea: 10 hours weekly observation; Ha'ena: 5 hours weekly observation; Miloli'i, Ho'okena, Honaunau 5 hours weekly observation Pupukea and Ho'okena: 2 miles covered by compliance patrols; Ha'ena, Miloli'i, Ho'okena: 5 miles covered by compliance patrols 2008: 0.17 violations/hr 2009: 0.25 violations/hr (with three times the amount of patrol time) Pūpūkea: 10 hours weekly Hā ena: 0 formal hours Miloli i: Was 5 hours weekly; discontinued Ho okena: 21 hours weekly Hōnaunau: 0 formal hours Pūpūkea: 1.5 miles Hā ena: none Miloli i: none Ho okena: 1 mile Hōnaunau: none compliance patrols Once per year Twice per year Twice in 2008 Once in 2009 No SOP or Safety Protocol exist Completed SOP and Safety Protocol Completed for HCSN, legal review completed for DLNR Less than $30,000 More than $50,000 Approx. $50,000 through the efforts of the DAR Coral Program but not part of State budget No Management Plans currently exist Existing MMA rules at each MMA site; currently Four completed Management Plans At Miloli'i, Ho'okena, Miloli'i, Honaunau, and Ha'ena, 10 new MMA rules submitted to the Hā ena and Ho okena: Complete and being reviewed Hōnaunau: Draft Miloli i: Complete Miloli i: Submitted 13 rules Ho okena: 17 rules Hā ena: 11 rules

their Management Plans Recruit and contract a Data Management Specialist Hold 2 workshops on community-based marine management in response to needs identified by community participants Hold 2 workshops on community-based marine management in response to needs identified by community participants Marine Managed Areas An annual data report and meeting in each of the 5 communities to feed back the results of their data collection efforts Strengthened community projects Strengthened community projects conservation Adaptive management of CMMAs and programs Additional communities implementing CMMAs and programs. Sounder, stronger, more sustainable existing MW and CMMA programs. Additional communities implementing CMMAs and programs. Sounder, stronger, more sustainable existing MW and CMMA programs. by the Land Board is estimated to take 18 months, longer than the term of this proposed grant) Number of completed data reports Number of completed workshops Number of communities implementing CMMAs programs Ho'okena, Miloli'i, Honaunau, and Ha'ena are covered under the Hawaii Fishing Regulations only, with no special rules as an MMA. No data analysis reports completed 3 workshops completed annually since 2004 (one on the utilization of traditional knowledge in marine management, one on, and one on management planning) 4 communities implementing CMMAs programs Land Board Hōnaunau: 0 Five data analysis reports completed Two additional completed workshops, likely on sustainability planning and CMMAs; perhaps one on community-based enforcement 6 communities implementing CMMAs programs Ho okena: Complete Hā ena: Incomplete data Pūpūkea: Complete Hōnaunau: NA Hanalei: Incomplete Miloli i: Complete through end of program Two additional completed workshops, one on traditional biological monitoring and one on sustainability and organizational capacity A group at Muolea Point is engaged after participating in an MBT meeting and hosting two Hā ena community members subsequently. TNC is assisting. The east Maui communities also went for legislation (as did Ho okena and Hōnaunau) in 2008 and were turned down. The entire island of Moloka i attempted similar legislation in

2009, as did the entire island of Ni ihau in 2008. Turned down. Honu apo on Hawai i island is also implementing a CMMA program, with the support of HCSN and many others. A group on Lana i is starting appropriately small with a limu (seaweed) project, having learned about CMMAs from their participation in HCSN workshops.

a) Post-project Outcomes i) The logic framework presented in the full proposal additionally included a final column where predicted values of post-project outcomes were to be provided. If your application did not include a logic framework, please identify any medium- to longterm results that may occur after the project ends. ii) Describe any progress towards achieving these post-project outcomes at this time. (1) Five coordinators continue to be in place at project sites, ensuring continuity of volunteer recruitment and activities. Though the project with NFWF has ended, the programs continue to move forward and continue improving as they face new challenges and enjoy new successes. (2) We continue to attempt data collection and management at each site. We are improving the output from the Pūpūkea Web-based data system so that richer data can be retrieved. We have a new system in place in Hā ena and Hanalei that we will try for the next six months. HCSN is contracting to develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system for our organization, which will also include data from community site projects. (3) We continue to provide training to volunteers at Hā ena, Hanalei, Pūpūkea, Hōnaunau, and Ho okena. We have a 2009 work plan in place for each of these areas which includes training. (4) We are continuing to improve the handbooks at each site. Since the first draft of the Pūpūkea handbook in May 2005, for example, we have made three revisions. We have made one revision of the Hā ena handbook and one revision of the Ho okena handbook. The Hōnaunau handbook will be completed by the end of October and then will be subject to at least an annual review. We distribute the handbooks to volunteers and keep a copy with outreach materials. As project get more formal, there is greater opportunity for volunteers to refer to the handbooks. (5) We have not seen violations decreases in Pūpūkea, but we believe that is because our observation effort has increased threefold. (6) The rules process continues forward for Miloli i (though without HCSN involvement), Ho okena, and Hā ena. We are improving the rules based on input from DAR and are constructing the legal language for the rules currently. We are also continuing to improve the management plans and are working with a legal researcher to see how our State system can be adapted to allow for adaptive management. (7) We continue to support additional CMMA development through providing resources such as the management planning guidebook we have developed, hands-on assistance, exchange visits with other communities, and linking people to other agencies and organizations who can help. There is a great deal of interest, as is evidenced by the numbers of communities that have attempted to go the legislation route. Legislators want to see success before they will grant another community the designation. (They are also being lobbied by other interests who are framing CMMAs as a threat to fishermen.) iii) Will there be continued monitoring of post-project outcomes beyond the life of this grant? Are there adequate resources (staff and funding) for continued evaluation and monitoring? If not, briefly describe the additional resources needed.

(1) We are fortunate that at this time we do have the resources to continue all of these programs (expect for Miloli i, as has been previously addressed) and to greatly improve our admittedly weak data component. iv) Describe any revisions in the indicators, methods and data that may be needed for post-project monitoring. (1) As indicated above awareness is a weak indicator. We either need to change this to results from a social survey or to the results of the data themselves. (2) The commitment of state funding is so far out of our control that we should not use it as an indicator of success. Indicators should be limited to those things we have a significant degree of control over. (3) We continue to struggle a great deal with data collection and management in most of the rural communities in which they work. They do the work, but collecting the numbers is counterintuitive to them; they characterize it as being a Western or urban approach. We at HCSN recognize the extreme importance of good data and are investing in a monitoring and evaluation system of our own, and our future plans include stepping up efforts to help communities do the same in ways that feel more appropriate for them. 5) Discussion & Adaptive Management a) Lessons Learned and Transferability i) Describe the lessons learned about effective and ineffective conservation practices associated with this project. Which of these key lessons should be shared with other conservation organizations? ii) To what extent did the evaluation and monitoring activities for this project inform your organization about effective conservation practices, and what lessons were learned from an evaluation perspective? iii) Based on these lessons learned, what are your organization s next steps? (1) As mentioned previously, data collection and management can be a challenge when working with communities who are not greatly familiar with computer programs and the need for numerical data. We have not figured out the key to this challenge, but we are more and more aware for the need to address this issue in partnership with the community from the very beginning of a project and develop a system that will work well with that place. (2) Supervision of community coordinators that are located in rural places remote form the home office is also challenging. Again, flexibility in the system is key, as is having multiple eyes in the community agreeing to report on progress and challenges. Ensuring that the local staff clearly listed responsibilities with deadline, have a regular reporting system to check on progress, and quickly addressing red flags is our new approach based on lessons learned. (3) Our experiences in Miloli i have improved HCSN s guidelines. First, we recognize the need to communicate effectively our basic values and approach to a community interested in working with us so we can decide together whether we are a good fit. Second, we have begun creating Memoranda of Understanding with communities so that HCSN s values and approaches are clearly communicated along with our agreed-upon roles and responsibilities in working