INTRODUCTION TO ANDREA & BUSH ISLAND

GUAM PROJECT PLAN

ELAINA TODD, GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,

SOUTHERN GUAM, Updated January 19, 2010

Theory of Change

K + A + IC + BR BC TR CR

(By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 4. 34% to 9.34%..) (Number of fires decreases.By October 2010, the number of vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease by 50% (from 1670 average # of fires from GFD reports 2005-2009).Amount of sediment decreases, water quality improves. By October 2012, the turbidilty level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease from X to Y (a 20 pp decrease).) (Hunters stop using fire for hunting.Community reports wildland fires and uses fire responsibly.) (Hunters are provided with sustainable hunting training clinics and deer baiting tools as alternative to burning.Community members are provided with responsible fire use guidelines and trainings.) (Social marketing campaign increases discussion among community members and hunters about wildland fires and prevention.) (Social marketing campaign increases attitude that wildland fires must be prevented and those starting wildland fires prosecuted.) (Social marketing campaign increases awareness of the destructiveness of wildland fires and teaches responsible fire use practices to southern hunters and community members. )

Theory of Change narrative:

To eliminate the threat of sedimentation on Guam’s diverse coral reefs, wildland fires caused by illegal hunting in Southern Guam must be prevented. Key target groups (Southern Hunters and General Community members) will be informed that preventing wildand fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property and natural resources. Hunters will be given sustainable hunting trainings and baiting tools to use as an alternative to burning, and the community will be asked to report wildland fires and adopt responsible fire use practices. There will be a decrease in the number of fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be deemed successful if the number of vegetation fires decreases by 50% (from 1670 [average 2005-2009] to 835) by October 2010 and if percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%. Comment by GCMP #6: Policy makers are not a specific target audience of the campaign and will be influenced indirectly through the social marketing campaign.

INTRODUCTION by Elaina Todd, Campaign Manager

Guam’s diverse coral reefs have been a part of the local culture and a source of pride for the residents of the island. For over 20 years, local resource agencies have dedicate time, money and energy to protecting these important resources and have committed to ensuring the health the reefs for future generations. The Rare Pride program has partnered with these agencies, selecting Elaina Todd, of the Guam Coastal Management Program, as the campaign manager to coordinate the planning and implementation of this campaign. Elaina attended a 9 week rigorous training program in Arlington, VA to learn how to prepare a well thought out project plan for a threat specific, targeted social marketing campaign that would encompass the proven methodology of Rare Pride and support the efforts of the local agencies in reducing the threat to the coral reefs.

This Project Plan was created with input from community members, resource users, key stakeholders and local and regional experts and partners with similar missions. It will explain the methods and rationale behind the decisions that were made in the planning process including how key threats were identified, the behaviors associated with these threats, and the reasons behind these behaviors. It further explains how key audiences were identified and targeted messages were developed, recognize challenges that were encountered in the planning process and outline the thought process behind each step in the planning process allowing the reader a transparent perspective to understanding Guam’s Watershed Rare Pride Campaign.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Executive Summary6

B. Project Site17

1.0SITE SUMMARY18

2.0 PROJECT TEAM AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS36

C. Concept Models38

3.0 DEVELOPING A CONCEPT MODEL39

D. Threat Analysis44

4.0 Threat Ranking44

E. Formative Research51

5.0 Directed CONVERSATIONS52

6.0 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS59

7.0 Results Chains & Preliminary Objectives71

8.0 ESTABLISHING A BASELINE (QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY)74

F. Revised Concept Models92

11.0 Revised Concept Model92

G. Campaign Strategy94

12.0 BARRIER REMOVAL OPERATIONS PLAN95

13.0 AUDIENCE PERSONAS103

14.0 BENEFIT LADDERS106

15.0 SMART OBJECTIVES109

16.0 MARKETING MIX109

17.0 Campaign Messages111

18.0 MONITORING PLAN115

H. Theory of Change117

19.0 THEORY OF CHANGE117

I. BUDGET & TIMELINE132

20.0 Project TIMELINE & BUDGET132

ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN137

21.0 References and Acknowledgements138

J.APPENDICES141

A. Executive Summary

The executive summary provides a snapshot view of the entire Pride campaign from site background and conservation threats to target audiences and Pride activities designed to reach each audience. These pages are best used as a reference tool after reading through the project plan.

CAMPAIGN SNAPSHOT

COUNTRY (UN), State or Province

United States

Site name

Southern Guam

RarePlanet URL

http://rareplanet.org/en/campaign/guam-watershed-campaign

Cohort information (Cohort name, number and principal manager)

Cohort Name: Pride English Program (PEP)

Number: GUAMCM

Principal manager: Adam Murray

Project dates

February 09 (University Phase 1); September 09 (University Phase 2); October 10 (project completion)

Lead agency

Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Statistics & Plans

Lead agency contact (e.g. Executive Director)

Evangeline Lujan (Bureau of Statistics) (LAP)

Campaign manager name

Elaina Todd

“BINGO” Partner (and contact details)

n/a

Other partners

Joe Mafnas (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Soil Resources Division) (I);

Bel Soliva (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Soil Resources Division) (I);

Mike Reyes (Department of Agriculture, Law Enforcement) (I);

Jeff Quitugua (Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources) (I);

David Peredo (Guam Fire Department) (I)

Key threat addressed

Reduction and prevention of wildland fires & subsequent sedimentation of soil onto reefs

IUCN 7.1.2 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity; 9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation

Key biodiversity target

Coral Reef Ecosystems

Campaign slogan

TBD

Key audiences (and population)

Southern Hunters (est.600 based on hunting permits issued)

General Southern Community (approx. 52,000)

(both audience divided into Youth ages 19 or younger, and Adults ages 20 or older)

# hectares under threat

Approximately 23,350 (southern watersheds)

Campaign Theory of Change (Maximum 175 words)

To eliminate the threat of sedimentation on Guam’s diverse coral reefs, wildland fires caused by illegal hunting in Southern Guam must be prevented. Key target groups (Southern Hunters and General Community members) will be informed that preventing wildand fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property and natural resources. Hunters will be given sustainable hunting trainings and baiting tools to use as an alternative to burning, and the community will be asked to report wildland fires and adopt responsible fire use practices. There will be a decrease in the number of fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be deemed successful if the number of vegetation fires decreases by 50% (from 1670 [average 2005-2009] to 835) by October 2010 and if percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

(A. Executive Summary)SITE INFORMATION

Site description (275 words max.)

The U.S. territory of Guam is located at in the Pacific Ocean at 13°28’N, 144°45’E, or approximately 3,300 miles West of Hawaii, 1,500 miles East of the Philippines and 1,550 miles South of Japan (http://www.guam-online.com/). It is the southernmost island in the Mariana archipelago and is the largest island in Micronesia with an area of 210 square miles (or approximately 560 km2). Guam’s beautiful coral reef ecosystems are home to over 400 species of coral, making it one of the most diverse US jurisdictions. They are an integral part of Guam’s culture and economy. The health of Guam’s reefs has decline over the last few decades and they face the threats of land based sources of pollution (sedimentation & run-off); Overfishing; Lack of public awareness; Recreational use and misuse; Climate change/coral bleaching/disease; and development and population increase. Local agencies have partnered together to tackle these threats and increase public awareness of the importance of Guam’s coral reefs and the need to protect them. Wildfires being started by illegal hunters have decimated the vegetation in the upland areas of Southern Guam resulting in the formation of badlands and severe erosion into the watersheds. Sedimentation caused by this upland erosion is of most concern. Through public engagement, it is hoped that the threat of sedimentation can be decreased to improve water quality, and help conserve Guam’s precious coral reef ecosystems.

Ecosystem type (IUCN)

IUCN 1.5

IUCN 1.6

Subtropical/Tropical Dry

Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland

IUCN 2.1

Savanna – Dry

IUCN 3.5

Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry

IUCN 4.5

IUCN 7.1

Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry

Caves

IUCN 12.1Rocky Shoreline

IUCN 12.2 Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc.

IUCN 13.1 Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands

IUCN 14.2

Artificial/Terrestrial – Pastureland

Site map(topographical)

GPS Co-ordinates (Google Earth)

13°N; 144°E

Biodiversity Hotspot

Near Coral Triangle

Other protected area status

Hectares addressed by campaign

Approximately 23,350 (southern watersheds)

CRITICAL SPECIES

Description of flagship species(250 words max)

Three species were identified as potential flagship species:

· Fiddler crab (Uca chlorophthalmus)- not currently listed as protected; native

· Guam Goby (Awaous guamensis)- not currently listed as protected; native

· Green Lace Shrimp (Atyoida pilipes)- not currently listed as protected; native

Each of these animals was native to Guam and tied the concept of watersheds together (river or mangrove species). A question was asked during the questionnaire survey about which of these would best represent all of the plants and animals in the watershed. The fiddler crab was the preferred choice of a majority of respondents.

After further project development it was realized that a marine connection needed to be made to fully achieve the objectives of the campaign. A suggestion was made to use a Guam reef organism with “flame” or “fire” in the name to play on the behavior change. Two additional candidates were added in:

· Flame Angelfish (Centropyge loricula )- not currently listed as protected; native

· Flame Hawkfish (Neocirrhites armatus)- not currently listed as protected; native

Further pretesting will be done with these species to see which is best received by the target audience focus groups to choose the flagship species.

# of species on IUCN Red Data list

143

# of endemic species

26

THREATS

Threats (IUCN)

1.1 Housing & urban areas

1.3 Tourism & Recreation Areas

5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources

6.1 Recreational activities

7.1 Fire & fire suppression

9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents

11.4 Storms & flooding

Threats addressed by campaign

7.1.2 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity; 9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation

HUMAN POPULATION

Human Population at site

Southern Guam (target site): 51,938

Human Population summary (300 words)

According to the U.S. bicentennial census conducted in 2000, the population of Guam was 154,805 (though it is estimated to be near 178,000). As of 2005, the annual population growth is 1.76%. The largest ethnic group is native Chamorros, accounting for 37% of the total population. Other significant ethnic groups include those of Filipino (26.3%), White (6.8%). The remaining population is divided among those of Chinese, Japanese and Korean ancestry (2.3%) and other Pacific Islanders. Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion, with 85% of the population claiming an affiliation with it. The programmed U.S. military buildup (2010-2014) will cause an unprecedented population increase (approximately 24-25% or 40,000 plus residents) which will significantly impact Guam's very limited and aging infrastructure. The official languages of the island are English and Chamorro.

Key target segments

Southern Guam Community Members & Southern Guam Hunters

Per capita GDP

$12, 722 (2000 Census) /($15, 000- estimate 2005- CIA factbook)

CONSERVATION BENEFITS

Short term conservation results(interim success)

The short term goals of the campaign are:

· By October 2010, the number of vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease by 50% (from 1670 -average # of fires from GFD reports 2005-2009).

· By October 2012, the turbidilty level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease from X to Y (a 20 pp decrease). Comment by GCMP #6: Pending baseline data. First scheduled monitoring session to take place 01/21/10.

Long term Conservation (ultimate success)

The long term conservation goals of the campaign are:

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 4. 34% to 9.34%.

LEAD AGENCY PARTNER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

Strategic Plan

The Guam Coastal Management is 100% federally funded. Main activities of the Guam Coastal Management Program include:

· Federal consistency: Certifies that proposed actions and projects receiving federal funding or federal permits are consistent with Guam’s approved Coastal Management program.

· Reviews and recommends actions on Guam Seashore Protection and Guam Land Use Commission applications for the BSP through the Application Review Committee

· Networks with other government agencies and non-governmental organizations to coordinate activities related programs.

· Conducts Guam Federal application clearinghouse reviews for Bureau of Statistics and Plans

· Coordinates federally funded projects on pollution control, environmental protection, natural and historic resources use and conservation, development, management, hazard management and planning.

· Public outreach and education on coastal management issues.

· Coordinates the Guam Coral Reef Initiative and Guam’s strategy for implementing the Micronesia Challenge

Currently, 20% of the total organizational budget ($950,000) is allocated to Environmental Education and Awareness. The 2010-2012 NOAA Coral Management Fellow will be dedicated to working on environmental education writing and outreach, and will support the Campaign Manager in outreach efforts.

Staff training

The Campaign Manager, Elaina Todd will utilize all skills and tools learned in the Rare training to train the local Environmental Education Committee, comprised of representatives from local government entities, resources agencies, private companies, education and youth groups, university groups, and non-profit organizations. Additionally, Rare materials and knowledge will be available for all staff of GCMP and partner agencies. Training sessions from CM can be arranged upon request. CM will work closely with NOAA Fellow and aid in the development of targeted and effective educational materials. CM will also aim to build capacity within GCMP its partners through campaign events and possible additional trainings.

Resource sustainability

Campaign Manager is currently a NOAA fellow, salaried in full through IMSG. Fellowship program ends in January, 2010 at which point the CM will be hired/transfer to the Government of Guam and will continue to be employed with GCMP (grant funds). These funds are secured are ready to be allocated as of October, 2009, and will be available long term.

Regression of behavior and the need for sustained messaging

In order to ensure success of the efforts of this campaign, possible regression to burning needs to be anticipated and prevented. A long term strategy for sustained messaging and barrier removal must be in place.

Some factors that may cause regression are: if bait does not work as well for hunters, bait is not available in an easily accessible way, if a serious storm should cause large scale destruction and residents must resort to quick hunting for food, if fire violations are not prosecuted, if hunting violations are not prosecuted. Less controllable factors such as the upcoming military build up could also cause individuals to change their attitudes and perceptions, with a 20% population increase, some may feel that they need to hunt now while they can before the influx, and they may regress to using fire.

To ensure that behavior regression does not take place, the GCMP will ensure that funding is allocated for continued work on the project after the campaign is over, maintain relationships with communities, providing assistance to local fire watch groups, and assisting communities in fire prevention efforts however possible. To maintain messaging, a sustainable and logical approach will also be to ensure that partnerships are established with the Guam Fire Department, the Division of Forestry & Soil Resources, and NRCS (all of which have long term funding for fire prevention and suppression) and ensure that the goals of the campaign are aligned with and integrated into their long term strategic plans.

ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING ALL AUDIENCES

The action plan document has been added in section 19 and it also attached in the appendix. It summarizes the overall strategy for the each target audience, including the smart objectives, partners and tools required, monitoring plan, potential risks for each stage of the theory of change.

B. Project Site

Before launching a Pride campaign, it’s imperative to fully understand the site that will be the focus of the campaign, its known threats and causes, policies or legislation that may impact the site, and other conservation initiatives taking place at the location. This is done by first conducting a site review and preparing a background paper summarizing the primary and secondary information gathered and from where it was sourced. The results of the work done to prepare this chapter of the plan should also help identify key stakeholder and key biodiversity targets.

This next section will dive into the project site, including:

1.0 Site Summary

1.1 Important Information and Resources

1.2 Background on Guam

1.3 Location and Topography of Southern Guam

1.4 Biodiversity of Guam (Flora and Fauna)

1.5 Land Tenure

1.6 Demography

1.7 Conservation Values

1.8 Known Threats

1.9 Management of Guam

2.0 Project Team and Stakeholders

2.1 Lead Agency and Campaign Manager2.2 Other Groups on Guam

2.3 Key Stakeholders

1.0 SITE SUMMARY

1.0. a Important information, sources and contacts used in the preparation of this document

The following available written resources were used to gather initial data and background:

AVAILABLE WRITTEN RESOURCES

REVIEWED?

Maps

· Topographic

· Southern Municipalities

· Southern Watersheds

Scientific and other Studies

· The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam; Burdick et al. 2008

· Fire, erosion, and sedimentation in the Asan-Piti watershed and War in the Pacific ; Minton, D. 2005.

Prior, current strategic plans

· Guam Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, Guam Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources. 2006

· Guam Coastal Management Program Section 309 Assessment and Strategy January 2006

Other

· Territory of Guam 2004 Fire Assessment, Guam Forestry & Soil Resources Division

· Final Report, Fire Prevention and Education Team, Guam Forestry & Soil Resources Division

· Natural Resources Atlas of Southern Guam- Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific

The following groups provided key inputs into the site summary through one-on-one conversations either in person or on the phone.

KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS[endnoteRef:2] [2: ]

WORKING AT SITE?

INTERVIEWED? (Y,N)

Government Departments

Guam Coastal Management Program, BSP

Guam Department of Agriculture:

Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources

Forestry & Soil Resources Division

Law Enforcement Division

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Guam Fire Department

Resource Users

Southern Hunters (youth and adults)

Southern Community members (youth and adults)

Farmers Groups

Soil & Water Conservation Board

NGO’s

Guam Environmental Education Partners, Inc.

The Nature Conservancy

Other

· Youth organizations

· Mayors offices

· University of Guam

· Water and Energy Resource Institute (WERI)

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Abstract

The U.S. territory of Guam is located at in the Pacific Ocean at 13°28’N, 144°45’E, or approximately 3,300 miles West of Hawaii, 1,500 miles East of the Philippines and 1,550 miles South of Japan (http://www.guam-online.com/). It is the southernmost island in the Mariana archipelago and is the largest island in Micronesia with an area of 210 square miles (or approximately 560 km2). Guam’s beautiful coral reef ecosystems are home to over 400 species of coral, making it one of the most diverse US jurisdictions. They are an integral part of Guam’s culture and economy. The health of Guam’s reefs has decline over the last few decades and they face the threats of land based sources of pollution (sedimentation & run-off); Overfishing; Lack of public awareness; Recreational use and misuse; Climate change/coral bleaching/disease; and development and population increase. Local agencies have partnered together to tackle these threats and increase public awareness of the importance of Guam’s coral reefs and the need to protect them. Wildfires being started by illegal hunters have decimated the vegetation in the upland areas resulting in the formation of badlands and severe erosion into the watersheds. Sedimentation caused by this upland erosion is of most concern. Through public engagement, it is hoped that the threat of sedimentation can be decreased to improve water quality, and help conserve Guam’s precious coral reef ecosystems.

Site Summary

1.1 Description of Physical Site

Definition of Site

The U.S. territory of Guam is located in the Pacific Ocean at 13°28’N, 144°45’E, or approximately 3,300 miles West of Hawaii, 1,500 miles East of the Philippines and 1,550 miles South of Japan (http://www.guam-online.com/). It is the southernmost island in the Mariana archipelago and is the largest island in Micronesia with an area of 210 square miles (or approximately 560 km2).

The northern part of the island is a forested coralline limestone plateau. The northern areas have more intact forest but need management actions such as ungulate control and out planting to enhance the quality of the habitat. The southern half of the island is primarily volcanic with large areas of highly erodible lateritic soils. Vegetation in the south is characterized by grasslands, ravine forests and wetlands (Fosberg 1960). A variety of reefs are represented on Guam, patch reefs, submerged reefs, offshore banks, and barrier reefs, and a fringing coral reef surrounds most of the island, except in areas where bays exist that provide access to small rivers and streams that run down from the hills into the Pacific Ocean and Philippine Sea. Additionally there are approximately 70 ha of mangroves. (GCWCS)

Terrestrial Ecosystem types (IUCN)

IUCN 1.5

Subtropical/Tropical Dry

IUCN 1.6

Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland

IUCN 2.1

Savanna – Dry

IUCN 3.5

Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry

IUCN 4.5

Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry

IUCN 7.1

Caves

IUCN 12.1

Rocky Shoreline

IUCN 12.2

Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc.

IUCN 13.1

Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands

IUCN 14.2

Artificial/Terrestrial – Padstureland

Marie Ecosystem types (IUCN)

IUCN 9.1

Pelagic

IUCN 9.2

Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reef

IUCN 9.8

Coral Reef

IUCN 9.9

Seagrass (submerged)

Physical Region

The northern portion of the island is a limestone plateau, rising nearly 200 meters above sea level in some places, which overlies rock or volcanic origin (Burdick et al 2008). The southern half of the island is old weathered volcanic material with a cap of limestone most prominent of the Mt. Lamlam-Alifan ridge. The highest point of the island is Mt. Lamlam, in the south, an elevation of 406 m. The grasslands and ravine forests characterizes the vegetation in the south. (GCWCS)

The entire island of Guam has been designated, both locally and federally, as a coastal zone. Guam is divided into 19 watersheds in the southern half of the island. The northern Guam sub watershed was defined as an area that has no clearly define drainage was, composed of a shallow soil layer or permeable limestone with little or no runoff. This is the location of the northern aquifer (GCWCS).

The climate is characterized as tropical marine. The weather is generally warm and humid with little seasonal temperature variation. The mean high temperature is 86°F (30 °C) and mean low is 74°F (23 °C) with an average annual rainfall of 96 inches (2,439 mm). The dry season runs from December through June. During the dry season, humidity is relatively low and the island experiences northeasterly trade winds (GCWCS). The remaining months constitute the rainy season. During the wet season, humidity is high and weak southerly or southeasterly winds occur. The highest risk of typhoons is during October and November although typhoons can and do occur at anytime during the year. Humidity ranges from 65-90% (Burdick et al 2008).

Infrastructure around Site

Southern Guam is divided into 10 municipalities: Asan-Maina, Piti, Agat, Santa Rita, Umatac, Merizo, Inarajan, Talofofo, Yona, Ordot-Chalan Pago, and parts of Mangilao (for watershed mapping).

1.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Site

Site/Park History

Given its strategic location in the Pacific, Guam has had an interesting history. Guam’s original inhabitants, the ancient Chamorro people are believed to have been a seafaring people who arrived in Guam on outrigger canoes from Southeast Asia. Over nearly 600 years Guam has been occupied by many of the world’s expanding nations. The Spanish Era (1565-1898); the American Period (1898-1941), the Japanese Occupation (1941-1944), and Liberation and US Territorial Status which occurred in 1944 and is still the status today. http://www.guam-online.com/history/history.htm.

Land Use/Land Tenure

In Guam’s traditional systems, land was owned by familial clans as a corporate group. During the reoccupation by the US military, almost half of the island was taken by the American government. These acts dispossessed many Chamorros, who had few assets other than their ancestral lands (will add reference later). The US Congress later established private ownership of land. A lottery regulated by the Chamorro Land Trust gives Chamorros the opportunity to own property on Guam.

Anderson Airforce base in the north and US Naval Base in the south comprise the nearly one third of the island owned today by the US Federal Government. The Government of Guam owns another on third in the form of parks, recreational and conservational areas. The remaining third is owned privately either by foreign or native born landowners. (Cheryl’s summary, need source).

Main Livelihoods and Incomes

Data from the 2000 Guam census outlines the main industries and livelihoods of the people of Guam. The next census is expected to be conducted in 2010.

Subject

Number

Percent

 

 

OCCUPATION

 

 

Employed civilian population 16 years and over

57,053

100.0

Management, professional and related occupations

15,852

27.8

Service occupations

12,654

22.2

Sales and office occupations

16,027

28.1

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

212

0.4

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations

6,771

11.9

Production, transportation and material moving occupations

5,537

9.7

 

 

INDUSTRY

 

 

Employed civilian population 16 years and over

57,053

100.0

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

296

0.5

Construction

5,532

9.7

Manufacturing

1,155

2.0

Wholesale trade

1,948

3.4

Retail trade

7,558

13.2

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

4,319

7.6

Information

1,540

2.7

Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and leasing

3,053

5.4

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and

 

 

waste management services

4,277

7.5

Educational, health, and social services

8,412

14.7

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and

 

 

food services

10,278

18.0

Other services (except public administration)

2,158

3.8

Public administration

6,527

11.4

Subject

Number

Percent

 

INCOME IN 1999

 

Households

38,769

100.0

Less than $2,500

3,110

8.0

$2,500 to $4,999

698

1.8

$5,000 to $9,999

1,768

4.6

$10,000 to $14,999

2,128

5.5

$15,000 to $24,999

4,758

12.3

$25,000 to $34,999

4,842

12.5

$35,000 to $49,999

6,357

16.4

$50,000 to $74,999

7,175

18.5

$75,000 to $99,999

3,982

10.3

$100,000 or more

3,951

10.2

Median household income (dollars)

39,317

(X)

Mean household income (dollars)

49,617

(X)

Site population and neighbors

Guam of today is a truly cosmopolitan community with a unique culture, the core of which is the ancient Chamorro heavily influenced by the Spanish occupation and the Catholic Church. Strong American influence is also evident in the celebration of many public holidays, the form of Government and the pride in being U.S. that is displayed by the populace. Guam’s culture has also been influenced and enriched by the Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Micronesian immigrants each group of whom have added their unique contributions. The present population of Guam, 2006, is approximately 171,000 of whom roughly 37% are Chamorro, 26% Filipino, 11% other Pacific Islander with the remaining 26% primarily Caucasian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese, all of whom bring their cultural heritage and customs and contribute to Guam 's unique culture and appeal. (http://www.guam-online.com/history/history.htm)

Guam is the most heavily populated island in Micronesia, with an estimated population in 2007 of about 173,500 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted the population growth rate to steadily decrease over the next 50 years, but this estimate did not take into account the planned movement of roughly 26,000 additional military personnel and dependents to Guam by 2014 (Helber, Hassert and Fee Planners, 2006). Such an influx, coupled with associated migration to Guam by those seeking economic gain from the expansion, would increase the existing population by up to 38% in less than 10 years, potentially pushing the total population to over 230,000 (Guam Civilian Military Task Force, 2007).

The following populations are based on the 2000 Decennial Census (http://www.census.gov/census2000/guam.html) : Agana Heights (5200), Agat (5656), Asan-Maina (2090), Barrigada (8652) Chalan-Pago-Ordot (5923), Dededo (42980), Hagatna (1100), Inarajan (3052), Mangilao (13313), Merizo (2163), Mongmong-Toto-Maite (5845), Piti (1666), Santa Rita (7500), Sinajana (2853), Talofofo (3215), Tamuning (18012), Umatac (887), Yigo (19474), Yona (6484)

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

 

Total households

38,769

Family households (families)

32,367

With own children under 18 years

19,678

Married-couple families

22,693

With own children under 18 years

13,964

Female householder, no husband present

6,284

With own children under 18 years

3,753

Nonfamily households

6,402

Householder living alone

5,082

Householder 65 years and over

659

 

Households with individuals under 18 years

23,346

Households with individuals 65 years and over

6,247

 

Average household size

3.89

Average family size

4.27

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

 

Population 25 years and over

83,281

Less than 9th grade

7,843

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

11,862

High school graduate (includes equivalency)

26,544

Some college, no degree

16,611

Associate degree

3,787

Bachelor’s degree

12,774

Graduate or professional degree

3,860

 

Percent high school graduate or higher

76.3

Percent bachelor’s degree or higher

20.0

1.3 Main Factors Affecting the Site

Known Threats to Local Biodiversity (write as a narrative)

Based on the IUCN list, Guam is facing several threats including: Habitat loss/Degradation (IUCN 1.4), Harvesting (IUCN 3.1), Pollution (IUCN 6.3), Natural Disasters (IUCN 7.2), Human disturbance (IUCN 10.5). Guam’s reefs are facing the threats of: Land based sources of pollution, sedimentation, run-off; Overfishing; Lack of public awareness; Recreational use and misuse; Climate change/coral bleaching/disease; and development and population increase (DOD) with the upcoming military build-up (Burdick et al 2008).

From the 2008 Status of the Coral Reefs Report (Burdick et al 2008):

“Sedimentation of nearshore habitats, primarily a result of severe upland erosion, continues to be one of the most significant threats to Guam’s reefs. Sedimentation is most prevalent in southern Guam, where steep slopes, underlying volcanic rock, barren areas and areas with compromised vegetation contribute large quantities of the mostly lateritic, clay-like soils to coastal waters. According to one estimate, the sediment yield of unvegetated “badlands” is more than 20 times that of ravine forests (243 tons/acre/yr versus 12 tons/acre/yr), while savannah grasslands, which also cover large areas of southern Guam, produce more than 2.5 times as much sediment as ravine forests (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, NRCS, 1995). The excess sediment flows into coastal waters, where it combines with organic matter in sea water to form “marine snow,” falling to the seafloor and smothering corals and other sessile organisms. Sediment, along with excess nutrients and freshwater, can also interfere with or inhibit coral gamete production, release, and viability, and larval survival, settlement and recruitment. While it is generally held that Guam’s southern reefs have evolved under a regime characterized by a larger sediment loads than at northern reefs, an increase in destructive anthropogenic activities, including wildland arson, clearing and grading of forested land, inappropriate road construction methods and recreational off-road vehicle use, as well as grazing by feral ungulates, have accelerated rates of sedimentation and appear to have exceeded the sediment tolerance of coral communities in these areas, resulting in highly degraded reef systems. In Fouha Bay, for example, more than 100 coral species were found along transects in the southern part of the bay in 1978, but less than 50 were found in 2003, demonstrating a significant loss in species richness”.

“Wildfires set by poachers are believed to be the main cause of badlands development and persistence (Minton, 2005). Despite being illegal, intentionally-set fires continue to burn vast areas of southern Guam. According to figures from the Department of Agriculture’s Forestry and Soil Resources Division (FSRD), an average of over 700 fires have been reported annually between 1979 and 2006, burning over 46.5 ha (115,000 acres) during this period (Figure 15.9* Will include this figure, need to get from source). The devastating effects of illegally-set wildfires in southern Guam are exacerbated by the drought-like conditions associated with El Niño events.”

“Other threats: Recreational Use & Misuse: The number of visitors to Guam grew from 1.16 million visitors in 2004 to 1.21 million in 2006, indicating continued growth after a 10-year low of approximately 910,000 in 2003 (Guam Visitors Bureau, 2006). SCUBA diving, snorkeling and related activities continue to be very popular for both tourists and residents. According to a recent coral reef economic valuation study conducted on Guam, an estimated 300,000 dives are performed on Guam each year (van Beukering et al., 2007). Official Pacific Association of Dive Industry statistics cited in this study indicate that around 6,000 open water certifications were provided in 2004; the number of certifications provided by other organizations is not known. The number of divers and snorkelers visiting Guam’s reefs will likely increase significantly with the additional military personnel, their dependents and others associated with the military expansion. Overuse and misuse of certain high-profile reef areas for recreational activities continues to be a concern.”

“Coastal Development & Runoff: Although most development between 2004 and 2007 has involved residential or other small-scale construction, several major development projects have started recently or are planned for the near future to accommodate the growing tourism sector and planned military expansion. Development associated with the incoming military personnel, their dependents, and support staff, such as construction of military facilities and off-base housing developments and road-building activities, has the potential to negatively impact coastal water quality.” No formal stormwater regulations have been developed or adopted and there is poor enforcement on pollution prevention programs. “The primary pollutants to most waters around Guam – and specifically to recreational beaches – are microbial organisms, petroleum hydrocarbons and sediment. “

A 2005 National Park Service study found that sedimentation rates in Asan Bay were among the highest in the literature. The extremely elevated rate of sediment collection is sufficient to raise serious concerns about the long term health and survival of Guam’s reefs (Minton 2005). Furthermore, Minton states that prior to anthropogenic influences, Guam’s environment was unfavorable to fire ignition. In fact, is it is the human induced fires which may be aiding in spreading the savanna grassland vegetation which are tolerant to and promote further burning. “The presence of savanna vegetation instead of forest may also be contributing to elevated soil loss, as erosion in savanna areas may be 100x times higher than in scrub forest” (Minton, 2005).

1.4 Conservation Issues

Biodiversity of Site

Under natural conditions, Guam hosted a rich diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species. Over 100 species of birds have been documented on the island including migrant, wetland, seabird, grassland, and forest birds (Reichel and Glass 1991, Engbring and Fritts 1988*). Three native mammals were also known to Guam, including the Marianas fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), little Marianas fruit bat (Pteropus tokudae) and Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata rotensis), although the Marianas fruit bat is the only extant species. There are six native reptiles, five skink species, and one gecko species that are still found in the wild. Several native tree snail species still exist in low numbers on Guam. Two species of snails, Samoana fragilis and Partula radiolata, have been on the candidate list of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973*) for more than 10 years and currently do not receive federal protection. Guam has more than 320 native plant species of which six deserve greater attention, but unfortunately only one, Serianthes nelsonii, is eligible for funding under the ESA. (GCWCS)

Guam’s coral reef ecosystems are home to over 5100 species of marine organisms, including over 1,000 near shore fish species and over 300 species of scleractinian coral (Burdick et al 2008). It is the closest US jurisdiction to The Coral Triangle- the global epicenter of marine species diversity and one of the top priorities for marine conservation. This magnificent region of the ocean covers an area of 5.7 million km2 and contains more than one-third of all the world's coral reefs. According to the journal Micronesica, over 403 scleractinian (stony) & hydrozoan coral species, representing 21 families and 108 genera are found in the Mariana Islands. In addition, over 120 species of non-scleractinian anthozoans (includes anemones and soft corals) were reported (Randall 2003). This amount of diversity is even more significant if one looks at one particular genus. For example, in Guam, over 30 species of the genus Acropora have been reported. Comparatively, for the entire Caribbean only 60 coral species, in total, have been reported. This gives a distinct picture of the scale of the diversity of Guam’s coral reefs, and the need to protect them. Several endemic species of fish have been reported from the Marianas such as the Yellow Crowned Butterflyfish (Chaetodon flavocorinatus) reported from Guam and Saipan, and the Guam Damsel Chaetodon guamenis. (Meyers, 1999*).

Guam has over 550 terrestrial species including 26 endemic species. Guam has 143 species listed on the IUCN Red Data list. The status of these species was evaluated by BirdLife International, Mollusc Specialist Group, and Chiroptera Specialist Group – the official Red List Authority for birds, mollusks and bats for the IUCN.

Conservation History

The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), established in 1994, is a partnership among governments, civil society and organizations seeking to stop and reverse the global degradation of coral reefs and related ecosystems. In 1997, the Government of Guam adopted a Guam Coral Reef Initiative to establish a policy development mechanism for the protection of Guam's coral reefs. Through this initiative, Guam has established 5 Local Action Strategies (LAS) to address specific threats to Guam’s coral reefs described further in current conservation programs. It is through this program that sedimentation was identified as a major threat to Guam’s coral reefs, and funding has been provided to address this threat through support of this campaign.

In addition to the CRI, Guam is a part of the Micronesia Challenge, a commitment by the Chief Executives of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the U.S. Territory of Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to effectively conserve at least 30% of the near-shore marine and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by the year 2020. The MC is an important overarching project in Guam, combining the efforts of local resource managers & current management projects into an effective movement for conservation, and garnering support as part of a larger commitment throughout Micronesia. Many of the areas to be conserved in this challenge are located in Guam’s watersheds, the focal areas of the campaign. Additionally, many of the key volunteers for this project will be MC interns who can provide technical assistance as well as recruit manpower for campaign projects.

Guam Marine Preserves: On 16 May 1997, Public Law 24-21 was implemented creating 5 marine preserves-- the Pati Point Preserve, the Tumon Bay Preserve, the Piti Bomb Holes Preserve, the Sasa Bay Preserve, and the Achang Reef Flat Preserve. The Piti Bomb Holes are a part of the sedimentation monitoring for this project as it is at the base of the Piti/Asan watershed. These areas constitute the majority of the coastline protected under the MC. The marine preserves are part of the Fisheries Management LAS under the Coral Reef Initiative and contribute to the overarching goals of the Micronesia Challenge.

In addition to these protected areas, Guam has several established other conservation areas including the Anao Conservation Area, Cotal Conservation Area, Balonos Conservation Area, Federal Conservation Areas: Haputo Ecological Reserve Area , Orote Point Ecological Reserve, National Park Service: War in the Pacific National Historic Parks (see conservation areas map, appendix *). Of particular interest are the War in the Pacific sites as they fall within one of the proposed monitoring areas for the campaign, and are a part of the Asan/Piti watershed.

Another restoration project is being done in the Piti/Asan watershed. The restoration is being run by the Guam Coastal Management Program & Department of Agriculture- Includes Masso River Reservoir restoration project and “green” restoration of a public park using best management practices. As a part of this restoration The Nature Conservancy has sponsored a Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Workshop with several agencies and stakeholders in the community. Based on the first few iterations of the CAP process, Sedimentation/Runoff was identified as one of the key threats to the corals in this watershed. Key projects include: 1) assessment of the existing conditions and the development of a plan to improve the area including restoration of existing structures, a drainage map on tributary areas and stormwater runoff; 2) alternatives for stormwater management and preferred stormwater management plan, and recommendations on infrastructure improvements and; 3) design improvements including a small parking lot, proper lighting, paver walkways, and proper drainage. This campaign will work closely with the CAP coordinator to overlap efforts where possible with regards to sedimentation reduction and community education.

Another important project in southern Guam which is anticipated to begin in 2009 is the Sella Bay Mitigation. The United States Navy will be extending Kilo Wharf (located in Apra Harbor) approximately 400 feet. Approximately 3.28 acres of coral reef will be dredged and 14.88 additional acres may be degraded due to dredging-related sediments. As compensatory mitigation, the United States Navy has agreed to implement a 4.5 million dollar Restoration Plan for Sella Bay Watershed. The plan was prepared by the Guam Department of Agriculture and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. The goals set forth for this mitigation project by the Division are: (1) Improved reef condition/health as a result of restored hydrologic flows and reduced sediment and other non-point-source pollution from the watershed, and (2) Adaptive management for native forest and savannah restoration, by (a) passive restoration eliminating barriers to recovery and (b) active restoration of native forest and savannah species. Approximately 500 acres in the Sella watershed will be reforested with native vegetation in order to improve water quality and restore a healthy coral reef at Sella and Bay. The habitats and species at Sella Bay are similar to those at Kilo Wharf. The governor of Guam signed this mitigation agreement on 05 June 2008. To assure successful mitigation at Sella, aggressive erosion control and fire prevention practices, long term assurances that the land will remain as forest, control of feral ungulate populations, effective enforcement, and a comprehensive monitoring are necessary. This is an unprecedented project by DoD, the first off-site mitigation, and is an important pilot program for future mitigation efforts. (need reference) This is another project which will be very integral to the Rare campaign providing a partner for community engagement and barrier removal.

The Guam Coral Reef Monitoring Group will kick off in 2009. The group will be comprised of individuals from several local and federal agencies/institutions recently developed an island-wide coral reef monitoring strategy that includes the long-term monitoring of several high-priority sites and capacity building within the local government and university to ensure the strategy’s success. This comprehensive monitoring program will provide data about a number of important measures of coral reef ecosystem health, including various parameters for water quality, benthic habitat, and associated biological communities. Monitoring these variables will allow resource managers to evaluate the effectiveness of specific management strategies and serve as an early warning system for identifying changes in reef health. The success of the monitoring program has become even more critical with the impending military expansion, which will require a robust, quantitative approach to monitoring the impacts of the direct and indirect stressors associated with the expansion and for assessing the effectiveness of mitigation activities in improving reef health, such as large-scale watershed restoration in southern Guam. (This is a key project for the campaign as we will utilize this group as part of our conservation result assessment.)

Other Conservation Partners:

Department of Agriculture:

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources – Jay Gutierrez 671-735-3980;

Forestry and Soil Resources Division- Justin Santos 671-735-3949;

Guam Environmental Protection Agency- Mike Gawel 671-475-1646;

The Nature Conservancy- Trina Leberer tleberer@tnc.org,

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

Coral Reef Conservation Program- Kacky Andrews kacky.andrews@noaa.gov,

Coastal Zone Management- Bill Millhouser bill.millhouser@noaa.gov,

Fisheries- Gerry Davis Gerry.davis@noaa.gov;

Guam Visitors’ Bureau- Doris Ada 671-646-5278;

Guam Environmental Education Partners’ Incorporated- Adrienne Lorizel loerzela@mail.gov.gu;

Mayors’ Council- Pido Terlaje 671-475-6940;

I-Recycle- Peggy Denney 671-483-9415;

Guam Historic Preservation- Patrick Lujan 671-475-6294;

Department of Public Works- Lawrence Perez 671-646-3131

University of Guam Marine Lab- Peter Schupp -971-735-2175

Water & Energy Research Institue (WERI)- Dr. Gary Denton 671-735-2685

Guam Community College- Elvie Tyler etyler@guamcc.edu

National Park Service- War in the Pacific National Historical Park- Mark Capone 671-477-7278;

Natural Resource Conservation Service- Jocelyn Bamba 671-472-7490;

Marine Mania- Linda Tatreau lindian@ite.net

Previous Conservation Education Campaigns (CEC)

Through the various partners, and groups such as the Guam Environmental Education Committee, many conservation education initiatives have taken place, or will soon be taken place on Guam including: Arson-prevention- limited-term (one year) arson campaign coordinator was hired (Justin Santos) at the Department of Agriculture to deal with arson in Guam’s Southern Watersheds, through the Guam Coral Reef Initiative Management grant. Justin will be a major partner in this campaign providing insight to his experiences with arson prevention and introducing barrier removal partners.

The Guam Year of the Reef campaign was conducted throughout 2008 and hosted several events for both youth and adults promoting Guam’s coral reefs and ending off with a grand finale event, encouraging participants to take action to protect Guam’s reefs and other natural resources. The GYOR was funded by several grants from NOAA and NFWF and was supported through the GCMP. Other campaigns which have been very successful include the Guardians of the Reef, a program funded through the GCMP in which local high school students develop coral reef lessons which are taught in partnering 3rd grade classes around the island. As the program embarks on its third year preliminary surveys have shown it to be very successful in increasing knowledge of the importance of Guam’s reefs and the threats to them. Another youth program funded by GCMP is a youth driven watershed puppet show (may be GREAT for the campaign). Thus far it has been used at several events such as Earth Day and the kids Eco Expo, and has been an instrumental tool used by Marine Mania, a local environmental group. The Guam EPA is also working to develop a community outreach group focused on watershed awareness. The coordinator for this program is a part of the initial campaign stakeholder meeting as she will be a great partner throughout the campaign.

One final ongoing campaign is the "Go Native! - Prutehi I Islan Guahan" Rare Pride Campaign led by Campaign manager Cheryl Calaustro through the DAWR. Cheryl’s project hopes to create areas where the Guam rail (ko’ko’) can be reintroduced and reduce the numbers of invasive/predatory species on Guam and possibly establish new areas for native species reintroduction on both mainland and off-shore islands, such as Cocos Island. This campaign has laid the groundwork for working with local communities and several of the groups she has worked with will be involved in this campaign. She will act as a mentor campaign CM and will be a great partner for the current campaign through her lead agency.

In 2003, the USFS Region 5, State and Private Forestry, assisted the Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and Soil Resources with the arson problem in Southern Guam. A full copy of the report is listed in the appendix. The tasks of the project were: (1) to establish contact with cooperators working on the coral reef effects issue to provide background on the wildland arson fire problem; (2) promote partners to carry messages; (3) develop a photo essay telling the story of arson’s effects on watersheds and the subsequent effects on the social and economic sectors; (4) develop a conceptual theater slide and poster campaign ideas and examples; (5) write two news releases highlighting the problem, the effects and what people can do to help; (6) draft concepts for PSAs that may be used on radio or television. While the project accomplished each of its goals, arson and wildland fire continued to be a problem in Guam. It indicated that the team did not have the funding or staffing to complete a full campaign, but that one was much needed. Among the key recommendations of the report for a future arson prevention campaign: to create a Guam Fire Cooperators group unified to present messages and garner support for the fire service in Guam, include a fire representative on the coral reef coordination committee, increase law enforcement and game wardens, continue use of the media and other sources to spread messages focused on culture, statistics, and history, and to develop a three year interagency & interdisciplinary campaign. This Rare pride campaign will encompass all of those recommendations and continue where the project left off. Using the tools of social marketing and targeted messaging based on qualitative and quantitative research, a specific and focused campaign can achieve the conservation result.

Conservation Legislation

As a territory of the United States, Guam has an elected Governor who oversees control of the island along with local legislative and judicial branches in the forms of an elected senator and supreme court system that oversee policy making. The natural resources are managed local government agencies. (see table next page)

Of the existing legislation that are most important are the Organic Act, Guam’s overarching legislation creating our executive and legislative branches and outlining regulations of what agencies have authority over what resources. Several laws have been passed with specific information as to what these agencies are.

Guam’s Hunting rules and regulations (Chapter 11: Article 2) state “§11117. The use of fire or artificial light of any kind as an aid to the taking of game is prohibited.” However it is very difficult for the conservation officers to enforce this regulation because there is no follow through in prosecution. Illegal hunters are arrested, booked and released, but their cases never make it to trial, and aside from the arrest and confiscation of any gear, there is no follow through. According to the officers, the courts are understaffed and do not see this misdemeanor as a serious crime. The Law Enforcement Division has drafted a citation program which would empower officers to issue tickets to offenders (which if not paid would be a higher offense), but it has not yet been approved by the Attorney General. This draft has been with the office for several years, and has become a point of aggravation for these officers. A full copy of the hunting regulations is provided in the appendix.

The Guam Fire Department has encountered similar problems. Fires are allowed on Guam, provided they comply with the Rules and Regulations as set forth by the Department of Environmental Regulation (Chapter 17-5), or that a special permit has been issued by the department. There is no mechanism set in place to fine individuals for these violations, unless they are impeding the work of the firefighters (Chapter 72), and this is also considered a misdemeanor. The officers are often left finding the same individuals violating regulations, and are not able to hold them accountable other than to issue verbal warnings, or to charge them with a misdemeanor that will more often than not never make it to court. GFD has also developed a citation program that is in draft form with the Attorney General’s office awaiting review and approval (and has been there for several years). The passing of this would allow them to more efficiently enforce the Rules and Regulations.

Level of Tourism

The main industry in Guam is tourism. Guam’s reef resources are both economically and culturally important, providing numerous goods and services for the residents of Guam, including cultural and traditional use, tourism, recreation, fisheries, and shoreline and infrastructure protection. A recent economic valuation study estimated that the coral reef resources of Guam are valued at approximately $127 million per year. Tourism is Guam’s main industry, and with an average of one million people visiting each year, $94.6 million dollars are brought in each year because of clean beaches and beautiful reefs. On a local level, of 400 households surveyed, 92% said that they utilized the beaches in some way whether they swim or not, 45% said they use the reefs regularly to fish for food, and 44% said they enjoyed snorkeling. Clean, clear, and safe water were considered to be among the most important recreational amenities (van Beukering et al., 2007).

1.5 Park/Protected Area Management

Park Management Overview

The main protected areas are shown in the figure. Of particular interest are the areas in Southern Guam. There are three marine preserves which are enforced by the Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Officers, where no catch is allowed with the exception of special seasonal cultural take (permit issued seasonally). The terrestrial conservation areas are managed areas of no development and limited to no take of any terrestrial species (by permit only) but management and enforcement are limited.

-Sasa Bay Marine Preserve………………………..………287 ha

-Achang Reef Flat Preserve………………………………. 485 ha

-Piti Bomb Holes Preserve………………………………… 362 ha

-Masso River Reservoir Conservation Area............67 ha-Bolanos Conservation Area…………………………….. 365 ha

-Cotal Conservation Area …………………………………. 268 ha

-War in the Pacific National Historical Parks (V)...374 ha    

(779 ha including water and coral reef areas)

-Guam Territorial Seashore Park (V)...................3,645 ha     (not shown)

(6,135 ha including reef and coastal waters)- limited development

(areas from: Pacific Areas Biodiversity Forum: www.pbif.org)

Stakeholders in Protected Area Management

Marine Preserves- Department of Agriculture

Guam Conservation Areas- Department of Agriculture & USNavy (where overlap occurs)

Navy Ecological Reserve- US Navy

Ritidian National Wildlife Refuge- US Fish & Wildlife

War in the Pacific NHP- National Park Service

References for site summary listed in at the end of this document.

2.0 PROJECT TEAM AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS

2.1 Lead Agency and Pride Campaign Manager

The Guam Coastal Management Program is a program under the Government of Guam’s Bureau of Statistics and Plans and is 100% federally funded with an annual budget of approximately $950,000. Its mission is to protect and enhance the quality of Guam’s coastal environment from ridge to reef through the protection of Guam’s natural and cultural resources in the face of economic growth and development. Among other objectives, the GCMP networks with other government agencies and non-governmental organizations to coordinate activities related programs; Conducts Guam Federal application clearinghouse reviews for Bureau of Statistics and Plans; Coordinates federally funded projects on pollution control, environmental protection, natural and historic resources use and conservation, development, management, hazard management and planning; Public outreach and education on coastal management issues; Coordinates the Guam Coral Reef Initiative and Guam’s strategy for implementing the Micronesia Challenge; all of which will be utilized at some point during this campaign. Additionally, GCMP is involved in several regional and international initiatives. Specific information on each of these is listed with current conservation programs and initiatives: Coral Reef Initiative (CRI), Micronesia Challenge (MC), International Year of the Reef (IYOR), US Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF), Pacific Islands Marine Protected Areas Community (PIMPAC), South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). (GCMP 309 Assessment).

The Campaign Manager selected for this project is Elaina Todd, a NOAA coral reef management fellow working for the GCMP. Elaina has lived in Guam for 17 years. Having grown up in Guam she is very familiar with the threats to Guam’s coral reefs. She received her Bachelor’s degree in biology from University of Guam, much of her coursework being focused on Guam’s ecology and natural resources. She has been a partner to Guam’s resource agencies for the last 5 years through her previous position as the education coordinator for UnderWater World aquarium. As a member of the Guam Environmental Education Committee she has been a part of numerous community conservation initiatives and events and a liaison with many community groups. Elaina has been actively involved in coral reef conservation for the last 10 years. She has spearheaded several community outreach initiatives from beach clean-ups to developing free educational outreach programs for Guam’s schools. She is passionate and dedicated to the conservation of Guam’s coral reefs through community involvement and education.

2.2 Other Groups Working on Guam

In addition to the government agencies listed, there are several watershed projects. Peggy Denney, Extension Agent for the University of Guam’s College of Agriculture is currently leading the Guam Yard Project in the Piti watershed. Her project aims to engage the Piti community in watershed restoration projects including tree plantings and village clean-ups, as well as the implementation of watershed management practices at home (such as composting, recycling, etc.) Her project is focused specifically on the residents of Piti. Peggy is also the island-wide coordinator for the i-Recycle program.

Another project involves Laura and Jason Biggs who are working with a SEA Grant program on incorporating educational materials focused on watershed models to be into elementary classrooms. They provide a 3 day outreach workshop taught in 4th grade classrooms focusing on teaching about watersheds, water quality, coral reefs, etc.

2.3 Key Stakeholders

Prior to and during the first university phase, the campaign manager conducted extensive background research on the site. Key stakeholders who would provide insight into threats, conservation goals, social and cultural norms and other valuable information, as well as those who may be important in achieving the goals of the campaign were identified. Stakeholders and stakeholder groups are defined as those individuals or groups that may positively, negatively, directly or indirectly affect the campaign site in some significant way or another (Rare).

In preparation for the first stakeholder meeting, a matrix was prepared to help select groups and individuals that would be helpful in discussing the issues relevant to the campaign, what they could contribute to the meeting, what would motivate them to attend the meeting, what the consequences would be of not having their attendance. The complete matrix as well as an actual list of attendees is shown below.

The individuals listed in the stakeholder matrix were invited to the stakeholder meeting held April 29, 2009 at the University of Guam. Unfortunately, the timing of the meeting conflicted with several other meeting both locally and with national partners so many of the original invitees could not attend. In some cases, a proxy was sent. The following is a list of attendees, and the full matrix is attached in the appendix.

List of Participants from First Stakeholder Meeting:

Name

Agency/Group

Benny San Nicolas

Southern Soil & Water Conservation District

Roxanna Myers

UOG Marine Lab

Esther Taitague

BSP/GCMP

Joe Torres

Department of Agriculture

Diane Vice

Department of Agriculture- wildlife

Mike Gawel

Guam EPA

Margaret Aguilar

Guam EPA

Anne Marie Gawel

Micronesia Challenge

Michael Reyes

Department of Agriculture- law enforcement

Teri M. Perez

BSP/GCMP

Joe Mafnas

Department of Agriculture- forestry

Mark Priest

UOG Marine Lab

C. Concept Models

All Rare Pride campaigns start with building a concept model, which is a tool for visually depicting the situation at the project site. At its core, a good concept model graphically depicts a set of causal relationships between factors that are believed to impact one or more biodiversity targets. A good model should explicitly link the biodiversity targets to the direct threats impacting them and the contributing factors (including indirect threats and opportunities) influencing the direct threats. It should also provide the basis for determining where we can intervene with our strategies and where we need to develop indicators to monitor the effectiveness of these strategies.

This section will show the concept model elements the stakeholder group identified as contributing factors towards the depleting health of Serena Island’s biodiversity:

3.0 Developing a Concept Model

3.1 Concept Model in Miradi

3.2 Initial Concept Model Narrative

3.0 DEVELOPING A CONCEPT MODEL

The April 2009 stakeholder meeting brought together 12 participants who met to create a Concept Model which identified threats to Guam’s watersheds as well as the contributing factors to those threats. The project’s scope (Guam Watersheds) was divided into 3 main targets for conservation: Upland terrestrial habitats, rivers and reefs. Participants were asked if they agreed with these targets, and it was decide that “ground water” needed to be added as a target.

These four targets were placed on a “sticky wall” (a tool used for meetings allowing components to be moved around during discussions) and participants were then split into three groups and asked to identify the direct threats to these targets (or those threats having an immediate effect on the target). After all threats had been identified by each group, a consensus activity was conducted to group threats by theme, and then to name the groups, thus identifying the major direct threats.

Once direct threats were placed on the wall, connections were made to link the threats with the conservation targets which they threatened. Much lively discussion occurred to create consensus on these links. Participants were then asked to identify the indirect threats (or contributing factors) contributing to each of the direct threats, and to link those to direct threats and to each other, creating links or chains. The final result was a model or map of threats affecting Guam’s Watersheds.

Notes:

(1) Although there were only a small number of participants in comparison to the number invited, a good initial concept model was created (see figure below). All of the participants were from resource agencies or scientific backgrounds, so while the model was a good representation of the perceptions of these participants, community input was lacking.

(2) One challenge that arose from this meeting was that the scope at this time was “Guam Watersheds” encompassing both the north and south of Guam. Because of the unique geography of the island, the watersheds in the north and south are very different. The threats to northern watersheds may not necessarily be the same as the threats to southern watersheds. This created some challenges in trying to categorize threats to a general scope and create a comprehensive concept model.

Stakeholder meeting Concept Model photos:

Photos from Stakeholder Meeting:

3.1 Concept Model in Miradi

After the meeting, all of the information generated was inputted into Miradi. The initial concept model can be seen below.

Miradi is being developed to assist conservation practitioners going through the adaptive management process outlined in the Conservation Measures Partnership's Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (www.miradi.org).

(Contributing Factors/Indirect Threats [yellow boxes]) (Direct Threats [red boxes]) (Targets [green circles])

To help digest the concept model, here is a brief overview of the direct threats and contributing factors highlighted from the Stakeholder meeting.

(C. Concept Models)

Project scope and targets

Direct threats

Contributing factors (Including indirect threats)

Guam Watersheds

· Upland Terrestrial Habitats

· Ground Water

· Rivers

· Reefs

Removal of vegetation

Ungulates, recreational off-roading, apathy, lack of awareness & education, arson & fire, land cultivation, agriculture, lack of enforcement, lack of coordination among agencies, lack of funds, the pare system, profit, development and population increase (DOD)

Invasive species

Lack of awareness & education, development, population increase (DOD), lack of funds, lack of coordination, lack of manpower, lack of training, illegal entry, increased transportation, the pare system, profit

Overharvest of water

Lack of funds, lack of coordination among agencies, the pare system, profit, lack of laws/regulations addressing withdraw of water, lack of enforcement, population increase (DOD), increased demand, agriculture, aquaculture

Typhoons & earthquakes

None

Sedimentation & erosion

Removal of vegetation- ungulates, recreational off roading, apathy, lack of awareness & education, arson & fire, land cultivation, agriculture, lack of enforcement, lack of coordination among agencies, lack of funds, the pare system, profit, development and population increase (DOD)

Pollution

Lack of funds, lack of coordination among agencies, the pare system, profit, lack of enforcement, antiquated water distribution systems, population increase (DOD), increase in trash, increase in chemicals, increased landfill use, increase leachate, agriculture, aquaculture, ungulates, animal wastes

Note: In this table and the Concept Model the project scope is defined as being Guam Watersheds. Because different threats impact different facets of

this system, four priority targets were identified (upland terrestrial habitats, ground water, rivers, reefs). There was a significant amount of overlapping.

(C. Concept Models)3.2 Initial Concept Model Narrative

Some people find it easier to understand a concept when it is written out – the difference between reading a map and reading instructions on how to get to your location. This exercise can also be used to “translate” the threats described by stakeholders in layman’s terms into those used in the standardized IUCN threat nomenclature.

(Single Target - Andrea Quail Dove)

Narrative

Guam’s Watersheds can be split into four main components or targets, the upland terrestrial habitats, ground water, rivers and reefs. Many different threats affect each of these targets, and in some cases are contributing factors to each other. Five of the six direct threats identified are anthropogenic (caused by human activities, while the sixth (typhoons and earthquakes) is naturally occurring. The five main human induced threats facing Guam are:

· Removal of vegetation

IUCN: 1.2 Commercial & industrial areas; 2.3.2 Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming; 7.1.2 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity

· Invasive Species

IUCN 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species

· Overharvest of water

IUCN 7.2 Dams & water management/use

· Sedimentation & erosion

IUCN 9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation

· Pollution

IUCN 9.1 Domestic Sewage & Urban Waste Water; IUCN 9.4 Garbage & Solid Waste

The most apparent themes in the concept model are deficiencies within local resource agencies to manage resources and enforce regulations. The lack of funds, lack of coordination among agencies, corruption (pare system- special privileges or benefits given to those related to or known by persons of authority) lead to a lack of manpower and lack of enforcement. This contributes to unmanaged recreational use, illegal uses of fire, irresponsible land use. Additionally, this lack of capacity affects the ability to update basic infrastructure (water and waste management systems), and control of invasive species.

These threats are compounded by the imminent large population increase with the military (DOD) buildup over the next 5-10 years, which will put even more strain on these systems and drastically increase development and land use. These deficiencies in management and enforcement are further reflected by the lack of awareness and education among the general public of various rules and regulations and best management practices in recreation, land use, fire use, and hunting.

D. Threat Analysis

Most sites face a myriad of threats. Conservation resources are scarce and competencies often limited. A common challenge for resource managers is determining which of these many threats we will try to address. Threat ranking is a method for making this implicit step more explicit and more objective. It involves determining and defining a set of criteria and then applying those criteria systematically to the direct threats at a site so that conservation actions can be directed where they are most needed.

4.0 Threat Ranking

4.1 Scope, Severity, and Irreversibility

4.2 Factor Chains

4.0 Threat Ranking

Using the Initial Concept Model developed at the key stakeholder meeting, Miradi software was used to provisionally rank the direct threats that they identified[endnoteRef:3]. This ranking served to: [3: (Ref: Margoluis, Richard A.; and Niklaus Salafsky [1998] Measures of Success, Island Press, Washington DC).]

1) Identify highest ranked “target” 2) Identify the highest ranked threat impacting this “target”

Miradi software automatically captures the targets from the Concept Model displaying them along the “X” axis with the direct threats aligned on the Y axis.

4.1 Scope, Severity & IrreversibilityEach threat is ranked by Scope, Severity and Irreversibility against each target using the following scoring guide:

(KEY TO THREAT CRITERIA (Based on Miradi definitions)A: SCOPE (Area)4 = Very High: The threat is likely to be very widespread across all or much of your site. 3 = High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, and affect conservation targets at many locations at your site. 2 = Medium: The threat is likely to be localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at some of the target’s locations at the site. 1 = Low: The threat is likely to be very localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at a limited portion of the target’s location at the site. B: SEVERITY – The level of damage to the conservation target that can reasonably be expected under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation). 4 = Very High: The threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. 3 = High: The threat is likely to seriously degrade the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. 2 = Medium: The threat is likely to moderately degrade the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. 1 = Low: The threat is likely to only slightly impair the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. C: IRREVERSIBILITY – The importance of taking immediate action to counter the threat. 4 = Very High: The effects of the direct threat are not reversible (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping center).3 = High: The effects of the direct threat are reversible, but not practically affordable (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture). 2 = Medium: The effects of the direct threat are reversible with a reasonable commitment of resources (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland).1 = Low: The effects of the direct threat are easily reversible at relatively low cost (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetland).)

Illustration A shows the final Threat Ranking. Illustration B shows the process of threat ranking using Miradi. Note that the summary ranking by “target” shows rivers and reefs to be the most critically threatened targets, scoring “High”, with the threat of sedimentation and erosion (on these targets) ranking as “High” (see Illustration C on next page).

Illustration A Illustration B

(D. Threat Analysis)

The stakeholders identified sedimentation and pollution as a major threats to the watersheds as a whole. The campaign manager conducted a formal threat ranking analysis (see Illustration C) and found that sedimentation and erosion was ranked as the highest threat to the watershed, specifically a “high” threat to the Reefs and Rivers. This threat ranking was shared with two additional stakeholder groups, the Southern Soil and Water Conservation Board, and the members of the Northern Soil and Water Conservation group (mostly farmers).

While stakeholders in the south agreed that sediment was indeed the most important threat in the south, the northern group felt that pollution was a much greater threat to northern watersheds. At this time, taking information from the stakeholder meeting, the threat ranking, and focused conversations with local experts, it was decided that the scope of the campaign would be narrowed to southern Guam watersheds.

Illustration C

(D. Threat Analysis)

4.2 Factor Chains

“Sedimentation & erosion” was determined to be the most critical threat to the watershed, as supported by both the stakeholder meetings and the threat ranking. The next step taken was to identify the factors that contribute to that threat and needed to be addressed to protect the targets. “Sedimentation & erosion” and all of its associated contributing factors were isolated, creating a “factor chain”.

This factor chain will help in planning the campaign, developing a barrier removal strategy and monitoring plan that will have a measureable effect on the conservation target. Three more simplified factor chains can be created from the diagram above, and items can be clarified and made more specific as to their connection to the direct threat and targets.

.

4.2.1 Factor Chain for Land Cultivation

The Factor Chain for the Land Cultivation audience includes only the contributing factors (including indirect threats) that are caused by this specific audience, related to the direct threat of sedimentation & erosion. These factors include: a lack of money or funds generated by selling products grown from agriculture which involves land cultivation and removal of vegetation which leads to sedimentation.

4.2.2 Factor Chain for Off Roading

The factor chain for off roading shows a need for money, causing tour operators to run off roading trips which removes vegetation and causes sedimentation and erosion, and also recreational users who are not aware of off roading effects on the watershed also participating on off roading which has the same effects.

4.2.3 Factor Chain for Arson

The final factor chain shows that wildland fires are being caused by hunters, who either for a need for money or a need for food use fire to hunt, destroying vegetation and causing sedimentation and erosion. This behavior has been identified as the major contributor to wildland fires which are the major contributing factor to sedimentation and erosion in Southern Guam. This factor chain identifies the indirect threat that will be addressed in the Pride campaign and the tree major contributing factors (lack of awareness/apathy; need for money/food from hunters; lack of enforcement) which need to be addressed.

(Target Threat for Pride campaign)E. Formative Research

In addition to the initial stakeholder meeting, many other conversations were conducted with experts, resource users, resource managers, potential partners, community members to ground truth assumptions made this far in the planning process. Additionally, these conversations helped in the development of potential management options, to create a greater understanding of the targeted audiences and behaviors, and to develop questions for the quantitative survey (found in section 8.0) which would test assumption of public perceptions and provide baseline data for development of campaign messaging strategies. Brief overviews of these conversations are listed with key ideas that were discussed. These conversations are not necessarily listed in the order in which they took place.

5.0 Directed Conversations

5.1 With Southern Soil & Water Conservation Board

5.2 With Northern Soil & Water Conservation Group

5.3 With Conservation Officers

5.4 With Forestry

5.5 With Game Management Division

5.6 With NRCS Representative

5.7 With Coral Monitoring Partners

5.8 With Southern Mayors

5.9 With Guam Fire Departments

6.0 Management Options (Barrier Removal Assessment Viability Overview)

7.0 Results Chain and Preliminary Objectives

8.0 Establishing a Baseline

9.0 Survey Results

9.1 Summary of Bio-data

9.2 Media Preferences by Key Segments

9.3 Trusted Sources

9.4 Knowledge and Attitude about Key Issues

9.5 Practice

9.6 New Threats Identified

9.7 Barriers to Behavior Change

9.8 Benefits

9.9 Flagship Species

10.0 Understanding Your Audience

5.0 Directed CONVERSATIONS

Based on the information gathered and analyzed from the stakeholder meeting, it was determined that they main threat to Guam’s southern watersheds was “sedimentation & erosion”. Three main behaviors were identified as contributing to this threat. The top ranked targets were the rivers and reefs. Before any further planning was done, it was important to conduct many directed conversations to better understand these threats and behaviors, and what management options there were to address them. The key ideas from each conversation are listed in this section.

5.1 With Southern Soil & Water Conservation District

A meeting was scheduled on May 20, 2009 with the Southern Soil and Water Conservation District comprised of southern Mayors and key members of southern communities. The goal of this meeting was to present the concept model and threat ranking and find out whether they were an accurate representation of threats and targets, and to generate ideas of possible management options.

· Agreed with concept model and threat ranking, but wanted to add in the Ordot dump as a threat

· Also believed that the opening of a new dump in Dandan (Inarajan) was an imminent threat

· The key to garnering public support for the campaign was to focus in on the idea of clean water. They believed that having clean water was a serious threat and that the public in their communities did not value water. Water rationing was proposed.

· It would be impossible to deal with the behavior of off roading as there were no rules and regulations against it

· Agreed that lack of enforcement was a huge problem, and that without enforcement it would be difficult to manage hunters using fire

· There were other issues in their communities related to watersheds such as river flooding which had caused deaths in their communities.

· They supported the idea of a campaign to stop wildland fires, but that they did not think it was a threat that would be easily addressed without much stricter enforcement, more officers, and ways to put out fires.

5.2 With Northern Soil & Water Conservation District

A meeting was scheduled on May 22, 2009 with the Northern Soil and Water Conser