GUAM PROJECT PLAN
ELAINA TODD, GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
SOUTHERN GUAM, OCTOBER 17, 2009 – DRAFT 2
2
THEORY OF CHANGE FORMULA
K + A + IC + BR BC TR CR
Social
marketing
campaign
increases
awareness of
the
destructiveness
of wildland fires
to southern
hunters and
community
members
Social
marketing
campaign
increases
attitude that
wildland fires
must be
prevented and
those starting
wildland fires
prosecuted.
Social
marketing
campaign
increases
discussion
among
community
members and
hunters about
wildland fires
and prevention.
Hunters are
provided with deer
bait as alternative
to burning.
Hunters stop
using fire for
hunting.
Community
members are
provided fire
hotline
Community
reports wildland
fires and uses fire
responsibly.
Number of fires
decreases.
Amount of
sediment
decreases.
% of branching
coral species
increases by
Xpp by 2015.
Water quality
improves.
Fire violation
citation programs
are passed.
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 of the value of Guam’s reef, the threats
caused by wildland fires, and the benefits of sustainable fire use practices. Hunters will be asked to use bait stations 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 fires decreases from ___ to ___
by ___ and the percent of branching coral in monitoring sites increases from ___ to ___ by ___.
3
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.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
B. PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
1.0 SITE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
2.0 PROJECT TEAM AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36
C. CONCEPT MODELS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.0 DEVELOPING A CONCEPT MODEL ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
D. THREAT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
4.0 THREAT RANKING ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
E. FORMATIVE RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5.0 DIRECTED CONVERSATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
6.0 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
7.0 RESULTS CHAINS & PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 71
8.0 ESTABLISHING A BASELINE (QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
F. REVISED CONCEPT MODELS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 92
11.0 REVISED CONCEPT MODEL ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 92
G. CAMPAIGN STRATEGY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 94
12.0 BARRIER REMOVAL OPERATIONS PLAN .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
13.0 AUDIENCE PERSONAS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106
14.0 BENEFIT LADDERS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108
15.0 SMART OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
16.0 MARKETING MIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
17.0 CAMPAIGN MESSAGES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 113
18.0 MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
H. THEORY OF CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119
19.0 THEORY OF CHANGE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119
I. BUDGET & TIMELINE....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134
20.0 PROJECT TIMELINE & BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 139
21.0 REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140
J.APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143
5
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: 1
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, Administrator
Campaign manager name
Elaina Todd
“BINGO” Partner
(and contact details)
n/a
Other partners
(and contact details)
n/a
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
Southern Hunters (est.600 based on hunting permits issued)
6
(and population)
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 of the value of Guam’s reef, the threats caused by wildland fires,
and the benefits of sustainable fire use practices. Hunters will be asked to use bait stations 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 fires decreases from ___ to ___ by
___ and the percent of branching coral in monitoring sites increases from ___ to ___ by ___.
7
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.guamonline.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
IUCN 2.1
IUCN 3.5
IUCN 4.5
IUCN 7.1
IUCN 12.1
IUCN 12.2
IUCN 13.1
IUCN 14.2
Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
Savanna – Dry
Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Caves
Rocky Shoreline
Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc.
Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
Artificial/Terrestrial – Pastureland
8
Site map
(topographical)
GPS Co-ordinates
(Google Earth)
13°N; 144°E
Biodiversity Hotspot
Near Coral Triangle
9
Other protected area status
10
Hectares addressed by campaign
Approximately 23,350 (southern watersheds)
CRITICAL SPECIES
11
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
12
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
Human Population summary (300
words)
Southern Guam (target site): 51,938
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.
13
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 fires recorded in southern villages will decrease by 50% (from X% as
taken from fire dept reports.
 By October 2012, the turbidity level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will
decrease from X to Y (a 20 pp decrease).
Long term Conservation
(ultimate success)
The long term conservation goals of the campaign are:
To improve coral size class structure, as indicated by an increase in the percentage of branching corals
from ___ to ___ (a 5pp increase) by 2015.
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
14
Staff training
Resource sustainability
Regression of behavior and the
need for sustained messaging
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.
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.
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.
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.
15
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.
16
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 Manager
2.2 Other Groups on Guam
2.3 Key Stakeholders
17
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 GROUPSi
WORKING AT SITE?
INTERVIEWED?
(Y,N)
Government Departments
Guam Coastal Management Program, BSP
YES
Guam Department of Agriculture:
Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources
YES
18
Forestry & Soil Resources Division
Law Enforcement Division
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
Guam Fire Department
YES
YES
YES
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)
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
19
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
Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits,
IUCN 12.2
Etc.
IUCN 13.1
Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
IUCN 14.2
Artificial/Terrestrial – Padstureland
20
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
humid with little seasonal temperature variation. The mean high temperature
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
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).
and
is
the
21
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.guamonline.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).
22
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
OCCUPATION
Employed civilian population 16 years
and over
Management, professional and related
occupations
Service occupations
Sales and office occupations
Farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations
Construction, extraction, and
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation and material
moving occupations
INDUSTRY
Employed civilian population 16 years
and over
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities
Information
Finance, insurance, real estate and rental
Number Percent
57,053
100.0
15,852
12,654
16,027
27.8
22.2
28.1
212
0.4
6,771
11.9
5,537
9.7
57,053
100.0
296
5,532
1,155
1,948
7,558
0.5
9.7
2.0
3.4
13.2
4,319
1,540
3,053
7.6
2.7
5.4
23
and leasing
Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and
waste management services
Educational, health, and social services
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and
food services
Other services (except public
administration)
Public administration
Subject
INCOME IN 1999
Households
Less than $2,500
$2,500 to $4,999
$5,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
Median household income (dollars)
Mean household income (dollars)
4,277
8,412
7.5
14.7
10,278
18.0
2,158
3.8
6,527
11.4
Number Percent
38,769
3,110
698
1,768
2,128
4,758
4,842
6,357
7,175
3,982
3,951
39,317
49,617
100.0
8.0
1.8
4.6
5.5
12.3
12.5
16.4
18.5
10.3
10.2
(X)
(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
24
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
Family households (families)
With own children under 18 years
Married-couple families
With own children under 18 years
Female householder, no husband
present
With own children under 18 years
Nonfamily households
Householder living alone
Householder 65 years and over
Households with individuals under 18
years
Households with individuals 65 years
and over
38,769
32,367
19,678
22,693
13,964
6,284
3,753
6,402
5,082
659
23,346
6,247
25
Average household size
Average family size
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years and over
Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate or professional degree
Percent high school graduate or higher
Percent bachelor’s degree or higher
3.89
4.27
83,281
7,843
11,862
26,544
16,611
3,787
12,774
3,860
76.3
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
26
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.”
27
“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
28
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,
29
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 highpriority 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
30
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 671-4777278;
Natural Resource Conservation Service- Jocelyn Bamba 671-472-7490;
Marine Mania- Linda Tatreau lindian@ite.net
31
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
32
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.
33
34
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)
35
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
36
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 iRecycle 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.
37
List of Participants from First Stakeholder Meeting:
Name
Benny San Nicolas
Roxanna Myers
Esther Taitague
Joe Torres
Diane Vice
Mike Gawel
Margaret Aguilar
Anne Marie Gawel
Michael Reyes
Teri M. Perez
Joe Mafnas
Mark Priest
Agency/Group
Southern Soil & Water Conservation District
UOG Marine Lab
BSP/GCMP
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture- wildlife
Guam EPA
Guam EPA
Micronesia Challenge
Department of Agriculture- law enforcement
BSP/GCMP
Department of Agriculture- forestry
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
38
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:
39
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).
40
Contributing Factors/Indirect Threats [yellow boxes]
Direct Threats [red boxes]
Targets [green circles]
41
C. Concept Models
To help digest the concept model, here is a brief overview of the direct threats and contributing factors highlighted from the Stakeholder meeting.
Project scope and targets
Guam Watersheds
- Upland Terrestrial
Habitats
- Ground Water
- Rivers
- Reefs
Direct threats
Removal of vegetation
Invasive species
Overharvest of water
Typhoons & earthquakes
Sedimentation & erosion
Pollution
Contributing factors (Including indirect threats)
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)
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
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
None
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)
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.
42
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.
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.
43
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 identifiedii. This ranking served to:
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 & Irreversibility
Each 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).
44
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).
45
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
46
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.
.
47
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.
48
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.
49
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.
50
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
51
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 Conservation District comprised of northern Mayors, farmers and key
members of northern 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, but thought removal of vegetation should be a direct threat to reefs.
Thought that the development of rules and regulations (lack of) should be added to contributing factors.
Said that they need to maintain clean water, and that there was already a lot of contamination from Andersen Airforce Base
Disagreed with threat ranking- said that for the North, pollution is the most important threat
52


Solutions to sedimentation- stricter enforcement/prosecution of arson; teach farmers in the south not to burn
Discussion turned to northern watershed issues and their need for a separate campaign to discuss pollution of the northern aquifer
As a result of this meeting, the decision was made to focus the campaign on southern Guam watersheds. It would be too difficult to do two
campaigns, and the issues in the north are very different than those in the south.
5.3 With Conservation Officers
A meeting was scheduled with the conservation officers June 5, 2009. The conservation officers are the law enforcement division of DAWR, and
are also almost all hunters. The goals of this meeting were to understand the hunting regulations, understand poaching and who the main
violators were, and generate ideas for possible management options.
 Biggest challenge faced by CO’s is that the laws are too vague and make prosecution of violators nearly impossible.
 Change the laws to make it easier; lesser burden of proof
 They need more officers as they are too few to be effective.
 Issues with Prosecution:
Last prosecution for poaching maybe 10 years ago
3rd person clause: Some sell under the guise of “livestock” as some are raised; can’t prove
Many are being sneaky, borrowing gear/vehicles/guns- must return to owner
AG is undermanned cannot spend time prosecuting misdemeanors
Are trying to implement a citation system with fines
They do get a mark on the record, but it is not a strong enough deterrent

Explained methods of hunting& hunting laws to campaign manager including tagging/permitting process

Explained hunting season, game management, mentioned use of depredation permits which are issued to kill nuisance animals that are
destroying property or land and are issued at the discretion of DAWR.

Described past hunting projects, including Volunteer Conservation Officer program, controlled hunting in closed areas

It is illegal to sell deer meat
 Management Options:
o Setting aside areas within hunting grounds to attract deer
o Possibly could burn small areas in a controlled way, working with forestry, and educate hunters of the destructiveness of fire.
o “Hunter Conservation Areas”: would work with Forestry (and other partners) and find ways to clear the land without causing
sedimentation. Vegetation would be planted to keep soil in place and also to attract the deer. Then advertise these areas to hunters as
attracting grounds for legal hunting. Poachers would come as well, but at least they wouldn’t be causing more fires. Areas could be
maintained by school groups or community groups, depending where they were placed. Work with DAWR as well as Jeff Quitugua, a
wildlife biologist, is in charge of Game Management and has the funding to do so, but no capacity within the organization to do it.
53


Planting legumes also fixes nitrogen and increases the health of the soil for forest growth. Areas could be rotated so that no one area
was used too long (to maintain health of forest and keep animals coming back).
o Training for hunters on baiting techniques such as salt licks, bait stations, and other tools used by mainland hunters. (need to research)
o Raising deer as livestock and selling legally in local markets to counter market for illegally sold deer meat. This could be good or bad,
depending on if it made it easier to sell meat, or if people would even buy it.
o Involving community in replanting efforts and a strong educational campaign
Discussed current poaching monitoring: There is not heavy poaching activity at the sites currently set aside for monitoring (Sella Bay and Pago
Bay). The bays that would be best to monitor would be Inarajan Bay, Talafofo Bay, Bear Rock Bay and other bays further south (different
watershed than current plan).
Flagship Species Ideas- Umatang (Kuhlia ruprestris) native freshwater fish, Shrimp- there is one endemic species (need to research), Ifit treeIntsia bijuga Territorial tree of Guam , <not endemic, but is IUCN red listed>
5.4 With Forestry
A directed conversation was conducted with Justin Santos, a forester with the Forestry & Soil Resources Division of the Department of Agriculture.
The goal of the conversation was to understand the current ongoing projects being done by FSRD, the past fire prevention projects, and the role
that FSD could play in this campaign.

FSD is currently growing all trees for Sella bay reforestation project, and any other watershed restoration projects. Could grow trees
for us with enough advanced notice.

Past campaigns were run by Dave Limtiaco, who passed away last year. Short staffing prevents any new projects from starting.

Past campaigns involved training teachers to be forest stewards, use fire responsibly. They could run this training if needed.

Controlled burns are done for farmers if enough advanced notice is given, but farmers usually call the day they want it, so it is not a
very widely used program.

Believes that engaging the community in watershed restoration is a good start, but that more enforcement is needed to stop wildland
arson.

Also believes that having a controlled hunting program will not engage the poachers using fire.

Is willing to help with campaign where he can, but their agency is extremely short staffed and has too many projects, so it is unlikely
they can devote much time to it other than growing trees and possibly leading some trainings.
5.5 With Game Management Division
A directed conversation was conducted with Celestino Aguon, Chief of DAWR, and Jeff Quitugua, a wildlife biologist with the department. They
comprise the Game Management division of the department. Goals of the conversation were to find out more about changing hunting regulations,
why the regulations were in place (deer are invasive and destroy native forests), and what role the department could play in the campaign.
54




The deer are protected under the Game Management Funds received by DAWR, as such they must be hunted in a controlled way and
their populations managed. Although they are invasive, they have been here so long, that they are a managed food species.
The department does issue depredation permits at their discretion and may be able to issue these permits as part of a hunting
program. This is what they do with AAFB and the permit is controlled by the VCOs there.
They think that setting up feed plots/managed hunting areas may work, but believe it will be difficult to identify land for this, and to
get all of the permits needed to do such a project. Suggest doing controlled hunting in existing protected areas (like Anao).
Are willing to help with the project, and think some type of compromise can be reached, but do not believe poachers will participate in
a controlled hunting program.
Suggest looking to see if fire are being caused by farmers clearing land as well.


5.6 With NRCS Representative
An informal directed conversation was conducted with Mark Defley of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of USDA. The goal of the
conversation was to learn what projects NRCS is running, and if the possible management options would fit in with any of their projects. Mark also
has extensive experience working on managed hunting projects in Hawaii and has a wealth of information about this group.

Targeting “poachers” is dangerous. The goal of the campaign is to reduce fires, not stop poaching. Should be very clear with
messaging so as not to offend hunters.

Experience with hunters is that to get them to participate in any program, one must first gain their trust, and understand them.
Suggested campaign manager go hunting and get to know group before making management options related to hunting.

working with the community is imperative, but focusing on setting up community managed hunting areas may only engage a small
part of the population, as most do not hunt.

If fires are the target, setting up fire watch teams in the communities and educating them about fires may be a more feasible and
impactful strategy to reduce fires.

NRCS has several fire prevention programs, though not sure where they stand (should contact Bart)

Suggested partnering with local helicopter company to do aerial surveys of the south, possibly allowing community volunteers a
chance to go and see impact of fires; possibly setting up fire watch towers; establishing pride in “fire free” villages.

Pair fire prevention efforts with watershed restoration and monitoring to fully engage community.
5.7 With Coral Monitoring Partners
A directed conversation was held with David Burdick, a Biologist/Coastal GIS Specialist of the Guam Coastal Management Program, coordinator for
the new coral monitoring program. Goals of conversation were to find out where team would monitor, what they would monitor, and how
monitoring could fit into campaign.

Program just started, and have only done two sessions, but have not yet analyzed data
55





Will be monitoring coral reef demographics (number of small vs. large corals of particular species over time) to show new recruitment,
and monitor the percentages within each site.
Currently, no southern sites have been selected other than the recreational areas (Piti), but they could be done, just not sure when.
This monitoring method is very sound, but may be difficult to explain or see results within a short period of time (less than 5 years).
Is very willing to help with project, but cannot give guarantees when that will be due to shortages in time and qualified volunteers
Is also willing to assist with any GIS/mapping needs needed for campaign monitoring
Another conversation was held with Mark Capone, Marine Ecologist and Chief of Natural Resources of the War in the Pacific National Historical
Park (National Park Service.) NPS has done extensive sedimentation monitoring in the past, and is conducting ongoing coral reef monitoring in their
park areas in Agat. The Goal of the conversation was to see what is being monitored, how often, what type of baseline data has been collected,
and how NPS could partner with the campaign.

Currently, NPS does coral monitoring annually, at 15 sites around Guam, 8 of which are in Agat. Methods used are benthic photo
transects, fish counts, and are all done in 30-60ft depth. Additionally 15 random sites are done.

Every 3 months, water quality monitoring is also done in these sites measuring a variety of water quality parameters including turbidity
salinity, DO, (will email monitoring protocol with all specifications)

there is 2 years of data currently being processed, should be done soon
NPS has become a partner in the project and will share their data collected within target for use in monitoring plan.
5.8 With Southern Mayors
A meeting was held with Mayor Carol Tayama, mayor of Agat municipality. The goal of the meeting was to introduce campaign, campaign
manager, and management options and get information about Agat residents, and willingness of mayor to participate, and get feedback on the
idea of Locally Managed Hunting Areas and other management options.

Likes overall concept and recognizes that fires are a huge threat to her village

Has been trying to address the issue since become mayor 4 years ago; fires have destroyed a lot of private property, caused many
issues for her constituents; no one admits who started fire

Is very interested in participating in the campaign; would like to participate in future planning meetings
Another meeting was held with Mayor Franklin Taitague, mayor of the Inarajan municipality. The goal of the meeting was to introduce campaign,
campaign manager, and management options and get information about Inarajan residents, and willingness of mayor to participate, and get
feedback on the idea of Locally Managed Hunting Areas and other management options.

Agrees that fires are a large issue that needs to be addressed in his village

Does not think that village residents would be receptive to any type of watershed campaign at this time because of issues with Dandan
dump
56

Wants to stay informed, and is willing to help, but thinks that using Inarajan as a target site will not work
5.9 With Guam Fire Department
A directed conversation was conducted with Joseph Terlaje, Chief of the Guam Fire Department. The goal of the conversation was to gather some
information about how wildland fire is dealt is reported and suppressed, how frequently it is reported, and to gather some general information
about fire use rules and regulations.

GFD has no specific wildland fire response team. When there is a call, the can fight it from any road, but don’t have the ability to
access most areas.

Occasionally if fires are near military bases, the military will assist with suppression (but has not been receptive to partnership requests
form GFD)

Guam fire department has been trying to more strictly enforce fire laws, such as rules for burning trash, but their draft citation
program is still awaiting approval from the AGs office.

Would be willing to support campaign and discussing setting up fire watch teams
After conducting many conversations and reviewing notes, it was noted that a few common ideas stood out:
(1) There is a lack of enforcement (both manpower and actual legal ability to prosecute) with both conservation officers and the Guam Fire
Department.
(2) Fire is a very challenging task to address, but a very necessary one, as fire is both an actual threat and a perceived one.
E. Formative Research
5.10 Benefits & Barriers
5.10.1 Benefits of preventing wildland fires
After conducting background research and conversations with foresters, conservation officers, community leaders and community members, it is
evident that reducing wildland fires is a common goal of all stakeholders. Data from the Final Report of the Guam Fire Prevention and Education
Team (2003) states:
1. $100,000 of taxpayer money per year is spent on fire suppression (Guam Fire Department/Forestry/Military Fire Department)
2. 10 tons of silt per acre lost to erosion from fires per year (2003)
3. $100,000 of planted trees have been destroyed by burning
4. 2000-2003 7596 acres were burned on Guam
5. Fire stations go unstaffed at times while firefighters respond to wildland fires, leaving community members without assistance
Reducing wildland fires would reduce these costs in addition to the overall goal of protecting coral reefs from harmful sediment.
5.1O.2 Benefits of Increasing Law Enforcement
57
Information from directed conversations indicates that there is not enough enforcement.
1. Increasing law enforcement would empower law enforcement officials to effectively cite violators (through citation programs) which would
be more effective than current programs.
a. Currently, GFD issues verbal warning to those burning illegally but cannot enforce arson laws.
b. Conservation officers can arrest individuals for hunting with fire, but none of those arrests are prosecuted.
2. Increased enforcement would create a greater sense of trust in the community. In several of the conversations it was shown that the public
does not feel that the law enforcement officials are doing their job, or that there is enough enforcement.
3. Increased enforcement would increase awareness and put a cost to the behavior.
5.5.3 Complementary Activities
- Public petitions will be collected to persuade Attorney General to review both Hunting and fire citation programs.
- Fire watch teams will be set up in villages to report fires to GFD.
- Communities will be rewarded for being “fire-free”.
- A fire hotline will be established to report fires (and increase effectiveness of citation programs).
Upon completion of a series of directed conversations and background research, it is evident that there is a strong need to
increase law enforcement of fire violations and to provide alternatives to hunters who use fire for hunting. More research
needs to be done with hunters specifically to see what alternatives they would prefer and be willing to adopt.
58
6.0 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The Campaign Manager has validated the concept model and come to the conclusion that to reduce the threat of sedimentation of Guam’s coral
reefs, wildland fires in Southern Guam Watersheds must be prevented. A multifaceted approach needs to be taken and three main objectives must
be tackled:
(1) Increased Enforcement of Hunting Regulations.
(2) Providing alternatives to burning.
(3) Increase awareness of hunters and community of the destructiveness of fires and connectivity of the watershed.
After several meetings with stakeholders it has become evident that no one objective will fully create behavioral change and a combination of
efforts is needed to succeed at reducing the threat of fire to watersheds, and the subsequent threat of sedimentation to Guam’s reefs.
To address objective 3, Pride campaign would be implemented. The general theme which came out of stakeholder meetings was- Valuing and
protecting our Water Resources. By creating a sense of pride and value in all water resources, and illustrating the destructiveness of fire on all
parts of the watershed, including water, the community will be driven to protect them by reporting wildland fires (and arson) and burning
responsibly. A survey will be conducted to determine the current perceptions towards watersheds and the campaign will be designed to create
pride and move the community towards action (fire prevention).
Management Increased Enforcement
option
Revise Legislation
Option 1
The current legislation makes it very difficult to prosecute hunters caught poaching with fire. There is a heavy burden of
proof required and in the past ten years there has not been a conviction. Arrests are made but the Attorney General does
not have the manpower or will to prosecute misdemeanors. Working with the Conservation Officers and the Natural
Resources Attorney, amendments could be made to current laws to make prosecution easier. This approach makes
enforcement easier, but may simply make poachers more creative and deviant in their already illegal practices.
Option 2
Citation Program
The Conservation Officers have stated that there has not been a prosecution for poaching for nearly 10 years. As such they
feel that there is minimal weight to their influence on deterring poachers. They have drafted a proposal for a citation
program that will allow them to issue citations in varying amounts to poachers. This will empower the CO’s to fine poachers
immediately and the cost to the poachers will be direct and immediate. The draft legislation is with the AGs office and has
not been reviewed or approved.
59
Option 3
Fund more Conservation Officers
Funding additional conservation officers would empower the Division to have more patrols and cover more area, thus
catching more poachers. The Division is currently very undermanned and responsible for enforcing all game regulations
(both terrestrial and marine). Providing additional support would be ideal in increasing arrests and creating more deterrence
to poaching.
After reviewing the management options for Increased Law Enforcement with the Lead Agency, it was decided that a combination of options 2 & 3
could be accomplished. The Guam Coastal Management Program has secured two additional conservation officers through their grants for next
year and will be able to increase manpower to the department. Additionally, the Campaign Manager, as part of the Pride Campaign, can solicit
public support for the passing of the Conservation Officer and Guam Fire Department citation programs. A Barrier Removal Assessment Viability
Overview (BRAVO) was completed to assess the feasibility, partnerships and impact of the proposed barrier removal strategies. A summary of the
scores and risk assessment is provided below, with the full assessment found in Appendix ___.
6.1 Increased Law Enforcement BRAVO Summary
Category
Feasibility
Economics
Technical
Cultural / Political
Subcategory
Score
 Costs
4
 Revenues
4
 Income Substitution
N/A
 Technology
4
 Capacity / Organizational
Ability
4
 Other Partners
3
 Community Leadership
4
 Political Environment
Average
Category Score
4
3.7
3.2
2.5
60
 Cultural Norms
4
Feasibility Score
Impact
Impact and Metrics
 Conservation Impact
3
 Tipping Points
3
 Metrics
2
3.6
2.7
Impact Score
2.7
RISK FACTORS for Increased Law Enforcement
Risk Factors
E. Formative Research
Consequence
Mitigation Strategies
•
Two new officers is not enough
help to make a significant impact
(outcomes do not significantly
reflect an large increase in arrests)
 Poachers continue to burn
and use other destructive
and dangerous techniques
to catch deer. No progress
is made with reducing the
number of fires.
 New CO’s do not achieve
the predetermined metrics
for their jobs (lack of
evidence of success)
 Combine the increase in
numbers of officers with
other management
strategies to ensure the
new officers are not the
only thing being done to
address the poachers.
 Tie in objectives of officers
with objectives of overall
campaign (utilizing multiple
strategies) to increase the
outputs and “success”.
•
Despite increased numbers of CO’s,
some hunters refuse to stop
burning, and do not fear arrest by
Conservation Officers (not
 Number of fires stays the
same, despite best efforts
to catch all poachers.
 By also modifying
legislation both to make
prosecution easier and to
impose fines on hunters
61
prosecution)
•
Legislature will not revise legislation
to make prosecution of poaching
easier for conservation officers.
arrested, more of a
deterrent will be created.
But education must also be
included the poachers can
understand the
consequences of starting
fires on the entire forest
and watershed.
 Conservation officers still
have no weight in their
arrests and the same
poachers are arrested
repeatedly with no
convictions and fires
continued to be started.
 Garner public support for
the law changes. Get the
public to petition of the law
changes through an
educational campaign
aimed at supporting the
conservation efforts and
the justice system for the
natural resources.
What: To aid with minimizing and addressing the threat of poachers illegally burning the natural vegetation of Guam’s watersheds, additional
conservation officers must be employed to assist with monitoring of areas, enforcement of arson laws, and arrest and prosecution of violators. In
addition, the campaign would seek to assist with the revision of current laws to push through the department poaching citation program the,
making it easier to prosecute violators.
Who: The Bureau of Statistics & Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) will fund the salaries of two (2) new Conservation Officers for
the Department of Agriculture’s Law Enforcement Division (LED). The LED committed to prosecuting both fishing and hunting violations and aiding
in surveillance of target sites and assisting with preventative measures to prevent arson and encourage responsible hunting and protecting the
watersheds. They will work with the Natural Resources attorney to draft revisions for the current poaching laws.
When: Funding for new conservation officers will be provided beginning October 2009 and through the grant period of 18 months. Continued
funding will be provided pending successful completion of request.
How: The GCMP, through the Coral Reef grant has committed funding for these new Conservation Officers , equipment, stipends, and uniforms
(estimated at approximately $60,000.) All training and management will be provided by the LED of the Department of Agriculture.
The BRAVO indicates that this strategy is both feasible and impactful. This will be tested further with a quantitative survey of target audiences.
62
This is a feasible strategy, but its impact is not significantly high alone. This option will need to be paired with an additional strategy to address the
hunters’ reason for burning as well.
Management Objective 2: Provide hunters with alternatives to burning
option
Raise Deer as livestock to reduce the demand for poached meat.
Option 1
There is no capacity to run this program now; it may backfire and create a greater demand for the meat, thus increasing
poaching activity; and it would be working against the hunting community and may create animosity rather than foster
cooperation.
Provide hunters with deer bait and training on sustainable hunting practices.
Option 2
By providing an alternative attractant to the hunters, no benefit is lost. Hunters will be provided with free, easy to use
alternatives to burning. Not all hunters will use the bait, but those that are burning are looking to catch deer more quickly,
and bait will provide that without fire. Additionally, hunters could be required to attend a presentation of sustainable hunting
practices to receive free bait (and learn about the widespread effects of fires).
Option 3
Option 4
Controlled Burns
This option would involve setting aside small areas and doing controlled burns to minimize the impact of the burns and to still
provide hunters with the deer attracting grounds they needed. Sediment could be minimized and the area of the burn
controlled. While the idea would be great in that it provides an alternative, it is still burning and does not aid in changing the
behavior or teaching about the destructive nature of burning. Some concerns raised were that hunters may feel that if we
are burning it will add even more merit to the method and fires may increase.
Hunter Conservation Areas /Deer Feeding Areas
This option would involve setting aside areas as deer feeding areas. The areas selected would be where they would have the
least impact on the watershed and they would be cleared in a controlled way to reduce sedimentation. After they were
cleared legumes or some other nitrogen fixing plant would be plated to attract deer to feed (similar to post burn sites). The
community would be involved in the process at every step and would eventually take ownership of the areas. The option
was deemed preferable because there is capacity within local agencies to do this type of project and because community
involvement would be key. It is not as destructive as burning and could actually help to repair soils in degraded areas and
could also act as a precursor to reforestation efforts.
Initially, option 4 was considered the most feasible (see BRAVO summary and risk assessment below).
63
6.2 Locally Managed Hunting Area BRAVO Summary
Category
Feasibility
Economics
Technical
Cultural / Political
Subcategory
Score
 Costs
3
 Revenues
3.5
 Income Substitution
N/A
 Technology
4
 Capacity
Ability
/
Organizational
3
 Other Partners
4
 Community Leadership
3
 Political Environment
2.5
 Cultural Norms
3
Feasibility Score
Impact
Impact and Metrics
 Conservation Impact
3.5
 Tipping Points
2.7
 Metrics
3
Impact Score
Average
Category Score
3.3
3.7
2.8
3.3
3.1
3.1
64
RISK FACTORS for Locally Managed Hunting Areas
Risk Factors
E. Formative Research
Consequence
Mitigation Strategies
•
There is the possibility that the
partner agencies will not have
the capacity or funding to fully
support a project of this
magnitude due to lack of
manpower or funding.
 Funding shortages will
result in delays and may
create distrust with the
community.
 Lack of manpower may
make project a low
priority for partner
agency.
 A complete BROP must
be completed to outline
needs, timelines,
responsibility
breakdowns, etc. and
any gaps or deficiencies
need to be addressed
during the planning
phase.
 MOUs must be
developed with all
partners to ensure all
aspects of project are
accounted for.
•
There may be other
disagreements among scientists,
farmers, and other partners as
to the best approach for the
areas (what to plant, what areas
to plant in, etc.)
 This may cause
animosity amongst
some partners and
possibly delay or
decrease the
effectiveness of project
implementation.
 This could also affect
the community support
for the project.
 Many facilitated
discussions need to
occur between various
partners, research
needs to be done, and
there must be a general
consensus as to which
method or methods to
use.
 Different methods may
be selected (with BMPs
in place) by different
communities to best
suit their needs and
expectations.
65
•
Communities may not see the
value in the feed areas or may
object to creating better hunting
areas. (Hunters who do not
burn may feel threatened by
new areas making it easier for
other hunters.)
 As such there may be a
decline in support for
the areas by the
community who is vital
to the development and
maintenance of the
areas, causing them to
be ineffective.
 The supplemental Pride
campaign and strong
education need to
happen throughout the
project to explain the
value of the areas (and
the detriment of the
fires)
 Hunters must be
engaged in the project
and their ideas,
concerns and needs also
taken into
consideration.
What: To aid with minimizing and addressing the threat of poachers illegally burning the natural vegetation of Guam’s watersheds in order to
attract deer, areas will be set aside as Hunter Conservation areas. These areas will be cleared in a controlled way to minimize sediment and will be
planted with legumes or other nitrogen fixing vegetation to hold soil in place, and also to attract deer to saplings. Modeling the success of LMMAs,
community members will select areas and be involved in their development and management. Stewardship groups will also be created to start
watershed restoration efforts in these villages.
Who: The Bureau of Statistics & Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program , in close partnership with the Division of Soil and Forestry Resources,
the Game Management sector of Division of Aquatic and Wildlife resources, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the southern village
communities will work together to establish and maintain these areas. This cooperative project will engage many groups and develop ownership
within the affected communities by empowering them to manage their areas.
When: The project can begin in early 2009 with the designation of strategic areas and the securing of appropriate funding. Project will be ongoing
for a trial period of one year for the duration of the complimentary Pride campaign at which point it can be assessed with community and modified
as needed to meet the needs of each area.
How: The aforementioned agencies will work together to pool and source funding for the project and utilize community volunteers for the actual
development of the areas. Monitoring will be done by conservation officers and village groups.
NOTE: After the BRAVO was completed a preliminary meeting was schedule with the presumed key partner agencies to complete a Barrier
Removal Operations Plan. During this meeting, it became evident that the project could not be implemented at this time due to a lack of capacity
66
within the local partner agencies. Acquiring land use permits, getting buy in and support from area neighbors, coordinating the clearing and
maintenance of the areas, and other logistics would require a large amount of time and funding, and none of the partners were currently willing or
able to support the strategy. A BRAVO was conducted for a different strategy for alternatives to burning, option 2- deer bait and training, a less
logistically demanding strategy, which when paired with increased enforcement and a sustainable hunter training will be impactful.
6.3 Deer Bait & Hunter Training BRAVO Summary
Category
Feasibility
Economics
Technical
Cultural / Political
Subcategory
Score
 Costs
3
 Revenues
3.5
 Income Substitution
N/A
 Technology
4
 Capacity
Ability
/
Organizational
2.3
 Other Partners
4
 Community Leadership
3
 Political Environment
2.5
 Cultural Norms
3
Feasibility Score
Impact
 Conservation Impact
Average
Category Score
3.3
3.4
2.8
3.2
3.5
Impact and Metrics
3.1
 Tipping Points
2.7
67
 Metrics
3
Impact Score
3.1
RISK FACTORS for Locally Managed Hunting Areas
Risk Factors
•
•
•
•
Consequence
Mitigation Strategies
There is the possibility that the
partner agencies will not have the
capacity or funding to fully support
the project.
Current director is not very
supportive of GCMP projects. He
may make the process difficult.
Conservation officers may feel that
bait stations will increase poaching
occurrences (non fire related_
 Funding shortages will
result in not getting the bait
stations
 Lack of staffing to assist
may hinder the training and
implementation of project.
 Officers may not support
the project .
 GCMP can source funding if
needed while a more
sustainable
partner
is
found. Also, Rare pressure
may help push Ag to assist.
 MOUs must be developed
with DoAg to make sure
they are held accountable
 It will be important to take
ideas of CO’s into planning
process and ensure them
that the benefits will be
great.
There may be disagreement with
hunters as to whether or not bait
stations are “fair” as they provide an
advantage; other hunters may worry
they will “take all of the deer”
 This may cause lack of trust
with hunters and the
project designed to support
them.
Without
their
support the project will be
very difficult to implement.
 This could also affect the
community support for the
strategy.
 Many facilitated discussions
need to occur between
various hunting groups and
CM, Cos, and they need to
see the benefit outweighing
the cost (less fires).
 Hunters must be engaged in
the project and their ideas,
concerns and needs also
68
taken into consideration,
keeping the exact methods
adaptive.
 Education of the hunters
and general public needs to
show that deer populations
are sustainable, even with
more effective hunting
tools.
•
Communities may not see the value
providing this alternative to the
“lazy hunters” and may resent
making it so easy to kill the deer.
 Lack of support in the BR
strategy could affect the
entire watershed campaign,
making it difficult to engage
them in the activities.
 The supplemental Pride
social marketing campaign
and strong education need
to happen throughout the
project to explain the value
of providing an alternative
(and the detriment of the
fires)
 Engaging local celebrities
and
leaders
as
spokespeople
for
the
concept will help build trust
and show the benefits.
What: To aid with minimizing and addressing the threat of poachers illegally burning the natural vegetation of Guam’s watersheds in order to
attract deer, deer bait and training will be provided to local hunters. Local sustainable sources will be identified working with local farmers.
Hunting themed events will be held to illustrate use of baiting stations and to showcase and reward sustainable hunting practices and to educate
about the destructiveness of fire. Stewardship groups will also be created to start watershed restoration efforts in these villages.
Who: The Bureau of Statistics & Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program , in close partnership with the Game Management sector of Division of
Aquatic and Wildlife resources and their Law Enforcement Division (conservation officers) will work together to provide these tools and trainings
for hunters. Southern village communities will monitor the effectiveness of the barrier removal (and concurrent watershed restoration through
social marketing campaign) at reducing wildland fires and sedimentation.
69
When: The training and education component of the project can begin in mid 2010 with the acquisition of the needed stations and development
and implementation of hunter training programs. Use of bait stations will commence at the beginning of the legal hunting season (September
2010) towards the end of the Rare Pride Campaign. After the first season ends, use of bait can be assessed and modified as needed to meet the
needs of the hunters in various areas of Guam.
How: The aforementioned agencies will work together to pool and source funding for the bait and training. Monitoring will be done by National
Park Service and community watershed groups (established in Pride campaign).
The BRAVO indicates that this strategy is both feasible and impactful. This will be tested further with a quantitative survey of target audiences.
70
7.0 Results Chains & Preliminary Objectives
It is now generally recognized that before adopting a new behavior a person moves through a series of stages. These stages are: pre-contemplation,
contemplation, preparation, validation, action, and maintenance. Not all individuals in a target segment will be in the same stage of behavior
change, so activities and messages need to reach all groups, in all different stages of behavior change. <Rare>
Understanding the steps in our results chain has also helped narrow down our preliminary objectives for each target audience before we begin
collecting data.
71
7.1.1 Results chains for target audiences
72
7.1.2 Preliminary Objectives for Target Audiences
Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Hunters:
- Increase awareness among hunters of the effects of wildfire on the watershed and the threats it poses to the community.
- Hunters will believe that wildfires are destructive and have negative consequences.
- Hunters will discuss risks and threats associated with wildfire and the benefits of using alternatives to burning.
- Hunters will know how to use bait to attract deer instead of fire.
- Hunters will attend sustainable hunting training.
Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Community Members:
- Increase awareness within community of the effects wildfires on their watersheds.
- Community members will believe that wildfires are harming their watersheds and reefs.
- Community members will discuss ways to report wildland fires through the fire hotline.
- Community members will practice responsible fire use.
Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Policy Makers:
- Increase awareness among policy makers that current laws and lack of support impede enforcement of conservation regulations and
prosecution those starting fires.
- Policy makers will believe that regulations need revision and department needs more support.
- Policy makers will discuss new citations program and ways to support conservation officers and fire department.
- Policy makers will approve citation program sand provide support to enable Conservation Officers and Fire Department officials to
prosecute fire violations.
Policy makers were identified as a target audience in the results chains, but the campaign will not target them directly. There is not survey data
for the policy makers, and influencing this audience will be important not to change their behavior, but to get them to support several barrier
removal goals. They have been included in the results chains to show the need to engage them, but will be considered partners and not an
audience. These objectives will be accomplished through some of the campaign activities targeted to the other audiences (petitions,
community meetings, etc.) to push through policies that will support the Increased Law Enforcement barrier removal.
73
E. Formative Research
8.0 ESTABLISHING A BASELINE (QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY)
The Campaign Manager conducted a quantitative survey of Guam residents 14 years and older. This pre-campaign survey was conducted July
through September of 2009 to establish a baseline for Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) for the campaigns SMART objectives and various
components of the campaign’s Theory-of-Change(ToC). A second post campaign survey will be conducted a year after the campaign is
implemented in September 2009 to measure any change in these KAP components and whether or not the SMART objectives relating to KAP were
reached. The survey also collected basic demographic and socioeconomic data in addition to asking respondents questions about their trusted
sources of information, preferred media sources.
Using the Guam 200 Census, a sample size of 383 was determined using surveysample.com based on a total population of 154,794, confidence
level of 95%, and confidence interval of 5. Initially when the survey was started, the entire island was stratified by village population size and
sampled as it was thought that the campaign would be run for all of Guam. As the campaign planning process continued, it was determined that
the survey should be biased towards the south since most hunting activity and burning activity was occurring in the south. Additional data was
collected from the south to get a valid representation of that population.
The following table summarizes the number of people interviewed and the geographical distribution of the survey. Note that the numbers to
conduct were based on the original stratification, and the numbers in red indicate how the actual collected amounts related to those originally
determined. Also note the strong bias towards the southern communities.
Survey Stratification Table
Ward
Northern Guam
Piti
Asan-Maina
Population
Size
Percent of
Target
Area
Population
Number
of
Interviews
to
Conduct
(5,95)
Collected
Amount still
needed for All
of Guam
(negatives
indicated
additional
collected)
102856
66.4
254
102
152
1666
1.1
4
5
-1
2090
1.4
5
3
2
74
Ordot-Chalan Pago
Mangilao
Agat
Santa Rita
Umatac
Inarajan
Merizo
Talofofo
Yona
TOTALS FOR ALL
GUAM
TOTALS FOR
SOUTH GUAM
5923
3.8
15
27
-12
13313
8.6
33
36
-3
5656
3.7
14
72
-58
7500
4.8
19
54
-35
887
0.6
2
16
-14
3052
2.0
8
14
-6
2152
1.4
5
15
-10
3215
2.1
8
17
-9
6484
4.2
16
24
-8
154794
100.0
383
283
100
51938
33.6
129
283
-154
Given the final numbers collected, if all of Guam were used for the analysis, the ideal sample size from the south would be 381 but only 283 were
collected. However, the confidence level of the actual collected sample size is 5.81 (a difference of .81). A total of 73.5 % of the data was from the
south, and 26.5% from the south. Since the southern population of Guam is a viable population size of 51938, a third of Guam’s population, and
the targeted audience and behavior is primarily in the south, the data collected from the northern villages were filtered out during analysis.
Enumerators (which included government employees, college students, teachers, and many students) were given training packets as many
enumerators were used and scheduling training sessions was not possible. Each set of enumerators was given packs of surveys to conduct in
specific areas. Surveys were conducted via face to face interview of respondents. A large number of the enumerators were students which may
attribute to the high level of respondents 15-19 years of age. Due to some difficulties in securing official badges for enumerators, they were asked
to interview persons known to them (but not immediate family).
The questionnaire included 31 questions, both closed and open ended and was designed and analyzed in Survey Pro. A test run was done with lead
agency staff and changes made to clarify and areas of confusion and a “cheat sheet” with various choices was developed to supplement the survey
(with choices for many multiple choice questions). The target audience and key threats had been identified, and the questions in the survey were
intended to gather information about the threats and perceptions and behaviors associated with the threats.
The survey was designed and analyzed using Apian® Survey Pro® software.
75
E. Formative Research
9.0 Survey Results
A total of 385 surveys were completed, inputted and analyzed using Survey Pro ®. This data will assist in validating assumptions that were made
throughout the planning of the campaign and revise objectives as needed. The data will also help to better understand the target audiences,
identify trusted sources, media preferences, and provide guidance in developing campaign messages. Additionally a question was included that
will indicate which species was preferred as the flagship species. A summary of the results is found in this section. A complete copy of the survey
can be found in the appendix.
9.1 Summary of Bio-data
Target Southern Audiences
The enumerators sampled all of Guam, though as mentioned in section 8, only
entries from Southern Guam were analyzed. Of the total population sampled,
General Community
four target audiences were identified due to the large enumerator bias of youth in
Adults (42.4%)
the survey (explained in section 8). Age was determined by question 7- “How old
General Community
were you at your last birthday.” Respondents ages 14-19 were grouped as youth
Youth (43.4%)
and those 20 or older were grouped as adults. While the entire community needs
Youth Hunters (8.4%)
to be engaged in the campaign, hunters are the major cause of the threat of
wildland fires. Certain activities will target the hunting community separately
Adult Hunters (5.9%)
from the rest of the general community. In order to analyze their results
separately, understand this audience more completely and identify any
differences between hunters and the general community, this group was also
separated as a target audience. Hunters were identified by question 61- “In the past 12 months have you participated in… hunting?” The overall
sample was slightly biased towards men as two of the target audiences were hunters. In the youth hunter and adult hunter audiences, men
represented 88.9% and 100% of the respondents respectively. Of the youth population, 16.2% were hunters (27), and of the adult population,
12.2% were hunters (19). In all samples, over 86% of respondents were Catholic, which is very indicative of Guam’s culture.
Variable
Gender
Target audience group
Table 2
Independent Variables to Assess Comparability of the Surveys
(all data listed are in percentage of target audience)
Pre-campaign level
Southern Youth
Southern Adults
General Community
Hunter
General Community
Hunter
140 (83.8%)
27 (16.2%)
137 (87.8%)
19 (12.2%)
Male =
54.3
88.9
59.1
100
Female =
45.7
11.1
40.9
0
Hunters=
16.2
12.2
76
Age group
Formal education
Religion
Employment Sector
(main ones shown)
Radio listenership (days
per week)
General Community =
14 or younger=
15 to 20=
20 to 24=
25 to 29=
30 to 34=
35 to 39 =
40 to 44=
45 to 49=
50 to 54=
55 and older =
No school =
Primary =
Secondary =
Some college=
Some trade=
Some religious=
Post-secondary =
Post-university =
Refused to answer=
Catholic=
Christian=
Traditional/local=
None=
Other=
Refused to answer=
Office Work=
Food Preparation=
Transportation=
Not employed=
Never=
Up to 3 days/week=
4-6 days/week=
7 days/week=
83.7
24.3
75.7
5
6.4
78.6
2.9
0
2.1
0
0
5
87.9
2.1
0
4.3
3.6
2.1
2.1
0
0
95.0
5.0
27.1
34.3
33.6
29.6
70.4
0
3.7
92.6
0
0
0
0
0
3.7
88.9
0
0
3.7
3.7
3.7
0
0
0
92.6
11.1
33.3
22.2
33.3
87.8
21.0
11.7
18.2
10.2
8.8
8.8
10.2
10.2
12.4
12.4
35.8
28.5
5.1
0
0
0
0
86.8
0
1.5
6.6
2.9
2.2
19.0
4.4
3.6
36.5
5.8
36.5
24.8
32.8
10.5
5.3
15.8
26.3
21.1
15.8
5.3
0.0
42.1
10.5
31.6
10.5
5.3
0
0
0
0
89.5
0
5.3
5.3
0
0
5.3
10.5
21.1
5.3
5.3
68.4
10.5
15.8
77
TV viewership (days per
week)
Newspaper readership
(days per week)
Never=
Up to 3 days/week=
4-6 days/week=
7 days/week=
Never=
Up to 3 days/week=
4-6 days/week=
7 days/week=
6.4
27.1
30.7
35.7
10.7
50
27.9
11.4
3.7
37.0
25.9
33.3
14.8
29.6
37.0
18.5
10.2
35.8
25.5
28.5
5.1
24.1
38.7
32.1
5.3
26.3
31.6
36.8
0
26.3
52.6
21.1
9.2 Media Preference by Key Segment
Table 3 presents the results of a list of media preferences by target audience. I94 was the preferred radio station of all audiences making it an
easy choice for radio programming directed at all audiences. As for type of music, both youth audiences seemed to prefer hip hop (with at least
79% of each liking it a lot or most), while youth hunters seemed to prefer island reggae music. For adults, 58% of hunter adults like local music
(79% liking it a lot or most) which makes it a good choice for music targeted to that audience, but with the adult general community there were no
significant preferences to any type of music.
With TV, Spike TV tended to be the favorite of the both youth audiences, whereas KUAM was the favorite of the adult general audience, with ESPN
and Spike being the close favorites of adult hunters. Both hunter audiences listed Spike as one of their top which may prove a good place for any
TV commercials targeted at that group. With both youth audiences comedy was the most liked, with at least 40% of both audiences liking it most
(and at least 71% liking it a lot or most). Neither adult group showed a preference to any of the types of programming. Pacific Daily News was the
most read of all print media by all audiences.
Table 3
Media Access/Use Questions
(all data listed are in percentage of target audience)
Pre-Campaign
Variable
Frequency of listening to radio in the past
Response Options
Never
Southern Youth
General
Community
Hunters
(N=140)
(N =27)
5
11
Southern Adults
General
Community
Hunters
(N=137)
(N = 19)
5
5
78
month (days/week)
Preferred radio station (top 4 listed)
Frequency of watching TV in the past
month
Preferred TV station
Frequency of reading newspaper
/magazine in the past month
Preferred Newspaper or magazine
Rock & Roll music
Country & Western Music
Local or traditional music
Up to 3 days/week
4-6 days/week
7 days/week
K57
I94
Hit Radio 100
Power 98
The KAT
Never
Up to 3 days/week
4-6 days/week
7 days/week
KUAM
Food Network
Discovery Channel
ESPN
Spike TV
Never
Up to 3 days/week
4-6 days/week
7 days/week
Pacific Daily News
Marianas Variety
Marine Drive Magazine
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
27
34
34
3
86
77
63
0
6
27
31
36
23
22
19
15
36
11
50
28
11
90
19
30
12
21
46
20
9
24
38
28
19
33
22
33
4
74
59
63
0
4
37
26
33
30
22
15
19
52
15
30
37
19
85
26
22
19
15
52
15
19
30
37
15
34
37
25
33
18
56
41
20
20
10
36
36
29
44
18
30
24
23
5
24
39
32
95
38
23
13
22
35
29
17
32
31
18
26
68
11
16
5
63
58
53
26
5
26
32
37
37
2
42
58
48
0
26
53
21
100
63
16
11
47
21
21
5
47
42
5
21
79
Island/Reggae Music
Hip Hop Music
Local news
National news
International news
Sports
Religious programs
Talk shows
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
Like a little
Don’t like
Like the most
Like a lot
31
32
17
39
30
21
8
46
35
14
4
6
12
39
36
3
11
29
44
5
12
33
39
19
21
28
29
1
6
22
56
4
10
44
22
0
60
26
15
0
56
33
11
0
11
15
41
30
4
22
30
37
11
26
22
33
33
33
7
26
4
7
15
60
8
4
30
29
16
22
30
28
20
16
26
26
31
21
32
33
12
15
20
41
19
17
20
39
20
15
20
35
20
2
6
43
41
5
15
58
16
5
16
58
21
5
5
26
37
32
11
26
52
5
5
16
47
26
5
37
32
21
5
47
26
11
0
11
37
47
5
21
80
Like a little
29
26
44
Don’t like
49
59
32
Like the most
11
11
12
Like a lot
19
11
11
Dramas
Like a little
23
33
31
Don’t like
40
41
40
Like the most
23
15
7
Like a lot
25
7
26
Reality Shows
Like a little
26
44
34
Don’t like
22
26
25
Like the most
40
52
22
Like a lot
31
22
31
Comedy
Like a little
17
11
27
Don’t like
10
15
17
Like the most
4
7
2
Like a lot
3
7
2
Puppet shows
Like a little
11
19
24
Don’t like
72
59
58
Locally Produced Shows
Like the most
4
7
8
Like a lot
6
4
11
Like a little
34
33
45
Don’t like
39
41
27
Source: Data in Table 3 is based on interviews with 323 respondents in the pre-campaign survey. In some cases, the numbers
may not sum to 100% due to rounding or because not all response options are shown for some variables.
37
37
0
5
32
58
0
26
37
32
5
27
58
11
0
0
37
58
5
0
53
0
81
Figures 1 a & b: Most commonly read publication.
9.3 Trusted Sources
“Information from a credible Source influences beliefs, opinions, attitudes and/or behavior through internalization. Once the receiver internalizes an
opinion or attitude, it becomes integrated into his or her belief system. This belief may be maintained even after the source of the message is
forgotten. A highly creditable communicator is particularly important when message recipients have a negative position toward the product, service
or issue being promoted, because the credible source is likely to inhibit counter-arguments” (Sadowsky). Peers, community leaders, religious leaders,
recognized “experts” are all often such trusted sources.<Rare>
Table 4 presents the data on trusted sources of information. It was difficult to note any obvious patterns initially. All audiences rated both radio
and television as somewhat trustworthy, so a radio personality may not be the best way to go since it is known that I94 is a shared preferred
media choice. The “very” and “most” categories were combined to see if any significance emerged. The highest average trusted sources based on
this grouping were family and friends (67%), teachers (63%), manamko/elders (62%) tied with Federal environmental officers (62%), local
82
environmental officials (60%) and village mayors (59%). Due to this mix in trusted sources, a variety or mixture of sources must be used to deliver
key messages.
Table 4
Trusted Sources of Environmental Information
(all data listed are in percentage of target audience)
Pre-Campaign
Information Source
Person on radio
Person on TV
Report in newspaper
Law enforcement official
Federal environmental official
Level of Trustworthiness
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Southern Youth
General
Community
Hunters
(N=140)
(N =27)
9
15
12
11
57
44
7
15
13
15
15
15
56
41
7
15
24
26
42
26
26
26
5
19
24
22
39
33
21
15
6
11
28
26
36
22
21
19
5
15
Southern Adult
General
Community
Hunters
(N=137)
(N = 19)
10
11
19
37
61
47
3
0
13
11
27
47
53
37
2
0
15
11
34
69
45
11
2
0
12
16
32
37
43
42
9
5
23
21
35
58
35
16
6
5
83
Local environmental official
Local senator
Local Mayor
Religious leader
Local celebrity
Manamko/Elder
Friends or family members
Teachers
Information poster/billboard
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
Very
Somewhat
Not
Most
21
35
33
4
10
32
37
13
21
30
34
7
22
24
35
9
6
15
40
22
31
30
31
4
38
28
31
2
16
40
36
6
9
30
26
19
11
11
30
33
11
41
26
26
0
37
7
30
15
11
11
37
26
41
19
30
4
56
26
19
0
22
37
30
4
15
18
36
37
5
4
24
53
15
20
29
40
7
13
24
43
11
2
11
50
22
24
32
34
9
23
31
40
2
10
42
41
4
8
21
53
21
0
5
53
32
5
21
58
16
0
11
16
53
11
0
16
53
16
16
53
26
5
11
53
37
0
11
74
16
0
5
84
Very
15
11
38
58
Somewhat
46
33
41
32
Not
20
30
4
0
Most
11
22
14
16
Very
18
7
37
47
Information in printed booklet
Somewhat
40
26
35
26
Not
19
33
9
5
Most
2
4
21
42
Very
6
7
34
37
Information from a puppet show
Somewhat
21
15
28
16
Not
54
41
16
5
Most
11
22
13
5
Very
21
19
34
68
Information from a public meeting
Somewhat
48
30
45
21
Not
9
15
2
0
Most
9
26
12
16
Very
20
15
33
53
Conservation Volunteer
Somewhat
41
22
45
26
Not
15
22
2
0
Source: In formation in Table 4 is derived from the question “People hear information about the natural environment from many
different sources. I am going to read you a list of sources from which you might hear information about the environment, and I would like
you to tell me whether you would find that source "Most trustworthy, Very trustworthy, Somewhat trustworthy, or Not trustworthy.”
9.4 Knowledge and Attitude about Key Issues
Table 5 presents the results from the survey of knowledge and attitude of key issues. Only 21% of adult hunters thought there were any threats to
the plants and animals of the watersheds, while 67% the youth hunters answered yes. But then, only 47% of the youth hunters identified wildland
fires as a threat to the watersheds, whereas 74% of the adult hunters did. This is a perfect example for the rationale behind the audience
segmentation. There are large differences not just in preference, but in basic knowledge and attitudes as well. When asked how these fires are
started, both audiences listed hunters and people burning trash in their top 5 ways, validating the focus of the barrier removal for both the
hunters, and the general community.
85
Table 5
Knowledge Questions
(All data points are measured in percent of target audience)
Pre-Campaign
Variable
Q 21: of the following plants and animals, which do
you think would best reprehend all of the native
animals and plants that live in Guam’s Watersheds?
(top 5 responses listed)
Q22: Do you think there are any threats that might
cause a loss of native plants and animals in Guam’s
Watersheds?
Q22A: What do you thing are the most important
threats? (respondents could select 3- top 5
responses are listed)
Q24A: What do you think is the most likely way that
these fires are started? (respondents could select
top 3- Top 5 responses listed)
Response option
Guam Goby
Green Lace Shrimp
Fiddler Crab
Koko bird (not listed)
Fruit Bat (not listed)
Yes
Uncertain
No
Pollution
Wildland fires
Development
Forest Clearing
There are no threats
Never seen/heard of a
wildland fire
Wildland fires are
naturally occurring
Wildland fires are started
by people burning trash
Wildland fires are started
Southern Youth
General
Community
Hunters
(N=140)
(N =27)
10
11
11
22
18
4
19
26
9
11
57
67
31
26
12
7
59
74
49
59
11
11
18
22
18
7
Southern Adults
General
Community
Hunters
(N=137)
(N = 19)
12
5
19
37
45
42
8
11
2
6
46
21
28
37
26
42
42
26
33
21
23
5
12
5
33
53
24
7
22
16
44
52
33
53
44
44
41
53
37
48
43
74
86
Q25A: Wildland fires are naturally occurring…
Q25B: Wildland fires can cause damage to private
property…
Q25C: Wildland fires can cause damage to native
forests…
Q25H: Wildland fires are good for the soil…
by hunters
Wildland fires are started
by farmers
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
12
22
12
21
57
31
67
26
58
14
74
5
4
4
15
10
8
80
13
4
74
19
12
88
4
11
89
0
1
0
0
0
5
84
8
4
81
7
7
86
4
11
84
5
1
0
2
0
6
20
24
7
37
22
7
22
22
11
26
5
35
19
31
47
20
22
26
21
Table 6 represents attitudes about key issues. When asked if it would be hard or easy to report wildland arson, both youth groups answered under
easy under 55% of the time, where both adults groups had much higher percentages, with at least 75% saying it was easy. This is a key goal of this
campaign, to provide all community members with an easy reliable way to report wildland arson. Most audiences had 27% or less disagreeing or
strongly disagreeing that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam’s coral reefs. This attitude is another that will be addressed by the
campaign, showing the severity of the threat of fire not just on land, but to coastal resources as well.
87
Table 6
Attitude Questions
(All data points are measured in percent of target audience)
Variable
Q26A: Wildland fires are not a serious threat to
Guam’s coral reefs…
Q26C: Individuals starting wildfires should be
prosecuted…
Q26D: Wildland fires do not need to be prevented.
Q27A: Tell me whether you would find it easy or
difficult to report wildland fires to authorities…
Q27C: Tell me whether you would find it easy or
difficult to participate in village monitoring to
prevent wildland fires
Response Options
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Strongly agree & agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree &
disagree
Don’t know
Easy
Difficult
Not Sure
N/a
Easy
Difficult
Not Sure
N/a
Pre-Campaign
Southern Youth
Southern Adults
General
General
Community
Hunters
Community
Hunters
(N=140)
(N =27)
(N=137)
(N = 19)
17
41
27
68
14
22
11
0
27
22
42
16
21
62
20
15
63
15
20
79
10
16
47
37
11
22
6
16
8
16
11
0
29
15
5
10
10
0
32
26
63
52
75
37
9
54
12
23
11
36
19
29
16
7
41
33
22
4
44
26
15
15
7
75
4
13
8
49
11
31
10
5
74
11
5
11
42
11
37
11
88
9.5 Practice
Table 9.5 reports behavior responses. This table is of extreme importance to the campaign, as it seeks not just to shift attitude and knowledge, but
to create behavior change as well. Over 65% of all audiences have started a fire in the last 6 months, with southern adult hunters responding yes
95% of the time. The data of most importance is the purpose of the fire. 11% of southern youth hunters say they have used it for hunting, as do
21% of southern hunter adults. The goal of the campaign is to reduce that number as close to zero as possible.
Table 7
Behavior Questions
(All data points are measured in percent of target audience)
Pre-Campaign
Variable
14A: In the past 12 months, have you started a fire for
any reason?
14A: If yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire.
(check all that apply) top 6 listed
Response Option
Yes
Uncertain
No
Camp/bonfire
BBQ
Burning trash
Burning excess
vegetation
Land clearing
Hunting
Q 16: I am going to show you 6 statements about
reporting wildland arson. I want you to read all 6
statements and then tell me which statement best
represents you. In the past 6 months, I have never
considered reporting wildland arson.
In the past 6 months, I have never considered reporting wildland arson.
In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, but have
not done so and am not sure I will
Southern Youth
General
Community
Hunters
(N=140)
(N =27)
71
78
2
4
27
19
23
41
63
85
44
70
Southern Adults
General
Community
Hunters
(N=137)
(N = 19)
66
95
4
0
31
5
10
11
56
90
28
37
14
11
23
53
14
3
19
11
9
2
16
21
44
44
45
68
6
11
3
11
89
In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and
intend to in the future
In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and have
talked to someone about this, but have not reported wildland arson.
In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson once, but not every
time I see it occurring
In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson every time I see it
occurring
Behavior is not applicable to respondent (have not seen wildland arson).
4
11
4
5
4
4
2
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
42
26
40
11
9.6 New threats identified
Though not a statistically significant number, many respondents answered cigarettes, or cigarette butts in the threats question. While it is known
from conversations with local experts that these do not cause wildland fires in Guam, it is important to note that it is a perceived threat.
9.7 Barriers to behavior change
Campaign manager did not include a question for this in the survey though some of the attitudinal questions related such as how if it were easy or
hard to report wildland fires or if they had done it in the last 6 months (see section 9.4 Table 6 and section 9.5 table 7).
9.8 Behavior Change Continuum
The first behavior being assessed is reporting of wildland fires. Initial analysis of the survey results showed that 44% or more of all audiences fall
into the pre-contemplation phase by responding I have never considered reporting wildland arson. Community hunters were the highest of these at
67%. The campaign seeks to move the community to the action phase, indicated by the answers I have reported wildland arson once but not every
time I see it occurring, and I have reported wildland arson every time I see it occurring. This stage of change is not accurate based on other
knowledge of the audiences, such as their attitudes and perceptions towards fire, and is specific to this behavior. There may be a survey design
error in that a response was included stated behavior not relevant for this respondent (have not seen wildland arson) which many respondents
answered. A secondary indicator of this behavior will be achieved by monitoring the number of fires reported over the course of the campaign to
see if the numbers increase.
90
As this question alone does not reveal the knowledge and attitude of the audience, additional questions were used to better assess which stage of
behavior they are in. Question 14, asked respondents to indicate to which degree the agreed or disagreed that “wildland fires do not need to be
prevented”. The general community youth and adults disagreed or strongly disagreed 63% and 75% respectively, indicating that they believe that
wildland fires do need to be prevented, even if they are not taking action. Question 28 asked, “In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone
about wildland fires?” Of the general community, only 15% of adults and 24% of youth had spoken with anyone (average 20%). Interpersonal
communication is taking place at a very low level, indicating that the community is not yet completely in the validation phase but still in
preparation. They have the knowledge and attitude, but have not moved into the validation and action phases. Additional benefits and costs must
be emphasized to these audiences through trusted sources to move them to validation, and the barrier removal tools will provide them the
mechanisms needed to help to move them to action. Hunters responded lower in the attitude category, with 52% of youth hunters and only 37%
of adult hunters disagreeing that wildland fires did not need to be prevented, indicating that they may be somewhere between contemplation and
preparation, needing more information than the general community to move them into the validation phase. However, when asked about talking
to someone about fire, 48% of adult hunters and 26% of youth hunters had spoken with someone (average 37%). This is a higher number than the
general community, which may be attributed to conversation amongst hunters about illegal hunting behavior, but still very low, also placing the
hunters in the preparation phase. They are members of the community, messages developed for the overall community and subsequent
interpersonal communication between members of the general community and hunters should also aid in moving them through the stages.
The second behavior being assessed is the use of fire while hunting. Question 14 asked “In the past 12 months have you started a fire for any
reason?” This was followed by question 14 A-“if so please indicate the purpose of your fire.” According to the survey data, 11% of youth hunters
and 21% of adult hunters used fire for hunting. While this is a small percentage, it is this percentage that is the true target audience to be reached
by targeting hunters. This question was cross tabulated with the question “wildland fires do not need to be prevented”. Of youth hunters who use
fire to hunt, 63% disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating that they do believe that the fires need to be prevented. Of Adult hunters who use fire
to hunt, 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating that a large percentage of them also believe that fires need to be prevented. Based on this
data, the hunters have feel that the fires need to be prevented, placing them in the preparation stage. This validates the thought processes used in
selecting the management strategies for barrier removal tools for hunters, including not only the actual tools to hunt more sustainably, but the
training to educate these hunters about the consequences of using fire to hunt, and the benefits of stopping this behavior. Specific supplemental
messaging and materials will be developed for this audience based on their attitudes and their stage of behavior.
9.9 Benefits
No specific questions were asked in the survey about benefits to behavior, but these benefits have been gleaned from the Final Report of the Guam
Fire Prevention and Education Team (2003) as well as directed conversations conducted throughout the development of this project plan, and they
can be found in section 5.10- Benefits and Barriers on page 57.
91
9.10 Flagship species
When asked which of the following would best represent all of the plants and animals in Guam’s watersheds- Guam Goby, the Fiddler Crab, Green
Lace Shrimp, or other- both Southern Adult General Community and Hunters selected the Fiddler Crab as their top choice (45% and 42%
respectively), where as the youth seemed to prefer a non-listed species (filled in other) of the Koko bird (which may be a result of the last Rare
Pride Campaign of which the Koko was the flagship species). Of the three, the Southern Youth General community chose the Fiddler Crab (22%),
where the Southern Youth hunters preferred the Green Lace Shrimp. At this time, it is presumed that the Fiddler Crab will be used as the flagship
species.
F. Revised Concept Models
With a more in-depth understanding of our project site, its related threats, and key audience segments, we can now dive deeper into the
development plan for the Rare Pride campaign. This includes revising the concept model to include any new contributing factors revealed during the
questionnaire.
11.0 Revised Concept Model (Showing strategies and new factors)
After conducting considerable qualitative research by holding directed conversations and quantitative audience survey research, the final concept
model was modified to accommodate this new information. However, it remains the same on the following points:
After conducting background research, conducting directed conversations, and analyzing survey results, some changes were made to the original
concept model to include new information and strategies. However, some the following components remain the same:

The primary target, reefs, has been selected from the four targets identified in the original concept model.

The direct threats to the reefs remain the same (sedimentation & erosion)
The major changes include:

The indirect threats have been isolated to fires for the focus of the campaign

Scope has been narrowed to Southern Guam Watersheds

Strategies have been identified to address audiences and behaviors contributing factors to the fires
92
93
G. Campaign Strategy
Based on audience research and the revised concept model, the campaign manager conducted the following steps to develop strategies for reaching
key audiences and appropriate messages for those audience segments.
12.0 Barrier Removal Strategy
13.0 Complementary partner interventions
14.0 Benefit Ladder
15.0 SMART Objectives
16.0 Marketing Mix
17.0 Campaign Messages
18.0 Monitoring Plan
94
12.0 BARRIER REMOVAL OPERATIONS PLAN
G. Campaign Strategy
Barrier Removal Operational Plan (BROP)
Southern Guam Watershed Pride Campaign
Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Statistics and Plans
Elaina Todd
Guam
15 September, 2009
95
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
What?
The Barrier Removal strategy for Guam focuses on working with local hunters and providing an alternative to burning. Some local hunters will burn
large areas of grassland/forest to force out deer. The deer are also attracted to the new growth that occurs after the burn, and this makes the deer
easier to catch. The fires are devastating to Guam’s vegetation and watersheds, and create badlands which generate erosion and run off which
smother adjacent coral reefs. By preventing the burning, we can protect the coral reefs from sedimentation.
Our strategy is to acquire bait stations and deer attractants which can be used to draw out deer without fire. These hunting tools will be provided
to hunters free of charge after they attend a brief presentation of sustainable hunting practices and sign a hunter’s pledge to not use fire, and to
become the watchmen of the forests, reporting any fires they do see. This simple strategy addresses the need for drawing out the deer, and is
easier than burning. The benefits of using the bait stations far outweigh the costs of devastating fires.
The relationships that are built with the “sustainable hunters” will be continued throughout the year, and other hunter training programs may be
developed. A end of the season hunting festival will be held for hunters to showcase the use of their BR tools, and the benefits of sustainable
hunting practices.
Who?
The Guam Coastal Management Program in Partnership with the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Game Management and Law
Enforcement sectors will be the main funders of this project. Distribution of supplies, coordination of training events, and establishment of
reporting centers will be done together. Other partners will include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the University of Guam
Department of Agriculture extension agents, the Guam Farmers Cooperative, and the Soil and Water Conservation Board, along with the Volunteer
Conservation Officers and local hunters. Level of involvement of each will vary with different parts of the strategy, most being used as networking
partners.
Barrier removal tools will be provided to hunters of Guam. The hunting season 2009-2010 had approximately 630 registered hunters, though
average numbers are closer to 800.
When?
The Barrier Removal Project will start a few months before the hunting season begins (August 2010- March 2011). Preliminary surveys will be done
in November &December 2009 at the special permitting hunting sites to assess which bait/tool would be preferred among hunters. A workshop
will be scheduled for mid 2010 to train key hunters to lead presentations on sustainable hunting practices for all hunters who wish to participate in
the “free attractants/bait program”. Actual dissemination of bait can be done just prior to hunting season in September 2010, with the use
beginning October 1- 2010.
How?
Funding for bait stations and deer attractants will be provided through the Guam Coastal Management Program, and funding for trainings and use
of staff will be provided by the DAWR. Additional funding may be sought through additional grants.
Coordination of training programs and dissemination of supplies with be a joint effort between the departments.
96
Project Objectives & Execution.
Goal:
The goal of this project is to prevent wildland arson by hunters by providing an alternative method of attracting deer. This will provide the hunters
with the deer meat they seek and support more sustainable long-term hunting practices. The expected conservation result is improved overall reef
health (measured by increased coral cover and species diversity in monitoring sites) by 2015. Several shorter term goals will be measured such as
reduced number of fires by the end of 2010, resulting in a reduced amount of turbidity in the adjacent water systems (measured y turbidity) by
2011, and eventually.
Objectives:
 By August 2010, to have a key group of hunters trained to give a sustainable hunting presentation to other hunters during the yearly
briefings in September, 2010.

By August 2010, to have acquired deer attractant supplies, and developed dissemination guidelines and protocol to provide supplies for all
interested hunters for the hunting season, October 2010-March 2011.

By August 2010, to establish partnerships with local hunting groups and farmers to develop sustainable locally supported feed stations for
attracting deer.

By March 2011, to host a hunting festival to reward hunters and promote fire-free sustainable hunting practices.
Methodology used in BROP Assessment:
Several meetings have been held during the planning phase of this campaign. Conversations with conservation officers and hunters have revealed
that burning is not a practice used by most hunters. Those who do burn are usually referred to as poachers as they are using an illegal practice to
acquire deer. After completing factor chains for this behavior, it has become evident that those hunters who do burn to acquire deer meat need a
way to attract the deer. Whether it is a lack of hunting skill or a lack of time, fire has provided them with a quick way to attract deer and make
them easy to catch. According to those interviewed, they do not worry about the long term effects of the fire (they are aware, just apathetic); their
focus is getting deer immediately.
Continuing on these conversations, a barrier removal options of providing an equally effective, less destructive attractant method was considered.
Some suggestions of management options included: controlled burns, improved hunting gear, less hunting restrictions, feed plots set up and
managed locally by communities, and deer baiting. BRAVOs were run on several of the options, and the hunting areas were initially considered the
best idea, tagged as Locally Managed Hunting Areas. However, after an initial meeting with several key partners, it became evident that the LMHAs
would be a very logistically challenging and expensive option which did not have to full backing of our partners. Once again the idea of deer baiting
or attracting came out and two main reasons were given to consider it. (1) It is similar to what the hunters are doing now, in that it is a tool to
attract deer out of hiding into an easily accessible place; (2) It would allow engagement with the hunters and would be logistically much easier than
setting aside land, clearing, planting, etc. It could be paired with a brief educational component (run by hunters) where sustainable hunting
97
practices were taught, and it could lead to future partnerships with hunters and their local farmers and other land users. All of this could be done
in a “fire-free” context, promoting healthy watersheds and fire prevention.
Some research was done, and several deer attractant methods were found. Salk licks, hormonal attractants, chemical attractants, and food
stations were researched. An ultimate decision as to what method to use is still to be determined pending a hunter survey to be done during the at
the end of 2009.
After the information from these surveys is acquired and analyzed the attractants will be purchased and distribution protocol developed by the
Conservation Officers and community representatives. A sustainable hunting presentation will also be developed using information from various
online sources, local hunters, and the Conservation Officers.
Information about the lack of prosecution was discovered during a meeting with the Conservation Officers in which I learned that there has not
been a poaching related prosecution for over 10 years, despite hundreds of arrests having been made. Because the charge is not a serious one
(misdemeanor), it is not a top priority. Passing of the citation program would empower the C.O.s to better enforce the regulations and have a
tracking mechanisms to report repeat offenders. Using community pressure has proven effective in the past at pushing through legislative
measures, and this approach will be taken again using petitions, media, etc. This will be done as part of the Rare Pride Social Marketing Campaign.
Other activities that will take place as part of the BR strategy is a Hunting Festival to showcase hunters use of sustainable hunting practices and
develop pride in using them. Festival will include a deer cook off, wild boar cook off, giveaways, displays (developed by hunters and community
groups) showing the damaging effects of fire, watershed awareness, etc. The goal is to reward the positive behavior and use of the new tools, and
to show that the project supports hunting, and hunters, but is aimed to reducing destructive wildland fires.
Stakeholders & Roles
The Guam Barrier Removal Strategy will be coordinated by the Guam Coastal Management Program through the Campaign Manager in partnership
with the Game Management sector, the Conservation Officers, local hunters, mayor’s offices, and with support from partner agencies listed below.
98
Participant or stakeholder group
Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of
Statistics and Plans
Participant, name, position and contact
details.
Evangeline Lujan
Administrator
Potential Contribution (what participants
bring to the meeting)
Funding Source
Knowledge of project; Lead Agency
Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of
Statistics and Plans
Elaina Todd
Campaign Manager
Campaign manager
Project coordinator
Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic
& Wildlife Resources
Celestino Aguon
Acting Chief
Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic
& Wildlife Resources
Jeff Quitugua
Wildlife Biologist
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic &
Wildlife Resources, Law Enforcement Division
Mike Reyes
Chief Enforcement Officer
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic &
Wildlife Resources, Law Enforcement Division
Mark Aguon
Conservation Officer
Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic
& Wildlife Resources
Shawn Wusstig
Fisheries Biologist
Knowledge of Game Management grants;
hunting regulations; funding.
Knowledge of past hunting outreach
programs.
Ability to change hunting regulations.
Knowledge of Game Management
Knowledge of hunting regulations and
programs.
Contacts within the communities.
Knowledge of hunting regulations and
enforcement protocol.
Knowledge of poaching statistics.
Knowledge of hunting & poaching
Field experience in Law Enforcement
Experienced & respected hunter.
Contacts within community.
Experienced & respected hunter.
Field experience with Volunteer
Conservation Officer program
Contacts within community.
Knowledge of aerial surveys, fire damage,
ungulate damage.
USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service
John “Bart” Lawrence
Assistant Director - Field Office
Operations (Western Pacific)
Knowledge of current and past
sedimentation reduction projects.
Knowledge of fire prevention programs
Potential funding source.
Contacts within the community.
99
OVERARCHING PROJECT
Conduct hunter survey
Partnership Meetings
Hunting Festival
Hunter Meetings (focus groups)
Hunting Presentation
Development
Hunting Presentation to hunters
Acquire bait/supplies
Distribute bait supplies
Conduct hunter survey
eiu nisuEvaE
giisv WaAA ae
siuy seaav
sayE EkEA
aEii iaa aeai
nEnEA ava seaav
najiv eniveEnavE
eniavi iaEE
RACI CHART
A
R
A, R
C
R
A, R
R
A, R
C
R
R
C
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
C
R
I
R
C
C
C
I
A
C
A
C
R
R
C
R
A, R
C
C
A
C
R
C
R
R
C
R
A
C
C
R
R
R
C
C
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
I
C
I
I
Where:
• A Accountable means the person or persons with the authority to say “yes” or “no”. There should be only individual assigned as being
one individual assigned as being accountable for any given function, task or activity.
• R Responsible means the person or persons working on the activity, i.e. the “doer”
• C Consult means the person or persons involved prior to the decision or action. This necessitates two-way communication
• I Informed means the person or persons that need to know of the decision or action. This may require only one-way communication
Project Team:
The team leader will be the Pride Campaign Manager leading the coordination of the plan. Partners will include those listed above, as well as the
hunters and community members engaged in the project.
100
Project Timeline:
Dates
November 2009December 2009
January 2010-October
2010 (overlapping)
Activities
Conduct hunter survey
November 2009August 2010
Build partnership with DAWR Game Management
through supporting their efforts, participating in
their programs and engaging in regular
conversations about plan
March 2009
1st Annual Hunting Festival
August 2010
September
Begin hunter trainings
<conduct post campaign survey>
Dissemination of bait to hunters who attended
trainings; teach hunters to make their own, and to
use other baiting tools?
First hunting season with use of bait stations
Monitor hunters through surveys and conversations
2nd Annual Hunting Festival
October 1, 2010 –
March 31 2011
March 2011
Rare Pride Campaign focused on preventing wildland
fires
Milestones
Gather information about hunting preferences, use
of tools, areas hunted etc.
Increased awareness of wildland fires, creation of
fire hot line, passing of new hunting and fire
citation programs
Partnership for BROP: assistance with presentation
development, use of staff, assistance with hunter
festival, agree to coordinate dissemination of tools;
gather information about hunters, hunting, game
management, etc.
Engage hunters in program, begin talking about
ideas, identify hunters to be trained for sustainable
hunting practices presentations, set up framework
for BROP
Number of hunters who participate; feedback from
participants;
NO FIRES!
Showcase fire free hunting practices,
Showcase community fire watch programs
Showcase results of Rare Pride Campaign and
conservation targets to date
101
COSTS:
TASK
Bait Stations
DETAIL
To be provided for free (initially) to hunters who
attend sustainable hunter training
COST ($USD)
$5-$10/ea X 1000 for first season= $5000-$10000
depending on bait type sought**
If time allows may be able to teach hunters to make
salt licks and feed stations and this number may
decrease.
Hunter Trainings
Training workshops to be held prior to distribution of ~$300/workshop X 5 = $1,500
baiting tools. Materials, refreshments, training and
payment for trainers, and any certificates to be
(additional workshops may be held; this estimate is
issued.
for the first round to be held in September 2010).
Hunting Festival
Coordinate Festival with prizes, giveaways,
$5000
entertainment, etc.
Again cost may vary as with sufficient time most will
be provided in kind or with corporate sponsorships.
This is maximum anticipated cost
SUB TOTAL $16,500 USD
Supplemental Activities to Support BROP
Petition Writing &
Writing of petitions to push legislature to pass
$ 300 (labor costs) COST COVERED BY GCMP
Coordination of
DAWR hunting citation program & Guam Fire
signatures
Department fire use regulations.
Additional
Two new conservation officers for the DAWR.
$60,000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
Conservation Officers
Inclusive of salaries, equipment, stipends and
uniforms.
Community tree
Various tree planting activities to be coordinated in
$20,000 seedlings COST COVERED BY DFSR
plantings
southern communities throughout campaign.
Labor donated by volunteers
Fire Hotline
Establishment of a 24 hour fire hotline
$600/year COST COVERED BY GCMP
Labor to monitor provided by GFD
Turbidity meter
Instrument to be used to engage community in
$1000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
water monitoring in sites for both school programs
and community activities.
Fire Guideline
To be produced and placed in mayor’s offices,
$2,000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
102
Pamphlets
grocery stores, gas stations, and other locations
This cost may be shared with GFD.
within community.
SUB TOTAL $83,900 USD
TOTAL $100,400 USD
IMPACT & RISK ASSESMENT.
Risk Factors
•
•
•
•
There is the possibility that the
partner agencies will not have the
capacity or funding to fully support
the project.
Current director is not very
supportive of GCMP projects. He
may make the process difficult.
Conservation officers may feel that
bait stations will increase poaching
occurrences (non fire related)
There may be disagreement with
hunters as to whether or not bait
stations are “fair” as they provide an
advantage; other hunters may worry
Consequence
 Funding shortages will
result in not getting the bait
stations
 Lack of staffing to assist
may hinder the training and
implementation of project.
 Officers may not support
the project .
Mitigation Strategies
 GCMP can source funding if
needed while a more
sustainable partner is
found. Also, Rare pressure
may help push Ag to assist.
 Partnership must be
developed over time and
DAWR included in process.
 It will be important to take
ideas of CO’s into planning
process and ensure them
that the benefits will be
great.
 This may cause lack of trust
with hunters and the
project designed to support
them. Without their
 Many facilitated discussions
need to occur between
various hunting groups and
CM, Cos, and they need to
103
they will “take all of the deer”
support the project will be
very difficult to implement.
see the benefit outweighing
the cost (less fires).
 This could also affect the
community support for the
strategy.
 Hunters must be engaged in
the project and their ideas,
concerns and needs also
taken into consideration,
keeping the exact methods
adaptive.
 Education of the hunters
and general public needs to
show that deer populations
are sustainable, even with
more effective hunting
tools.
•
Communities may not see the value
providing this alternative to the
“lazy hunters” and may resent
making it so easy to kill the deer.
 Lack of support in the BR
strategy could affect the
entire watershed campaign,
making it difficult to engage
them in the activities.
 The supplemental Pride
social marketing campaign
and strong education need
to happen throughout the
project to explain the value
of providing an alternative
(and the detriment of the
fires)
 Engaging local celebrities
and leaders as
spokespeople for the
concept will help build trust
104
and show the benefits.
105
G. Campaign Strategy
13.0 AUDIENCE PERSONAS
The following audiences personas attempt to provide a vivid picture of the target audience. They were used in messaging development and aim to
help understand the needs, wants, worries, and hopes of the target audiences, as well as their thoughts on key campaign threats and behaviors.
These are fictional composites drawn from information gathered in qualitative and quantitative research.
13. 1 Audience persona: Hunter Adult - Tomas Rivera, 30, from Agat
It all started a few weeks ago when my pare’ Juan was kicking back with me at the house. We were having a few beers and telling stories, and he
brought over the most delicious deer kelaguen for chessa. I asked him how he got deer, since it was August, and the season wasn’t till October. Da
lai’, he got mad at first and was telling me he had it frozen since last season. I was like, Par, that deer was freshest of the fresh. And I know even
though we both hunt up at Andersen during extended special season, that’s long gone too. Hafa dude? What’s the catch. So he told me him and
his good friend Josh were out hunting last weekend. He said that Josh had a cousin who worked for the conservation officers and that when they
would go out, he would call him just to check up and see where they were patrolling that night, because there are usually only one or two units out
per night. After they found out they were in the clear, they’d go out to Josh’s uncle’s land down in Inarajan and they’d wait. He said the first few
weekends they tried their best, but they couldn’t catch anything, and they’d wait around all night. Josh got kind of impatient and decided to take
matters into his own hands. He took out some gas from his car, and spilled it on a lighter and took some newspaper from his car.
My Par was like, dude like freaking out at first, but then Josh said not to worry, said his family has been burning there for generations, and that’s
why they had good crops because the fire was good for the land. So they set the fire, but then they split, Josh said they’d come back next week.
Juan said when he went back, they only waited for like an hour, and then sure enough, the deer came out to the area and were nibbling on the new
grass, and BAM, they got em! Each of them brought home a big deer, Josh even got a doe, I hear their meat is so tender.
At first I was like, yeah Juan, but what about the fire man? What if it gets out of control, and he said don’t worry cause a lot of Josh’s friends burn
once in a while when they really need meat, and eventually the fire goes out. He said those big fires are from hikers and other people throwing
their cigarette butts out the window. At first when he asked me to go, I was like, nah, I’m cool man, but then last week, my boss told me that
they’re cutting back- they fired me. What am I going to do now? I got two girls, I need meat, I can sell some of the extra meat I catch for cash on
the side. And plus, with Josh’s cousin, we’ll be guaranteed not to get caught- he hasn’t.
It’s Thursday afternoon. Only two more days until we can go back. I feel nervous and excited to see what we’re gonna see, just hope we stay safe.
I gotta think of my girls, and my wife. I am doing this for them, but if I get arrested what would happened. I heard from the other hunters last
season that one guy got arrested 4 times, but he was out by that day! And he still got his gear back because the officers couldn’t hold it, cause it
was in his girlfriend’s name! Ha! These guys’ve been doing it along time, and we could really use the meat with the power bills going up, and my
hours getting cut. I prayed at mass on Sunday that God would give us good luck and protect us. I feel a little guilty about burning, and cause I know
106
this is against the law. My wife would kill me if she knew! But what are my choices? We need the deer, and we need them fast, and like Juan said,
what’s the big deal if we set one little fire as long as we move around, you know? What could it really hurt? Biba Peskadot!
13.2 Audience Persona: Hunter youth – Grace Chargualaf, 15 from Merizo
My name is Grace and I am 15 years old and I stay in Merizo. I am pretty excited to go hunting with my dad and uncle again this weekend. I am still
not really supposed to hold or fire the gun, but my dad is cool, he says that a lot of the laws out there are kinda stupid and that if I am gonna be
real hunter, I have to learn to shoot to kill. He says not to worry, because even if we get caught by the conservation officers working for “the man”
its not serious, and they’ll just take our gear, probably for themselves, and then let us go. See, just a stupid law taking up taxpayer dollars. We
usually go out at night, down south, and depending on what we see, we use different ways of hunting. The BEST night I had was when we were
hunting where my uncle Joe had burned a week before. He hunts almost twice a week and sells the meat to all of his coworkers at GPA. Man,
there were SO many deer that night, munching on the grass. I got my first kill that night. My dad was said he was proud of me, said I was the best
daughter a father could ask for.
I’ll never forget that night. I was so proud to, but I told my dad that I learned at school that fires were bad, they like cause the dirt to wash away or
something, but my dad said that is nonsense that people who don’t understand our culture try to teach us. He said Chamorros have been burning
since ever since, and that his daughter is going to learn the traditional ways of the family. Fires are natural and we are just using nature to help us
out. He said a man needs to feed his family and can sell what’s left to support their need. I gave him attan baba and he said okay, a woman to. I
don’t really talk about it with my other friends though, because some of them believe that crap and really think that fires are bad. Ok, shoot,
speaking of friends, I gotta go meet up with my friend Cherise, we’re planning for her baby girl’s (my goddaughter) christening. Maybe I can get her
a good deer for the fiesta this weekend. Esta laters.
13.3 Audience Persona: General Community Adult- Maria Cruz, 47, Santa Rita
Buenas yan Hafa Adai. My name is Maria and I live in Santa Rita with my 3 sons and , two daughter in laws, and 6 wonderful grandchildren. Today
was a bad day. We were out playing with kids this morning, and up on top of the hill we saw smoke. Not again. For the third time this month,
some idiot had started a fire, and it was burning out of control. Why are people burning in dry season?! This fire was different though.. it was
spreading fast, looked like it was moving down. Oh, Lord bless those families that live nearby. I hope it doesn’t hurt anyone this time. Already this
season, two of my cousins have had their crops burned out, they lost everything, and Tom lost his small ranch too. And where was the fire
department? Of course they didn’t even show up until it was over. I wanted to be angry with the neighbors, but honestly nai, it was Sunday, and
everyone knows that you can’t call the fire department on Sunday. Shoot, I don’t even know who I would call! They should just see the fire and
come, that’s their job after all. Not like they’re far away.
I remember one time many years back when my boys were still little, there was a fire by just up the ridge from our house. I tried to call someone
to report it, but dai lai I kept getting forwarded and reconnected, finally I just said forget it. My husband got mad, he said that it was his second
cousin who started the fire accidentally- he was trying burn some trash in his backyard and it got out of control and spread. He didn’t mean it, and
107
my husband told me to mind my own business, not to go getting people in trouble over stupid things. It eventually burned out, after spreading and
burning nearly 30 acres. I never called back since then, cause it’s not really my responsibility you know? There’s lots of people in our village,
someone else can call and wait. Ay, and about that fire on the hill today… I am sure someone will call, and hopefully those fire men can come and
do something to protect those homes. May the dear Lord protect them.
13.4 Audience Persona: General Community Youth- Zavier Quinata, 14, Umatac
I was out off-roading with my friends yesterday and it was so fun! It’s really dry though, so there’s not a lot of mud, but man, those red dirt pits are
great for taking the 4-wheeler. I was asking my friends if they knew why the spot we went to in Talofofo got bigger since last time we were there..
they said its cause of all the offroading, but my one friend Jesse (he’s kind of a nerd, you know) he said his teacher was telling him its cause of all
the fires burning the land. He said those areas we were messing around in are called badlands. What? That’s crazy. Yeah they’re bad- bad ass! I
don’t really see how fires are gonna cause all the soil to be lost, otherwise then why do farmers burn, you know? Its gotta do something good for
the land.
Anyway, it started to get dark so we started heading home and we passed by these two guys, and what’s really weird, is they were starting a fire!
We were just talking about that. We slowed down a little, but then we saw they had guns, and we got the hell out of there. Jesse said we should
call the police or the fire department, or someone because what they were doing was illegal. I told him he better not! Those guys saw us looking
at them, and we didn’t want any trouble. Plus would the police really believe a bunch of kids who were out offroading? They’d probably think we
started the fire and we’d get it from our dads. He finally agreed to keep his mouth shut, and we headed home to get showered up and have some
dinner.
14.0 BENEFIT LADDERS
Using information gleaned from the quantitative and qualitative surveys undertaken as part of the planning process, we are able to develop benefit
ladders for both the Southern General Community and Southern Hunters. These serve to identify core benefits that may activate desired behaviors
and to help influence our choice of “positioning“ before we begin material development.
108
14.1 Benefit Ladder for General Community Members



I am a Conscientious citizen
I will not tolerate crime in my village
I feel resources are for all to share







Less property damage
Help to create healthier reefs
Help protect clean water
Help prevent flooding
Help create healthier forests
Help create healthier reefs
More fish

Report wildland fires


I care about my community
I care about my children’s future
Desired Behavior for General Community: Get general community members to report wildland fires
to reduce number of fires, to preserve the native vegetation and prevent erosion to protect Guam’s
coral reef ecosystems.
Benefit Statements for General Community:
If I, a general community youth member, report wildland fires instead of not reporting them, I will show I care about I will show I care
about my children’s future because I am helping to preserve clean water, prevent flooding, protect native forests, an help create healthier
reefs.
109
If I, a general community adult member, report wildland fires instead of not reporting them, I will show I care about my family and
community because I am helping to preserve clean water, prevent flooding, protect native forests, an help create healthier reefs.
14.2 Benefit Ladder for Hunters


I hunt sustainably
I am a thoughtful hunter


I care about my children’s future
I care about my village and community



Decrease chance of getting arrested
Help prevent property damage
Help create healthier reefs



Help prevent flooding
Help protect clean water
Protect habitat for deer

Not use fire for hunting
Desired Behavior for Hunters: Get hunters to hunt without using fire to preserve the deer habitat
(forest/vegetation) and prevent erosion to protect Guam’s coral reef ecosystems.
Benefit Statements for Hunters:
110
If I, an adult hunter, hunt without fire instead of setting wildland fires, I will protect the deer habitat for future hunting and show I care
about my children’s future because I am hunting legally and helping to preserve clean water, prevent flooding, protect native forests, an
help create healthier reefs
If I, a youth hunter, hunt without fire instead of setting wildland fires, I will protect the deer habitat for future hunting and show that I am a
thoughtful community member, because I am hunting legally and helping to preserve clean water, prevent flooding, protect native forests,
an help create healthier reefs
15.0 SMART OBJECTIVES
Using the data collected, the results chains and analysis of management options, SMART objectives were developed. SMART is an acronym for:
Specific, Measurable, Action oriented, Realistic, and Timebound. These objectives will be used to assess the success of the campaign in achieving
its goals for each of the stages of behavior change. These SMART objectives can be found in the action table in section 19.
16.0 MARKETING MIX
The quantitative and qualitative surveys we conducted in the formative research section of this plan have helped us to understand who the trusted
sources are for our audiences, as well as their favored vehicles and channels. With this information, we are able to determine the right marketing
mix, using the 4 P’s for both the General Southern Community and Southern Hunters. This information will be developed further in our Creative
Briefiii which will be appended to this document
16.1 Marketing Mix for General Community
Product
There are two products for the General Community. The first is a fire hotline that can be called to report wildland fires. The second is a set of
guidelines and practices that can be implemented at home to use fire responsibly. The campaign is asking residents to call the hotline and report
fires when they see them, as well as to use best practices when using fire at home. The campaign will appeal to the audience’s desire to be caring
members of their community and concerned for future generations by: increasing prosecution of illegal fires, reduction in the number of wildland
fires, helping to preserve clean water, prevent flooding, protect native forests, and helping create healthier reefs for future generations.
Price
The main cost of calling in a wildland fire will be time. Another cost is fear of getting fellow community members in trouble. These costs will be
minimized by making the call center free, 24-hour,reliable, and anonymous. Additionally a reward may be offered for those calls leading to an
111
arrest or prosecution (if desired). The main cost to using the fire guidelines will be learning how to use them and the additional effort that may be
needed to use the fire responsibly (time). These costs will be minimized by providing easy to follow guidelines and by showing that the benefits far
outweigh the costs.
Place
The call center will be available from any telephone anywhere on Guam, and will be free. The guidelines will be distributed to the community free
at fairs and campaign events, and will be made available at mayors offices, grocery stores, gas stations and other easily accessible public venues.
Promotion
Looking at data, all community members also preferred I94 as a radio station, and the Pacific Daily News was read by the majority. Television
stations were split between all audiences. Additionally as a majority of the audience was catholic, the church may also be a good venue for
promotion of responsible behavior. For the youth audience, schools would be a great way to reach them. For all southern residents, village fiestas
are a great way to reach people while receptive and relaxing.
Positioning
Position “reporting wildland fires” as the right thing to do for any person who cares about the health and well being of the community and its
natural resources. May also use a zero tolerance positioning, of not tolerating any crime in their village, including arson and irresponsible fire use.
Position using fire safely as the legal and responsible thing to do for all community members.
16.2 Marketing Mix for Hunters
Product
The product of the campaign is to hunt without using fire. We are asking hunters to hunt using sustainable hunting practices, and providing deer
bait as an alternative to burning. The campaign will promote that the hunters care about the future of their resource, as they are protecting the
deer habitat, and their families because by hunting responsibly they will be: reducing their chance of being arrested , helping to preserve clean
water, prevent flooding, protect native forests, an helping create healthier reefs for future generations. In addition it will show that the hunters
care about their communities as they will be preventing damage of private property caused by wildland fires.
Price
The biggest price for the hunters will be giving up the practice of burning they have used for many years willingness to adopt a new way of hunting.
Using bait is similar to using fire, but not destructive. Baiting tools will be provided for free, but hunters will have to be willing to try the new
behavior and see if it works for them.
112
Place
The Department of Agriculture will give out the bait after hunters have attended a free sustainable hunting presentation. Bait will be available to
permitted hunters throughout the season.
Promotion
Research shows that all hunters listen to I94, where TV stations are divded. They also read the Pacific Daily News and are over 85% catholic. They
trust family members and most are aware that there are threats to the watersheds. Radio ads, segments in the newspaper, village fairs, and
fiestas will be good ways to reach this audience. Gun shops would be a great place for promotion as this is where hunters get their ammo and
weapons.
Positioning
The key to this strategy will be to position hunting sustainably as admirable and respectable, and show that these hunters are valuable members of
the community. It should be paired with positioning fires as destructive and irresponsible. Competition can be beat by providing an alternative
and rewarding adoption of new behavior with community pride.
17.0 Campaign Messages
This information will be developed further in our Creative Brief which will be appended to this document.
17.1 Messaging Strategy
Our messaging strategies will help guide all messaging designed to achieve our campaign goals. This strategy include the target audience, desired
action (and competing behavior), reward and support.
During discussions about the best approach to designing the campaign, it was decided that for the purposes of the overall campaign strategy, the
audiences would be combined. Separate key messages and targeted materials involving the BR strategy will be developed for the nested hunting
audience in Section 17.2.
113
Supplemental
Targeted
Materials
Hunters
(14.3%)
General
Community
(85.7%)
Campaign Materials
Campaign design: One campaign with nested audience
Campaign Messaging Strategy:
Preventing wildland fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property, reducing flooding,
protecting forests and grasslands, reducing soil running off into our rivers and reefs, protecting them for our today and for future
generations.
17.2 Core Messages and Slogans
Based on our messaging strategies, key messages were developed that encompassed the main themes of the campaign and encouraged the
audience by highlighting benefits/costs. The youth and adult audience were combined for both the hunters and the general community members
as the same key messages will be used for both but will be presented through different materials and activities. Several slogans were also
brainstormed. All concepts will be put through a pre-testing with audience focus groups. Additional assistance may be sought from professional
copy writers through creative development agencies if needed.
114
Marketing
Strategy:
Preventing wildland fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property,
reducing flooding, protecting forests and grasslands, reducing soil running off into our rivers and reefs,
protecting them for use today and for future generations.
Southern
General
Community
It is our responsibility as caretakers of our village to
report wildland fires. Call the toll free HOTline as
soon as you see a fire. (A & BC. Emotional appeal.)
When you start a wildland fire, you kill the plants that
protect the soil. Exposed soil washes into the sea,
smothers the reef, and starves its fish. Please protect
our fish, forests, and wildlife- prevent wildland fires.
(K & BC. Emotional and rational.)
Wildland fires create sediment which clogs rivers and
damages our clean water reserve. Protect your water,
prevent wildland fires. (K & BC. Rational)
Southern
Hunters
X
X
X
X
Who will deliver the message?
(questions will be asked during focus
groups to find which methods/persons
are most well received)








X
X




Poster
Commercial with images,
dramatic music
Village
mayors/manamko
Poster/flyer with
guidelines for safe uses
GFD (they know the law)
Religious leaders
Village Mayors/children
Religious leaders
X


Religious leaders
Village Mayor

Hunter trainings by
respected elder hunters.
Outdoor chef
X

Key
Messages:
Even small backyard fires can become wildland fires.
Follow the fire guide, available at your local Mayor’s
office, and use fire responsibly. (BC. Rational.)
We do not tolerate other crimes in our village, arson is
no exception. Report wildland arson by calling the toll
free HOTline. (A & BC. Emotional and Rational.)
Protect your friends and family from the damaging
effects of wildland fires. Talk to them about what they
can do to prevent wildland fires. (IC & BC.
Emotional.)
Using deer bait is an easy alternative to hunting with
fire, as is available free from the Department of
Agriculture. (K)

X
X
X
X
Manamko (elder)
Village Mayors
Religious leaders
Poster
Commercial with images,
dramatic music
Village mayor/manamko
X

115
Using deer bait is a legal way to get your deer faster,
without the damage of fire. Keep our southern villages
beautiful, use bait instead of fire. (K & BR & BC.
Rational.)
X



Conservation Officer
Poster or materials
Hunter trainings by
Conservation Officers
The messages are separated in this table to clearly show the various stages of behavior change that each is targeted towards. As materials
are produced, the key messages will be paired to combine the knowledge, attitude, and interpersonal communication messages with calls
to action for each target audience.
Slogan options (for all audiences):
Do your part, stop the spark!
Tame the Flame!
Actions on land affect the sea, burn and dirt runs off on me!
Ginen i tano, gaige i tasi (from land to sea)
Keep our future from going up in flames.
116
18.0 MONITORING PLAN
A good Monitoring Plan enables us to accurately and reliably assess the on-going impact of our project’s interventions to determine whether it has
achieved its goals and objectives, and what needs to be done to improve efficacy. Please reference the Action Plan (section 19) for the monitoring
plans for the Knowledge, Attitude, Behavior Change, Barrier Removal, and Interpersonal Communication Goals.
For the threat reduction and conservation result goals, the campaign has partnered with the National Park Service’s War in the Pacific National
Historical Park (NPS). As part of their work, they are a part of the Pacific Island Network (PACN) Water Quality Vital Sign Monitoring and Benthic
Marine Community Monitoring. The following are excerpts from the executive summaries of their monitoring protocol guidelines:
The water quality protocol will be implemented in all PACN parks. This protocol provides the methodology for addressing two monitoring
questions: 1) What are the ranges and variances of the network water quality parameters within selected water bodies? 2) What are the
temporal and spatial trends of the network core water quality parameters for individual water bodies or water resource types in each park? The
first question has the objective to determine the range and spatial variance on an annual basis of temperature, pH, conductivity/salinity,
dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorous (TDP), Nitrate (NO3), and chlorophyll in coastal
marine waters, streams, wetlands, and a saline lake in the 11 PACN parks. The second question has the objective of determining the temporal
(events, diurnal, seasonal, annual, decadal) and spatial trends, for the temperature, pH, conductivity/salinity, and dissolved oxygen in coastal
marine waters, streams, and wetlands in the 11 PACN parks. This protocol employs a split panel design with eight fixed and random sites
sampled quarterly along with two extended deployment sondes collecting physical parameters seasonally (wet and dry seasons) in each
monitored park water resource. This design provides for the ability to provide both status and trend information. This design also statistically
increases the power to detect change over time, resulting from the ability to conduct parameter corrections based on repeat analysis. In
addition, the utilization of extended deployment sondes maximizes the ability to use data to conduct trend analyses. This sampling regime
represents the maximum sustainable effort given current fiscal realities for the I&M water quality monitoring program only. Increased sampling
is possible with more assistance from parks, in addition to partnering with other federal, state, territorial, or local water quality monitoring
programs, including interested and reliable non-governmental and private organizations.
The benthic marine protocol will be implemented initially in four parks: Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park (KAHO), Kalaupapa
National Historical Park (KALA), National Park of American Samoa (NPSA), and War in the Pacific National Historical Park (WAPA). The protocol
addresses two monitoring questions: 1) what are the changes over time in the composition (e.g., species or assemblage) and physical structure
(rugosity) of the coral reef benthos? And, 2) what are the changes over time in settlement, growth, survival, and health of target coral
assemblages, species, or individuals? The first monitoring question has two objectives. The first objective is to determine long-term trends in the
abundance (percent cover of the benthic substrata) of sessile benthic marine macroinvertebrate (e.g., corals, zooanthids, octocorals, sponges,
117
and echinoiderms) and algal (including large fleshy macroalgae, crustose coralline, and turf algae) assemblages at sites that are randomly
selected on hard substratum, between 10 and 20 meters depth. The second objective is to determine trends in benthic local scale topography or
rugosity at a subset of these sites. The second monitoring question has three objectives. The first is to determine trends in settlement rate of
hard corals to uniform artificial surfaces at monitoring sites on the forereef between 10 and 20 meters depth. The second objective is to
determine trends in growth rate and survival of randomly selected coral colonies of a common, trans-Pacific species (e.g., Pocillopora eydouxi)
growing at similar depth. The last objective is to determine long-term trends in the incidence of coral disease and bleaching. The sampling
frame (hard substratum between 10 to 20 meters depth) was selected for ecologic and safety reasons.
A split panel sampling design will be implemented for monitoring, with thirty randomly selected sites sampled annually. Fifteen of the sites will
be fixed (permanent) and revisited annually. The remaining sites will be randomly selected each year and will not be revisited. This sampling
regime represents the maximum sustainable effort given current logistic and fiscal realities. Initially, this sampling design should have statistical
power to have a 40% chance of detecting a 25% relative change in percent cover of the benthos. After several years, we anticipate the power
will increase due to an increase in temporal replication to give an approximate power of an 80% chance to detect a 25% change. This increase
in power over time will result from the ability to conduct parameter corrections because of repeated analysis
The sites being monitored in Guam are in Agat Bay, the indicator site for the campaign. The data gathered from these studies will be referenced
and interpreted to assess achievement of the objectives of sediment reduction (as indicated by water turbidity) and overall coral reef structure
improvement (as indicated by an increase in the percent of branching coral in sample sites over time). The campaign will work closely with the
biologists conducting the studies when analyzing data and provide support to their wherever possible.
A full copy of the protocol is available from the Pacific Island I&M Network website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/PACN).
118
H. Theory of Change
It is critical to have a clear idea of how our Pride campaign will create lasting change for biodiversity conservation. One way to do this is to create a
“Theory of Change”. Throughout the planning process we gathered data to help develop a Theory of Change. We began inserting this into a simple
table which will be later used to develop a narrative. Our data helped answer questions like:
Who are the PEOPLE who will be affected by my program?
What ACTIONS will my program undertake?
In what SETTING will these actions take place?
What OUTCOMES will my campaign produce?
The answers to these questions will help determine a framework for behavior change and the greater purpose behind individual activities.
19.0 Theory of Change
19.1 Action Plan for Hunters
19.2 Action Plan for General Community
19.0 THEORY OF CHANGE
Theory Of Change Narrative (max 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 of the value of Guam’s reef, the threats
caused by wildland fires, and the benefits of sustainable fire use practices. Hunters will be asked to use bait stations 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 fires
decreases from ___ to ___ by ___ and the percent of branching coral in monitoring sites increases from ___ to ___ by ___.
119
120
19.1 ACTION PLAN FOR HUNTERS (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (1 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Conservation result
goal
Threat reduction
goals:
improved coral
size class
structure,
indicated by an
increase in
branching corals.
reduce number of
wildland fires in
Southern Guam;
by 2015 coral
cover in
monitoring sites
will increase by
10%.
reduce amount of
sediment load at
near shore reefs
in Southern Guam
SM
campaign
BROP:
hunter
festivals,
sustatainabl
e hunter
trainings
SM
campaign
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).
By
whom
Where
activities
n/a
By October
2010, the
number of fires
recorded in
southern villages
in Guam will
decrease by 50%
(from X% as
taken from fire
dept reports).
KEY RISKS
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
Current coral
cover
percentages
or class
structure
time required
for coral
growth
contacted NPS to
deterimine best
indicators of coral reef
health in the short and
long term.
other
NPS Monitoring
Plan and data
analysis alreay in
place with
baseline data.
Nationa
l Park
Service
% cover?;
class structure
%s? Metric
tbd
monitoring
by transect
and video
transect
surveys
X% increase
or shift in
class
structure
Annually
(date of
monitoring
depends on
staff,
weather and
each survey tbd)
NPS
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
Pulling out data from the
monitoring that will be
an indicator of changes
in sediment load.
Wil monitoring at these
sites be a good enough
sample of the target
area?
key knowledge of
best practices for
hunting that
does not include
burning
local
hunters
and
other
hunting
experts
number of
fires
reported/reco
rded
data
collected by
Guam Fire
Department
and
Forestry
during
aerial
surveys;
also will set
up fire call
center &
hotline
decrease
number of
fires in
southern
communities
by 50% by
2010; by 75%
by 2011; by
90% by 2015.
data will be
analyzed
annually but
is collected
year round;
onging
monitoring
Guam
Fire
Departm
ent;
Forestry
Dept;
commun
ity
member
s;
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
there is no acccurate or
central reporting
location for all fires, so
most data is best guess;
setting up fire call center
may initially increase
number reported.
number of
fires; acreage
burned;
acquire most recent
numbers from fire
department/forestry;
setting up fire watch
teams and call center;
establishing a more
efficient data
collection procedure
tbd
Nationa
l Park
Service;
local
mayors/
groups
total
suspended
solids
(turbidity);
may be
different with
NPS and
community
monitoring
bi annual
testing by
NPS;
monitoring
program by
community
TBD
decrease in
total
suspended
solids by 20%
by 2011; and
by 40% by
2015*
bi annually
by NPS, and
possibly
monthly by
community
monitoring
NPS
staff,
Southern
Guam
commun
ity
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
may be challenging to
get a group commited to
this; NPS has commited
as a parter but turn over
in staff may create some
delays in monitoring
program
Current
turbidity
levels at
monitoring
sites; time
required for
turbitidy to
decrease;
realistic goals
contacted NPS to
acquire current data;
also will work with NPS
and several partners to
develop best plan for
community
monitoring; will read
up on other plans
community
monitoring
plan
121
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (2 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Behavior Change
Hunters stop
setting wildland
fires to burn
vegetation, which
encourages new
growth which in
turn attracts and
lures out the deer
that they hunt.
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
campaign
BROP:
hunter
festivals,
sustatainabl
e hunter
trainings
By September
2010, the
number of
Southern Youth
hunters who
"use fire for
hunting" will
decrease from
11% to 6% (a 5
percentage
point decrease;
N=27) (as
measured by
Q14A).
KEY RISKS
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
need
additional
information
on hunters
prefernces in
their hunting
methods
develop & conduct
secondary hunter
survey
other
key knowledge of
best practices for
hunting
DAWR;
hunters
number of
fires
reported/reco
rded;
survey results
from
questions
13A: in the
past 12
months, Ihave
particiated
in… hunting?
& 14 B <A- In
the past 12
months, have
you started a
fire for any
reason> 14B:
if yes, please
indicate the
purpose of
your fire ;
data
analysis of
both
surveys and
fires
reported
who use fire
for hunting
will decrease
from 11% to
6% (5
percentage
points; N=27)
(
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
annual fire
survey;
secondary
pre and post
season
hunter
survey
survey
conducte
d by CM
and
voluntee
rs;
southern
Guam villages
it is challenging because
most hunters do not
admit to burning as it is
an illegal practice; it is
also difficult to identify
hunters (before survey)
commun
ity;
voluntee
rs
(hunters)
also can use
secondary
anonymous
hunter survey
with direct
question:
have you used
fire for
hunting?
122
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (3 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Barrier Removal goal
provide hunters
with deer baiting
tools as an
alternative to
burning and
sustainable
hunting training
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
campaign
By October
2010, 20% of
registered
Southern Youth
hunters will
have attended
sustainable
hunting
presentations
run by
conservation
offciers (DAWR).
KEY RISKS
BROP:
hunter
festivals,
sustatainabl
e hunter
trainings
Acqusition
and
distribution
of hunting
baiting
tools
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
best bait
methods to
use;
willingness of
hunters;
develop and conduct
pre and post season
hunter survey;
research best bait
methods
other
baiting tools
key knowledge of
sustainable
hunting
practices;
permitting
statistics
DAWR;
hunters;
Ted
Nugent
number of
hunters who
attend
trainings;
number of
baiting tools
given out;
numbers of
bait tools
requested/ne
eded for
second year
satisfaction of
using tools
hunter
survey;
number of
baiting
tools given
out;
take
requests for
second
year;
focussed
conversatio
ns
20% of
registered
Southern
Youth
hunters will
have
attended
sustainable
hunting
presentation
s;
pre and post
season
survey of
hunters;
requests for
bait annually
CM,
DAWR,
hunter
voluntee
rs
southern
Guam villages
hunters may not answer
honestly; hunters may
not like idea of bait
stations; COMMUNITY
may not like idea of bait
stations (unfair to deer,
etc.)
X of baiting
tools given
out;
X % take
requests for
second year;
X % satified
with baiting
tools
123
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (4 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Interpersonal
Communication
goals
hunters talk to
each other
about using
bait instead of
burning.
hunters talk to
someone
about wildland
fires
% increase who have
spoken with anyone
about using bait
stations?
By September 2010,
58 % of Southern
Youth Hunters will
have "spoken with
someone about
wildland fires in the
past 6 months" (a 10
percentage point
increase from 48%;
N=27) (as measured
by Q28.)
By September 2010,
36 % of Southern
Adults Hunters will
have "spoken with
someone about
wildland fires in the
past 6 months" (a 10
percentage point
increase from 26%;
N=19) (as measured
by Q28.)
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
other
SM
campaign,
hunter
trainings,
hunter survey
SM
campaign,
hunter
trainings,
KAP survey
DAWR;
hunters
possible
hunter survey
question?
Have you
spoken with
anyone about
using bait
stations?
Who?
hunter
survey &
analysis
increase in
number of
hunters who
answer yes
Q28: in the
past 12
months, have
you talked to
anyone about
wildland fires.
KAP survey
analysis
increase
number of
hunters who
have spoken
with
someone
about
wildland fire
by 10
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM,
DAWR,
hunter
voluntee
rs
southern
Guam villages
hunters may not answer
honestly if they feel bait
stations are not
accepted by community.
CM &
voluntee
rs
southern
Guam villages
n/a
current
perceptions
of baiting
deer among
hunters;
n/a
develop and
implement hunter
survey
n/a
increase
number of
hunters who
have spoken
with
someone
about
wildland fire
by 10
percentage
points
124
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (5 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Attitude goals
hunters feel that
individuals
starting wildland
fires should be
prosecuted
By September
2010, 75% of
Southern Youth
Hunters will
"strongly agree"
or "agree" that
"individuals
starting wildland
fires should be
prosecuted (an
11 percentage
point increase
from from 64%;
N=27)(as
measured by
Q26C).
By September
2010, 58%
Southern Adult
hunters will
"strongly agree"
or "agree" that
"individuals
starting wildland
fires should be
prosecuted (an
11 percentage
point increase
from 47%; N=19)
(as measured by
Q26C).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
campaign,
hunter
trainings,
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
n/a
other
KAP survey
n/a
Q26C:
Individuals
starting
wildland fires
should be
prosecuted;
KAP survey
analysis
increase in
the number
of hunters
who answer
strongly
agree or
agree by 11
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM &
voluntee
rs
southern
Guam villages
n/a
increase in
the number
of hunters
who answer
strongly
agree or
agree by 11
percentage
points
125
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (6 of 6)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Knowledge goals
hunters disagree
or strongly
disagree that
wildland fires are
not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs
By September
2010, 35% of
Southern Youth
Hunters will
disagree or
strongly
disagree that
wildland fires
are not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs" (a
13 percentage
point increase
from 22% N=27)
(as measured in
Q26A).
By September
2010, 30% of
Southern Adult
hunters will
"disagree" or"
strongly
disagree" that
"wildland fires
are not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs" (a
15 percentage
point increase
from 15% N=19)
(as measured in
Q26A).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
campaign,
hunter
trainings,
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
n/a
other
KAP survey
n/a
Q26 A:
wildland fires
are not a
serious threat
to Guam's
coral reefs;
responses:
strongly
disagree and
disagree
KAP survey
analysis
increase in
number of
hunters who
answer
strongly
disagree and
disagree by
13
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM &
voluntee
rs
southern
Guam villages
n/a
increase in
number of
hunters who
answer
strongly
disagree and
disagree by
15
percentage
points
126
19.2 ACTION PLAN FOR GENERAL COMMUNITY (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (1 of 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Conservation Result
goal:
improved coral
size class
structure,
indicated by an
increase in
branching corals.
by 2015 coral
cover in
monitoring sites
will increase by
10%.
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
n/a
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
other
NPS Monitoring
Plan and data
analysis alreay in
place with
baseline data.
Nationa
l Park
Service
% cover?;
class structure
%s? Metric
tbd
monitoring
by transect
and video
transect
surveys
X% increase
or shift in
class
structure
Annually
(date of
monitoring
depends on
staff,
weather and
each survey tbd)
NPS
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
Pulling out data from the
monitoring that will be
an indicator of changes
in sediment load.
Wil monitoring at these
sites be a good enough
sample of the target
area?
Current coral
cover
percentages
or class
structure
time required
for coral
growth
contacted NPS to
deterimine best
indicators of coral reef
health in the short and
long term.
127
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (2 of 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Threat reduction
goals:
reduce number of
wildland fires in
Southern Guam;
By October
2010, the
number of fires
recorded in
southern villages
will decrease by
50% (from X% as
taken from fire
dept reports.
reduce amount of
sediment load at
near shore reefs
in Southern Guam
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).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
other
Responsible fire
use materials
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
number of
fires
reported/reco
rded
data
collected by
Guam Fire
Department
and
Forestry
during
aerial
surveys;
also will set
up fire call
center &
hotline
decrease
number of
fires in
southern
communities
by 50% by
2010; by 75%
by 2011; by
90% by 2015.
data will be
analyzed
annually but
is collected
year round;
onging
monitoring
Guam
Fire
Departm
ent;
Forestry
Dept;
commun
ity
member
s;
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
there is no acccurate or
central reporting
location for all fires, so
most data is best guess;
setting up fire call center
may initially increase
number reported.
number of
fires; acreage
burned;
acquire most recent
numbers from fire
department/forestry;
setting up fire watch
teams and call center;
establishing a more
efficient data
collection procedure
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
total
suspended
solids
(turbidity);
may be
different with
NPS and
community
monitoring
bi annual
testing by
NPS;
monitoring
program by
community
TBD
decrease in
total
suspended
solids by 20%
by 2011; and
by 40% by
2015*
bi annually
by NPS, and
possibly
monthly by
community
monitoring
NPS
staff,
Southern
Guam
commun
ity
6 sites within
target area
(Agat
Municipality/
Village which
includes the
following
watersheds:
Taelayag,
Agat, Cetti)
may be challenging to
get a group commited to
this; NPS has commited
as a parter but turn over
in staff may create some
delays in monitoring
program
Current
turbidity
levels at
monitoring
sites; time
required for
turbitidy to
decrease;
realistic goals
contacted NPS to
acquire current data;
also will work with NPS
and several partners to
develop best plan for
community
monitoring; will read
up on other plans
fire hotline & call
center
Responsible fire
use materials
fire hotline & call
center
community
monitoring
plan
128
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (3 0F 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Behavior Change
community
reports wildland
arson
By September
2010, the
number of
Southern Youth
who do not hunt
who have "never
considered
reporting
wildland arson"
will decrease
from 44% to
29% (15
percentage
points N=140)
(as measured by
Q16).
By September
2010, the
number of
Southern Adults
who do not hunt
who have "never
considered
reporting
wildland arson"
will decrease
from 45% to
30% (15
percentage
points N=137)
(as measured by
Q16).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
Establishment of Fire
Hotline & Call Center
other
Responsible fire
use materials
fire hotline & call
center
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
KAP survey
question 16:
in the past 6
months I have
never
reported
wildland
arson
Number of
fires reported
KAP survey
analysis
Fire hotline
database
GFD
Reports
decrease in
the number
of
community
youth who
have never
reported
wildland
arson by 15
percentage
point
decrease
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM, GFD
Southern
Guam
Villages
there are several
existing projects about
fire prevention; to
prevent cross messaging
we will need to partner
with those agencies
(NRCS, GFD) in the
development of the
materials
decrease in
the number
of
community
adults who
have never
reported
wildland
arson by 15
percentage
point
decrease
129
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (4 0F 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Barrier Removal goal
establish a fire
hotline and call
center to make it
easier for
community
members to
report wildland
fires, including
arson.
By September
2010, 65% of
Southern Youth
who do not hunt
will find it "easy
to report
wildland fires"
to authorities
(an 11
percentage
point increase
from 54%;
N=140) (as
measured in
Q27A).
By September
2010, 85% of
Southern Adults
who do not hunt
will find it "easy
to report
wildland fires"
to authorities (a
10 percentage
point increase
from 75%;
N=137) (as
measured in
Q27A).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
Develop best fire
practices materials
other
Responsible fire
use materials
fire hotline & call
center
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
KAP survey
question 27A:
Tell me
whether you
would find it
easy or
difficult to
report
wildland fires
to
authorities…
KAP survey
analysis
increase in
the number
of
community
youth who
say it easy
by 11
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM, GFD
Southern
Guam
Villages
there are several
existing projects about
fire prevention; to avoid
mixed messaging we will
need to partner with
those agencies in the
development of the BMP
materials
Establishment of fire
hotline and call center
increase in
the number
of
community
adults who
say it easy by
11
percentage
points
130
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (5 OF 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Interpersonal
Communication
goals
Community
members talk to
someone about
wildland fires
By September
2010, 34 % of
Southern Youth
who do not hunt
will have
"spoken with
someone about
wildland fires in
the past 6
months" (a 10
percentage
point increase
from 24%;
N=140) (as
measured by
Q28.)
By September
2010, 25 % of
Southern Adults
who do not hunt
will have
"spoken with
someone about
wildland fires in
the past 6
months" (a 10
percentage
point increase
from 15%;
N=137) (as
measured by
Q28.)
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
Speak with
Vangie about
fire report
reward.
n/a
other
KAP Survey
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
Q28: in the
past 12
months, have
you talked to
anyone about
wildland fires.
KAP survey
analysis
increase
number of
community
youth who
have spoken
with
someone by
10
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM
Southern
Guam
Villages
People may still be
hesitant to report fires
and arson because of
cultural norms of
protecting members of
their community
increase
number of
community
adults who
have spoken
with
someone by
10
percentage
points
131
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (6 OF 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Attitude goals
community
members will
agree and
strongly disagree
that wildland fires
do not need to be
prevented
By September
2010, 75%of
Southern Youth
who do not hunt
will "disagree"
or "strongly
disagree" that
"wildland fires
do not need to
be prevented"
(a 12 percentage
point increase
from 63%
N=140) (as
measured by
question 26D).
By September
2010, 85% of
Southern Adults
who do not hunt
will "disagree"
or "strongly
disagree" that
"wildland fires
do not need to
be prevented" (a
10 percentage
point increase
from 75%;
N=137) (as
measured by
question 26D).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
n/a
other
KAP Survey
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
survey
questions
26D: Wildland
fires do not
need to be
prevented
KAP survey
analysis
increase
number of
community
youth who
disagree and
strongly
disagree by
12
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM
Southern
Guam
Villages
n/a
increase
number of
community
adults who
disagree and
strongly
disagree by
10
percentage
points
132
ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (7 OF 7)
MONITORING PLAN
ACTION PLAN
Goals
Results needed
Key
Required tools
Partner
Metric
Method
Target
Frequency
Key (SMART)
objectives
Knowledge goals
community
members
disagree or
strongly disagree
that wildland fires
are not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs
By September
2010, 40% of
Southern Youth
who do not hunt
will disagree or
strongly
disagree that
wildland fires
are not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs (a 13
percentage
point increase
from 27%
N=140) (as
measured in
Q26A).
By September
2010, 55% of
Southern Adults
who do not hunt
will disagree or
strongly
disagree that
wildland fires
are not a serious
threat to Guam's
coral reefs (a 13
percentage
point increase
from 42%
N=137) (as
measured in
Q26A).
KEY RISKS
By
whom
Where
activities
SM
Campaign
including:
presentatio
ns about
fires, best
fire
practices,
establishme
nt of fire
watch
teams,
watershed
projects,
fire hotline
Socio-political,
Scientific or
Information
gaps
Actions needed
n/a
n/a
other
KAP Survey
NRCS,
Forestry
, GFD
Q26 A:
wildland fires
are not a
serious threat
to Guam's
coral reefs;
responses:
strongly
disagree and
disagree
KAP survey
analysis
increase in
number of
community
youth who
answer
strongly
disagree and
disagree by
13
percentage
points
KAP pre and
post Survey
(July-Sept
2009 & Sept
2010)
CM
Southern
Guam
Villages
n/a
increase in
number of
community
adults who
answer
strongly
disagree and
disagree by
13
percentage
points
133
I. BUDGET AND TIMELINE
The budget and timeline are preliminary at this stage of the project plan. A detailed budget for campaign activities will be included in the Campaign
Operational Plan which will be filed as an addendum to this document.
20.0 Project TIMELINE & BUDGET
20.1 Project timeline (Gantt)
Outreach Timeline (DRAFT)
Project/Activities
Fact sheet preparation
Posters design,
production and
placement
Button preparation
School song
production
Costume production
School visit
Comic
Popular song
Fisheries storyboard
prod
Community visits incl.
Serena Theatre
Sermon sheet
Billboards
Media
Fund raising
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
134
Key stakeholder
reporting
Meeting of Program
committee (monthly)
Post project
questionnaire survey
Final report and
follow up plan
Mtce. RarePlanet

This is a preliminary timeline that includes assumed activities. This will need to be adjusted after Work Plan development which will help
determine actual campaign activities to be developed.
135
Detailed Barrier Removal Timeline
Steps
I. Budget & Timeline
Before
Jan 09
Barrier Removal Implementation
Jan - 09 Feb - 09 Mar - 09 Apr - 09 May - 09 Jun - 09
Post
Apr
2010
Community outreach and increase awareness (Pride)
Purchase snap traps and train fishermen
Petition drive
Eradication permit approved by Ministry of Health
Purchase bait stations and place them on Serena Island
Bait stations armed
Bait stations checked/rearmed & rodents monitored
Fishermen check their boats & install snap traps
Andrea Naturalist Society monitors dove population (bi-annual)
20.2 Project budget for Bait tools & Hunter training
Site Preparation Phase:
Task
Transport to/from site during prep
(Boat (Mercruiser 5.7 5500) provided by Forestry, Gas only)
Camping equipment
http://www.breezily.co.uk/products/complete_camping_set_for_two
Clearing 3000 meters bait lines (labor) 6 men clearing 100 m/day x 5
days
Provisions (5 days)
PVC Protecta Bait Stations (73gound + 120 tree)
Equipment (Cutlass, overalls, gloves etc)v
Detail
20 boat trips @ $3
3 sets tents, sleeping bags, cooking
utensilsiv @$70
6 men @ $A 16 for 5 days
$15 day x 6 people x 5 days
$85 for pack of 6 bait stations need 33
packs
Equipment package @$81/person x 6
Cost (A$)
A$ 60
A$ 210
A$ 480
A$ 450
A$ 2,805
A$ 486
136
Project oversight (donated by Forestry Department)
TOTAL
No cost to project
A$ 4,491
Baiting and Implementation Phase:
Task
Transport to/from site during eradication phase
(gas only)
Man days (monitoring bait stations); Daily for 7
weeks, alternate days for 16 weeks – 4 man team
Provisions
Bait (for ground bait stations) 33 kg
http://killfireants.com/mcart/index.cgi?PID=IT647&code=13
Bait (for tree bait stations) 33 kg
http://killfireants.com/mcart/index.cgi?PID=IT647&code=13
Equipment
Project oversight (donated by Forestry
Department)
TOTAL
Detail
210 boat trips @ $3
Cost (A$)
A$630
105 days x 4 men x $16 daily rate
A$6,720
$10/person/day (105 days) – 4 men
11 buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs
$49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks.
A$ 4,200
A$ 539
25 buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs
$49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks
A$1,225
Climbing spikes 2 sets @$296
http://www.abbeypro.co.uk/subprod/climbing-spikes0001030.aspx
No cost to project
A$ 592
A$ 13,906
Monitoring Phase:
Task
Transport to/from site during monitoring phase
(Site will be monitored fortnightly for 8 months)
Gas only
Detail
32 boat trips @ $3
Cost (A$)
A$ 96
137
Man days – 16 days x 4 man team
Provisions
Bait (for bait stations)
Equipment (Chew sticks, sticky boards etc)
Project oversight (donated by Forestry
Department)
TOTAL
16 days x 4 men x $16 daily rate
$10/person/day (16 days) – 4 men
3buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs
$49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks.
Estimated at $300
No cost to project
A$ 1024
A$ 640
A$ 147
A$ 300
A$ 2,207
Total cost of Serena Island Eradication Program = Avi$ 20,604 + 15% contingency ($3,090) = 23,695
I. Budget & Timeline
20.2.1 Preliminary project budget for Outreach costs
Important note: The specific activities (posters, sermon sheets, school visits) are subject to change. These will be more fully detailed and budgeted
in the campaign Work Plan and Operalization Plan that will be appended to this document
Activity
Fact sheet preparation
Posters design, production and
placement
Button preparation
School song production
Costume production
Number
1,000
5,000
Anticipated costs
$1,000
$ 7,500
5,000
$ 5,000
Donated
$ 750
Transportation from Project vehicle.
Costs covered by FD
School visit
Comic
Comments
1,000
$3,000
138
Popular song
Fisheries storyboard prod
Community visits incl. Serena
Theatre
Sermon sheet
Billboards
Radio
TOTAL
Donated
$300
$1,000
1,000
3
$1,000 LCD projector. Other costs
covered by FD
500
2,250
Donated air time
21,300
Anticipated from Rare ($20,000)
Anticipated revenue from Core Funds = $20,000
ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN
Draft copies of this plan were circulated to Adam Murray (Pride Program Manager) through my RarePlanet portal, www.rareplanet.org/guamwatershed-campaign, in an iterative review process. It was also shared with the stakeholders who attended the initial participatory modeling
meeting, as well as with those interviewed during the directed conversations. Throughout the planning process new ideas and recommendations
have been incorporated and revisions made, to the extent that this plan has now been approved by all critical partners including the Chief Forest
Officer, REI, members of the Serena Island Advisory Committee and Rare.
The plan will be posted on RarePlanet, which will continue to be used for information sharing and periodic updates.
139
21.0 References and Acknowledgements
Burdick, David, Valerie Brown, Jacob Asher, Mike Gawel, Lee Goldman, Amy Hall, Jean Kenyon, Trina Leberer, Emily Lundblad, Jenny McIlwain,
Joyce Miller, Dwayne Minton, Marc Nadon, Nick Pioppi, Laurie Raymundo, Benjamin Richards, Robert Schroeder, Peter Schupp, Ellen Smith and
Brian Zgliczynski 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam. pp. 472-509. In: J.E. Waddell and A.M. Clarke (eds.), The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. NOAA/NCCOS Center
for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 569 pp.
Minton, D. 2005. Fire, erosion, and sedimentation in the Asan-Piti watershed and War in the Pacific
NHP, Guam. Report prepared for the National Park Service. PCSU Technical Report 150. Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PSCU),
Department of Botany, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu, HI. 99 pp. http://www.nps.gov/wapa/parkmgmt/index.htm
Bureau of Statistical & Plans, Office of Governor Felix P. Camacho, 2005. “2004 Guam Statistical Yearbook”. Hagatna, Guam.
Guam Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources. 2006. Guam Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Mangilao, Guam.
Guam Coastal Management Program Section 309 Assessment and Strategy January 2006
Natural Resources Atlas of Southern Guam http://www.hydroguam.net/index.php - Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western
Pacific
Randall, Richard. An annotated checklist of hydrozoan and scleractinian corals collected
from Guam and other Mariana Islands. Micronesica 35-36:121-137. 2003
van Beukering, P., W. Haider, M. Longland, H. Cesar, J. Sablan, S. Shjegstad, B. Beardmore, Y. Liu, and G.O. Garces. 2007. The economic value of
Guam’s coral reefs. Technical Report 116. The Marine Laboratory, University of Guam. Mangilao, Guam. 120 pp.
Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team, Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Soil Resources Division. Final Report February 25- March 5,
2003. Mangilao, Guam.
Miradi Software: Courtesy of Conservation Measures Partnership
140
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project is dedicated to the late Dave Limtiaco, Chief of Forestry, whose vision and leadership were the catalyst to initiate this campaign. Dave
dedicated his life to the mission of protecting and restoring Guam’s native forests. His innovation, perseverance and drive were an inspiration to
many, and his vision of stopping wildland fires lives on. It is hoped that through this campaign, Dave’s dream of educating and empowering the
community to put an end to wildland fires will be accomplished, and that Dave’s children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy Guam’s natural
resources for generations to come.
The campaign manager would like to acknowledge the many people who shared of their time, experience, expertise and advice in the development
of this plan. Special thanks to the stakeholders, local and regional experts, resource users, government agencies, partner organizations and who
participated in meetings, conducted research, reviewed documents, and provided recommendations. A special thanks to all of the volunteers who
donated hundreds of hours conducting surveys around this island. Thanks to Adam Murray, Pride Program Manager, and all of the Rare trainers
and staff for providing training and advice. Thanks to Evangeline Lujan, Guam Coastal Management Administrator for her trust, patience and
support.
Completion of this plan would not have been possible without each individual’s time, willingness, and dedication to the vision throughout the
planning process. With the continued support of the community and all of the above mentioned partners, it is hoped that this project will be
implemented effectively and will achieve a shift in not only the knowledge and attitude of the community, but also in the behaviors, reaching the
ultimate goal of protecting Guam’s watersheds and coral reef ecosystems.
This plan had been read and approved by _______.
141
142
J.APPENDICES
1. FULL STAKEHOLDER MATRIX
2. FULL BRAVOS
A. BRAVO LACK OF ENFORCEMENT
B. BRAVO LOCALLY MANAGED HUNTING AREAS
C. BRAVO BAIT & HUNTER TRAINING
3. FULL QUESTIONNAIRE
4. QUESTIONNAIRE SUPPLEMENT & DEFINITIONS
5. INTERVIEWER TRAINING GUIDE
6. COMPLETE LIST OF GUAM IUCN REDLIST SPECIES
7. GUAM FIRE PREVENTION & EDUCATION TEAM FINAL REPORT
8. CAMPAIGN CREATIVE BRIEF
143
A. Full Stakeholder Matrix, from Section 2.3
Participant or
stakeholder group
Participant, name,
position and contact
details.
Key Issues
Potential Contribution (what
participants bring to the
meeting)
Motivation to attend (what
meeting can give to
participants)
Consequences of not
inviting.
GCMP
Dave Burdick &
Coral reefs, GIS,
Will lead monitoring program;
GIS expertise, Coral reef
ecology
Will lead monitoring group;
coral reef ecologist; coastal
management.
Loss of knowledge
Loss of knowledge/
partnership
NOAA
Forestry
Evangeline Lujan or
Tom Quinata
Administrator
Acting Supervisor
Valerie Brown
Coral reef ecology,
monitoring, ongoing
research
Coral reef expert, GIS,
monitoring, extensive
knowledge of past and current
management.
Will be part of the monitoring
group; coral reef ecologist
Forestry
Forestry management;
wildfires
Head of forestry department.
Justin Santos
Attended?
NO- Off
Island
NO- Off
Island
NO- Off
Island
Loss of knowledge/ major
partner.
NO- chief
instead
Fisheries/Haggan
Watch
Forestry
Conservation Officer
(Law Enforcement)
Shawn Wusstig
Bel Soliva
Mark Aguon
Turtle nesting sites;
hunting; ungulates
Forestry/public
outreach
Hunting, poaching,
enforcement
Hunting practices; ungulates;
rules and regulations; fisheries
Extensive knowledge of
ongoing projects/initiatives.
Hunting rules and regulations,
conservation officer,
Hunter; DOA employee; works
with turtle nesting sites in
affected areas.
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
Is public outreach person for
Forestry department;
concerned with wildfires
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
As CO is involved in wildfire
/poaching prosecution but is
also a member of hunter
community, resident of
southern village
Loss of knowledge
No- DoAg.
Director
No- Chief
instead
No- DoAg
Director
The Nature
Conservancy
Trina Leberer
BR Partner;
CAP/management;
Management; CAP; extensive
knowledge of past and current
management/rules from DAWR
In charge of Piti watershed
CAP partnership; former
DAWR supervisor
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
No –Off
island
144
Micronesia Challenge
Ann Marie
UOG students; coral
reefs; local
conservation
Micronesian challenge;
community involvement
Is an intern for MC and would
be involved in project.
Loss of knowledge
Micronesia Challenge
Sheeka Afaisen
High school students;
local conservation;
resident of merizo
Micronesian challenge;
resident and fisher in merizo
Resident of target site;
teacher; MC intern
Loss of knowledge and
partnership potential
Marine Mania
Linda Tatreau
Environmental
education action
Youth community involvement
EEC partner; possibly project
for students;
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
National Park Service
Jenny Drake
Sedimentation, Local
flora
Local plants/sedimentation
studies in Asan
Involved in WAPA
sedimentation studies
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
Southern Soil & Water
Conservation Service
Benny San Nicolas
Soil & Water
Conservation
Knowledge of community, soild
and water issues, watershed
issues
Board member/ respected in
community; long time
participant in SWCB
Loss of knowledge,
partnership
Historic Preservation
Roland Quitugua
Watersheds
Watersheds/ sedimentation
Involved in watershed
restoration projects
Loss of knowledge/
partnership
National Resource
Conservation Trust
Bart Lawrence
Sedimentation;
erosion
Current projects; partnerships;
barriers, etc.
Has been working in
erosion/sediment on related
projects
Loss of knowledge/
partnership potential
Marine Lab
Grad student
Roxanna Meyers
Coral Reefs ecology; current
projects at Marine Lab
Current Student; related to
issues of study
Loss of knowledge/support
RARE
Cheryl Calaustro
Campaign Manager
CM Mentor
Rare campaign manager
Loss of knowledge/ support
Indigenous Rights
Group
Representative
Indigenous rights
Indigenous movements;
viewpoints; partnership
options
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
NoDianne
instead
Loss of knowledge/support/
partnership
No
145
Piti Mayors Office
Piti Mayor
Piti Community
Community, concerns, village
involvement, culture
Sediment is affecting their
reefs; project will take place in
their village; community
representation
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
Asan Mayors Office
Asan Mayor
Asan Community
Community, concerns, village
involvement, culture
Sediment is affecting their
reefs; project will take place in
their village; community
representation
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
Agat Mayors Office
Agat Mayor
Agat Community
Community, concerns, village
involvement, culture
Sediment is affecting their
reefs; project will take place in
their village; community
representation
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
Merizo Mayors Office
Ernest Chargualaf
Merizo Community/
fishing
Community, concerns, village
involvement, culture
Sediment is affecting their
reefs; project will take place in
their village; community
representation
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
Fisherman
Dansel Narcis
Reef ecosystems;
fishing/culture
Fishing techniques; culture
Sedimentation is affecting
their fish stocks; village
resource
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
Hunting
Hunting techniques, history,
culture
Hunting issues/regulations will
be addressed; may be
opportunity for changes
Loss of knowledge/ support/
partnership
No
No
No
No
No
Hunter
No
146
B. BRAVO data from Section 6.0
I. BRAVO Data- Lack of Enforcement
Explanation
Preliminary
projected
costs
 Two (2) new conservation officers
– Salaries
– Equipment
– Stipends
– Uniforms
Predictability
of
cost
burden
1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;
4 = Costs are predictable
and manageable
The number of conservation officers will remain the same for the duration
of the grant period. Consequently, the costs are very clear and predictable.
Costs
Criteria
Score
 Estimated total cost
$ 60,000.
4
4
Average Score
Criteria
Explanation
Description of revenue streams
Fundraising
total:
$
60,000
Sources: Guam Coastal Management
Score
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
147
Program (CR Grant)
Earned
income
Sources: N/A
Percentage of total cost available
Likelihood of fundraising success
total:
$
1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75
– 100%
Funding has already be approved by
NOAA through the Coral Reef grant.
4
1 = Very low likelihood of raising the
necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of
raising necessary funds almost a
certainty
Funding is already committed.
4
Fundraising timing
Funding will be available by October
2009.
Funding Alignment
1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with
project timeline; 4 = Funding timeline is
well-aligned with project timeline
Funding is well-aligned with the project
timeline and will be available for the
duration of the project and beyond.
4
1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 =
Very sustainable funding source
Funding is sustainable through the CR
grant through MOUs with DOA.
4
Sustainable Funding
4
Average Score
Criteria
Explanation
Score
148
Attainability &
Availability
Technology
Technology assistance
Appropriate for circumstances
1 = Technology
and/or
required
assistance needed
is unavailable; 4 =
Technology
is
attainable
and
third-party
assistance,
if
required,
is
available
Training will be
provided by the
Law Enforcement
Division.
4
1 = Technology
assistance
is
required, yet not
available;
4
=
Technology
assistance
is
significant
and
available
Funding is also
provided through
MOU
for
equipment,
stipends,
and
uniforms.
4
1
=
Available
technology is not
appropriate
for
circumstances; 4 =
4
149
Acquirable
technology is suited
for circumstances
Technology
used
by LED will be
utilized with new
COs as well.
4
Average Score
Criteria
Barrier
support
Removal
Partner
Capacity /
Organizational Ability
Barrier Removal Partner’s
ability to drive change
Explanation
Score
1 = BR Partner does not
exist or is not willing to
support the project; 4 =
There exists a willing
Barrier Removal Partner
The
Barrier
Removal
partner is the Bureau of
Statistics and Plans Guam
Coastal
Management
Program, which is fully
willing to support the
project and is the host
agency for the campaign.
4
1 = BR Partner lacks a track
record of driving behavior;
4 = BR partner has a
proven track record of
driving behavior
GCMP has been involved in
many educational outreach
campaigns including the
4
150
Kika Clearwater campaign.
There is a long stand
strong
partnership
between GCMP and the
LED, and this is a part of
ongoing
funding.
Reciprocal support will be
given by each agency to
ensure
a
successful
partnership and decrease
in the number of fires.
Budget planning and
efficient execution
Average Score
cost
1 = BR Partner has not
demonstrated
sufficient
budget planning skills and
cost efficient execution of
plans; 4 = BR Partner has
proven
proficiency
in
budget planning and cost
efficient execution of past
plans
GCMP is 100% federally
funded and as such has a
proven proficiency in not
only budget planning and
cost effective execution of
plans, but also handles all
grants management and
oversees
dozens
of
ongoing projects funded
through those grants.
4
4
151
Other critical partners
Other Partners
1 = Other partners do not
exist or will not be
impactful 4 = Other
partners are available and
capable of assistance
This partnership involves
not only the LED of the
Department of Agriculture,
but also the assists with
the Division of Aquatic &
Wildlife Resources, the
Division of Soil and Forest
Resources, and other areas
within the Department.
They partner with the
Guam Police department,
the
Guam
Fire
Department, and there is
also
a
Volunteer
Conservation
Officer
program which is available
for assistance. There are
some
issues
with
coordination
the
partnerships between the
various agencies.
3
Average Score
Criteria
3
Explanation
Score
152
Leaders and influencers in the
community
Community Leadership
Leadership
endorse
willingness
to
1 = Dearth of strong leaders and
influencers in the community; 4 =
Visible leaders with clout to drive
behavior
While impediments exist to the
fishermen’s compliance with the
program, leveraging fishermen
cooperative
leadership
and
religious leaders could serve as
catalysts for participation. Focused
conversations conducted by Pride
Campaign Manager have shown
that
religious
leaders
are
particularly influential, and should
be targeted by the PRIDE campaign
for collaboration and informationsharing. Recreational users of the
beach, however, lack streamlined
leadership. Because they are
better-read and educated than the
fishermen, they have more diffuse
sources of information-gathering,
such as the radio and other
traditional media outlets. It may
be more difficult to reach them
employing a top-down approach.
4
1 = Unwilling to get on board with
project; 4 = Firm commitment from
leadership to help drive change
efforts
As this particular project involves
more conservation officers, a
problem regularly mentioned by
4
153
local leaders, they will be in full
support.
During stakeholder
meetings this is one of the main
issues they sought to see
addressed
to
increase
the
efficiency of enforcement.
4
Average Score
Political Environment
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Current legislative and legal
landscape
1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will
hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and legal
framework will aid program
The current legislative and legal landscape is
currently a bit negative towards the
Conservation Officers as a part of the
Marine Preserves. There is current political
movement that may affect the preserves,
and the legislature has voted in favor of the
bill. While they have not spoken out against
the Conservation Officers, there is a definite
misrepresentation of the CO’s and the work
they do. There needs to be more education
of this group as well so that they can make
the right decisions with regards to natural
resource management.
2
154
Ability to drive legislative
change
1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political
environment and unclear timeframe for
advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge
and ability to push for appropriate changes
within a given timeframe
As part of the increased enforcement, there
will also be a movement to amend currently
legislation to make prosecution of poaching
easier. With the assistance of the AG’s
office legislation can be drafted and
presented to the Guam Legislature for
review.
3
2.5
Average Score
Values and Norms
Assessment of norms
1 = Plan is unconcerned with political and
cultural norms 4 = Plan assesses and takes
into account the values and norms
governing the political and cultural
environment
Pride Campaign manager will conduct
extensive qualitative survey next week to
better assess cultural and political norms
with regards to hunting and poaching to aid
in the approach of the legislation that may
be drafted, however, the laws are already in
place with regards to poaching.
3
Ability
to
address
normative obstacles
1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable
to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are
manageable and a clear tack to address
them is employed
Not applicable
NA
155
3
Average Score
Explanation
Likelihood
of
conservation impact
1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 =
Conservation impact is very likely to be realized
By increasing the number of conservation officers, there
will be more manpower and more areas patrolled. This
will increase the number of poachers caught and arrested,
which will reduce the number of instances of poaching,
resulting in a conservation result.
By reducing the number of arson related fires, the
vegetation will hold the soil in place, the amount of
sedimentation will decrease. Sedimentation has been
listed as the greatest threat to Guam’s coral reef
ecosystem. As sediment is prevented and reduced and
the turbidity around the reefs will decrease, and water
quality improve and general reef health will be protected.
This results will take longer than the duration of the
project to see. Monitoring will have to be set up for long
term, after the completion of the campaign. Proxy
indicators such as the number of fires can be used to
monitor intermediate progress while the watersheds
recuperate.
Conservation Impact
Criteria
Impact
sustainability
1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be
sustained in the long-term; 4 = The impact goal should be
viable in the long-term
Increasing number of conservation officers will have
positive long term effects, though in time, even more will
need to be added. As the population of Guam increases,
there will need to be more bodies monitoring the hunting
and fishing practices to ensure this long term viability.
Score
3
3
156
3
Average Score
Tipping Points
Criteria
Explanation
Score
1st Tipping
Point
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The first tipping point consists of decreasing the number of fires. This is very
likely to be achieved by supporting the Conservation Officers and providing
them with more manpower and funding for improved enforcement of the
hunting laws. The metric will be the number of fires reported and the
acreage burned.
4
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The second tipping point is the reduction in the amount of sediment running
of the upland areas into the rivers and then out to adjacent reefs. This
tipping point should be reduced over time by increasing the amount of
vegetation in upland areas, and reducing the number of fires. The metric
used to measure the amount of sedimentation will be turbidity
measurements taken and several sites in the southern watersheds before,
during, and after the campaign, and monitored for years afterwards.
2
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The third tipping point will be improving the size class structure of the reef
systems in the target areas. The metric used will be size and structure
measurements taken by the coral reef monitoring group. This result will take
the longest to achieve and will not be measureable until several years after a
reduction in the amount of burning occurs.
2
2nd Tipping
Point
3rd Tipping
Point
Average
Score
3
157
Measurable
outcomes
Metrics
1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The
program has established clear, measureable metrics
Conservation impact of the this barrier removal may be difficult to measure.
The product is easily measurable through the number of poaching arrests
reported per man hour and the number of poaching instances cited or gear
confiscated. However, the ultimate goal is the reduction of fires, which
ideally would also result in a reduction in the number of arrests for poaching.
This program would be one component of the successful reduction in the
number of fires.
Average
Score
2
2
II. BRAVO LMHAs
Explanation
Preliminary
projected costs
 Land Clearing and Preparation
– Equipment use for land
clearing
– Tilling
tools
for
land
preparation
– Tools for sediment trapping
– Organic matter for soil
preparation
– Plants/seeds for planting
Predictability of
cost burden
1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;
4 = Costs are predictable
and manageable
After completion of a full BROP project costs will be assessed and itemized.
Similar projects have been conducted by Department of Agriculture, and costs
should be manageable utilizing volunteer labor. Forestry has agreed to be a
Costs
Criteria
Score
 Estimated total cost
$
3
158
partner in this effort and provide plants for designated areas as well as assist
with land preparation.
Average
Score
Criteria
Explanation
Description of
revenue streams
Fundraising total: $ ??
(CR Grant)
Earned income total: $
3
Score
Sources: Guam Coastal Management Program
Sources: N/A
Revenues
Percentage of
total
cost
available
1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100%
Funding is available through the Game Management sector and the Forestry
department through h various watershed reforestation initiatives.
3
Likelihood
fundraising
success
1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising
necessary funds almost a certainty
If funds are available through existing projects, raising additional funds should
not be needed. There are many partner agencies who would be able to assists
in sourcing funding for this project.
4
of
Fundraising
timing
Funds will be available by January 2010 (for implementation).
Funding
Alignment
1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with project timeline; 4 = Funding timeline
is well-aligned with project timeline
Funding should be available at the beginning of new grant periods (Fall 2009)
and should fall in well with project timeline.
3
Sustainable
Funding
1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source
Funding is sustainable through the federal grants programs and can be
reapplied for annually. Forestry supports long term reforestation efforts and
will continue to work with groups to restore watersheds as part of their
ongoing initiatives.
4
159
Average
Score
3.5
Technology
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Attainability &
Availability
1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 =
Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is available
Planting tools and equipment are available through Forestry and partner
agencies, as well as local mayor’s offices and local farmers.
4
Technology
assistance
1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology
assistance is significant and available
Partnerships with US Forestry Service and USFWS along with many
universities and research institutes, as well as other Rare affiliates can provide
a wealth of information and technological assistance.
4
1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable
technology is suited for circumstances
Technology is simple and should be suitable for community members to run
the sites, so very basic tools need be used. The technology/tools and
strategies used would designed cooperatively and be fit to suit the
participants.
4
Appropriate for
circumstances
Average
Score
4
Capaci
ty /
Organi
zation
al
Ability
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Barrier
Removal
Partner
support
1 = BR Partner does not exist or is not willing to support the project; 4 = There
exists a willing Barrier Removal Partner
The Barrier Removal partners would be the Division of Forestry and Soil
Resources and NRCS to provide technical assistance. The Guam Farmers Coop
and UOG College of Agriculture may also be engaged for assistance. The
Conservation Officers will also be involved in training volunteer CO’s.
4
160
Barrier
Removal
Partner’s
ability
to
drive change
1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner has a
proven track record of driving behavior
DFSR has worked on several outreach campaigns in the past and works with
local farmers and UOG. The have coordinated watershed stewardship training
sessions and involved the community in tree planting, reforestation projects,
and are active in educational outreach efforts island wide. CO’s have existing
volunteer programs which can be replicated for this effort.
2
Budget
planning and
cost efficient
execution
1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills and cost
efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven proficiency in budget
planning and cost efficient execution of past plans
DFSR has executed many programs through completion. Through federal and
local funding they have effectively managed budgets. The department is very
short staffed, so timely execution will depend largely on volunteers and
follow up by CM.
3
Average
Score
Other critical
partners
Other
Partners
1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other partners are
available and capable of assistance
This project will involve many partner agencies both local and federal
including The Guam Environmental Protection Agency, NRCS, The Guam Soil
and Water Conservation Board, local mayors, national partners such as US
Forestry Department and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of these
partners share overarching goals with the project and have expressed and
interest in assisting as needed.
Average
Score
Criteria
Explanation
3
4
4
Score
161
Community Leadership
Leaders and
influencers in
the
community
1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible
leaders with clout to drive behavior
Village mayors have been engaged in preliminary meetings and are excited to
begin reducing threats to water resources such as sediment. Some key village
influencers have already been engaged in supporting the campaign, though
there are many more to include such as the church, and local community
groups.
3
Leadership
willingness to
endorse
1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from
leadership to help drive change efforts
Locally run groups such as the Soil & Water Conservation groups will be key in
influencing other local leaders. The only barrier that may arise is local native
rights groups, but as this project seeks to assist with hunting, through
empowering local communities to enforce and manage their areas, which
should increase their willingness to endorse the project. These groups will be
engaged to participate in the project from the beginning.
3
Average
Score
3
Political
Environmen
t
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Current
legislative
and
legal
landscape
1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and
legal framework will aid program
The current legislative and legal landscape is slightly skewed with a negative
connotation towards conservation efforts. However, with the support of
community mayors, the church, and the general public, the legislature can be
persuaded into supporting this project as they are driven by community input.
There needs to be more education of this group as well so that they can make
the right decisions with regards to natural resource management.
2
162
Ability
to
drive
legislative
change
1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political environment and unclear timeframe
for advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge and ability to push for
appropriate changes within a given timeframe
Within the host agency there is a great depth of political knowledge and
influence. The main driving force to drive legislation if needed will be
community support. With the Pride campaign the community can be
educated and encourage to vocally support the project, thus driving the
legislature to support it as well.
Average
Score
3
2.5
Values and Norms
Assessment
of norms
1 = Plan is unconcerned with political and cultural norms 4 = Plan assesses and
takes into account the values and norms governing the political and cultural
environment
Pride Campaign manager will conduct extensive qualitative survey over the
next few weeks to better assess cultural and political norms with regards to
hunting and poaching to aid in the approach placement of feed areas and the
feedback of the community. As deer meat is considered a delicacy and
culturally important, this project should support local norms by assisting local
hunters to find and catch deer in less destructive ways.
3
Ability
to
address
normative
obstacles
1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are
manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed
Some feel that burning is a cultural practice, though this is not a widely held
perception. The survey will provide more accurate information about hunting
norms.
3
Average
Score
Criteria
Explanation
3
Score
163
Likelihood of
conservation
impact
Conservation Impact
Impact
sustainability
1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is
very likely to be realized
By developing these areas, hunters will be provided with a less destructive
method of finding deer which will eliminate the need for burning. This will
decrease the number of poachers starting fires to find the deer which will
protect the soil, vegetation, and the watershed.
By reducing the number of arson related fires, the vegetation will hold the soil
in place, the amount of sedimentation will decrease. Sedimentation has been
listed as the greatest threat to Guam’s coral reef ecosystem. As sediment is
prevented and reduced and the turbidity around the reefs will decrease, and
water quality improve and general reef health will be protected. This results
will take longer than the duration of the project to see. Monitoring will have
to be set up for long term, after the completion of the campaign. Proxy
indicators such as the number of fires can be used to monitor intermediate
progress while the watersheds recuperate.
1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term; 4
= The impact goal should be viable in the long-term
This project has the potential to be very successful in the long term. The goal
is to assist hunters in finding deer more easily, without burning, through
providing the communities with the tools to monitor and enforce regulations
in their areas. Once the areas are proven to be productive, and the
community is engaged in developing and maintaining the areas, they will
become stewards of these areas. As the number of fires decline and even
badland areas are revegetated the conservation results will only become
better over the long term,
Average
Score
3
4
3.5
Criteria
Explanation
Score
1st Tipping
Point
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
The first tipping point consists of decreasing the number of fires. This is very
3
T
i
p
p
i
n
g
P
o
164
likely to be achieved by providing a community driven alternative. It will take
time, but as the areas prove to be good hunting grounds, the number of
poaching incidences will decline. The metric will be the number of fires
reported and the acreage burned.
2nd Tipping
Point
3rd Tipping
Point
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
The second tipping point is the reduction in the amount of sediment running of
the upland areas into the rivers and then out to adjacent reefs. This tipping
point should be reduced over time by increasing the amount of vegetation in
upland areas, and reducing the number of fires. The metric used to measure the
amount of sedimentation will be turbidity measurements taken and several
sites in the southern watersheds before, during, and after the campaign, and
monitored for years afterwards.
3
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
The third tipping point will be improving the size class structure of the reef
systems in the target areas. The metric used will be size and structure
measurements taken by the coral reef monitoring group. This result will take
the longest to achieve and will not be measureable until several years after a
reduction in the amount of burning occurs.
2
Average
Score
Measurable
outcomes
Metrics
1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program
has established clear, measureable metrics
The measurable outcomes would be very clear. Not only the above mentioned
metrics, but also community involvement, number of areas established and
changes in attitudes towards watersheds and the detrimental effects of fires.
This program would be one component of the successful reduction in the
number of fires.
Average
Score
2.7
3
3
165
III. BRAVO Bait Stations
Explanation
Criteria
Preliminary
costs
projected
Costs
Predictability
burden
of
cost
 Acquisition of bait stations
– Salt Licks ($4.99/ea)
– Use local crops
- Other types of bait may be
acquired as well.
Score
 Estimated total cost
$4,999 (+shipping)
1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;
4 = Costs are
predictable and manageable
Initial purchase of ready made bait stations is predictable. As concept
catches on, programs could be developed with local farmers and local
hunters to provide more sustainable and cost effective bait stations. It
is not yet clear if this will occur, but if it does, funding does not need to
be long term.
Average
Score
Criteria
Explanation
Description of revenue
streams
Fundraising total: $ ??
Program (CR Grant)
Earned income total: $
Revenu
es
Percentage of total cost
available
3
3
Score
Sources: Guam Coastal Management
Sources: N/A
1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100%
Funding is available through the Game Management sector ; additional
funds can be acquired through GCMP grants.
3
166
Likelihood
fundraising success
of
1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of
raising necessary funds almost a certainty
If funds are available through existing projects, raising additional funds
should not be needed. There are many partner agencies who would be
able to assists in sourcing funding for this project.
4
Fundraising timing
Funds will be available by January 2010 (for implementation).
Funding Alignment
1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with project timeline; 4 = Funding
timeline is well-aligned with project timeline
Funding should be available at the beginning of new grant periods (Fall
2009) and should fall in well with project timeline.
3
1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source
Funding is sustainable through the federal grants programs and can be
reapplied for annually.
4
Sustainable Funding
Average
Score
3.5
Technology
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Attainability &
Availability
1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 =
Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is
available
Training for salt licks can be provided by local hunters/and or
conservation officers. Tool is simple to use.
4
1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology
assistance is significant and available
Use of bait stations appears to be very low technology and ample
training should be able to sourced locally through hunting community.
Websites for baiting stations provide a wealth of information.
4
Technology assistance
167
Appropriate
circumstances
for
1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 =
Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances
Technology is simple and should be suitable for hunters to use easily.
Average
Score
4
Capacity /
Organizational Ability
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Barrier
Removal
Partner support
1 = BR Partner does not exist or is not willing to support the project; 4 =
There exists a willing Barrier Removal Partner
The Barrier Removal partners would be the Department of Agricultures
Game Management Sector and Law Enforcement Division through
providing funding and training for bait stations.
3
1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner
has a proven track record of driving behavior
Several community projects have been run through DAWR and the
current managed hunting program on Anderson Airfoce base is a
partnership with the department. However, current community view of
department is not great, Rare campaign would be needed to build
credibility.
2
1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills
and cost efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven
proficiency in budget planning and cost efficient execution of past plans
DAWR has executed many programs through completion. Through
federal and local funding they have effectively managed budgets. The
department is very short staffed, but this program does not require
intensive long term staffing after initial training.
2
Barrier
Removal
Partner’s ability to
drive change
Budget planning and
cost
efficient
execution
Average
Score
4
2.3
168
Other
partners
critical
Other
Partners
1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other
partners are available and capable of assistance
This project may involve other partners in the training and outreach
components such as the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, The
University of Guam extension program, The Guam Farmers Cooperative
Association, and the Soil and Water Conservation Board. Many of these
partners share overarching goals with the project and have expressed
and interest in assisting as needed.
Average
Score
4
4
Community Leadership
Criteria
Explanation
Score
Leaders
and
influencers in the
community
1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible
leaders with clout to drive behavior
Village mayors have been engaged in preliminary meetings and are
excited to begin reducing threats to water resources such as sediment.
Some key village influencers have already been engaged in supporting the
campaign goals, though there are many more to include such as the
church, and local community groups.
3
1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from
leadership to help drive change efforts
Locally run groups such as Soil & Water Conservation and Mayors officers
will be key in influencing other local leaders. One barrier that may arise
is local native rights groups, but as this project seeks to assist with
hunting through providing alternatives to burning, it is hoped that these
groups will buy in. These groups will be engaged to participate in the
planning and implementation.
3
Leadership
willingness
endorse
to
Average
Score
Criteria
Explanation
3
Score
169
Political Environment
Current legislative
and
legal
landscape
1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and
legal framework will aid program
The current legislative and legal landscape is slightly skewed with a
negative connotation towards conservation efforts. However, with the
support of community mayors, the church, and the general public, the
legislature can be persuaded into supporting this project as they are driven
by community input. There needs to be more education of this group as
well so that they can make the right decisions with regards to natural
resource management.
2
Ability to drive
legislative change
1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political environment and unclear
timeframe for advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge and ability to
push for appropriate changes within a given timeframe
Within the host agency there is a great depth of political knowledge and
influence. The main driving force to drive legislation if needed will be
community support. With the Pride campaign the community can be
educated and encourage to vocally support the project, thus driving the
legislature to support it as well.
3
Average
Score
Values and Norms
Assessment
norms
of
Ability to address
normative
2.5
1 = Plan is unconcerned with political and cultural norms 4 = Plan assesses
and takes into account the values and norms governing the political and
cultural environment
Pride Campaign manager is completing a qualitative survey and will assess
cultural and political norms with regards to hunting and wildland fire. An
understanding of the norms will help to develop a strategic pride
campaign. As deer meat is considered a delicacy and culturally important,
this project should support local norms by assisting local hunters to find
and catch deer in less destructive ways. A strong benefit of the alternative
must be shown.
3
1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles
are manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed
3
170
obstacles
Some feel that burning is a cultural practice, though this is not a widely
held perception. The survey will provide more accurate information about
hunting norms and the perceptions of wildland fires.
Average
Score
Explanation
Likelihood of
conservation
impact
1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is
very likely to be realized
By providing these bait stations, hunters will be provided with a less
destructive method of finding deer which will eliminate the need for burning.
This will decrease the number of poachers starting fires to find the deer which
will protect the soil, vegetation, and the watershed.
By reducing the number of arson related fires, the vegetation will hold the
soil in place, the amount of sedimentation will decrease. Sedimentation has
been listed as the greatest threat to Guam’s coral reef ecosystem. As
sediment is prevented and reduced and the turbidity around the reefs will
decrease, and water quality improve and general reef health will be
protected. This results will take longer than the duration of the project to
see. Monitoring will have to be set up for long term, after the completion of
the campaign. Proxy indicators such as the number of fires can be used to
monitor intermediate progress while the watersheds recuperate.
Conservation Impact
Criteria
Impact
sustainability
1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term;
4 = The impact goal should be viable in the long-term
This project has the potential to be very successful in the long term. The goal
is to assist hunters in finding deer more easily, without burning, through
providing them with sustainable alternatives. Once the tools are proven to be
effective at attracting deer, and the community is engaged preventing fires,
they will become stewards of these areas. As the number of fires decline and
even badland areas are revegetated the conservation results will only become
better over the long term,
3
Score
3
4
171
Average
3.5
Score
Tipping Points
Criteria
Explanation
Score
1st Tipping
Point
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The first tipping point consists of decreasing the number of fires. This is very
likely to be achieved by providing an easy to use alternative. It will take
time, but as the bait tools prove effective at attracting deer, the number of
poaching incidences will decline. The metric will be the number of fires
reported and the acreage burned.
3
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The second tipping point is the reduction in the amount of sediment running
of the upland areas into the rivers and then out to adjacent reefs. This
tipping point should be reduced over time by increasing the amount of
vegetation in upland areas, and reducing the number of fires. The metric
used to measure the amount of sedimentation will be turbidity
measurements taken and several sites in the southern watersheds before,
during, and after the campaign, and monitored for years afterwards.
3
1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
reached
The third tipping point will be improving the coral cover and diversity in the
adjacent reefs monitoring areas. The metric used will be coral cover
measurements taken by the National Park Service studies. This result will
take the longest to achieve and will not be measureable until several years
after a reduction in the amount of burning occurs.
2
2nd Tipping
Point
3rd Tipping
Point
Average
Score
2.7
172
Measurable
outcomes
Metrics
1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The
program has established clear, measureable metrics
The measurable outcomes would be very clear. Not only the above
mentioned metrics, but also community involvement, number of hunters
who stop using arson, and changes in attitudes towards watersheds and the
detrimental effects of fires. This program would be one component of the
successful reduction in the number of fires.
Average
Score
3
3
173
C. Full Quantitative Survey from Section 7.0
Guam Community Survey
Hello, my name is ..................., and I am working with the Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans. We are conducting a survey of people in this
area about Guam's watersheds and the natural environment. We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey by answering a
few questions. Whatever information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and your answers will not be shown to or shared with any
other person except for those people who are working on the survey. Your answers will help us to plan and implement conservation programs.
In order to participate in this survey, you must be at least 14 years old or older and be a legal resident of Guam. The survey will take about 30
minutes. Participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However,
your views are important to us and I hope you will participate. If you are 14 or older and a legal resident, may I begin the interview now?
Respondent agrees to be interviewed (IF NO, KEEP TRACK ON A SEPARATE PAPER [ ] Yes
Section 1: Background information to be filled in prior to the interview without asking the respondent
Interviewer:
[ ] Elaina Todd [ ] Other ________________
Supervisor:
[ ] Elaina Todd
Enumeration area (EA):
[ ] Community Center [ ] Shopping Center
________________
[ ] Home
[ ] Church
[ ] Recreational Area [ ] Office/business
[ ] School
[
]
Other
Date (MM/DD/YEAR):
________________
Survey Period:
[ ] Pre Campaign
[ ] Post Campaign
Gender of respondent:
174
[ ] Male
[ ] Female
Section 2: Socioeconomic and Demographic Questions
"To begin, I'd like to ask you some questions about yourself."
(1) How old were you at your last birthday?
[ ] 14 or younger
[ ] 15 to 19
[ ] 20 to 24
or older
[ ] 25 to 29
[ ] 30 to 34
[ ] 35 to 39
[ ] 40 to 44
[ ] 45 to 49
[ ] 50 to 54
[ ] 55
(2) How much formal school have you completed? You can see the choices on your sheet under the heading "schooling". Please choose only
one.
[ ] No school completed
[ ] Some primary to primary completed
[ ] Some secondary to secondary to completed
[
]
Some
college/university to college/university completed [ ] Some trade/professional to trade/professional completed
[ ] Some religious school to
religious school completed [ ] Refused to answer
(3) Are there any children that are 18 years old or younger living in your home with you?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
(4) In which village do you reside? (PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE)
[ ] Agana Heights
[ ] Agat
[ ] Asan-Maina
[ ] Barrigada [ ] Chalan Pago-Ordot [ ] Dededo
Mangilao
[ ] Merizo
[ ] Mong Mong-Toto-Maite [ ] Piti [ ] Santa Rita [ ] Sinajana [ ] Talafofo
[ ] Yigo [ ] Yona
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Hagatna [ ] Inarajan
[ ] Tamuning-Tumon [ ]
[
]
Umatac
(5) Please look at your sheet under the heading "ethnicity" and tell me which one best describes your ethnicity. Please choose only one.
[ ] Chamorro [ ] Filipino
[ ] White or Caucasian
[ ] Carolinian [ ] Chuukese [ ] Marshallese
[ ] Kosraean [ ] Palauan
[
]
Pohnpeian
[ ] Yapese
[ ] other Pacific Islander
[ ] Korean
[ ] Japanese [ ] Chinese
[ ] Other Asian
[ ] Black or African
American
[ ] Other ________________
(6) If you belong to a religion, please tell me which religion. You will find the choices on your sheet under the heading marked "religion". If you
do not belong to a religion, please say "none". If you prefer not to answer this question, that is fine.
[ ] Catholic
[ ] Buddhism [ ] Muslim
[ ] Anglican [ ] Methodist [ ] SDA [ ] Baptist
[ ] Other Protestant [ ] Jewish
[
]
Local/traditional
[ ] Refused to answer [ ] None
[ ] Other ________________
175
(7) Which of the following best describes your current main activity. Are you (1) working for wages, (2) working for subsitence or do family and
housework, (3) going to school as a student, (4) retired, or have (5) no activity
[ ] Work for wages [ ] Subsistence or household work [ ] Student
[ ] Retired
[ ] No major activities [ ] Other ________________
Ask questions A & B only if respondent answers "currently working for wages". Ask question C only if respondent answers "student".
Otherwise, simply mark as "not currently working for pay" and "not a student" and skip to question 7.
(A) If you are currently employed and are paid wages, please tell me what best describes who you work for. If you are not currently employed
for wages, please say "not currently working for pay".
[ ] Private company or business
[ ] Individual person [ ] Government (national, state, or local) [ ] Non-governmental organization [ ] Selfemployed
[ ] Not currently working for pay
[ ] Other ________________
(B) If you are currently employed, what is your main occupation or sector in which you work? You can see the choices on your sheet under the
heading "employment sector". Please choose only one.
[ ] Agriculture [ ] Fishing
[ ] Logging, mining, other extractive industry
[ ] Small business (shop keeper or sales person) [ ] Office work
[ ] Factory or manufacturing [ ] Food preparation or restaurant [ ] Professional (lawyer, health care provider)
[ ] Artisian (crafts)
[ ] Transportation (shipping, trucking, rail) [ ] Education [ ] Military
[ ] Not currently employed [ ] Other ________________
(C) If you are currently a student in a school, what level school are you currently attending? If you are not currently a student, say "not a
student".
[ ] Secondary student [ ] University Student [ ] Post graduate student
[ ] Trade or professional student
[ ] Religious student [
]
Not
currently a student [ ] Other ________________
Section 3: Trusted Sources of Information & Media Access/Exposure
(8) People hear information about the natural environment from many different sources. I am going to read you a list of sources from which
you might hear information about the environment, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find that source "Most trustworthy,
Very trustworthy, Somewhat trustworthy, or Not trustworthy".
(A) Person on the radio
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(B) Person on television
176
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(C) Report in newspaper
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(D) Law enforcement official
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(E) Federal environmental official
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(F) Local environmental official
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(G) Local senator
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(H) Local mayor
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(I) Religious leader
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(J) Local celebrity
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(K) Manamko/elder
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(L) Friends or family members
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(M) Teachers
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
177
(N) Information poster/billboard
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(O) Information in printed booklet
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(P) Information from a puppet show
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(Q) Information from a public meeting
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(R) Conservation volunteer
[ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(S) Is there any other person you would trust if they told you something about the environment? Who would that be?
________________
(9) In the past month, would you say that you usually watched television never, up to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week, or 7 days per
week?
[ ] Never
[ ] up to 3 days per week
[ ] 4 to 6 days per week
[ ] 7 days per week
(A) Which TV stations do you watch most of the time? Please inidcate up to 3 stations that you watch most.
[ ] KUAM Channel 8 [ ] Fox Channel 7
[ ] I TV Channel 11 [ ] HGTV
[ ] Food Network
[ ] TLC [ ] Animal Planet
[ ] Discovery
[ ] ESPN
[ ] CNN [ ] Fox News [ ] Spike
[ ] Don't Know[ ] Don't watch television
[ ] Other ________________
(10) In the past month, would you say that you listened to the radio never, up to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week, or 7 days per week.
[ ] Never
[ ] up to 3 days per week
[ ] 4 to 6 days per week
[ ] 7 days per week
(A) When you listen to the radio, which stations are your most preferred stations? Please indicate up to 3 stations that you listen to the most.
[ ] Newstalk K57 (570AM) [ ] I 94 (93.9) [ ] Hit Radio 100 (100.3)
[ ] Power 98 (97.5) [ ] The Kat (105.1)
[ ] K stereo (95.5)
[
]
101.9 [ ] 104.3
[ ] 90.9 [ ] No favorite/don't know [ ] Don't listen to the radio [ ] Other ________________
178
(B) When you listen to the radio during the week, Monday to Friday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please
indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to listen.
[ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [
]
After 10:00 p.m.
[ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't listen to the radio
(C) When you listen to the radio on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, what are the most likely time for you to listen to the radio? Please
indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to listen.
[ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [
]
After 10:00 p.m.
[ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't listen to the radio
(11) In the past month, would you say that you read a newspaper or magazine never, up to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week, or 7 days per
week?
[ ] Never
[ ] up to 3 days per week
[ ] 4 to 6 days per week
[ ] 7 days per week
(A) Which newspaper or magazine do you usually read? Please tell me up to 2 publications that you read most often.
[ ] Pacific Daily News [ ] Marianas Variety [ ] Pacific Navigator [ ] Stars & Stripes
[ ] Marine Drive Magazine [ ] Guahan Magazine [ ] GU
Magazine
[ ] No favorite [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't read publications [ ] Other ________________
(12) I am going to list some different types of media programs, and I would like you to tell me how much you like each type of program. Do
you like it most, like it a lot, like it a little, or not like it.
(A) Rock & Roll Music
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(B) Country & Western music
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(C) Local/Chamorro music
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(D) Island/Reggae music
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
179
(E) Hip hop music
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(F) Local News
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(G) US National News
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(H) World/international news
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(I) Sports
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(J) Religious programs
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(K) Talk shows
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(L) Dramas
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(M) Reality TV shows
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(N) Comedies
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(O) Puppet Shows
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(P) Locally produced shows
180
[ ] Like the Most
[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
[ ] Don't know
(Q) What other types of media programs do you like to watch, listen to or read about?
________________
Section 4: Establishing Baselines for and Measure change in Behavior SMART Objectives
I'd now like to ask you some questions about activities you may have participated in on Guam. Please choose all that apply. (ASK EACH AND
CHECK IF YES)
(13) In the past 12 months, I have participated in:
[ ] Snorkeling [ ] SCUBA Diving
[ ] Hiking
[ ] Camping
Hunting
[ ] Farming/agriculture
[ ] N/A
[ ] Off Roading
[ ] Fishing from shore [ ] Fishing from a boat
[
]
IF RESPONDENT INDICATED "AGRICULTURE/FARMING" ASK QUESTIONS A, B & C.
(A) You indicated that you have participated in agriculture. Please indicate the type of agriculture in which you participate (check all that
apply):
[ ] subsistence agriculture [ ] agriculture for sale [ ] agriculture for export
[ ] other:
[ ] not applicable/no agriculture
(B) Please indicate which type(s) of agriculture you participate in:
[ ] farming
[ ] raising livestock [ ] aquaculture
[ ] not applicable/no agriculture
(C) Which methods have you used for land clearing (please choose all that apply):
[ ] backhoe or other mechanical clearing [ ] domestic animal (caribao, etc.) [ ] burning
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] no land clearing
[ ] not applicable/no farming
IF RESPONDENT INDICATED "HUNTING" PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS D,E & F.
(D) You indicated that you have participated in hunting. Which animals do you hunt for (please choose all that apply):
[ ] deer
[ ] pigs [ ] caribao
[ ] not applicable/no hunting [ ] Other ________________
(E) Which areas have you hunted in? Please check all that apply.
[ ] northern Guam [ ] southern Guam [ ] central Guam
[ ] don't know [ ] not applicable/no hunting
181
(F) How frequently do you hunt? Please check only one answer.
[ ] less than once a year
[ ] once every 6 months
[ ] once every 3 months
once a week [ ] more than once a week [ ] not applicable/no hunting
[ ] once a month
[ ] once every two weeks
[
]
(14) In the past 12 months, have you started a fire for any reason?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(A) If yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire. You may choose all that apply. (READ EACH AND CHECK THOSE TO WHICH RESPONDENT
SAYS YES)
[ ] Camp/bonfire
[ ] BBQ [ ] burning trash
[ ] burning excess vegetation [ ] land clearing
[ ] hunting
[ ] not applicable/no fire
[ ] Other ________________
(15) In the past 12 months, have you participated in any watershed restoration projects?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(A) If yes, please indicate which activities you have participated in (check all that apply):
[ ] tree planting
[ ] stewardship training workshop [ ] implemented watershed management practices at home
[ ] village clean-ups
[ ] water monitoring [ ] training in setting up a locally managed hunting area [ ] no applicable/have not participated
[
]
don't
know/unsure
Section 5: Assign Respondent to Stage-of-Behavior Change
(16) I am going to show you 6 statements about reporting wildland arson. I want you to read all 6 statements and then tell me which statement
best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered reporting wildland arson.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland
arson, but have not done so and am not sure I will [ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and intend to in the
future [ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and have talked to someone about this, but have not reported
wildland arson.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson once, but not every time I see it occurring
[ ] In the past 6
months, I have reported wildland arson every time I see it occurring
[ ] Behavior is not applicable to respondent (have not seen wildland
arson).
182
(17) I am going to show you a list of 7 statements about whether or not you have participated in watershed restoration projects such as tree
plantings, village clean-ups, water monitoring, and watershed stewardship training in your village in the past 6 months. I want you to read all 6
statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered in participating in watershed restoration projects in my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I
have considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village, but an not sure if intend to. [ ] In the past 6 months, I have
considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village and intend to at some point in the future. [ ] In the past 6 months, I
have considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village, plan to in the future, and have talked to someone about it. [ ] In
the past 6 months, I have participated in one watershed restoration project in my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have regularly
participated in watershed restoration projects in my village, and will continue to participate in the future. [ ] Behavior is not relevant for this
respondent
(18) I am going to show you a list of 6 statements about whether or not you have participated in Locally Managed Hunting Areas. I want you to
read all 6 statements, then tell me which one best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area within my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I
have considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, but am not sure if I intend to.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have
considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area within my village, and intend to at some point in the future. [ ] In the past 6 months, I
have considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, intend to in the future, have talk to someone about it, but have not
yet done so. [ ] In the past 6 months, I have set up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village. [ ] In the past 6 months I have set up a
Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, and am still involved in the management of the area. [ ] Behavior is not relevant for this
respondent.
(19) I am going to show you a list of 6 statements about whether or not you have participated in Locally Managed Hunting Areas. I want you to
read all 6 statements and then tell me which one best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting Area. [ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered hunting
in a Locally Managed Hunting Area, but am not sure if I intend to.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered hunting in a Locally Managed
Hunting Area, and intend to at some point in the future. [ ] In the past 6 months, I I have considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting
Area, intend to, and have spoken with someone about it, but have not yet done so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have hunted in a Locally
Managed Hunting Area but have not done so every time I have hunted. [ ] In the past 6 months, I have hunted in a Locally Managed Hunting
Area every time I hunted. [ ] Behavior is not relevant to the respondent. (not a hunter)
Section 6: Establishing Baseline for and Measure Change in Knowledge SMART Objectives
Now I would like to ask you some questions about the local environment and wildlife that lives in this area.
183
(20) Please name 5 native animals or plants that live in Guam's watersheds. If you do not know, simply say "I don't know". (DO NOT PROMT BY
SAYING RESPONSES. WRITE IN ANY ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT LISTED)
[ ] Guam Goby[ ] Green Lace Shrimp [ ] Fiddler Crab
[ ] Fruit Bat [ ] Koko Bird [ ] Kingfisher [ ] Other ________________
(21) Of the following animals and plants, which do you think would best represent all of the native animals and plants that live in Guam's
watersheds? Please choose only one, or you may indicate other. (HAND RESPONDENT SHEET 2 WITH PHOTOS. IF OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY.)
[ ] Guam Goby[ ] Green Lace Shrimp [ ] Fiddler Crab
[ ] Fruit Bat [ ] Koko Bird [ ] Kingfisher [ ] Other ________________
(22) Do you think there are any threats that might cause a loss of native plants and animals in Guam's watersheds?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "YES", ASK QUESTION A. OTHERWISE MARK "THERE ARE NO THREATS" AND SKIP TO NEXT QUESTION.
(A) What do you think are the most important threats? Please select the three from the list that you feel are the most imporant.(FLIP OVER
SHEET 2. SHOW THE LIST OF ANSWERS)
[ ] There are no threats
[ ] Pollution [ ] Development
[ ] Over harvest
[ ] Off roading [ ] Wildland fires
[ ] Forest clearing
[ ] Diseases [ ] Invasive species [ ] Believe there is a threat, but not sure what
[ ] Don't know native plants and animals [
]
Other ________________
(23) Have you heard that there are wildland fires in Guam's watersheds?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(24) Have you ever seen a wildland fire in Guam's watersheds?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(A) What do you think is the most likely way that these fires are started? Please select only three. (SHOW LIST OF ANSWERS.)
[ ] Never seen/heard of a wildland fire.
[ ] Wildland fires are naturally occurring. [ ] Wildland fires are started by people burning trash.
[ ] Wildland fires are started by hunters
[ ] Wildland fires are started by farmers
[ ] Wildland fires are started by developers [
]
Wildland fires are started by hikers [ ] Don't know/not sure
[ ] Other ________________
(25) I am going to read you a list of things that wildland fires may or may not do. For each statement, I want you to tell me whether you
strongly agree, agree, are neutral or have no opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement. Wildland fires:
184
(A) Are naturally occurring:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(B) can cause damage to private property:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(C) can cause damage to native forests:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(D) clear out debris for new plants to grow:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(E) can cause water outages:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(F) can take up the time of emergency responders:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(G) can cause river banks to collapse:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(H) are good for the soil:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(I) do not contribute to flooding:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(J) can create badlands:
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
[ ] Neutral
Section 7: Establish baselines for and Measure Change in Attitude SMART Objectives
(26) I am going to read you a series of statements, and I would like you to tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, are neutral or have no
opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree with each statement.
185
(A) Wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(B) Wildland fires are naturally occurring, and are an important part of the natural cycle.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(C) Individuals starting wildfires should be prosecuted.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(D) Wildland fires do not need to be prevented.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(E) Guam's watersheds do not need restoration.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(F) It is important to have a healthy environment from the land to the sea.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(G) Wildland fires are not a serious economic threat to fishermen.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(H) Wildland fires are a serious economic threat to farmers.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(I) Village residents should be a part of managing their watersheds.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Don't know/unsure
(27) I am going to read you a number of activities, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find it easy or difficult for you to do that
activity.
(A) Report wildland fires to authorities:
186
[ ] Easy [ ] Difficult
[ ] Not sure
[ ] Not applicable/relevant
(B) Participate in watershed restoration projects in your village:
[ ] Easy [ ] Difficult
[ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable/relevant
(C) Participate in village monitoring to prevent wildland fires:
[ ] Easy [ ] Difficult
[ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable/relevant
(D) Participate in village meetings about watershed management:
[ ] Easy [ ] Difficult
[ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable/relevant
Section 8: Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Interpersonal Communication SMART Objectives
(28) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about wildland fires? If so, please tell me all the people with whom you have talked to
about this.
[ ] Law enforcement official [ ] Federal environmental official [ ] Local environmental official
[ ] Local senator
[ ] Local mayor
[ ] Religious leader [ ] Local celebrity
[ ] Manamko/elder [ ] Friends or family [ ] Teacher
[ ] Conservation Volunteer [
]
Talked to fellow students [ ] Have not talked to anyone
[ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
________________
(29) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about watershed restoration? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you
have talked to about this.
[ ] Law enforcement official [ ] Federal environmental official [ ] Local environmental official
[ ] Local senator
[ ] Local mayor
[ ] Religious leader [ ] Local celebrity
[ ] Manamko/elder [ ] Friends or family [ ] Teacher
[ ] Conservation Volunteer [
]
Talked to fellow students [ ] Have not talked to anyone
[ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
________________
(30) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about Locally Managed Hunting Areas? If you have, please tell me all of the people with
whom you have talked to about this.
187
[ ] Law enforcement official [ ] Federal environmental official [ ] Local environmental official
[ ] Local senator
[ ] Local mayor
[ ] Religious leader [ ] Local celebrity
[ ] Manamko/elder [ ] Friends or family [ ] Teacher
[ ] Conservation Volunteer [
]
Talked to fellow students [ ] Have not talked to anyone
[ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
________________
Section 9: Understand Barriers to & Benefits of Behavior Change
(31) I am going to ask you about a number of ways in which you may or may not have hear about Guam's watersheds and the native animals
and plants that live there. For each method, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing or hearing about Guam's watersheds
form that source in the past 6 months.
(A) Seen a billboard with information about the impact of wildland fires on Guam's watersheds:
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(B) Heard an advertising "spot" about the impact of wildland fires on Guam's watersheds on the radio.
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(C) Have you seen a costumed character/mascot promoting Guam's watersheds?
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(D) Seen a poster about preventing wildland fires and protecting Guam's watersheds.
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(E) Attended a community meeting about preventing wildland fires and protecting Guam's watersheds.
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
(F) Attending a community meeting about Locally Managed Hunting Areas.
[ ] Yes [ ] Uncertain [ ] No
This concludes the survey. Thank you so much for your time and help in responding to this questionnaire. Have a great day!
188
C. Questionnaire Supplement (given to respondents while being interviewed)
PLEASE HAND TO RESPONDENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SURVEY.
SCHOOLING:
[ ] No school completed
[ ] some primary to primary completed school completed
[ ] some secondary to secondary school completed
[ ] some college/university to college university completed
ETHNICITIES:
[ ] Chamorro
[ ] Filipino
[ ] Pohnpeian
[ ] Yapese
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] White or Caucasian
[ ] other Pacific Islander
[ ] some trade/professional to trade/professional completed
[ ] some religious school to religious school completed
[ ] prefer not to answer
[ ] Carolinian
[ ] Korean
RELIGIONS:
[ ] Catholic
[ ] Local/traditional
[ ] Buddhism
[ ] Other Protestant
MAIN ACTIVITY:
[ ] Working for wages
[ ] Subsistence or family/housework
EMPLOYER INFORMATION:
[ ] private company or business
[ ] government (national, state or local)
TRUSTWORTHY SCALE:
MEDIA PROGRAMS:
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] I like it most [ ] I like it a lot
[ ] Kosraean
[ ] Other Asian
[ ] SDA [ ] Baptist
[ ] Student
[ ] No current activity
[ ] Retired
[ ] individual person
[ ] other: _________
[ ] office work
[ ] factory or manufacturing
[ ] food preparation or restaurant
[ ] professional (lawyer,
health care provider)
[ ] Trade or professional student
[ ] Not currently a student
[ ] Marshallese
[ ] Chinese
[ ] Anglican
[ ] Methodist
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Non-government organization
[ ] not employed
EMPLOYMENT SECTOR:
[ ] Agriculture
[ ] Fishing
[ ] Logging, mining, or other extractive industry
[ ] small business (shop keeper or sales person)
[ ] other: _____
LEVEL OF STUDENT:
[ ] Secondary student
[ ] Post graduate student
[ ] Muslim
[ ] None
[ ] Chuukese
[ ] Japanese
[ ] I like it a little
[ ] Jewish
[ ] self-employed
[ ] Artisian (crafts)
[ ] Transportation (shipping, trucking, rail)
[ ] Education
[ ] Military
[ ] Not currently employed
[ ] University student
[ ] Other: _______
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Palauan
[ ] Black or African American
[ ] Religious student
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
[ ] I don’t like it.
189
(15) Please read all of the statements and tell me which best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered reporting wildland arson.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, but have not done so and am not sure I will
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and intend to do so in the future
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and have talked to someone about this, but have not reported wildland arson.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson once, but not every time I see it occurring
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson every time I see it occurring
[ ] Not relevant (I have not seen or heard of wildland arson)
(16) Please read all of the statements and tell me which best represents you..
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered in participating in watershed restoration projects in my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village, but am not sure if intend to do so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village and intend to do so at some point in the future.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered participating in watershed restoration projects in my village, plan to so it in the future, and have talked to someone
about it, but have not yet done so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have participated in one watershed restoration project in my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have regularly participated in watershed restoration projects in my village, and will continue to participate in the future.
(17) Please read all of the statements and tell me which best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area within my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, but am not sure if I intend to do so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area within my village, and intend to do so at some point in the future.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered setting up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, intend to do so in the future, have talk to someone
about it, but have not yet done so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have set up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village.
[ ] In the past 6 months I have set up a Locally Managed Hunting Area in my village, and am still involved in the management of the area.
(18) Please read all of the statements and tell me which best represents you.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have never considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting Area.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting Area, but am not sure if I intend to do so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting Area, and intend to do so at some point in the future.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have considered hunting in a Locally Managed Hunting Area, intend to do so, have spoken with someone about
it, but have not yet done so.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have hunted in a Locally Managed Hunting Area but have not done so every time I have hunted.
[ ] In the past 6 months, I have hunted in a Locally Managed Hunting Area every time I hunted.
[ ] Not relevant (I don’t hunt)
190
THREATS. Please select only three (3).
[ ] There are no threats
[ ] Pollution
[ ] Forest clearing
[ ] Invasive species
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Development
[ ] Diseases
[ ] Over harvest
[ ] Unsure/don’t know threats
CAUSES OF WILDLAND FIRES. Please select only three (3).
[ ] Never seen/heard of a wildland fire.
[ ] Wildland fires are naturally occurring.
[ ] Wildland fires are started by hunters
[ ] Wildland fires are started by farmers
[ ] Wildland fires are started by hikers
[ ] Don't know/not sure
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Off roading
[ ] Wildland fires
[ ] Don't know native plants and animals
[ ] Wildland fires are started by people burning trash.
[ ] Wildland fires are started by developers
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Don't know/unsure
COMMUNICATION QUESTIONS. Indicate whom you have spoken to about the subject (choose all that apply).
[ ] Law enforcement official
[ ] Federal environmental official [ ] Local environmental official
[ ] Local senator
[ ] Local mayor
[ ] Religious leader
[ ] Local celebrity
[ ] Manamko/elder
[ ] Friends or family
[ ] Teacher
[ ] Conservation Volunteer
[ ] Fellow students
[ ] Have not talked to anyone
[ ] Other ________________
191
HAND THIS SHEET TO RESPONDENT ONLY ONCE YOU REACH QUESTION 20.
NATIVE ANIMALS:
OF THE FOLLOWING ANIMALS, WHICH DO YOU THINK WOULD BEST REPRESENT ALL OF THE NATIVE ANIMALS AND PLANTS THAT LIVE IN GUAM’S
WATERSHEDS. CHOOSE ONLY ONE, OR YOU MAY ALSO SELECT “OTHER” AND INDICATE ANOTHER PLANT OR ANIMAL.
[ ] GUAM GOBY (Atot)
[ ] GREEN LACE SHRIMP (Uhang)
[ ] FIDDLER CRAB (Panglao)
[ ] Other
192
D.Questionnaire Definitions Sheet
WATERSHED:
An area of land that drains down slope to the lowest point. The water moves
through a network of drainage pathways, both underground and on the surface.
These pathways meet at streams and rivers which eventually empty into a
larger body of water such as the ocean.
BADLANDS:
Areas with little to no vegetation that form in dry areas with infrequent but
intense rain-showers, and soft sediments like clay which generate large
amounts of erosion.
WILDLAND FIRE:
Fire in an area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads,
powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely
scattered.
193
E. Interviewer training guidelines
Interviews and Interviewers
Interviews should be conducted in private and not in a location where the respondent can overhear any part of a previous interview. Further, they should not see
any campaign materials, nor should the interviewer wear any badge or T-shirt that might bias a respondent’s replies, such as a campaign badge or a shirt depicting
the target species. The interview should not take place where the interviewer and the respondent might cause an obstruction, or where responses cannot be clearly
heard because of noise. Finally, they should also be conducted where both parties are out of the rain or in the heat of the mid-day sun.
Finding Good Interviewers
In most cases, the sample size you decide you need (see above) will be too large for the Pride Campaign Manager to conduct the interviews by himself/herself, and
he/she will supervise the interviewers (also called enumerators). The selection of interviewers must be made with an understanding of local traditions/cultures.
For example, in some cultures, it is forbidden for non-family men to be alone with women—it will not be possible for male interviewers to interview female
respondents. In other cases, the desired sample size is too large for a single interviewer to do them all. Other considerations for interviewer selection include
language, race/tribe, and other cultural issues that might be relevant.
Characteristics that make for a good interviewer are listed below.







A pleasant personality that helps to put respondents at ease in what may be a new and uncomfortable setting.
A professional manner that does not seem “superior” to or demeaning towards the respondents.
A good listener, someone who can show interest in respondents’ answers without indicating how they personally feel about those responses.
A person that exudes that they can be trusted to keep their word about confidentiality.
It is best if the interviewer is fluent in the language of the interview.
Wearing attire that is consistent with the culture of the people they will be interviewing.
Diligent and responsible person that can work unsupervised.
As a general rule, teachers, nurses, university students, Department of Statistics personnel, high school students, NGO volunteers, Lead Agency personnel, and
other people who are used to interacting with the public make great interviewers. Be sure to try to find people who have done interviews previously (ask your
national statistics office) as their prior experience may prove
194
invaluable. An effective approach is to employ trained interviewers associated with your Statistics Department. These will likely be the same individuals that
conduct your household and other surveys.
If you are using “untrained” interviewers, schedule a workshop for them. They should read the questionnaire and go through it question by question, as well as run
some “mock” interviews. The interviewers should be provided with an identification badge, clip board, pencil and eraser, as well as a quantity of (30)
questionnaires. The following example is an authentic ID card from the market research firm Millward Brown.
Preparing Interviewers
Guidelines and Rules for Interviewers













Schedule a time for when you can complete the survey in a single sitting.
Be courteous, tactful and non-judgmental. Do not react to what the respondent says
either verbally, or with an expression or nod of head. Do not engage the respondent in a
debate.
Maintain confidentiality of the interview at all times. Find a private place to conduct the
interview. Keep the physical questionnaire in a safe and closed container. Do not discuss
the interview with others after it is complete.
Introduce the survey by saying who is running it, its general intentions, and how the
respondent was chosen (usually at random). The interviewer should have identification
papers to show to respondents.
Try to put the respondent at ease
Be professional, have all your materials ready and keep to the purpose. Don’t get
distracted by others or let the respondent wander off track.
Be familiar with the questionnaire so if there are filters and skip patterns, you know
where they lead.
Read each question exactly the same to each respondent. Remember, slight wording
changes can lead to large changes in answers. If the respondent asks for a question to be
clarified, do so by either repeating the question or rephrasing it using the same words in a
different order.
Speak slowly and clearly so you can be understood.
Do not assume any answers, and don’t mark an answer until the respondent states it.
If a response is incomplete, use a neutral probe to get the respondent to fully answer the
question.
Before leaving, make sure the questionnaire is fully completed.
Thank the respondent at the end of the interview.
The first thing to emphasize to your interviewers is that
they should be friendly, polite, and professional in their
approach to the public. They should either wear their ID
badge or attach it to their clipboard where it can be easily
seen.
Be Clear on the Audience
It is important that your interviewers understand that they
should not include the following individuals/groups in their
survey sample:



Members of their own household or other
immediate relatives, or friends;
More than one member of the same household; and
Anyone who has overheard any of the responses to
a questionnaire.
Study and Practice Beforehand
Have the interviewers conduct the pre-test. This way, they
can train themselves, familiarize themselves with the
questionnaire, and make sure they have their technique
down. Each interviewer should conduct two to three
interviews as part of the pre-test. After any lessons learned
are built into the questionnaire, the data from the pre-test
can be discarded.
Prior to their actually conducting their surveys, interviewers
195
should be clear on any special instructions or particular pre-requisite respondent characteristics they must meet. For example, if a specific target group is to be
questioned, interviewers should spend a little time thinking about the kind of venues where these individuals can be found. (You can help with this during the
workshop session.)
They should also re-read the questionnaire to be sure they understand the various questions and any particular directives that may be attached to them (e.g., asking
“prompted questions”). A little time spent reviewing the survey and its format will make life easier for both the interviewer and the respondent and make the
survey more valid.
Assign Sectors
At the end of the “Interviewer Workshop,” assign each interviewer a specific “sector,” or district, of the survey area and give him or her a quantity of
questionnaires (we recommend a minimum of ten and a maximum of 50). Keep a record of who is conducting the survey, where they are conducting it, and the
numbered survey forms they have been given (this will be recorded on each survey, see template).
Conducting the Field Research for your Questionnaire Survey
Step 1: Planning
During the planning phase, you should have already figured out how many people of what type (gender, target audience, etc.) you need to interview. The
administration of your questionnaire must reflect its sampling needs. If you are trying to interview only community leaders, it is not a good idea to conduct your
survey in a shopping mall. If you are trying to sample arriving tourists you might consider the arrival hall of an airport or a hotel lobby. If you are sampling an
entire population, distribution should reflect population density. For example, if 40 percent of the people in your target area reside in one town or county, then
approximately 40 percent of the total number of your questionnaires should be administered there.
If a general cross-population survey is being undertaken (as opposed to some specific segment of the population, for which instructions are given on the following
page), then inform interviewers that they should follow the sampling strategy outlined previously. If children aged 15 and under are to be interviewed, the
interviewer should first obtain the permission of their parent or guardian.
Step 2: Identify Potential Respondents
196
On approaching a potential respondent, the interviewer should politely introduce himself or herself, show his or her ID card, and confirm that the respondent falls
into one of the target respondent groups (either general, or specific depending upon the questionnaire). The interviewer can use, or modify, the script. (The script
is normally the first paragraph in the questionnaire, as in the questionnaire template in the previous session.)
How to Identify Specific Target Groups
In Pride 2.0 campaigns, you are expected to identify target audiences, or segments of the general
population, that pose a threat to the local biodiversity because of certain behaviors. Most likely,
you will need to sample a certain number of each target audience, and you won’t find them if you
just go door-to-door. Instead, you must 1) identify places the target audience members are likely
to be found, then 2) develop some “screening questions” to ask people to see if they are members
of your target audience, before you begin the interview. Here are some examples using the
screening criteria of age, employment, and community leadership.
Age
If you need respondents from a specific age group, your interviewers can approach this by asking
a screening question, such as “I’m looking for people in different age groups to participate in a
questionnaire survey about the environment. If you are willing to help, could I ask which of the
following age groups you fit into?” If the respondent gives an age that is not required, do not say,
“You are too old.” Instead, say something like, “I’m sorry, but that group falls outside my
survey,” or, “I’m sorry, I’ve already filled my quota for individuals in that age group. Thank you
anyway.” Be sure to ask if there is anyone else to interview in the household.
Employment
Ask some preliminary screening questions, such as:
 What is the respondent’s job title;
 What type of employment is s/he engaged in; and
 What does s/he actually do?
Community Leaders
These can usually be identified by asking local government agencies or your collaborators in the
target area. Remember that “community leaders” are not always or only elected officials,
traditional chiefs, or the heads of civil service, police, etc. They can include church leaders,
youth group leaders, etc. Another way of soliciting this information is by randomly asking
people on the street who they see as key members of their community, who are their heroes, who
do they respect. Where possible, try to ask for specific posts and names. You can then target
these with your specific questionnaire.
197
If the individual selected does not fall into one of your target groups, or if the person declines to assist, the interviewer should thank the person and approach the
next available person, asking the introductory question again. In other words, the interviewer doesn't need to count ten people repeatedly until an interview
participant is found. The tenth person is taken only after a respondent has been recruited for the survey.
Some respondents will refuse to be interviewed. The interviewer must keep track of how many people refuse to be interviewed and calculate a “response rate,”
which is simply the number of people who agree to be interviewed divided by the total number of people contacted and asked to be interviewed. Response rates of
lower than about 80 percent are cause for concern. It is likely that there is some systematic group that is refusing to be interviewed, and therefore, making your
sample not representative. Perhaps unmarried women won’t be interviewed, or perhaps a minority group that is out of favor with the government will not be
interviewed. You should report your response rate in any reports.
Step 3: Interview Respondents with the Survey
Having identified a respondent who is willing to assist, your interviewer can begin his/her survey. Remind your interviewer(s) of the following guidelines:

This questionnaire is designed to be administered by an interviewer—as the interviewer must not hand the questionnaire to the respondent. Rather, he or
she should read out each question exactly as it is written and fill in any response given. The interviewer must speak clearly and slowly, allowing time for
the response.

Prior to beginning the survey, he or she should repeat that the survey is anonymous and confidential. The respondent's name will not appear on the form
and they should be as open and candid as possible.

All information should be recorded inside the prescribed lines or boxes in block capital letters, using a black ballpoint pen.

Note: Instructions on the questionnaire that are written in CAPITAL LETTERS and in brackets and italics are instructions directed to the interviewer.
These should not be read out to the respondent.

The interviewer should not prompt answers to questions (unless “prompted” answers are asked for in the survey – see appropriate questions in the sample
template). Under no circumstances should the interviewer answer a question for the person being interviewed.

When the respondent replies, the interviewer should make a check mark in the corresponding [ ] on the questionnaire form. The interviewer should then
move on to the next question, which should be read out in a similar fashion.
198

If the question is an open-ended question or a fill-in-the-blank type question, the interviewer must write in the response in the space provided. The
interviewer should write exactly what the respondent says, and should not abbreviate or paraphrase the answer. Changing even one word can change the
meaning of the response. For example: “Yes, deforestation is a problem” is different from “Yes, deforestation is a big problem.” Likewise, “Perhaps it’s
important,” conveys an entirely different meaning than “It’s important.” On open-ended questions where the response is unclear, the interviewer can ask
the respondent to explain what he or she means to clarify a statement. If an interviewer makes a mistake on the form, a clear mark should be made on the
form to indicate this.

Once a respondent has finished answering all the questions, the interviewer should check to make sure that the questionnaire has been filled out completely
and properly. The interviewer should check for missing data and, only after the form has been reviewed for a final time, thank the respondent for
participating.
Set a reasonable date by which the interviewers must return their completed surveys and monitor their work closely during the actual survey period. You may
have to pay your interviewers a modest fee. Find out appropriate rates from your Statistical Department and discuss and agree on fees prior to sending out the
interviewers. The rates you may have to pay will depend upon prevailing salaries in your country and the length and complexity of your survey. Where possible,
try to use volunteers.
Step 4: Monitor Your Interviewers
If you are using volunteers or untrained interviewers to conduct your questionnaire survey, monitor their progress during the census period. If more than one
person is conducting interviews, then the supervisor must periodically check the surveys as they are completed and handed in. Check for completeness; to see if
interviewers are having any trouble with certain questions; and to see if the response rate (number of people who agree to answer the survey as opposed to those
that refuse) is okay (above 80%).
If there is any question that some interviewers may be skipping the interview and filling the surveys in on their own, the supervisor can do a “back check” by
returning to a small percentage of the respondents and asking them a few simple questions, such as their age, to verify that the interview actually took place.
Step 5: Collect Completed Survey Forms
At the end of the prescribed period, collect all the survey forms from your interviewers. Check the response rate and that the forms have been properly completed.
Any forms that appear to have been faked, or that are missing data, or otherwise have problems, should be discarded and not included in your analysis. Make a
note of the number of these so-called “spoiled forms.”
199
Guam Species Lists
Table 1 - Guam Species on IUCN Red Data list
#
Scientific Name
Common Name
Red List
1
Acrocephalus luscinius
NIGHTINGALE REED-WARBLER (Eng)
EN A3e; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)
2
Actitis hypoleucos
COMMON SANDPIPER (Eng)
LC
3
Aglaia mariannensis
4
Anas clypeata
NORTHERN SHOVELER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
5
Anas penelope
EURASIAN WIGEON (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
6
Anous stolidus
BROWN NODDY (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
7
Arenaria interpres
RUDDY TURNSTONE (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
8
Birgus latro
COCONUT CRAB (Eng)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
9
Bolbometopon muricatum
BUMPHEAD PARROTFISH (Eng)
DOUBLE-HEADED PARROTFISH (Eng)
GREEN HUMPHEAD PARROTFISH (Eng)
HUMPHEAD PARROTFISH (Eng)
FILAMBASE (Fre)
PERROQUET BOSSU VERT (Fre)
PERROQUET À BOSSE (Fre)
LORO COTOTO VERDE (Spa)
VU A2d
10
Calidris acuminata
SHARP-TAILED SANDPIPER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
11
Calidris alba
SANDERLING (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
12
Calidris melanotos
PECTORAL SANDPIPER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
13
Calidris ruficollis
RUFOUS-NECKED STINT (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
14
Calidris subminuta
LONG-TOED STINT (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
15
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
GRAY REEF SHARK (Eng)
GREY REEF SHARK (Eng)
LR/nt
ver 2.3 (1994)
16
Carcharhinus falciformis
SILKY SHARK (Eng)
LR/lc
ver 2.3 (1994)
17
Carcharhinus longimanus
OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK (Eng)
WHITE-TIPPED SHARK (Eng)
WHITETIP OCEANIC SHARK (Eng)
WHITETIP SHARK (Eng)
REQUIN OCÉANIQUE (Fre)
TIBURÓN OCEANICO (Spa)
VU A2ad+3d+4ad
18
Carcharhinus melanopterus
BLACKTIP REEF SHARK (Eng)
LR/nt
19
Chaetodon flavocoronatus
YELLOW-CROWNED BUTTERFLYFISH (Eng)
VU D2 ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
20
Charadrius dubius
LITTLE RINGED PLOVER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
VU A1c
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 3.1 (2001)
200
21
Charadrius hiaticula
COMMON RINGED PLOVER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
22
Charadrius mongolus
MONGOLIAN PLOVER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
23
Cheilinus undulatus
GIANT WRASSE (Eng)
HUMPHEAD WRASSE (Eng)
HUMPHEAD (Eng)
MAORI WRASSE (Eng)
NAPOLEON WRASSE (Eng)
TRUCK WRASSE (Eng)
UNDULATE WRASSE (Eng)
NAPOLEON (Fre)
EN A2bd+3bd
#
Scientific Name
Common Name
Red List
24
Chelonia mydas
GREEN TURTLE (Eng)
TORTUE COMESTIBLE (Fre)
TORTUE FRANCHE (Fre)
TORTUE VERTE (Fre)
TORTUGA BLANCA (Spa)
TORTUGA VERDE (Spa)
EN A2bd
ver 3.1 (2001)
25
Collocalia bartschi
GUAM SWIFTLET (Eng)
EN A2be
ver 3.1 (2001)
26
Corvus kubaryi
MARIANA CROW (Eng)
EN A2bcde+3bcde; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v); C1; D
27
Cromileptes altivelis
BARAMUNDI COD (Eng)
BARRAMUNDI COD (Eng)
BARRIMUNDI COD (Eng)
FLATFISH GROUPER (Eng)
HIGHFINNED GROUPER (Eng)
HUMP-BACK ROCK-COD (Eng)
HUMPBACK GROUPER (Eng)
HUMPBACK ROCKCOD (Eng)
HUMPBACK SEABASS (Eng)
LOCHE TRUITE (Eng)
PANTHER GROUPER (Eng)
PANTHERFISH (Eng)
GRISSETTE (Fre)
LOCHE VOILE (Fre)
MEROU BOSSU (Fre)
MERO JOROBADO (Spa)
VU A4cd
ver 3.1 (2001)
28
Cycas micronesica
EN A3ce
ver 3.1 (2001)
29
Elasmias quadrasi
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
30
Emballonura semicaudata
PACIFIC SHEATH-TAILED BAT (Eng)
POLYNESIAN SHEATH-TAILED BAT (Eng)
EN A1ac
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
201
31
Epinephelus fuscoguttatus
BROWN-MARBLED GROUPER (Eng)
MÉROU MARRON (Fre)
MERO MANCHADO (Spa)
NT
ver 3.1 (2001)
32
Epinephelus lanceolatus
BRINDLE BASS (Eng)
BRINDLED GROUPER (Eng)
GIANT GROUPER (Eng)
QUEENSLAND GROPER (Eng)
MÉROU LANCÉOLÉ (Fre)
MERO LANCEOLADE (Spa)
VU A2d
33
Epinephelus polyphekadion
CAMOUFLAGE GROUPER (Eng)
LOCHE CRASSEUSE (Fre)
MERO DISFRAZADO (Spa)
NT
34
Eretmochelys imbricata
HAWKSBILL TURTLE (Eng)
CARET (Fre)
TORTUE CARET (Fre)
TORTUE IMBRIQUÉE (Fre)
TORTUE À BEC FAUCON (Fre)
TORTUE À ÉCAILLES (Fre)
TORTUGA CAREY (Spa)
CR A1bd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
35
Falco peregrinus
PEREGRINE FALCON (Eng)
LC
36
Feresa attenuata
PYGMY KILLER WHALE (Eng)
SLENDER BLACKFISH (Eng)
EPAULARD PYGMÉE (Fre)
ORQUE PYGMÉE (Fre)
ORCA PIGMEO (Spa)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
37
Galeocerdo cuvier
TIGER SHARK (Eng)
LR/nt
38
Gallicolumba xanthonura
WHITE-THROATED GROUND-DOVE (Eng)
NT
ver 3.1 (2001)
39
Gallinago megala
SWINHOE'S SNIPE (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
#
Scientific Name
Common Name
Red List
40
Gallirallus owstoni
GUAM RAIL (Eng)
EW
41
Georissa biangulata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
42
Georissa elegans
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
43
Georissa laevigata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
44
Globicephala macrorhynchus
PACIFIC PILOT WHALE (Eng)
SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE (Eng)
GLOBICÉPHALE TROPICAL (Fre)
CALDRÓN NEGRO (Spa)
LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
45
Gygis alba
COMMON WHITE-TERN (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
202
46
Heritiera longipetiolata
VU D2
47
Heteropoma fulva
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
ver 2.3 (1994)
48
Heteropoma glabratum
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
49
Heteropoma pyramis
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
50
Heteropoma quadrasi
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
51
Heteropoma tuberculatum
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
52
Heteropoma turritum
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
53
Heteroscelus brevipes
GREY-TAILED TATTLER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
54
Heteroscelus incanus
WANDERING TATTLER (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
55
Himeroconcha fusca
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
56
Himeroconcha lamlanensis
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
57
Himeroconcha quadrasi
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
58
Himeroconcha rotula
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
59
Hippopus hippopus
BEAR PAW CLAM (Eng)
HORSE'S HOOF CLAM (Eng)
STRAWBERRY CLAM (Eng)
LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
60
Kogia sima
DWARF SPERM WHALE (Eng)
CACHALOT NAIN (Fre)
CACHALOTE ENANO (Spa)
LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
61
Ladronellum mariannarum
62
Lagenodelphis hosei
63
Lamellidea microstoma
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
64
Lamellidea subcylindrica
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
65
Lamprocystis denticulata
DD
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
FRASER'S DOLPHIN (Eng)
SARAWAK DOLPHIN (Eng)
DAUPHIN DE FRASER (Fre)
DELFÍN DE BORNEO (Spa)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
ver 2.3 (1994)
203
(needs updating)
#
Scientific Name
Common Name
Red List
66
Lamprocystis fastigata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
67
Lamprocystis misella
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
68
Limosa lapponica
BAR-TAILED GODWIT (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
69
Limosa limosa
BLACK-TAILED GODWIT (Eng)
NT
ver 3.1 (2001)
70
Mangifera odorata
DD
ver 2.3 (1994)
71
Manta birostris
DEVIL FISH (Eng)
DEVIL RAY (Eng)
GIANT MANTA (Eng)
MANTA RAY (Eng)
PRINCE ALFRED’S RAY (Eng)
RAIE MANTA (Fre)
MANTA RAYA (Spa)
NT
ver 3.1 (2001)
72
Megapodius laperouse
MICRONESIAN MEGAPODE (Eng)
EN B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)
73
Mesoplodon densirostris
BLAINVILLE'S BEAKED WHALE (Eng)
MÉSOPLODON DE BLAINVILLE (Fre)
BALLENA DE PICO DE BLAINVILLE (Spa)
ZIFIO DE BLAINVILLE (Spa)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
74
Motacilla cinerea
GREY WAGTAIL (Eng)
LC
75
Myiagra freycineti
GUAM FLYCATCHER (Eng)
EX
ver 3.1 (2001)
76
Myzomela rubratra
MICRONESIAN MYZOMELA (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
77
Nesopupa quadrasi
78
Numenius minutus
79
Numenius phaeopus
80
Omphalotropis cookei
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
81
Omphalotropis elegans
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
82
Omphalotropis elongatula
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
83
Omphalotropis erosa
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
84
Omphalotropis gracilis
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
LITTLE CURLEW (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
WHIMBREL (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
204
85
Omphalotropis guamensis
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
86
Omphalotropis laevigata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
87
Omphalotropis laticosta
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
88
Omphalotropis latilabris
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
89
Omphalotropis ochthogyra
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
90
Omphalotropis picta
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
91
Omphalotropis pilosa
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
92
Omphalotropis quadrasi
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
93
Omphalotropis semicostulata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
#
Scientific Name
94
Omphalotropis submaritima
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
95
Omphalotropis suturalis
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
96
Orcinus orca
97
Palaina taeniolata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
98
Paludinella conica
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
99
Partula gibba
FAT GUAM PARTULA (Eng)
TREE SNAIL (Eng)
CR A2ce ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
100
Partula radiolata
RADIOLATE PARTULA (Eng)
TREE SNAIL (Eng)
CR A2ce, B1+2abcde
(needs updating)
101
Partula salifana
MOUNT ALIFANA PARTULA (Eng)
TREE SNAIL (Eng)
EX ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
102
Partula salifera
103
Peponocephala electra
Common Name
KILLER WHALE (Eng)
ORCA (Eng, Spa)
EPAULARD (Fre)
ORQUE (Fre)
ESPADARTE (Spa)
Red List
LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
EX
MELON-HEADED WHALE (Eng)
PÉPONOCÉPHALE (Fre)
CALDERÓN PEQUEÑO (Spa)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 2.3 (1994)
LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
205
ELECTRA (Spa)
104
Philomachus pugnax
RUFF (Eng)
LC
105
Phoebastria nigripes
BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS (Eng)
EN A3bd
106
Pluvialis fulva
PACIFIC GOLDEN-PLOVER (Eng)
LC
107
Prionace glauca
BLUE SHARK (Eng)
LR/nt
108
Pterodroma cervicalis
WHITE-NECKED PETREL (Eng)
VU D2
ver 3.1 (2001)
109
Pterodroma longirostris
STEJNEGER'S PETREL (Eng)
PÉTREL DE STEJNEGER (Fre)
PETREL DE MÁS AFUERA (Spa)
VU D2
ver 3.1 (2001)
110
Pteropus mariannus
MARIANAS FLYING FOX (Eng)
MARIANNA FLYING FOX (Eng)
MICRONESIAN FLYING-FOX (Eng)
ROUSSETTE DES ÎLES MARIANES (Fre)
EN A1cd+2cde ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
111
Pteropus tokudae
GUAM FLYING FOX (Eng)
GUAM FRUIT BAT (Eng)
ZORRO VOLADOR DE TOKUDA (Spa)
EX ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
112
Ptilinopus roseicapilla
MARIANA FRUIT-DOVE (Eng)
EN B1ab(iii,v)
113
Quadrasiella clathrata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
114
Quadrasiella mucronata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
115
Rhincodon typus
WHALE SHARK (Eng)
REQUIN BALEINE (Fre)
TIBURÓN BALLENA (Spa)
VU A1bd+2d
116
Rhipidura rufifrons
RUFOUS FANTAIL (Eng)
LC
117
Rhizophora apiculata
118
Samoana fragilis
119
Semperdon heptaptychius
LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
120
Semperdon rotanus
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
#
Scientific Name
121
Serianthes nelsonii
122
Sterna albifrons
LITTLE TERN (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
123
Sterna fuscata
SOOTY TERN (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
124
Sterna hirundo
COMMON TERN (Eng)
LC
ver 3.1 (2001)
125
Succinea guamensis
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
Common Name
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 3.1 (2001)
LR/lc
TREE SNAIL (Eng)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
CR B1+2cd
ver 2.3 (1994)
Red List
CR D
ver 2.3 (1994)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
206
126
Succinea piratarum
EN A2c ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
127
Succinea quadrasi
EN A2e ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
128
Taheitia alata
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
129
Taheitia lamellicosta
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
130
Taheitia mariannarum
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
131
Taheitia parvula
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
132
Thunnus alalunga
ALBACORE TUNA (Eng)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
133
Thunnus albacares
YELLOWFIN TUNA (Eng)
LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
134
Thunnus obesus
BIGEYE TUNA (Eng)
VU A1bd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
135
Todiramphus cinnamominus
MICRONESIAN KINGFISHER (Eng)
LC
136
Triaenodon obesus
WHITETIP REEF SHARK (Eng)
LR/nt
137
Tridacna crocea
BORING CLAM (Eng)
CROCUS CLAM (Eng)
SAFFRON-COLOURED CLAM (Eng)
LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
138
Tridacna derasa
SOUTHERN GIANT CLAM (Eng)
VU A2cd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
139
Tridacna maxima
SMALL GIANT CLAM (Eng)
LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
140
Urogymnus asperrimus
PORCUPINE RAY (Eng)
VU A1bd, B1+2bcd
141
Xenus cinereus
TEREK SANDPIPER (Eng)
LC
142
Xiphias gladius
SWORDFISH (Eng)
DD ver 2.3 (1994)
(needs updating)
143
Zosterops conspicillatus
BRIDLED WHITE-EYE (Eng)
EN A3ce
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 2.3 (1994)
ver 3.1 (2001)
ver 3.1 (2001)
Data taken from 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
EXTINCT (EX) - A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) - A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population (or populations) well outside the past
range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have
failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.
207
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) - A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the criteria (A
to E) as described below.
ENDANGERED (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to
E) as described below.
VULNERABLE (VU) - A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of
the criteria (A to E) as described below.
LOWER RISK (LR) - A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included
in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories:
1.
2.
3.
Conservation Dependent (cd). Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the
cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years.
Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
Least Concern (lc). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened.
DATA DEFICIENT (DD) A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or
population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution is lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a
category of threat or Lower Risk. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened
classification is appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many cases great care should be exercised in choosing between DD and threatened status.
If the range of a taxon is suspected to be relatively circumscribed, if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon, threatened status may well be justified.
NOT EVALUATED (NE) A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been assessed against the criteria.
F.Copy of Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team 2003 (NEED TO SCAN- PDF DOES NOT PASTE WELL)
Final Report
February 25 – March 5, 2003
Fire Prevention and Education Team
Department of Agriculture
Forestry & Soil Resources Division
192 Dairy Road
Mangilao, Guam 96913
ABSTRACT
The USFS Region 5, State and Private Forestry, requested a Fire Prevention and Education Team to
assist the Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and Soil, with an arson problem
on the southern half of the island. Arson accounts for up to 80 percent of the wildfires on Guam.
Traditional prevention efforts have worked well for other causes over the years but arson has not
been the focus. The environmental impacts of arson are being seen in the island’s watersheds and
coral reefs. The degradation of these resources is causing a subsequent economic impact to the
island’s water supplies and major industries that Guam depends upon. These impacts are not
sustainable given Guam’s limited resource base.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
1
208
Contents
Introduction...……………………………………………………………...
Team Members..………………………………………………….………...
Communication Plan………………………………………………….……
Objectives and Accomplishments………………………………….….……
Recommendations…………………………………………………….……
Appendices…………………………………………………………………
Acknowledgements
The team acknowledges the following individuals and organizations for assisting us in completing
our assignment: Annie Flores, Resource Information and Education Officer for the Guam Coastal
Management Program; Denise Flores, the poster model and Annie Flores’ neice; Dr. Veikila Vuki,
University of Guam, Marine Laboratory; The staff at the Division of Forestry and Soil Resources:
Marisol Andrade, Joe Acfalle, and Bellmina Soliva.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
2
Fire Prevention and Education Team
Guam
1. Introduction
Background
A Fire Prevention and Education Team was requested by USFS Region 5 and the Guam
Division of Forestry and Soils to come to Guam to assist with an arson problem that has plagued
the island for decades. Arson fires account for up to 80-percent of the fires annually on the
Territory of Guam. The consequences of the burning are becoming more severe on the southern
half of the island as the tropical vegetation has converted to a grassland of non-native sword grass.
In many places, the burned areas have created “badlands” or eroded areas devoid of vegetation.
There was a need to begin at a basic level to demonstrate what arson is because of the deep-seated
cultural practice of setting wildland fires. Maximum punishment for arson fires in Guam include
one year in prison and a $10,000 fine. There is no enforcement of the law at this point in time.
The consequences of the arson fires are both environmental and economic in nature. Many
watersheds where arson is the most frequent are no longer able to retain or filter water supplies
sufficient to prevent occasional water outages due to the turbidity of the water. This is significant,
given that Guam receives on average 100 inches of rain per year. In addition, soil is being washed
into the ocean at the rate of about ten tons per acre, per fire. The silt destroys the marine life in
reefs around the island. Flooding is also a problem in the villages. The soils in Guam are not
particularly nutrient rich and the loss of large amounts of topsoil significantly affects revegetation.
Wildlife habitat is also affected through displacement, changes in vegetation or food sources,
reduction of hiding cover and increased opportunities for poaching. Sword grass is a non-native fire
dependent species. This grass does not solve the erosion problems of Guam because it grows as a
bunch grass and does not prevent erosion between the plants as forest vegetation does.
209
The impacts are not indefinitely sustainable from the ecosystem or economic perspective.
Guam’s industries are dependent upon the health of the environment. Livelihoods are affected by
arson fires and natural resources are being depleted. The siltation of the reefs is damaging to
industries such as fisheries, diving and tourist activities that are among some of Guam’s largest.
Military downsizing and economic crisis within the Guam Territorial government make this situation
even more pressing. Arsonists have burned tree plantations, destroying new young trees that
volunteers and forestry workers have spent thousands of hours and dollars planting to stabilize the
soil.
The reasons for burning appear to be deep-seated culturally. Many of the arsonists are also
poachers that use fire as a method to attract deer to the new growth. This is a way to provide meat
at family and village celebrations or gatherings. Hunting is an honored tradition. Wildfires have
caused enough resource damage to create a need to make changes in the way people access the deer.
However, suspects are difficult to identify because the information is not given to anyone inquiring
into the causes of fires. To get at the root of the problem, family and peer connections will have to
be explored further.
Generally, attitudes toward wildfire seem to vary from apathy stemming from a lack of
knowledge about the problem to one of powerlessness to do anything about the problem. The law
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
3
enforcement stance is that video documentation or other absolute proof is required to pursue
suspects. This burden of proof engenders a feeling of powerlessness to many who are concerned
with the problems caused by wildland arson.
Traditional prevention methods are working well in the K-3rd grade age groups. Programs
have been presented to the children of Guam since the 1970s. However, the basic fire prevention
messages have not proven enough to combat the arson problem alone.
Report Contents
This report contains the following major sections:
• Communication Plan: This plan describes the principal objectives, key messages, target
audience, and methods and products used to accomplish a campaign to stop wildland arson
fires.
• Tasks and Accomplishments: This section discusses emphasis areas and lists the major
accomplishments.
• Recommendations: The team identified actions that should be considered to further the
arson campaign.
• Appendix: The appendix contains business and communication products and supporting
material. A CD is also included with the report and all materials.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
4
Team Members
210
Sue McCourt
Fire Prevention Officer
Beckwourth Ranger District
Plumas National Forest
P.O. Box 7, 23 Mohawk Road
Blairsden, CA 96103
Phone: (530) 836-7136
FAX: (530) 836-0493
Email: smccourt@fs.fed.us
Dave Limtiaco
Chief Forester
Forestry and Soil Resources Division
Department of Agriculture
192 Dairy Road
Mangilao, Guam 96913
Phone: (671) 735-3949
Fax: (671) 734-0111
Email: dlimti@vzpacifica.net
Anthony Gaison
Forestry Aid, Rural Fire Protection
Forestry and Soil Resources Division
Department of Agriculture
192 Dairy Road
Mangilao, Guam 96913
Phone: (671) 735-3949
Teresa Rigby
Fire Education & Mitigation Specialist
Salt Lake Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
2370 South 2300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Phone: (801) 977-4344
FAX: (801) 977-4365
Email: Teresa_Rigby@blm.gov
Leonard Reyes
Forestry Aid, Rural Fire Protection
Forestry and Soil Resources Division
Department of Agriculture
192 Dairy Road
Mangilao, Guam 96913
Phone: (671) 735-3949
211
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
5
2. Communication Plan
Objective
Change behavior and attitudes of local residents toward arson fire to motivate stronger law
enforcement and promote understanding of fire’s effects on watersheds, Guam’s economy, and
the impact to fire resources.
There are four emphasis areas:
• Fire’s effect on the watershed.
• Economic effects (including time spent rehabilitating watershed (treeplanting).
• Legal consequences of arson.
• Diversion of firefighting resources.
Key Messages
The team developed key messages to promote understanding of the arson problem and gain support
for stronger law enforcement action and prosecution.
1. Wildland arson fire is not a natural occurrence. It has an erosion impact on critical watersheds
that creates a chain reaction, increasing the loss of topsoil, and destroying coral reefs by
siltation. Fires have an extremely adverse affect on the water supplies by stripping watersheds
of moisture retaining vegetation that maintain and filter fresh water. Water plant equipment
becomes clogged with silt that causes unnecessary water outages.
2. Guam’s economy is at risk by the continued degradation of its natural resources. Important
industries and livelihoods are tied to the health of the coral reefs, clean water and topsoil.
Rehabilitation efforts are wasted when arsonists burn those areas.
3. The conception of wildland arson fires in Guam must change to call it what it is. There is a
mentality that there is nothing wrong with wildfire that it just happens. It is important to
differentiate between structural arson and wildland arson to ensure that people understood
setting wildland fires was not an acceptable or legal practice.
4. Fire and emergency resources are diverted from accidents or other true emergencies to deal
with the deliberate actions of arsonists. When there is a need, the resources may not be
available to help law-abiding individuals. The public should be aware that they are paying
taxes to support the work of arsonists rather than for their needs.
For more detailed messages, refer to the Talking Points in Appendix A and the Briefing Paper in
Appendix G.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
6
Target Audiences
• Local residents
• Arsonists
• Mayors of villages where arson proliferates.
212
• Territorial legislators
• Territorial governor
• Media
• Major industries
• Parish Councils
For details, see the Contact List in Appendix B.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
7
Methods and Products
The team produced materials and a framework for continuing a wildland arson campaign on Guam.
This section outlines the products and how they were implemented.
1. Poster: “This Land Is Ours Too” 11x17, full color poster: Depicts a local child standing within a
recent arson fire of burned grass that demonstrates the desertification of the land. The intention is
for people to think about the consequences of arson on their children’s future. Posters will be
distributed at local “mom & pop” shops, ice machines, and other select locations where the locals
hang out. See Appendix C.
2. Radio/Television Public Service Announcements Concepts and Slogans:
Concepts and slogans for PSAs were developed from the key messages for use in future productions
for radio and television. The same concepts may also be incorporated into the posters or other print
media as necessary. The PSAs will be produced in cooperation with the Guam Coastal Management
Program. See Appendix D.
3. Press Releases: Two press releases were produced for release at the beginning and towards the
end of the fire season. The releases highlight the arson problem, request support and demonstrate
the effects to the general public and media. See Appendix E.
4. Photo Essay: Wildland Arson Fire Effects on Guam. This publication depicts fire’s effects that may
be used when meeting with mayors or other community leaders to demonstrate the environmental
and economic effects of arson. It may also be displayed as a PowerPoint presentation. See
Appendix F.
5. Talking Points: To focus and create uniformity in the messages talking points were developed
from the objectives and key messages. The talking points may be used both internally and externally
to bring attention to the arson problem and gain support for the arson campaign. See Appendix A.
6. Recommendations: The team developed a list of recommendations to be included in a longterm
campaign. Much of the work to be accomplished will take time due to the cultural and political
atmosphere in Guam. Recognizing this, the recommendations will act as a framework to guide a
campaign against arson.
7. Conceptual Theater Slides: A series of conceptual theater slides were developed to use in the
theaters, as funding is available. These slides have the potential to reach thousands of people per
month. The examples are located on the accompanying CD.
8. Briefing Paper: To provide a statistical and talking point summary for mayors, cooperators and
others who will carry the messages, the briefing paper was developed. See Appendix G.
213
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
8
3. Tasks and Accomplishments
Based upon the general objectives and emphasis areas, the following tasks were identified in a
meeting with the local unit representative.
Task 1: Establish contact with cooperators working on the coral reef effects issue to provide
background on the wildland arson fire problem. This task will accomplish the following:
• Educate and brief cooperators on fire’s effects.
• Provide talking points and visuals to help cooperators carry the messages.
• Promote a unified message for all agencies involved in coral reef and watershed protection.
• Change the terminology used to describe deliberately set wildfires to use the stronger and
more accurate language “wildland arson fires.”
• Bring attention to wildland arson fires by calling them what they are. This will emphasize
the seriousness of the problem and the potential to do something about it rather than
considering it an inevitable problem.
Accomplishments:
Interagency Coordination:
• The team helped to develop a partnership with Guam Coastal Management Program
(GCMP). A three-year campaign will be developed by GCMP and the Division of
Forestry and Soils to target arson-caused fires. The campaign will include:
- Articles in the GCMP publication, Man Land and Sea, a free publication that is
distributed as a free publication.
- Additional posters.
- A series of 30-second public service announcements on KGTF TV-12 Public
Broadcasting Station to be aired 90 times/month over one year with the possibility for
extension pending funding. KGTF has a viewership of 80,000/day.
• The team met with Bruce Campbell, a contractor for the USDA, on March 4 to share
information about fire prevention materials being developed and how to tie those
products into the wildland arson campaign. Campbell is developing posters and a
teacher’s guide.
Task 2: Promote partners to carry messages.
Accomplishments:
Outreach with Mayors: On March 4th, members of the team met with Mayor Jose “Pedo”
Terlaje of the village of Yona to discuss arson’s effects on the watersheds and gain support
for the campaign.
Briefing Paper and Photo Essay: Created to help develop partners to deliver messages.
Task 3: Develop a photo essay telling the story of arson’s effects on watersheds and the subsequent
effects on the social and economic sectors.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
214
9
Accomplishment:
Photo Essay: A photo essay entitled, “Wildland Arson Fire Effects on Guam,” was developed
for use with the key individuals who may carry the messages and ideals of the arson
campaign. Also, an accompanying presenter’s outline was created for the introduction and
discussion of the issues depicted in the photo essay.
Task 4: Develop conceptual theater slides and poster campaign ideas and examples.
Accomplishments:
Theater Slides: Examples of theater slides were developed and the details of costs researched
for future use in the arson campaign. Please see the accompanying CD for examples.
Poster: An 11x17 full color poster, “This Land Is Ours Too,” was prepared with the help of
GCMP’s Annie Flores. Please see Appendix C for examples.
Task 5: Write two news releases highlighting the arson problem, the effects and what people can do
to help.
Accomplishment:
News Releases: The first press release was issued on March 3rd to the Guam media. A second
press release was developed in the event that tree plantations are burned. Examples are in
Appendix E.
Task 6: Draft concepts for public service announcements that may be used on radio or television.
Accomplishment:
Public Service Announcements and Slogans: A list of PSAs and slogans for use in the arson
campaign were developed with the assistance of GMCP and are included in Appendix D.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
10
4. Recommendations
Due to the nature of the problem with arson on Guam being culturally tied and the need to change
behaviors and attitudes that have persisted for generations, the team developed recommendations to
be included in a wildland arson campaign. These recommendations target almost all audiences
within the territory due to the cross-generational prevalence of the attitudes to wildland arson.
We consider this to be perhaps the most important aspect of the team’s work because we recognize
the immensity of the problem and the need to develop a long-term strategy. The time and staffing
constraints of this assignment allowed for only the completion of certain tasks. It will require the
involvement of many agency, group and individual partners to carry on the recommendations set
forth below.
RECOMMENDATION #1: Three-year interagency & interdisciplinary campaign Involving cooperators, media, public and private sectors design a campaign to gain political and
public support to find solutions to the arson problem. Emphasize rehabilitation efforts also.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Guam Fire Cooperators - Develop an interagency collaborative
group to present unified messages and garner support for the fire service in Guam (i.e., Guam Fire
Cooperators). Guam Fire Department should be involved to ensure consistency of messages. All
215
fire agencies/departments should be briefed on the wildland arson fire situation and present a joint
program. It should be emphasized within this group to 1) Present a unified message and 2) Refer to
arson as arson rather than just wildfire. Simply said, call a duck a duck.
RECOMMENDATION #3: Guam Coral Reef Coordination Committee - Include a fire
representative on the committee to emphasize connection between arson fire and degradation of
coral reefs.
RECOMMENDATION #4: Law Enforcement – There must be enforcement of the law in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the problem and to back up the efforts of all cooperators in
rehabilitation and protection of the watersheds and coral reefs. Given the resource losses and
economic impacts of arson, it is justifiable to protect Guam’s investments in its resources.
• Patrols should be increased and fire investigation given a priority to collect the evidence
necessary for prosecution.
• A government attorney should be assigned to prosecute offenders.
• All agencies within the government should present a unified message about wildland arson.
Namely, that it will be prosecuted and offenders may have jail time, fines or both.
• Concerned citizens should be encouraged to report wildland arson. What and how to report
should be made widely known. Use of the already establish Crime Hotline is encouraged
rather than establishing a separate line.
RECOMMENDATION #5: Support for Game Wardens – Provide support to the conservation
officers and game wardens who pursue poachers that may be also deliberately setting wildland arson
fires.
• Incorporate wildland arson fire messages into hunter education programs.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
11
- Law-abiding hunters can act as messengers to illegal users and promote responsible and
legal deer takes.
-Use statistics to demonstrate to the public the effects of wildland arson fire (i.e., effect on
deer populations, loss of habitat, etc).
• Bring on hunting/gun advocate groups as partners in promoting key messages.
RECOMMENDATION #6: Guam Coastal Management Program - Continue partnership to
develop a three-year campaign with other cooperators to produce materials and accomplish goals of
the program.
• “Arson Fire” Reflective Signs: These signs would be placed along roadsides at the location
of high profile arson fires to bring attention to the prevalence of the problem. They should
be relatively inexpensive to reproduce and community members could be asked to help
monitor signs. Signs should only be left up for a few days and reused in other locations to
minimize costs. A grant may be requested by the end of March to produce signs.
• Articles in Man, Land and Sea, the Guam Coastal Management publication.
• Poster series depicting a progressive series of messages to change attitudes toward wildland
arson fire.
216
• Insert to be distributed in Pacific Daily News with a Guam specific arson fire prevention
message.
RECOMMENDATION #7: Theater Slides - Develop a series of theater slides based on the key
messages and talking points. An example is provided on the accompanying compact disc to
generate ideas and formats. The Guam Megaplex serves an average of 55,000-80,000 customers per
month. There are five movies shown at a time.
• Contact: Debra Weger 632-2120 cell: 777-6323.
• Regular Price: $600 per month for a 3-month minimum run. For PSA, non-profit fire
prevention you can expect a 15% discount on this price and you can do a 2-month run.
• Showing of slides:
- Each movie has 3 PSA slides in a carousel of 80 slides.
- Average showing of the slides per movie, 2-3 times each.
• In order to pursue this option, you would need to provide 42 printed slides to Megaplex for
showing in all theatres. To design and produce the slides locally you can contact Guam
Printing Press.
RECOMMENDATION #8: Media – The key contacts for media should include Annie Flores
and David Limtiaco. Pursue a number of media avenues including:
• Chris Malafunkshun, 100.3 FM.
• Pacific Daily News feature series on the impacts of arson burning. 1) Wildland arson defined
and why it occurs; 2) Impact on watersheds; 3) Impact on coral reefs; 4) Impact on
economy; 5) Social impact; 6) Solutions to the problem.
• Continue partnership with Guam Coastal Management Program to produce public service
announcements on the local public television station KGTF.
• Cable Access TV – Contact Marianas Cable Vision to place PSAs and reporting information
on the station. Address & Phone: 600 Harmon Loop Road; 635-4628.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
12
RECOMMENDATION #9: Statistics & Research at the University of Guam – Network with
cooperators and the University to collect current data and provide uniform messages to the public
about impacts and cultural reasons for wildland arson fire. This information will be important to the
design of an arson campaign.
• Statistics: Use statistics from the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Forestry and Soils, Guam Economic Development
Authority, Guam Visitor’s Bureau and other cooperators to illustrate impacts and to keep
public updated.
• Current Research: Dr. Veikila Vuki is conducting research for the Marine Lab at the
University of Guam to explore the cultural reasons for arson fire, among other things. This
research could be important in how messages are designed or the strategy to deal with the
arson problem. Dr. Vuki should be brought into the discussions of how to deal with the
arson problem. Without understanding these issues, the investment and effort to rehabilitate
217
may be futile.
• Thesis: Explore potential for graduate level work documenting the interconnections
between the environmental impacts of arson and the social-economic effects.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Non-traditional Mediums – Annie Flores of GCMP and David
Limtiaco should be contacts for non-traditional methods to ensure quality control of messages and
to develop new partnerships. Other existing publications should be used to saturate the local media
with common messages about arson. This repetition is important to keep the issue fresh and in the
public eye. Include messages in publications such as:
• Marine Drive magazine
• Tide Chart
• Parish Newsletters
• Micronesia Mall – Contact the Marketing Department at 649-0883 to share the economic
impacts of wildland arson. This could be a beneficial location to reach a large number of
people with posters, marquee messages or arson reporting hotlines.
RECOMMENDATION #11: Historic Photo Points - Use historic photos to illustrate the
changes over time of the vegetation on a landscape level to give perspective. These can be obtained
from the Guam Historic Resources Division, the National Park Service and the University of Guam.
These photos can become useful in publications, PSAs, presentations and other mediums.
RECOMMENDATION #12: School Mentoring Program - Use high school students to teach
younger students about fire prevention and the resource impacts of arson.
• Provides community service credit for high school students and provides much needed help
to the forestry aids/firefighters in their annual school programs.
• Targets high school students with arson prevention messages. Over time, attitudes will likely
change toward wildland arson due to this exposure and awareness.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
13
5. Appendices
Appendix A: Talking Points.
Appendix B: Contact List.
Appendix C: Poster, “This Land Is Ours Too.”
Appendix D: Concepts and Slogans for Public Service Announcements.
Appendix E: News Releases.
Appendix F: Photo Essay, Wildland Arson Fire Effects on Guam.
Appendix G: Briefing Paper.
Appendix H: CD containing the final report, all appendices, photos, and supporting documents.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
14
Talking Points: The Arson Problem in Guam
Wildland Arson Fire Statistics
218
• Over the last 3 years, 2,020 arson fires have burned over 6,000 acres in Guam. On average,
about 750-wildland fires burn per year in Guam and up to 80% are caused by arson.
• Arson is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in prison and $10,000 in fines.
• On average, the Division of Forestry expends $100,000 per year to suppress fires. In addition,
Guam Fire Department responds to arson fires with additional expenses being supported by
the taxpayers of Guam.
• Most of the arson fires are occurring within the southern half of the island. The villages of
particular concern are: Yona, Talofofo, Inajaran and Malojiloj, Merizo, Agat, and Umatac.
• Legal Actions taken on Arsonists (to date – March 3, 2003)
0 citations
0 prosecutions
1 arrest
Rationale for Wildland Arson
• The most prevalent reasons for arson include poaching, another illegal activity, and senseless
acts of aggression.
Impacts of Wildland Arson Fire
- Social
• Villages and residents are directly impacted during arson outbreaks. Fire fighters respond to
arson to protect the public. In the meantime, ambulances and fire stations go unstaffed in the
event of an accident or serious emergency.
• Water outages are consequences of arson fires. Arson fires burn vegetation that helps retain
and filter water. After a fire, silt from erosion causes turbidity of the water. The result is that
the silt will clog the pipes and water pumping equipment and compromises the water
purification system. This causes our water system to have to shut down.
• The Chamorro culture and heritage is at risk from arson fires as is the future of our children.
Stopping arson will preserve our children’s future and our Chamorro heritage.
- Environmental
• Halom tano or ravine forests are being depleted. This can lead to loss of deer/wildlife habitat,
flooding, soil erosion, silting and destruction of reefs, and fisheries.
• When a fire burns, ten tons of silt per acre is lost to erosion. This silt is carried to the ocean
where it fills in reefs, destroying marine life. The impact on the fishing, recreation and tourism
industries will continue to grow if arson is not stopped.
• Tree plantations are destroyed from burning.
- Economic
• Guam’s reefs contribute an estimated $145 million annually to the economy through tourism
and fisheries.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
15
• Fishing is a vital part of the subsistence of many families in Guam and is a major export.
• The most productive and revenue generating industries in Guam are being negatively impacted
219
to support the arsonist who poaches. Guam cannot indefinitely sustain the negative economic
or environmental effects of arson.
• Landowners lose valuable farmland and crops when arsonists strike. Agricultural lands in
Guam are limited and very important to the traditional way of life and subsistence of many
families.
• Property, including homes, is at risk as development increases in fire prone areas.
• Water outages can also be an economic impact on individuals, businesses and the Guam Water
Authority for repeat maintenance costs.
• Loss of tree plantations to wildland arson fires is a loss of taxpayer money and volunteer time
and effort.
Rehabilitation Efforts
• Many plantations have been created by the efforts of volunteers through countless donated
hours in an effort to improve the environment of Guam and help protect it’s future. These
plantations need time to establish in order to shade out the invasive sword grass and return the
ecosystem to a more natural state.
• Planting trees helps stabilize the soil, retains fresh water, creates habitat for wildlife, and
prevents the negative impacts on so many industries within Guam.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
16
Contact List
Mayors
Mayors City Phone Fax
Mayor’s Council of
Guam
Johnny M Reyes Agat (o) 5652524/4335/2531
565-4826
Inarajan/Malojiloj (o) 4752509/10/11/12
828-2543
Rita Tainatongo Merizo (o) 828-8312/2941 828-2429
Anthony “Barney” D
Leon Guerrero
Talofofo (o) 7891421/3262/4821
789-5251
Tony A Quintana Umatac (o) 8282940/2677/8258
828-2676
Jose “Pedo” Terlaje Yona (o) 789-4798/1525/6 789-1821
220
Agency Cooperators
Agency Contact Phone/Fax Email/Website
Territory of Guam Governor’s Office (o) 475-9201/2/4
(fax) 477-4826
Department of
Agriculture: Foresty
David Limtiaco (o) 735-3949
Department of
Agriculture: Aquatic
& Wildlife
Gerry Davis (o) 735-3955/6
Dept. of Parks &
Recreation
Director (o) 475-6296/7
(fax) 477-0997
Dept. of Parks &
Rec., Historic
Resources Division
Lynda Aguon (o) 475-6290/1
(fax) 477-2822
University of Gaum
Marine Laboratory
Dr. Veikila Vuki Vuki61@yahoo.co.uk
Marine Laboratory
UDG, Mangilao,
Guam 96923
Guam Coastal
Management
Program
Annie Flores (o)
Guam Fire
Department
Fire Administration
or Prevention
Bureau; Capt. Olivas
& John Mayers
(PIO)
(o) 472-3304-admin
472-3302-prev
(fax) 472-3360
Federal Fire
221
Department
Chief Terlaje
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
17
National Park
Service
Dwayne Minton
Natural Resource
Conservation Service
Burt Lawrence
Navy
Air Force
Territorial Legislators
Congressman District Phone/Fax Email
Senator Frank B
Aguon Jr
(o) 479-4486/4828
(fax) 479-4827
Senator Joanne M
Salas Brown
(o) 472-3450/51
(fax) 472-4090
Senator Mark Forbes (o) 472-3407/8/3512
(fax) 477-5036
Senator Lawrence
Kasperbauer
(o) 475-5437/4723878
(fax) 475-2000
Senator Lou A Leon
Guerrero
(o) 4723576/82/83/84/85
(fax) 472-3591
Senator Vicente
“Ben” C Pangelinan
(o) 472-3552/53/54
(fax) 472-3556
Other Partners
Organization Contact Phone/Fax Email/Website
222
Guam Fisherman’s
Coop
(o) 472-6323
(fax) 477-2986
Guam Visitor’s
Bureau
401 Pale San Vitores
Rd, Tumon
96913
(o)646-5278/9
(fax) 646-8861
Website:
www.visitguam.org
Email:
guaminfo@visitguam.org
Economic
Development
Authority
590 S. Marine Dr.
Tamuning 96911
(o) 647-4332
(fax) 649-4146
Webstie:
www.investguam.com
Email:
investguam@geda.guam.net
Micronesian Divers
Association Inc
856 N Marine Drive,
Piti
(o) 472-6234
(fax) 477-6329
Guam Lagoon Scuba
Diving School
(o) 649-5060/6466937
Kim’s Dive Academy
Inc
(o) 649-5060
Guam Waterworks
Authority
223
126 Lower East
Sunset Blvd Tiyan
PO Box 3010
Hagatna 96932
(o) 479-7823/08/15
(fax) 479-7879
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
18
Guam Mass Transit
Authority
236 East O’Brien
Dr., Hagatna 96910
(o) 475-4682
(fax) 475-4600
Guam Power
Authority
PO Box 2977
Hagatna 96932
(o) 647-9225
Media
Pacific Daly News Scott Radaway
KUAM-TV Rachel Torraiofo
KGTF-TV
Cable Access-TV
Weather ChannelTV
100.3 FM – Radio Chris Malafunkshun
K-57 – Radio Julie Duel
610 AM – Radio Tony Blas
93 FM Island Radio
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
19
Concepts and Slogans for Public Service Announcements
Concepts
We recommend using images that will mean something to people viewing the public service
announcements (PSA) and create a certain amount of cultural connectivity with the messages
displayed. These PSAs should serve two purposes: To inspire people to create peer pressure to stop
the use of arson fires and to inspire those in government positions to take the arson problem seriously
enough support the prosecution of offenders.
224
1. Narrator: Over the past 3 years (2000-2002), 2,020 arson fires have burned over 6,000 acres of
Guam’s irreplaceable watersheds. Erosion from these fires has dumped more than **** tons
of silt into the ocean, destroying reefs that most of our industries depend upon. While our
economy is in a state of crisis, the good news is that we don’t have to allow this to continue.
Together we can turn the tide on arson and stop the degradation of our reefs and island.
Please help stop wildland arson fire.
2. Someone dials 911 and gets an answering machine - ”Guam Fire Department, sorry we’re at
a wildland arson fire. Please leave a message and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can”.
Will fire fighters be there when you need them? Stop wildland arson fire!
3. Narrator: The people of Guam are accustomed to preparing for disasters. There is one
emergency that we have the power to stop. This problem plagues our island, our reefs, and
our children’s future: Wildland arson. This is one disaster that we can do something about.
Typhoons are inevitable but arson is preventable. Help stop wildland arson.
4. Narrator: Ask yourself this question: As Guam’s residents are faced with typhoons, a
struggling economy, and high unemployment, do we also need the preventable problem of
arson? Typhoons are inevitable but arson is preventable. Help stop wildland arson.
5. Narrator: Are you contributing to Guam’s economic growth or hurting it? A few arsonists are
taking away from the ability of others to improve Guam’s economy. Watersheds and reefs are
damaged and your job may be affected. Wildland arson hurts.
6. Narrator: Arson fire is costing millions of dollars a year in resource damage. Wildlife habitat is
being destroyed. Soil is being washed out to sea and reefs and marine life are being destroyed
by erosion in the after-effect of fire.
7. Narrator: What is arson? Setting fire to a structure? A vehicle? The land? Arson is illegal
because it destroys something that belongs to others. By setting wildfires, you are destroying
wildlife habitat, soil, vegetation, water supplies and maybe your neighbor’s land. Help stop
wildland arson fires.
8. Narrator: Where will the deer live then? . Stop wildland arson [picture of the barrens]
9. Words on Screen: Deer: $***, Water Buffalo: $***. Guam’s Watersheds: Priceless.
Narrator: The land and sea are our children’s future. Please help stop arson fires.
10. Narrator: Wildfire is not cultural, its arson. [View of old lady/man watering plants and in
background – charcoal valley]
11. Narrator: The land belongs to us too: Stop Wildland Arson. [View of kids planting trees]
12. Narrator: Arson wildfires hurt – It took (#volunteers) volunteers (#days/hours) days (hours) to
plant (#trees) trees. It took only 20 minutes to burn it up. [charcoal background and burnt
trees, with group of tree planters looking upset]
- $100,000 trees have been destroyed from burning since (what year?).
- $500,000 of tree plantations in Ugum watershed at risk
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
20
13. Narrator: Guam receives 100 inches of rain per year. Why should anyone’s water have to be
225
shut off? Wildland arson hurts. [View of an elderly woman struggling to haul water]
14. Narrator: Wildland arson fires cost more than dollars – loss of our resources: fisheries, water
supplies, and wildlife. Protect our children’s future, stop wildland arson.
Slogans
1. Typhoons: Inevitable. Arson Fire: Preventable.
2. Protect our heritage & people: Stop Wildland Arson Fires
3. Wildland arson hurts.
4. Turn the tide on wildland arson.
5. Gai Respetu – not having any respect [use this in some form to show the lack of respect
arsonists have for all others their actions affect].
6. Protect Guam: Stop Wildland Arson
7. There’s nothing cultural about wildfires: It’s arson.
8. Protect our children’s future: Stop Wildland Arson.
9. Protect the land: Stop Wildland Arson and you stop unnecessary erosion.
10. Protect the reefs. Stop wildland arson, stop erosion.
11. The land belongs to us too: Stop wildland arson.
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
21
Department of Agriculture
Dipåttamenton Agrikottura
192 Dairy Road, Mangilao, Guam 96923
Director’s Office 734-3942/43; Fax 734-6569
Agricultural Dev. Services 734-3946/47; Fax 734-8096
Animal Health 734-3940
Aquatic & Wildlife Resources 735-3955/56; Fax 734-6570
Forestry & Soil Resources 735-3949/50; Fax 734-0111
Plant Nursery 734-3949
Plant Protection & Quarantine 472-1652; 475-1426
Felix G. Camacho Fax 477-9487
Governor
Rufo J. Lujan
Kaleo S. Moylan
Lt. Governor
Acting Director
Paul Bassler
Acting Deputy Director
For Immediate Release Contact: David Limtiaco
(671) 735-3949
GUAM WILDLAND FIRE SEASON HAS BEGUN
MAIN CAUSE IS ARSON
226
March 3, 2003 … Mangilao, Guam - Forestry officials report that 50 human-caused fires have occurred
since the first of the year. The majority of these fires were caused by arson, according to Dave Limtiaco,
Chief Forester for the Division of Forestry and Soils. “About 80 percent of wildland fires on Guam are
caused by arson. Wildland arson is not only a threat to homes, it’s also damaging to the land. This is a
problem that affects everyone and we need help to stop it from happening, especially with the government
financial crisis. If the current rate of arson fires continues, over $100,000 in expenditures will be used to
suppress these preventable fires.” said Limtiaco.
Wildland arson fires (grass fires) are fires set intentionally, without a permit, to wildland vegetation on either
public or private land. Over the past three years, 2,020 wildland arson fires burned over 6,000 acres. After
a fire, the bare ground is exposed to rain that washes the topsoil into streams and eventually into our water
supplies in Ugum and the coral reefs. The silt causes water outages and destroys marine life in the reefs.
Another problem is that Guam Fire Department emergency resources spend time extinguishing arson fires
when they may also be needed at an accident or other emergency.
Wildland arson hurts. Take a stand on wildland arson and help protect Guam’s limited resources.
###
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
22
Department of Agriculture
Dipåttamenton Agrikottura
192 Dairy Road, Mangilao, Guam 96923
Director’s Office 734-3942/43; Fax 734-6569
Agricultural Dev. Services 734-3946/47; Fax 734-8096
Animal Health 734-3940
Aquatic & Wildlife Resources 735-3955/56; Fax 734-6570
Forestry & Soil Resources 735-3949/50; Fax 734-0111
Plant Nursery 734-3949
Plant Protection & Quarantine 472-1652; 475-1426
Felix G. Camacho Fax 477-9487
Governor
Rufo J. Lujan
Kaleo S. Moylan
Lt. Governor
Acting Director
Paul Bassler
Acting Deputy Director
For Immediate Release Contact: David Limtiaco
(671) 735-3949
REHABILITATION PROJECT UP IN SMOKE
COSTLY LOSSES TO WILDLAND ARSON FIRE
(MONTH DAY), 2003 … Mangilao, Guam – After volunteers spent (#days/hours) planting trees at (name
227
location) (state when), the work was destroyed by a wildland arson fire (state when). The work was a joint project
between the Division of Forestry and Soil Resources and (name of volunteer group). The rehabilitation was
necessary because of (describe reason i.e., erosion, sword grass) in the (name location) that was (describe the
effects i.e., frequent fires in sword grass –fuelbreak, flooding, siltation, mudslide, sloughing etc).
“It’s sickening to think that someone cares this little about the watersheds that provide so much for us,”
said (name someone and their title). Total cost for the project is estimated at $(amount) and the damage is
estimated at $(amount). (Insert last name of person) continued, “It takes a lot of work to get a group of people
together that want to help. To have their efforts wasted like this is a crime.” (#volunteers) helped to
complete the project.
Rehabilitation efforts prevent erosion that can clog water systems and kill marine life in the reefs. The fresh
water supplies and reefs are vital to the economy of Guam. Guam’s coral reefs are worth an estimated $145
million annually in income from tourism alone. Wildland arson is a destructive act that both preventable
and illegal.
-MOREFinal
Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
23
REHABILITATION EFFORTS UP IN SMOKE (Cont.)……………………………………….2
After planting trees to rehabilitate an area, at least five years is necessary to allow the plants to take hold and
to begin to restore the ecosystem to a forest by shading out the non-native sword grass. Sword grass burns
readily, while the native forest vegetation retain more moisture within the plants and the ground. The
increased moisture content makes it more difficult for a catastrophic fire to carry.
So far this fire season (# of wildland arson fires) have burned (# of acres). (Name and title of someone official),
“We’d like to encourage people to share the importance of protecting the watersheds. Wildland arson fires
in the grass just exacerbate the problem by speeding up the erosion process. It is important to prevent
other fires also such as debris burning. We need to start setting a better example for our children to
preserve their opportunities in the future that are tied to the reefs and watersheds.”
Wildland arson hurts. Take a stand on wildland arson and help protect Guam’s limited resources.
###
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
24
Wildland Arson on Guam: Briefing Paper
Fire statistics:
Average fire year:
-750 fires 80% arson caused
-In last 3 years a total of 7596 acres were burned on Guam, 6077 acres were arson.
Expenditure on fire suppression:
-$100,000 year, Guam Fire Department/Forestry/ Military Fire Dept. suppression
costs
Value per acre:
228
-$1200 per acre Loss in the past 3 years - 6077 acres to arson fires: $7.29 million
Soil lost per year:
-10 tons of silt per acre is lost to erosion from arson fires
Effect on the reefs:
-Silt is carried to the ocean where it fills in reefs, destroying marine life.
-Impacts fishing, recreation and tourism industries will continue to grow if arson is not
stopped.
-Guam’s reefs are worth estimated $145 million annually to the economy through
tourism and fisheries.
-Fishing is a vital part of the subsistence of many families in Guam and is a major
export
Effects on the people:
-Fire fighters respond to arson to protect the public.
-Fire stations go unstaffed in the event of an accident or serious emergency.
-Property, including homes, is at risk as development increases in fire prone areas
-Water outages are consequences of arson fires.
-Arson fires burn vegetation that helps retain and filter water.
-After a fire, silt from erosion causes turbidity of the water.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Total Wildfires Arson fires
Final Report: Guam Fire Prevention and Education Team
February 25-March 5, 2003
25
-The result is that the silt will clog the pipes and water pumping equipment and
compromises the water purification system. This causes our water system to have to
shut down.
Effects on wildlife:
-Halom tano or ravine forests are being depleted.
-This can lead to loss of deer/wildlife habitat, flooding, soil erosion, silting and
destruction of reefs, and fisheries.
Effects on the watershed:
-$500,000 of tree plantations, in Ugum watershed at risk and $100,000 trees have been
-destroyed from burning.
-Many of these plantations have been created by the efforts of villages and volunteers
through countless donated hours in an effort to improve the environment of Guam
and help protect its future.
229
-These plantations need five years to establish in order to shade out the invasive sword
grass and return the ecosystem to a more natural state.
-Planting trees helps stabilize the soil, retains fresh water, creates habitat for wildlife,
adds to the beauty of Guam as a tourist destination and prevents the negative impacts
on many of Guam’s natural resources.
Legal Actions taken on Arsonists (to date)
0 citations
0 prosecutions
1 arrest
8.Campaign Creative Brief
Guam Creative Brief: General Southern Community (including hunters)
Problem Statement:
Guam’s diverse coral reefs are home to hundreds of species of
Conservation and campaign
marine life. These reef ecosystems are being destroyed by
goal(s)
sedimentation from upland watersheds caused by a destruction
of native forests by wildland fires. These fires are believed to
be started by hunters using arson and personal fires (land
clearing, burning of trash and excess vegetation) going out of
control.
A Rare Pride campaign is launching in Southern Guam with the
goal of preventing wildland fires in Southern Guam, reducing
destruction of vegetation and sedimentation, and thus protecting
coral reefs.
Target Audience
Southern Guam Residents (general community members &
hunters):
This audience spans all age groups, inclusive of youth and
adults. A majority of homes have children living in them. Over
86% of all respondents were Catholic.
Based on survey data, the most trusted sources for information
about the environment are family and friends, teachers,
manamko/elders, Federal environmental officers, local
230
environmental officials and village mayors. Preferred television
media was split among the audiences, but a common preference
of I94 as a local radio station, and the Pacific Daily News as a
printed media were shown.
Some quantitative data: (percentages are averages of all
separate target audiences)
 63% of people felt that those starting wildland fires
should be prosecuted.
 78% had started a fire in the last 12 months (top 3
reasons: BBQs, burning trash, burning excess
vegetation)
 50% of community responded that in the last 12
months, they had never considered reporting
wildland arson.
Desired Action: What do we
want target audience to do?
The specific goals for general community:
Community members will report wildland fires by calling a free
anonymous fire hotline. Community members will also help
prevent new fires by using responsible fire use practices.
Specific goal for hunters:
Hunters will stop using fires to hunt.
Barriers to action: What might Community members:
prevent the audience from
 Do not have a easy and safe way to report fires
taking the desired action?
 Do not feel it is their responsibility to report fires
 Do not feel that laws are adequately enforced
 Are not aware of responsible fire use practices
Benefit exchange/Reward:
What reward(s) should the
message promise the
consumer?
Knowing that they are stewards concerned with the well being
of their community and resources:
 Reduce damage to private property
 Reduce destruction of native forests
 Reduce erosion & sedimentation of upland areas
231
Support: How can the promise
be made credible?








Image: What image should
distinguish the action?







Protect clean water resources
Reduce flooding
Protect coral reef ecosystems
Reports show that wildland fires are a threat to
Guam’s native forests
Reports show that wildland fires can cause damage
to private property
Scientific data shows that sedimentation is one of the
major threats to Guam’s coral reef ecosystems, as
well as a major cause of river flooding
Scientific data shows that sediment clogs rivers,
causing disruption of water flow and flooding
Quantitative data indicates that residents feel that
fires are a threat to Guam’s watersheds
Stewardship/Ownership
Caring
Concerned for the availability of resources for future
generations
Reporting fires is the responsible thing to do- it IS
your responsibility
Doing your part to protect our resources
Fires are destructive and must be prevented
Openings: What
communication openings and
vehicles should be used?







When they are listening to the radio
When they are shopping
When they are at fiestas/social events
When they are reading the newspaper
When they are driving
When they are at home
When they are at church
Mandatories: What are some

Image of flagship species (crab or fish)
232
creative, message and/or
campaign elements that
MUST be included in creative
execution?
Campaign Materials: What
materials do we want the
creative team to produce?


Logos of funding agencies (where applicable)
Slogan
 Posters
 Stickers
 Brochures
 T-shirts
 Hats
 Koosies
 Reusable shopping bags
 Car ashtrays
 Hunting apparel (camo gear)

Campaign Messaging Strategy I, a southern community member, will report wildland fires and
be responsible when using fire in my home, because I am
concerned with reducing flooding in my village and protecting
our resources on the land and in the sea.
I, a southern hunter, will not use fire for hunting so that I can
protect the habitat of the deer and not risk being arrested.
Additional materials will be provided to target a second audience of hunters:
 11% of youth hunters and 21% of adult hunters surveyed indicated that they had used fire while hunting in the last 12 months.
 44% of youth hunters and 68% of adult hunters have never considered reporting wildland arson
 Using fire for hunting is illegal and is destroys deer habitat
 Fires provide a short term reward but create a long term debt by damaging the whole ecosystem
 Non destructive bait can be used instead to achieve same result
 Hunters who hunt without using fire will protect deer habitat and feel that they are conscientious and responsible, thinking of the
good of the whole community and the future of their families.
233
ii (Ref: Margoluis, Richard A.; and Niklaus Salafsky [1998] Measures of Success, Island Press, Washington DC).
iii
Creative Briefs (by audience segment) are created during the second University Phase and will be appended to the Project Plan
iv
Single time purchase, as needed throughout different project stages.
Overalls - http://www.dickiesstore.co.uk/hi-vis-safety-workwear/; Gloves -http://www.tooled-up.com/Product.asp?PID=28421;
Pocket fixing pouch - http://www.tooled-up.com/Product.asp?PID=111177; machete - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silverline-GT56-400mm-MacheteSheath/dp/B000LFXVW8
v
vi
Note The Andrea dollar has parity with the US dollar
234