Guam_Project_Plan_19Jan10 by lanyuehua

VIEWS: 94 PAGES: 232

									              GUAM PROJECT PLAN




ELAINA TODD, GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
      SOUTHERN GUAM, Updated January 19, 2010
2
                                                                        THEORY OF CHANGE




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




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




                                                                                                                                                                                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 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 103
    14.0 BENEFIT LADDERS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106
    15.0 SMART OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
    16.0 MARKETING MIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
    17.0 CAMPAIGN MESSAGES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
    18.0 MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115
H. THEORY OF CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
    19.0 THEORY OF CHANGE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
I. BUDGET & TIMELINE....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 132
    20.0 PROJECT TIMELINE & BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 132
    ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 137
    21.0 REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138
    J.APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 141



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              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: Pride English Program (PEP)
(Cohort name, number and principal    Number: GUAMCM
manager)                              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                   Evangeline Lujan (Bureau of Statistics) (LAP)
(e.g. Executive Director)
Campaign manager name                 Elaina Todd
“BINGO” Partner                       n/a
(and contact details)
Other partners                        Joe Mafnas (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Soil Resources Division) (I);
                                      Bel Soliva (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Soil Resources Division) (I);
                                      Mike Reyes (Department of Agriculture, Law Enforcement) (I);
                                      Jeff Quitugua (Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources) (I);
                                      David Peredo (Guam Fire Department) (I)
Key threat addressed                  Reduction and prevention of wildland fires & subsequent sedimentation of soil onto reefs
                                      IUCN 7.1.2 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity; 9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation
Key biodiversity target               Coral Reef Ecosystems



                                                                                                                                             6
Campaign slogan             TBD
Key audiences               Southern Hunters (est.600 based on hunting permits issued)
(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)
                            To eliminate the threat of sedimentation on Guam’s diverse coral reefs, wildland fires caused by illegal hunting in
Campaign Theory of Change   Southern Guam must be prevented. Key target groups (Southern Hunters and General Community members) will be
(Maximum 175 words)         informed that preventing wildand fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property and
                            natural resources. Hunters will be given sustainable hunting trainings and baiting tools to use as an alternative to
                            burning, and the community will be asked to report wildland fires and adopt responsible fire use practices. There will
                            be a decrease in the number of fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be
                            deemed successful if the number of vegetation fires decreases by 50% (from 1670 [average 2005-2009] to 835) by
                            October 2010 and if percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage
                            points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.




                                                                                                                                                     7
                                                                                                                 A. Executive Summary



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


Ecosystem type (IUCN)    IUCN 1.5      Subtropical/Tropical Dry
                         IUCN 1.6      Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
                         IUCN 2.1      Savanna – Dry
                         IUCN 3.5      Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
                         IUCN 4.5      Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
                         IUCN 7.1      Caves
                        IUCN 12.1      Rocky Shoreline
                        IUCN 12.2      Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc.
                        IUCN 13.1      Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
                         IUCN 14.2    Artificial/Terrestrial – Pastureland




                                                                                                                                           8
Site map
(topographical)




GPS Co-ordinates       13°N; 144°E
(Google Earth)
Biodiversity Hotspot   Near Coral Triangle



                                             9
Other protected area status




                              10
Hectares addressed by campaign   Approximately 23,350 (southern watersheds)




                                                                              11
                                                             CRITICAL SPECIES
Description of flagship species      Three species were identified as potential flagship species:
(250 words max)                       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        Southern Guam (target site): 51,938
Human Population summary (300      According to the U.S. bicentennial census conducted in 2000, the population of Guam was 154,805
words)                             (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   The short term goals of the campaign are:
(interim success)                  By October 2010, the number of vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease by 50% (from 1670 -
                                     average # of fires from GFD reports 2005-2009).
                                   By October 2012, the turbidilty level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will
                                     decrease from X to Y (a 20 pp decrease).
Long term Conservation            The long term conservation goals of the campaign are:
(ultimate success)                By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage
                                  points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

                                  By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage
                                  points from an average of 4. 34% to 9.34%.
                                           LEAD AGENCY PARTNER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Strategic Plan                    The Guam Coastal Management is 100% federally funded. Main activities of the Guam Coastal
                                  Management Program include:
                                   Federal consistency: Certifies that proposed actions and projects receiving federal funding or federal
                                     permits are consistent with Guam’s approved Coastal Management program.
                                   Reviews and recommends actions on Guam Seashore Protection and Guam Land Use Commission
                                     applications for the BSP through the Application Review Committee
                                   Networks with other government agencies and non-governmental organizations to coordinate
                                     activities related programs.
                                   Conducts Guam Federal application clearinghouse reviews for Bureau of Statistics and Plans
                                   Coordinates federally funded projects on pollution control, environmental protection, natural and
                                     historic resources use and conservation, development, management, hazard management and
                                     planning.
                                   Public outreach and education on coastal management issues.
                                   Coordinates the Guam Coral Reef Initiative and Guam’s strategy for implementing the Micronesia


                                                                                                                                             14
                                    Challenge

                                 Currently, 20% of the total organizational budget ($950,000) is allocated to Environmental Education and
                                 Awareness. The 2010-2012 NOAA Coral Management Fellow will be dedicated to working on
                                 environmental education writing and outreach, and will support the Campaign Manager in outreach
                                 efforts.
Staff training                   The Campaign Manager, Elaina Todd will utilize all skills and tools learned in the Rare training to train the
                                 local Environmental Education Committee, comprised of representatives from local government entities,
                                 resources agencies, private companies, education and youth groups, university groups, and non-profit
                                 organizations. Additionally, Rare materials and knowledge will be available for all staff of GCMP and
                                 partner agencies. Training sessions from CM can be arranged upon request. CM will work closely with
                                 NOAA Fellow and aid in the development of targeted and effective educational materials. CM will also
                                 aim to build capacity within GCMP its partners through campaign events and possible additional trainings.
Resource sustainability          Campaign Manager is currently a NOAA fellow, salaried in full through IMSG. Fellowship program ends in
                                 January, 2010 at which point the CM will be hired/transfer to the Government of Guam and will continue
                                 to be employed with GCMP (grant funds). These funds are secured are ready to be allocated as of
                                 October, 2009, and will be available long term.

Regression of behavior and the   In order to ensure success of the efforts of this campaign, possible regression to burning needs to be
need for sustained messaging     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



                                                                                                                                                 15
                                      partnerships are established with the Guam Fire Department, the Division of Forestry & Soil Resources,
                                      and NRCS (all of which have long term funding for fire prevention and suppression) and ensure that the
                                      goals of the campaign are aligned with and integrated into their long term strategic plans.




ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING ALL AUDIENCES

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




                                                                                                                                                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                                                                      YES
    Law Enforcement Division                                                                                 YES
  USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service                                                                 YES
  Guam Fire Department

  Resource Users
  Southern Hunters (youth and adults)
  Southern Community members (youth and adults)
  Farmers Groups
  Soil & Water Conservation Board

  NGO’s
  Guam Environmental Education Partners, Inc.
  The Nature Conservancy

  Other
     Youth organizations
     Mayors offices
     University of Guam
     Water and Energy Resource Institute (WERI)



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




                                                                                                                                                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.guam-
   online.com/history/history.htm.

   Land Use/Land Tenure

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

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




                                                                                                                                                    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                      Number Percent

                                      OCCUPATION
                                        Employed civilian population 16 years
                                      and over                                       57,053   100.0
                                      Management, professional and related
                                      occupations                                    15,852    27.8
                                      Service occupations                            12,654    22.2
                                      Sales and office occupations                   16,027    28.1
                                      Farming, fishing, and forestry
                                      occupations                                      212      0.4
                                      Construction, extraction, and
                                      maintenance occupations                         6,771    11.9
                                      Production, transportation and material
                                      moving occupations                              5,537     9.7

                                      INDUSTRY
                                         Employed civilian population 16 years
                                      and over                                       57,053   100.0
                                      Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
                                      and mining                                        296     0.5
                                      Construction                                    5,532     9.7
                                      Manufacturing                                   1,155     2.0
                                      Wholesale trade                                 1,948     3.4
                                      Retail trade                                    7,558    13.2
                                      Transportation and warehousing, and
                                      utilities                                       4,319     7.6
                                      Information                                     1,540     2.7
                                      Finance, insurance, real estate and rental      3,053     5.4


                                                                                                                                       23
                                       and leasing
                                       Professional, scientific, management,
                                       administrative, and
                                         waste management services                   4,277       7.5
                                       Educational, health, and social services      8,412      14.7
                                       Arts, entertainment, recreation,
                                       accommodation and
                                         food services                             10,278       18.0
                                       Other services (except public
                                       administration)                              2,158    3.8
                                       Public administration                        6,527   11.4
                                       Subject                                    Number Percent

                                       INCOME IN 1999
                                       Households                                  38,769     100.0
                                       Less than $2,500                             3,110       8.0
                                       $2,500 to $4,999                               698       1.8
                                       $5,000 to $9,999                             1,768       4.6
                                       $10,000 to $14,999                           2,128       5.5
                                       $15,000 to $24,999                           4,758      12.3
                                       $25,000 to $34,999                           4,842      12.5
                                       $35,000 to $49,999                           6,357      16.4
                                       $50,000 to $74,999                           7,175      18.5
                                       $75,000 to $99,999                           3,982      10.3
                                       $100,000 or more                             3,951      10.2
                                       Median household income (dollars)           39,317       (X)
                                       Mean household income (dollars)             49,617       (X)

Site population and neighbors

Guam of today is a truly cosmopolitan community with a unique culture, the core of which is the ancient Chamorro heavily influenced by the
Spanish occupation and the Catholic Church. Strong American influence is also evident in the celebration of many public holidays, the form of
Government and the pride in being U.S. that is displayed by the populace. Guam’s culture has also been influenced and enriched by the Filipino,
Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Micronesian immigrants each group of whom have added their unique contributions. The present population of


                                                                                                                                             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                         38,769
                                                Family households (families)               32,367
                                                    With own children under 18 years       19,678
                                                  Married-couple families                  22,693
                                                    With own children under 18 years       13,964
                                                  Female householder, no husband
                                                present                                     6,284
                                                    With own children under 18 years        3,753
                                                Nonfamily households                        6,402
                                                  Householder living alone                  5,082
                                                    Householder 65 years and over             659

                                                Households with individuals under 18
                                                years                                      23,346
                                                Households with individuals 65 years
                                                and over                                    6,247


                                                                                                                                                 25
                                                  Average household size                        3.89
                                                  Average family size                           4.27

                                                  EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
                                                     Population 25 years and over            83,281
                                                  Less than 9th grade                         7,843
                                                  9th to 12th grade, no diploma              11,862
                                                  High school graduate (includes
                                                  equivalency)                               26,544
                                                  Some college, no degree                    16,611
                                                  Associate degree                            3,787
                                                  Bachelor’s degree                          12,774
                                                  Graduate or professional degree             3,860

                                                  Percent high school graduate or higher        76.3
                                                  Percent bachelor’s degree or higher           20.0




1.3 Main Factors Affecting the Site
    Known Threats to Local Biodiversity (write as a narrative)

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

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

 “Sedimentation of nearshore habitats, primarily a result of severe upland erosion, continues to be one of the most significant threats to Guam’s
 reefs. Sedimentation is most prevalent in southern Guam, where steep slopes, underlying volcanic rock, barren areas and areas with compro-
 mised 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 high-
priority sites and capacity building within the local government and university to ensure the strategy’s success. This comprehensive monitoring
program will provide data about a number of important measures of coral reef ecosystem health, including various parameters for water quality,
benthic habitat, and associated biological communities. Monitoring these variables will allow resource managers to evaluate the effectiveness of
specific management strategies and serve as an early warning system for identifying changes in reef health. The success of the monitoring program


                                                                                                                                                   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 671-477-
7278;
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 i-
Recycle program.

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

2.3 Key Stakeholders

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

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

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




                                                                                                                                                     37
                                                  List of Participants from First Stakeholder Meeting:
                                                  Name                          Agency/Group
                                            Benny San Nicolas    Southern Soil & Water Conservation District
                                            Roxanna Myers        UOG Marine Lab
                                            Esther Taitague      BSP/GCMP
                                            Joe Torres           Department of Agriculture
                                            Diane Vice           Department of Agriculture- wildlife
                                            Mike Gawel           Guam EPA
                                            Margaret Aguilar     Guam EPA
                                            Anne Marie Gawel     Micronesia Challenge
                                            Michael Reyes        Department of Agriculture- law enforcement
                                            Teri M. Perez        BSP/GCMP
                                            Joe Mafnas           Department of Agriculture- forestry
                                            Mark Priest          UOG Marine Lab




                                                                C. Concept Models

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

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

                                              3.0 Developing a Concept Model
                                              3.1 Concept Model in Miradi
                                              3.2 Initial Concept Model Narrative



                                                                                                                                                        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                                 Direct threats                                  Contributing factors (Including indirect threats)
                                                                                                      Ungulates, recreational off-roading, apathy, lack of awareness &
Guam Watersheds                                                                                         education, arson & fire, land cultivation, agriculture, lack of
   - Upland Terrestrial                                  Removal of vegetation                       enforcement, lack of coordination among agencies, lack of funds,
     Habitats                                                                                          the pare system, profit, development and population increase
   - Ground Water                                                                                                                      (DOD)
   - Rivers                                                                                         Lack of awareness & education, development, population increase
   - Reefs                                                                                           (DOD), lack of funds, lack of coordination, lack of manpower, lack
                                                             Invasive species
                                                                                                         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
                                                          Overharvest of water
                                                                                                    water, lack of enforcement, population increase (DOD), increased
                                                                                                                        demand, agriculture, aquaculture
                                                        Typhoons & earthquakes                                                            None
                                                                                                         Removal of vegetation- ungulates, recreational off roading,
                                                                                                          apathy, lack of awareness & education, arson & fire, land
                                                        Sedimentation & erosion                      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
                                                                  Pollution                          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 tree-
    Intsia 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
  Option 1      Revise Legislation
                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
                                                                                                                        Average
                 Category                                  Subcategory                                   Score
                                                                                                                        Category Score
 Feasibility




                                                                       Costs                            4

                 Economics                                             Revenues                         4              4

                                                                       Income Substitution              N/A

                                                                       Technology                       4

                 Technical                                             Capacity / Organizational                       3.7
                                                                                                         4
                                                                        Ability
                                                                       Other Partners                   3
                                                                       Community Leadership             4
                 Cultural / Political                                                                                   3.2
                                                                       Political Environment            2.5



                                                                                                                                                            60
                                                                 Cultural Norms                  4

                                                                                             Feasibility Score   3.6
 Impact




                                                                 Conservation Impact             3

              Impact and Metrics                                 Tipping Points                  3              2.7
                                                                 Metrics                         2

                                                                                                Impact Score     2.7


RISK FACTORS for Increased Law Enforcement                                                                                      E. Formative Research


Risk Factors                                          Consequence                             Mitigation Strategies
          •    Two new officers is not enough                  Poachers continue to burn                 Combine the increase in
              help to make a significant impact                 and use other destructive                  numbers of officers with
              (outcomes do not significantly                    and dangerous techniques                   other management
              reflect an large increase in arrests)             to catch deer. No progress                 strategies to ensure the
                                                                is made with reducing the                  new officers are not the
                                                                number of fires.                           only thing being done to
                                                               New CO’s do not achieve                    address the poachers.
                                                                the predetermined metrics                 Tie in objectives of officers
                                                                for their jobs (lack of                    with objectives of overall
                                                                evidence of success)                       campaign (utilizing multiple
                                                                                                           strategies) to increase the
                                                                                                           outputs and “success”.
          •    Despite increased numbers of CO’s,              Number of fires stays the                 By also modifying
              some hunters refuse to stop                       same, despite best efforts                 legislation both to make
              burning, and do not fear arrest by                to catch all poachers.                     prosecution easier and to
              Conservation Officers (not                                                                   impose fines on hunters



                                                                                                                                                    61
       prosecution)                                                                                        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.
   •    Legislature will not revise legislation           Conservation officers still                  Garner public support for
       to make prosecution of poaching                     have no weight in their                       the law changes. Get the
       easier for conservation officers.                   arrests and the same                          public to petition of the law
                                                           poachers are arrested                         changes through an
                                                           repeatedly with no                            educational campaign
                                                           convictions and fires                         aimed at supporting the
                                                           continued to be started.                      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
  Option 1     Raise Deer as livestock to reduce the demand for poached meat.
               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.
  Option 2     Provide hunters with deer bait and training on sustainable hunting practices.
               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          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.
   Option 4          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
                                                                                                   Average
              Category                   Subcategory                                  Score
                                                                                                   Category Score
Feasibility




                                                   Costs                             3

              Economics                            Revenues                          3.5          3.3

                                                   Income Substitution               N/A

                                                   Technology                        4

                                                   Capacity     /   Organizational
              Technical                                                               3            3.7
                                                    Ability

                                                   Other Partners                    4

                                                   Community Leadership              3

              Cultural / Political                 Political Environment             2.5          2.8

                                                   Cultural Norms                    3

                                                                               Feasibility Score   3.3
Impact




                                                   Conservation Impact               3.5

              Impact and Metrics                   Tipping Points                    2.7          3.1

                                                   Metrics                           3

                                                                                  Impact Score     3.1




                                                                                                                    64
RISK FACTORS for Locally Managed Hunting Areas                                                                   E. Formative Research


Risk Factors                                Consequence                          Mitigation Strategies
   •    There is the possibility that the            Funding shortages will                A complete BROP must
       partner agencies will not have                 result in delays and may               be completed to outline
       the capacity or funding to fully               create distrust with the               needs, timelines,
       support a project of this                      community.                             responsibility
       magnitude due to lack of                      Lack of manpower may                   breakdowns, etc. and
       manpower or funding.                           make project a low                     any gaps or deficiencies
                                                      priority for partner                   need to be addressed
                                                      agency.                                during the planning
                                                                                             phase.
                                                                                            MOUs must be
                                                                                             developed with all
                                                                                             partners to ensure all
                                                                                             aspects of project are
                                                                                             accounted for.
   •    There may be other                           This may cause                        Many facilitated
       disagreements among scientists,                animosity amongst                      discussions need to
       farmers, and other partners as                 some partners and                      occur between various
       to the best approach for the                   possibly delay or                      partners, research
       areas (what to plant, what areas               decrease the                           needs to be done, and
       to plant in, etc.)                             effectiveness of project               there must be a general
                                                      implementation.                        consensus as to which
                                                     This could also affect                 method or methods to
                                                      the community support                  use.
                                                      for the project.                      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                      As such there may be a                      The supplemental Pride
       value in the feed areas or may                     decline in support for                       campaign and strong
       object to creating better hunting                  the areas by the                             education need to
       areas. (Hunters who do not                         community who is vital                       happen throughout the
       burn may feel threatened by                        to the development and                       project to explain the
       new areas making it easier for                     maintenance of the                           value of the areas (and
       other hunters.)                                    areas, causing them to                       the detriment of the
                                                          be ineffective.                              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
                                                                                                            Average
               Category                        Subcategory                                    Score
                                                                                                            Category Score
 Feasibility




                                                           Costs                             3

               Economics                                   Revenues                          3.5           3.3

                                                           Income Substitution               N/A

                                                           Technology                        4

                                                           Capacity     /   Organizational
               Technical                                                                      2.3           3.4
                                                            Ability

                                                           Other Partners                    4

                                                           Community Leadership              3

               Cultural / Political                        Political Environment             2.5           2.8

                                                           Cultural Norms                    3

                                                                                        Feasibility Score   3.2
 Impact




                                                           Conservation Impact               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                Funding shortages will                      GCMP can source funding if
       partner agencies will not have the                 result in not getting the bait               needed while a more
       capacity or funding to fully support               stations                                     sustainable    partner     is
       the project.                                      Lack of staffing to assist                   found. Also, Rare pressure
   •   Current director is not very                       may hinder the training and                  may help push Ag to assist.
       supportive of GCMP projects. He                    implementation of project.                  MOUs must be developed
       may make the process difficult.                   Officers may not support                     with DoAg to make sure
   •   Conservation officers may feel that                the project .                                they are held accountable
       bait stations will increase poaching                                                           It will be important to take
       occurrences (non fire related_                                                                  ideas of CO’s into planning
                                                                                                       process and ensure them
                                                                                                       that the benefits will be
                                                                                                       great.

   •    There may be disagreement with                   This may cause lack of trust                Many facilitated discussions
       hunters as to whether or not bait                  with hunters and the                         need to occur between
       stations are “fair” as they provide an             project designed to support                  various hunting groups and
       advantage; other hunters may worry                 them.       Without     their                CM, Cos, and they need to
       they will “take all of the deer”                   support the project will be                  see the benefit outweighing
                                                          very difficult to implement.                 the cost (less fires).
                                                         This could also affect the                  Hunters must be engaged in
                                                          community support for the                    the project and their ideas,
                                                          strategy.                                    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               Lack of support in the BR                  The supplemental Pride
       providing this alternative to the                 strategy could affect the                   social marketing campaign
       “lazy hunters” and may resent                     entire watershed campaign,                  and strong education need
       making it so easy to kill the deer.               making it difficult to engage               to happen throughout the
                                                         them in the activities.                     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

                                                                                                          Amount still
                                                                                 Number                  needed for All
                                                                                     of                      of Guam
                                                                   Percent of   Interviews                 (negatives
                                                                     Target          to                     indicated
                                                      Population      Area       Conduct                   additional
                                          Ward           Size      Population      (5,95)    Collected     collected)
                                   Northern Guam       102856         66.4         254         102            152

                                   Piti
                                                        1666          1.1           4           5              -1
                                   Asan-Maina
                                                        2090          1.4           5           3              2



                                                                                                                                                     74
                                    Ordot-Chalan Pago
                                                         5923        3.8         15         27           -12
                                    Mangilao
                                                        13313        8.6         33         36            -3
                                    Agat
                                                         5656        3.7         14         72           -58
                                    Santa Rita
                                                         7500        4.8         19         54           -35
                                    Umatac
                                                         887         0.6          2         16           -14
                                    Inarajan
                                                         3052        2.0          8         14            -6
                                    Merizo
                                                         2152        1.4          5         15           -10
                                    Talofofo
                                                         3215        2.1          8         17            -9
                                    Yona
                                                         6484        4.2         16         24            -8
                                    TOTALS FOR ALL
                                    GUAM
                                                        154794      100.0        383       283           100
                                    TOTALS FOR
                                    SOUTH GUAM
                                                        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,
four target audiences were identified due to the large enumerator bias of youth in                                            General Community
                                                                                                                              Adults (42.4%)
the survey (explained in section 8). Age was determined by question 7- “How old
were you at your last birthday.” Respondents ages 14-19 were grouped as youth                                                 General Community
                                                                                                                              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.

                                                                      Table 2
                                        Independent Variables to Assess Comparability of the Surveys
                                             (all data listed are in percentage of target audience)
         Variable            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
Gender
                                       Female =             45.7                     11.1                  40.9                   0
Target audience group                  Hunters=               -                      16.2                    -                   12.2


                                                                                                                                                     76
                           General Community =      83.7    -     87.8    -
                                 14 or younger=     24.3   29.6    -      -
                                        15 to 20=   75.7   70.4    -      -
                                        20 to 24=    -      -     21.0   10.5
                                        25 to 29=    -      -     11.7   5.3
                                        30 to 34=    -      -     18.2   15.8
Age group
                                       35 to 39 =    -      -     10.2   26.3
                                        40 to 44=    -      -     8.8    21.1
                                        45 to 49=    -      -     8.8    15.8
                                        50 to 54=    -      -     10.2   5.3
                                  55 and older =     -      -     10.2   0.0
                                     No school =     5      0     12.4   42.1
                                        Primary =   6.4    3.7    12.4   10.5
                                     Secondary =    78.6   92.6   35.8   31.6
                                  Some college=     2.9     0     28.5   10.5
Formal education                    Some trade=      0      0     5.1    5.3
                                Some religious=     2.1     0      0      0
                               Post-secondary =      0      0      0      0
                               Post-university =     0      0      0      0
                            Refused to answer=       5     3.7     0      0
                                        Catholic=   87.9   88.9   86.8   89.5
                                       Christian=   2.1     0      0      0
                              Traditional/local=     0      0     1.5    5.3
Religion
                                           None=    4.3    3.7    6.6    5.3
                                           Other=   3.6    3.7    2.9     0
                            Refused to answer=      2.1    3.7    2.2     0
                                    Office Work=    2.1     0     19.0   5.3
Employment Sector            Food Preparation=       0      0     4.4    10.5
(main ones shown)               Transportation=      0      0     3.6    21.1
                                 Not employed=      95.0   92.6   36.5   5.3
                                          Never=    5.0    11.1   5.8    5.3
Radio listenership (days    Up to 3 days/week=      27.1   33.3   36.5   68.4
per week)                       4-6 days/week=      34.3   22.2   24.8   10.5
                                   7 days/week=     33.6   33.3   32.8   15.8


                                                                                77
                                          Never=             6.4                     3.7                     10.2                    5.3
TV viewership (days per       Up to 3 days/week=             27.1                    37.0                    35.8                    26.3
week)                             4-6 days/week=             30.7                    25.9                    25.5                    31.6
                                    7 days/week=             35.7                    33.3                    28.5                    36.8
                                          Never=             10.7                    14.8                    5.1                      0
Newspaper readership          Up to 3 days/week=              50                     29.6                    24.1                    26.3
(days per week)                   4-6 days/week=             27.9                    37.0                    38.7                    52.6
                                    7 days/week=             11.4                    18.5                    32.1                    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
                                                                                 Southern Youth                       Southern Adults
                                                                            General                              General
                                                                           Community        Hunters             Community        Hunters
                  Variable                       Response Options           (N=140)          (N =27)             (N=137)         (N = 19)
Frequency of listening to radio in the past                    Never           5               11                   5                 5


                                                                                                                                                78
month (days/week)                               Up to 3 days/week      27   33   37    68
                                                      4-6 days/week    34   22   25    11
                                                        7 days/week    34   33   33    16
                                                                 K57   3    4    18    5
                                                                 I94   86   74   56    63
Preferred radio station (top 4 listed)                 Hit Radio 100   77   59   41    58
                                                           Power 98    63   63   20    53
                                                            The KAT    0    0    20    26
                                                              Never    6    4    10    5
Frequency of watching TV in the past            Up to 3 days/week      27   37   36    26
month                                                 4-6 days/week    31   26   36    32
                                                        7 days/week    36   33   29    37
                                                              KUAM     23   30   44    37
                                                      Food Network     22   22   18    2
Preferred TV station                            Discovery Channel      19   15   30    42
                                                               ESPN    15   19   24    58
                                                            Spike TV   36   52   23    48
Frequency of reading newspaper                                Never    11   15   5     0
/magazine in the past month                     Up to 3 days/week      50   30   24    26
                                                      4-6 days/week    28   37   39    53
                                                        7 days/week    11   19   32    21
                                                 Pacific Daily News    90   85   95   100
Preferred Newspaper or magazine                    Marianas Variety    19   26   38    63
                                           Marine Drive Magazine       30   22   23    16
                                         Like the most                 12   19   13    11
                                         Like a lot                    21   15   22    47
Rock & Roll music
                                         Like a little                 46   52   35    21
                                         Don’t like                    20   15   29    21
                                         Like the most                 9    19   17    5
                                         Like a lot                    24   30   32    47
Country & Western Music
                                         Like a little                 38   37   31    42
                                         Don’t like                    28   15   18    5
Local or traditional music               Like the most                 19   34   26    21


                                                                                            79
                      Like a lot      31   44   30   58
                      Like a little   32   22   29   16
                      Don’t like      17   0    16   5
                      Like the most   39   60   22   16
                      Like a lot      30   26   30   58
Island/Reggae Music
                      Like a little   21   15   28   21
                      Don’t like      8    0    20   5
                      Like the most   46   56   16   5
                      Like a lot      35   33   26   26
Hip Hop Music
                      Like a little   14   11   26   37
                      Don’t like      4    0    31   32
                      Like the most   6    11   21   11
                      Like a lot      12   15   32   26
Local news
                      Like a little   39   41   33   52
                      Don’t like      36   30   12   5
                      Like the most   3    4    15   5
                      Like a lot      11   22   20   16
National news
                      Like a little   29   30   41   47
                      Don’t like      44   37   19   26
                      Like the most   5    11   17   5
                      Like a lot      12   26   20   37
International news
                      Like a little   33   22   39   32
                      Don’t like      39   33   20   21
                      Like the most   19   33   15   5
                      Like a lot      21   33   20   47
Sports
                      Like a little   28   7    35   26
                      Don’t like      29   26   20   11
                      Like the most   1    4    2    0
                      Like a lot      6    7    6    11
Religious programs
                      Like a little   22   15   43   37
                      Don’t like      56   60   41   47
                      Like the most   4    8    5    5
Talk shows
                      Like a lot      10   4    15   21


                                                          80
                                              Like a little                   29                26               44          37
                                              Don’t like                      49                59               32          37
                                              Like the most                   11                11               12          0
                                              Like a lot                      19                11               11          5
  Dramas
                                              Like a little                   23                33               31          32
                                              Don’t like                      40                41               40          58
                                              Like the most                   23                15                7          0
                                              Like a lot                      25                7                26          26
  Reality Shows
                                              Like a little                   26                44               34          37
                                              Don’t like                      22                26               25          32
                                              Like the most                   40                52               22          5
                                              Like a lot                      31                22               31          27
  Comedy
                                              Like a little                   17                11               27          58
                                              Don’t like                      10                15               17          11
                                              Like the most                    4                7                 2          0
                                              Like a lot                       3                7                 2          0
  Puppet shows
                                              Like a little                   11                19               24          37
                                              Don’t like                      72                59               58          58
  Locally Produced Shows                      Like the most                    4                7                 8          5
                                              Like a lot                       6                4                11          0
                                              Like a little                   34                33               45          53
                                              Don’t like                      39                41               27          0
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.




                                                                                                                                  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
                                                                                Southern Youth                        Southern Adult
                                                                           General                               General
                                                                          Community        Hunters              Community        Hunters
          Information Source              Level of Trustworthiness         (N=140)          (N =27)              (N=137)         (N = 19)
                                         Most                                 9               15                   10                11
                                         Very                                12               11                   19                37
Person on radio
                                         Somewhat                            57               44                   61                47
                                         Not                                  7               15                    3                0
                                         Most                                13               15                   13                11
                                         Very                                15               15                   27                47
Person on TV
                                         Somewhat                            56               41                   53                37
                                         Not                                  7               15                    2                0
                                         Most                                24               26                   15                11
                                         Very                                42               26                   34                69
Report in newspaper
                                         Somewhat                            26               26                   45                11
                                         Not                                  5               19                    2                0
                                         Most                                24               22                   12                16
                                         Very                                39               33                   32                37
Law enforcement official
                                         Somewhat                            21               15                   43                42
                                         Not                                  6               11                    9                5
                                         Most                                28               26                   23                21
                                         Very                                36               22                   35                58
Federal environmental official
                                         Somewhat                            21               19                   35                16
                                         Not                                  5               15                    6                5


                                                                                                                                                83
                               Most       21   30   18   21
                               Very       35   26   36   53
Local environmental official
                               Somewhat   33   19   37   21
                               Not        4    11   5    0
                               Most       10   11   4    5
                               Very       32   30   24   53
Local senator
                               Somewhat   37   33   53   32
                               Not        13   11   15   5
                               Most       21   41   20   21
                               Very       30   26   29   58
Local Mayor
                               Somewhat   34   26   40   16
                               Not        7    0    7    0
                               Most       22   37   13   11
                               Very       24   7    24   16
Religious leader
                               Somewhat   35   30   43   53
                               Not        9    15   11   11
                               Most       6    11   2    0
                               Very       15   11   11   16
Local celebrity
                               Somewhat   40   37   50   53
                               Not        22   26   22   16
                               Most       31   41   24   16
                               Very       30   19   32   53
Manamko/Elder
                               Somewhat   31   30   34   26
                               Not        4    4    9    5
                               Most       38   56   23   11
                               Very       28   26   31   53
Friends or family members
                               Somewhat   31   19   40   37
                               Not        2    0    2    0
                               Most       16   22   10   11
                               Very       40   37   42   74
Teachers
                               Somewhat   36   30   41   16
                               Not        6    4    4    0
Information poster/billboard   Most       9    15   8     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
                                                                                        Southern Youth                    Southern Adults
                                                                                    General                           General
                                                                                   Community      Hunters            Community      Hunters
                      Variable                             Response option          (N=140)        (N =27)            (N=137)       (N = 19)
                                                      Guam Goby                       10             11                 12              5
Q 21: of the following plants and animals, which do
                                                      Green Lace Shrimp               11             22                 19             37
you think would best reprehend all of the native
                                                      Fiddler Crab                    18              4                 45             42
animals and plants that live in Guam’s Watersheds?
                                                      Koko bird (not listed)          19             26                  8             11
(top 5 responses listed)
                                                      Fruit Bat (not listed)           9             11                  2              6
Q22: Do you think there are any threats that might    Yes                             57             67                 46             21
cause a loss of native plants and animals in Guam’s   Uncertain                       31             26                 28             37
Watersheds?                                           No                              12              7                 26             42
                                                      Pollution                       59             74                 42             26
Q22A: What do you thing are the most important        Wildland fires                  49             59                 33             21
threats? (respondents could select 3- top 5           Development                     11             11                 23              5
responses are listed)                                 Forest Clearing                 18             22                 12              5
                                                      There are no threats            18              7                 33             53
                                                      Never seen/heard of a
                                                                                       24                7               22            16
                                                      wildland fire
Q24A: What do you think is the most likely way that   Wildland fires are
                                                                                       44                52              33            53
these fires are started? (respondents could select    naturally occurring
top 3- Top 5 responses listed)                        Wildland fires are started
                                                                                       44                44              41            53
                                                      by people burning trash
                                                      Wildland fires are started       37                48              43            74



                                                                                                                                               86
                                                       by hunters
                                                       Wildland fires are started
                                                                                        12              22               12              21
                                                       by farmers
                                                       Strongly agree & agree           57              67               58              74
                                                       Neutral                          31              26               14              5
Q25A: Wildland fires are naturally occurring…          Strongly disagree &
                                                                                         4               4               15              10
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                       8               4                12              11
                                                       Strongly agree & agree           80              74               88              89
                                                       Neutral                          13              19               4               0
Q25B: Wildland fires can cause damage to private
                                                       Strongly disagree &
property…                                                                                1               0               0               0
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                       5               4                7               11
                                                       Strongly agree & agree           84              81               86              84
                                                       Neutral                          8               7                4               5
Q25C: Wildland fires can cause damage to native
                                                       Strongly disagree &
forests…                                                                                 1               0               2               0
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                       6               7                7               11
                                                       Strongly agree & agree           20              37               22              26
                                                       Neutral                          24              22               22              5
Q25H: Wildland fires are good for the soil…            Strongly disagree &
                                                                                        35              19               31              47
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                       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)

                                                                                                         Pre-Campaign
                                                                                         Southern Youth               Southern Adults
                                                                                    General                       General
                                                                                   Community       Hunters      Community       Hunters
                      Variable                             Response Options         (N=140)         (N =27)       (N=137)       (N = 19)
                                                       Strongly agree & agree         17             41             27             68
                                                       Neutral                        14             22             11              0
Q26A: Wildland fires are not a serious threat to
                                                       Strongly disagree &
Guam’s coral reefs…                                                                    27             22           42              16
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                      21             15           20              16
                                                       Strongly agree & agree          62             63           79              47
                                                       Neutral                         20             15           10              37
Q26C: Individuals starting wildfires should be
                                                       Strongly disagree &
prosecuted…                                                                            11             22            6              16
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                      8              0            5               0
                                                       Strongly agree & agree          16             29           10              32
                                                       Neutral                         11             15           10              26
Q26D: Wildland fires do not need to be prevented.      Strongly disagree &
                                                                                       63             52           75              37
                                                       disagree
                                                       Don’t know                      9              7            7               5
                                                       Easy                            54             41           75              74
Q27A: Tell me whether you would find it easy or        Difficult                       12             33           4               11
difficult to report wildland fires to authorities…     Not Sure                        23             22           13              5
                                                       N/a                             11             4            8               11
                                                       Easy                            36             44           49              42
Q27C: Tell me whether you would find it easy or
                                                       Difficult                       19             26           11              11
difficult to participate in village monitoring to
                                                       Not Sure                        29             15           31              37
prevent wildland fires
                                                       N/a                             16             15           10              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
                                                                                       Southern Youth                    Southern Adults
                                                                                  General                           General
                                                                                 Community        Hunters          Community        Hunters
                         Variable                           Response Option       (N=140)         (N =27)           (N=137)         (N = 19)
                                                            Yes                     71              78                66               95
 14A: In the past 12 months, have you started a fire for
                                                            Uncertain                2               4                 4               0
 any reason?
                                                            No                      27              19                31               5
                                                            Camp/bonfire            23              41                10               11
                                                            BBQ                     63              85                56               90
                                                            Burning trash           44              70                28               37
 14A: If yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire.
                                                            Burning excess
 (check all that apply) top 6 listed                                                  14               11               23               53
                                                            vegetation
                                                            Land clearing             14               19                  9             16
                                                            Hunting                   3                11                  2             21
 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.              44               44               45               68
 In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, but have
                                                                                      6                11                  3             11
 not done so and am not sure I will


                                                                                                                                                  89
 In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and
                                                                                       4                11                4                5
 intend to in the future
 In the past 6 months, I have considered reporting wildland arson, and have
                                                                                       4                 4                2                5
 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
                                                                                       0                 0                2                0
 time I see it occurring
 In the past 6 months, I have reported wildland arson every time I see it
                                                                                       0                 0                4                0
 occurring
 Behavior is not applicable to respondent (have not seen wildland arson).              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
                                                                                            G. Campaign Strategy
12.0 BARRIER REMOVAL OPERATIONS PLAN

                                    Removal Operational Plan (BROP)
                                Southern Guam Watershed Pride Campaign




                          Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Statistics and Plans
                                                  Elaina Todd
                                                     Guam
                                            Updated January 5, 2010




                                                                                                               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. At 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 will partner with the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) Game Management and
Law Enforcement sectors. GCMP and Rare 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 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Guam
Farmers Cooperative, the Southern Soil and Water Conservation Board along with the Volunteer local mayors and the hunting community. Level of
involvement of each will vary with different parts of the strategy including providing information and assisting with networking.
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 Plan will take place at the end of the social marketing campaign just prior to the beginning of the hunting season (October
2010- March 2011), though development will happen throughout the year. Testing of various bait stations will be done by southern farmers with
depredation permits from February through March 2010 to see which tools or combinations of tools are most effective with Guam deer. Preliminary
surveys will be also be conducted in January & February 2010 to assess which bait/tool would be preferred among hunters and gather information
about general hunting preferences and behaviors to be used in developing incentives. A workshop will be scheduled for mid 2010 to train key
hunter(s) to lead presentations on sustainable hunting practices which will then be conducted in southern villages in August – September 2010 before
the hunting season begins. All hunters who wish to participate in the “free attractants/bait program” will have to attend this training. Actual
dissemination of bait tools will be done by DAWR just prior to hunting season in September 2010, with the use beginning October 1- 2010.
How?
Funding for bait stations and deer attractants and hunter training clinics will be provided through a Rare grant (pending) and funding from the Guam
Coastal Management Program. Additional in kind funding will be provided by DAWR and other partner agencies. Additional funding may be
sought through additional grants.


                                                                                                                                                     96
Coordination of training programs and dissemination of supplies with be a joint effort between the departments.

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 by 2015 (measured by increased coral in monitoring sites- see Action Plan for specific objectives). Several shorter term goals will be
measured such as reduced number of fires by the end of 2011, 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 village hunting
        clinics in August - 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


                                                                                                                                                      97
aside land, clearing, planting, etc. It could be paired with a brief educational component (run by hunters) where sustainable hunting 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.

Several deer attractant methods are availble. Salk licks, hormonal attractants, chemical attractants, and food stations were researched. An ultimate
decision as to what tool or combination of tools to use is still to be determined pending completion of a hunter survey being conducted January –
February 2010, and testing of the various tools with Guam deer being done February – March 2010.

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, the Game Management sector 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 social marketing campaign that will support the BR strategy are community tree plantings to stabilize
riverbanks and 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.
Participant or stakeholder group                       Participant, name, position and contact       Potential Contribution (what participants
                                                       details.                                      bring to the meeting)
Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of             Evangeline Lujan                              Funding Source
Statistics and Plans                                   Administrator                                 Knowledge of project; Lead Agency

Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of                 Elaina Todd                                    Campaign manager
Statistics and Plans                                       Campaign Manager                               Project coordinator

Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic        Celestino Aguon                                 Knowledge of Game Management grants;
& Wildlife Resources                                       Acting Chief                                   hunting regulations; funding.
                                                                                                          Knowledge of past hunting outreach


                                                                                                                                                         98
                                                                                                           programs.
                                                                                                           Ability to change hunting regulations.
Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic         Jeff Quitugua                                  Knowledge of Game Management
& Wildlife Resources                                        Wildlife Biologist                             Knowledge of hunting regulations and
                                                                                                           programs.
                                                                                                           Contacts within the communities.
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic &            Mike Reyes                                     Knowledge of hunting regulations and
Wildlife Resources, Law Enforcement Division                Chief Enforcement Officer                      enforcement protocol.
                                                                                                           Knowledge of poaching statistics.
USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service                John “Bart” Lawrence                           Knowledge of current and past sedimentation
                                                            Assistant Director - Field Office              reduction projects.
                                                            Operations (Western Pacific)                   Knowledge of fire prevention programs
                                                                                                           Potential funding source.
                                                                                                           Contacts within the community.


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.
Project Timeline:

Dates                     Activities                                                 Milestones
January 2010- February    Conduct hunter survey                                      Gather information about hunting preferences, use
2010                                                                                 of tools, areas hunted etc.
February 2010-October     Rare Pride Campaign focused on preventing wildland         Increased awareness of wildland fires, creation of
2010 (overlapping)        fires                                                      fire hot line, passing of new hunting and fire citation
                                                                                     programs, watershed restoration projects, etc.
November 2009-            Build partnership with DAWR Game Management                Partnership for BROP: assistance with presentation
August 2010               through supporting their efforts, participating in their   development, use of staff, assistance with hunter
                          programs and engaging in regular conversations             festival, agree to coordinate dissemination of tools;
                          about plan                                                 gather information about hunters, hunting, game
                                                                                     management, etc.
March – July 2010         Development of hunting clinic materials                    Hunting guidebooks/training program completed
                                                                                     and approved by all partners
August 2010               Begin hunting clinics
September 2010            <conduct post campaign survey>                             Number of hunters who participate; feedback from


                                                                                                                                                    99
                         Dissemination of bait to hunters who attended            participants;
                         trainings; teach hunters to make their own, and to use
                         other baiting tools?
Oct 2010 –Mar 2011       First hunting season with use of bait stations           Reduction in number of fires reported!
                         Monitor hunters through surveys and conversations
March 2011               1st Annual Hunting Festival                              Showcase fire free hunting practices,
                                                                                  Showcase community fire watch programs
                                                                                  Showcase results of Rare Pride Campaign and
                                                                                  conservation targets to date


COSTS:
TASK                                         DETAIL                                        COST ($USD)
Bait Stations            To be provided for free (initially) to hunters who       $5-$10/ea X 1000 for first season= $5000-$10000
                         attend sustainable hunter training.                      depending on bait type sought** Max $8500
                                                                                  Will teach hunters to make salt licks and baiting
                                                                                  tools on their own for future seasons.
Hunter Trainings         Training workshops to be held prior to distribution of   ~$300/workshop X 5 = $1,500
                         baiting tools. Materials, refreshments, training and     (additional workshops may be held- will be
                         payment for trainers, and any certificates to be         subsidized by GCMP)
                         issued.
                                                                   SUB TOTAL      $10,000 USD (from Rare or other grant)
Supplemental Activities to Support BROP
Outreach Assistance      Provide labor to assist with outreach activities,        $5,000 (labor costs) COST COVERED BY GCMP
Petition Writing &       trainings meetings etc.
Coordination of          Writing of petitions to push legislature to pass
signatures               DAWR hunting citation program & Guam Fire
                         Department fire use regulations.
Production of materials Production of materials to be used in training clinics    $3,000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
                         (including pamphlets, incentive items, booklets, etc.)   Additional booklets may be provided by the
                         Fire guideline pamphlets to be produced and placed       Guam Fire Department. (TBD)
                         in mayor’s offices, grocery stores, gas stations, and
                         other locations within community.
Hunting Clinics          Assist with funding hunting clinics (misc supplies)      $1,000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
Additional               Two new conservation officers for the DAWR.              $60,000 COST COVERED BY GCMP



                                                                                                                                      100
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
Turbidity meter           Instrument to be used to engage community in water      $1000 COST COVERED BY GCMP
                          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
Pamphlets                 grocery stores, gas stations, and other locations       This cost may be shared with GFD.
                          within community.
Hunting Festival          Coordinate Festival with prizes, giveaways,             $5000 (not included but funds already secure)
                          entertainment, etc.
(NOT included until                                                               Again cost may vary as with sufficient time most will
2011- will be GCMP                                                                be provided in kind or with corporate sponsorships.
funded)                                                                           This is maximum anticipated cost

                                                                  SUB TOTAL $ 10,000 USD (Grant funded)
                                                                      TOTAL $100,000

IMPACT & RISK ASSESMENT.

Risk Factors                                  Consequence                                   Mitigation Strategies
   •    There is the possibility that the                 Funding shortages will                      Rare Grant sought to assist
       partner agencies will not have the                  result in not getting the bait               with funding.
       capacity or funding to fully support                stations
       the project.                                                                                    Training can be contracted
                                                          Lack of staffing to assist                   out (with BR funds).
   •   Current director is not very                        may hinder the training and
                                                           implementation of project.                  Partnership must be
       supportive of GCMP projects. He
                                                                                                        developed over time and
       may make the process difficult.
                                                          Officers may not support                     DAWR included in process.
   •   Conservation officers may feel that                 the project .
                                                                                                       It will be important to take
       bait stations will increase poaching
                                                                                                        ideas of CO’s into planning



                                                                                                                                          101
    occurrences (non fire related)                                                  process and ensure them
                                                                                    that the benefits will be
                                                                                    great.

•    There may be disagreement with            This may cause lack of trust      Many facilitated discussions
    hunters as to whether or not bait           with hunters and the project       need to occur between
    stations are “fair” as they provide an      designed to support them.          various hunting groups and
    advantage; other hunters may worry          Without their support the          CM, Cos, and they need to
    they will “take all of the deer”            project will be very difficult     see the benefit outweighing
                                                to implement.                      the cost (less fires).

                                               This could also affect the        Hunters must be engaged in
                                                community support for the          the project and their ideas,
                                                strategy.                          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         Lack of support in the BR         The supplemental Pride
    providing this alternative to the “lazy     strategy could affect the          social marketing campaign
    hunters” and may resent making it so        entire watershed campaign,         and strong education need
    easy to kill the deer.                      making it difficult to engage      to happen throughout the
                                                them in the activities.            project to explain the value
                                                                                   of providing an alternative



                                                                                                                  102
                                                                                                          (and the detriment of the
                                                                                                          fires)

                                                                                                        Engaging local celebrities
                                                                                                         and leaders as spokespeople
                                                                                                         for the concept will help
                                                                                                         build trust and show the
                                                                                                         benefits.


                                                                                                                               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.




                                                                                                                                                  103
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
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




                                                                                                                                                      104
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
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.




                                                                                                                                                    105
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.


14.1 Benefit Ladder for General Community Members




                                              I am a Conscientious citizen                       I care about my community
                                              I will not tolerate crime in my village            I care about my children’s future
                                              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

                                       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.




                                                                                                                                              106
       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.

       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




                                                                                                                                                107
                                              I hunt sustainably                                I care about my children’s future
                                              I am a thoughtful hunter                          I care about my village and community



                                              Decrease chance of getting arrested               Help prevent flooding
                                              Help prevent property damage                      Help protect clean water
                                              Help create healthier reefs                       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:
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



                                                                                                                                                 108
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
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.


                                                                                                                                                  109
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.

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


                                                                                                                                                    110
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.




                                                                                                                                               111
                                                                                                                         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.


                                                                                                                                          112
            Preventing wildland fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property,
Marketing
Strategy:
            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   Southern   Who will deliver the message?
                                                                        General    Hunters    (questions will be asked during focus
                                                                       Community              groups to find which methods/persons
                                                                                                     are most well received)
            It is our responsibility as caretakers of our village to                                Manamko (elder)
            report wildland fires. Call the toll free HOTline as          X           X             Village Mayors
            soon as you see a fire. (A & BC. Emotional appeal.)                                     Religious leaders
            When you start a wildland fire, you kill the plants that                                Poster
            protect the soil. Exposed soil washes into the sea,                                     Commercial with images,
            smothers the reef, and starves its fish. Please protect       X           X              dramatic music
            our fish, forests, and wildlife- prevent wildland fires.                                Village mayor/manamko
            (K & BC. Emotional and rational.)
            Wildland fires create sediment which clogs rivers and                                   Poster
            damages our clean water reserve. Protect your water,                                    Commercial with images,
            prevent wildland fires. (K & BC. Rational)                    X           X              dramatic music
                                                                                                    Village
                                                                                                     mayors/manamko
  Key
Messages:
            Even small backyard fires can become wildland fires.                                    Poster/flyer with
            Follow the fire guide, available at your local Mayor’s                                   guidelines for safe uses
                                                                          X           X
            office, and use fire responsibly. (BC. Rational.)                                       GFD (they know the law)
                                                                                                    Religious leaders
            We do not tolerate other crimes in our village, arson is                                Village Mayors/children
            no exception. Report wildland arson by calling the toll       X           X             Religious leaders
            free HOTline. (A & BC. Emotional and Rational.)
            Protect your friends and family from the damaging                                       Religious leaders
            effects of wildland fires. Talk to them about what they
                                                                          X           X             Village Mayor
            can do to prevent wildland fires. (IC & BC.
            Emotional.)
            Using deer bait is an easy alternative to hunting with                                  Hunter trainings by
            fire, as is available free from the Department of                         X              respected elder hunters.
            Agriculture. (K)                                                                        Outdoor chef


                                                                                                                                      113
                                                                                                Conservation Officer
     Using deer bait is a legal way to get your deer faster,                                    Poster or materials
     without the damage of fire. Keep our southern villages
                                                                                 X              Hunter trainings by
     beautiful, use bait instead of fire. (K & BR & BC.                                          Conservation Officers
     Rational.)

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.




                                                                                                                                      114
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,



                                                                                                                                                     115
    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).




                                                                                                                                                     116
                                                             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 ___.




                                                                                                                                                     117
118
   19.1 ACTION PLAN FOR HUNTERS (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)

                                                                                                             ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (1 of 6)
                                                          ACTION PLAN                                                              MONITORING PLAN                                                                    KEY RISKS

       Goals           Results needed                               Key       Required tools      Partner          Metric           Method           Target        Frequency        By          Where              Socio-political,          Information          Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                                   whom                             Scientific or                gaps
                                           Key (SMART)


                                                               activities                                                                                                                                               other
                                             objectives

Conservation result   improved coral                          n/a            NPS Monitoring       Nationa       % cover?;         monitoring      X% increase     Annually        NPS        6 sites within   Pulling out data from the     Current coral     contacted NPS to
goal                  size class                                             Plan and data        l Park        class structure   by transect     or shift in     (date of                   target area      monitoring that will be       cover             deterimine best
                      structure,                                             analysis alreay in   Service       %s? Metric        and video       class           monitoring                 (Agat            an indicator of changes       percentages       indicators of coral reef
                      indicated by an      by 2015 coral                     place with                         tbd               transect        structure       depends on                 Municipality/    in sediment load.             or class          health in the short and
                      increase in             cover in                       baseline data.                                       surveys                         staff,                     Village which                                  structure         long term.
                      branching corals.   monitoring sites                                                                                                        weather and                includes the     Wil monitoring at these       time required
                                          will increase by                                                                                                        each survey -              following        sites be a good enough        for coral
                                                 10%.                                                                                                             tbd)                       watersheds:      sample of the target          growth
                                                                                                                                                                                             Taelayag,        area?
                                                                                                                                                                                             Agat, Cetti)

Threat reduction      reduce number of                        SM             key knowledge of     local         number of         data            decrease        data will be    Guam       6 sites within   there is no acccurate or      number of         acquire most recent
goals:                wildland fires in                       campaign       best practices for   hunters       fires             collected by    number of       analyzed        Fire       target area      central reporting             fires; acreage    numbers from fire
                      Southern Guam;          By October                     hunting that         and           reported/reco     Guam Fire       fires in        annually but    Departm    (Agat            location for all fires, so    burned;           department/forestry;
                                               2010, the      BROP:          does not include     other         rded              Department      southern        is collected    ent;       Municipality/    most data is best guess;                        setting up fire watch
                                           number of fires    hunter         burning              hunting                         and             communities     year round;     Forestry   Village which    setting up fire call center                     teams and call center;
                                              recorded in     festivals,                          experts                         Forestry        by 50% by       onging          Dept;      includes the     may initially increase                          establishing a more
                                          southern villages   sustatainabl                                                        during          2010; by 75%    monitoring      commun     following        number reported.                                efficient data
                                             in Guam will     e hunter                                                            aerial          by 2011; by                     ity        watersheds:                                                      collection procedure
                                          decrease by 50%     trainings                                                           surveys;        90% by 2015.                    member     Taelayag,
                                             (from X% as                                                                          also will set                                   s;         Agat, Cetti)
                                           taken from fire                                                                        up fire call
                                            dept reports).                                                                        center &
                                                                                                                                  hotline
                      reduce amount of                        SM             tbd                  Nationa       total             bi annual       decrease in     bi annually     NPS        6 sites within   may be challenging to         Current           contacted NPS to
                      sediment load at                        campaign                            l Park        suspended         testing by      total           by NPS, and     staff,     target area      get a group commited to       turbidity         acquire current data;
                      near shore reefs                                                            Service;      solids            NPS;            suspended       possibly        Southern   (Agat            this; NPS has commited        levels at         also will work with NPS
                      in Southern Guam                                                            local         (turbidity);      monitoring      solids by 20%   monthly by      Guam       Municipality/    as a parter but turn over     monitoring        and several partners to
                                                                                                  mayors/       may be            program by      by 2011; and    community       commun     Village which    in staff may create some      sites; time       develop best plan for
                                             By October                                           groups        different with    community       by 40% by       monitoring      ity        includes the     delays in monitoring          required for      community
                                              2012, the                                                         NPS and           TBD             2015*                                      following        program                       turbitidy to      monitoring; will read
                                           turbidilty level                                                     community                                                                    watersheds:                                    decrease;         up on other plans
                                          of the water on                                                       monitoring                                                                   Taelayag,                                      realistic goals
                                               reefs at                                                                                                                                      Agat, Cetti)
                                          monitoring sites                                                                                                                                                                                  community
                                             in Southern                                                                                                                                                                                    monitoring
                                              Guam will                                                                                                                                                                                     plan
                                          decrease from X
                                            to Y (a 20 pp
                                              decrease).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 119
                                                                                                        ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (2 of 6)
                                                      ACTION PLAN                                                             MONITORING PLAN                                                                  KEY RISKS

    Goals          Results needed                             Key         Required tools      Partner         Metric          Method           Target       Frequency        By           Where             Socio-political,          Information      Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                            whom                             Scientific or                gaps
                                        Key (SMART)


                                                           activities                                                                                                                                            other
                                         objectives

Behavior Change      Hunters stop                         SM             key knowledge of     DAWR;          number of           data       who use fire    KAP pre and      survey      southern      it is challenging because           need       develop & conduct
                    setting wildland                      campaign       best practices for   hunters           fires         analysis of   for hunting     post Survey    conducte    Guam villages      most hunters do not           additional     secondary hunter
                      fires to burn                                      hunting                           reported/reco         both       will decrease    (July-Sept     d by CM                     admit to burning as it is      information          survey
                  vegetation, which                       BROP:                                                rded;         surveys and    from 11% to     2009 & Sept       and                        an illegal practice; it is     on hunters
                   encourages new                         hunter                                                                 fires      6% (5              2010)       voluntee                     also difficult to identify    prefernces in
                   growth which in                        festivals,                                       survey results      reported     percentage                         rs;                     hunters (before survey)        their hunting
                   turn attracts and                      sustatainabl                                            from                      points; N=27)   annual fire                                                                  methods
                  lures out the deer                      e hunter                                             questions                    (                survey;       commun
                    that they hunt.                       trainings                                           13A: in the                                                    ity;
                                                                                                                 past 12                                     secondary
                                        By September
                                                                                                           months, Ihave                                    pre and post   voluntee
                                           2010, the
                                                                                                              particiated                                      season         rs
                                          number of
                                                                                                           in… hunting?                                        hunter      (hunters)
                                       Southern Youth
                                                                                                           & 14 B <A- In                                       survey
                                         hunters who
                                                                                                              the past 12
                                         "use fire for
                                                                                                           months, have
                                         hunting" will
                                                                                                           you started a
                                        decrease from
                                                                                                              fire for any
                                       11% to 6% (a 5
                                                                                                           reason> 14B:
                                          percentage
                                                                                                            if yes, please
                                       point decrease;
                                                                                                             indicate the
                                           N=27) (as
                                                                                                              purpose of
                                         measured by
                                                                                                               your fire ;
                                            Q14A).
                                                                                                            also can use
                                                                                                             secondary
                                                                                                            anonymous
                                                                                                           hunter survey
                                                                                                            with direct
                                                                                                             question:
                                                                                                           have you used
                                                                                                               fire for
                                                                                                              hunting?




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    120
                                                                                                            ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (3 of 6)
                                                           ACTION PLAN                                                            MONITORING PLAN                                                                KEY RISKS

       Goals           Results needed                              Key         Required tools    Partner          Metric          Method           Target       Frequency        By          Where            Socio-political,        Information        Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                                whom                           Scientific or              gaps
                                            Key (SMART)


                                                                activities                                                                                                                                         other
                                              objectives

Barrier Removal goal   provide hunters                         SM               baiting tools     DAWR;         number of          hunter       20% of         pre and post      CM,        southern      hunters may not answer        best bait      develop and conduct
                       with deer baiting                       campaign                          hunters;      hunters who         survey;      registered        season        DAWR,     Guam villages    honestly; hunters may       methods to      pre and post season
                          tools as an                                         key knowledge of     Ted            attend                        Southern         survey of      hunter                       not like idea of bait          use;          hunter survey;
                        alternative to                         BROP:             sustainable     Nugent         trainings;       number of      Youth            hunters;      voluntee                    stations; COMMUNITY        willingness of    research best bait
                         burning and                           hunter              hunting                                         baiting      hunters will   requests for       rs                      may not like idea of bait     hunters;             methods
                          sustainable                          festivals,         practices;                    number of        tools given    have           bait annually                              stations (unfair to deer,
                       hunting training       By October       sustatainabl                                    baiting tools        out;        attended                                                             etc.)
                                             2010, 20% of      e hunter          permitting                     given out;                      sustainable
                                               registered      trainings          statistics                                        take        hunting
                                           Southern Youth                                                       numbers of       requests for   presentation
                                              hunters will     Acqusition                                        bait tools        second       s;
                                            have attended      and                                             requested/ne         year;
                                              sustainable      distribution                                       eded for
                                                hunting        of hunting                                       second year       focussed      X of baiting
                                            presentations      baiting                                                           conversatio    tools given
                                                 run by        tools                                           satisfaction of       ns         out;
                                             conservation                                                        using tools
                                           offciers (DAWR).                                                                                     X % take
                                                                                                                                                requests for
                                                                                                                                                second year;

                                                                                                                                                X % satified
                                                                                                                                                with baiting
                                                                                                                                                tools




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      121
                                                                                                    ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (4 of 6)
                                                     ACTION PLAN                                                          MONITORING PLAN                                                              KEY RISKS

    Goals        Results needed                               Key        Required tools   Partner         Metric          Method         Target       Frequency       By          Where             Socio-political,        Information      Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                     whom                            Scientific or              gaps
                                      Key (SMART)


                                                           activities                                                                                                                                    other
                                        objectives

 Interpersonal   hunters talk to   % increase who have     SM           hunter survey     DAWR;        possible          hunter       increase in                   CM,          southern      hunters may not answer       current       develop and
Communication    each other        spoken with anyone      campaign,                      hunters      hunter survey     survey &     number of                     DAWR,      Guam villages   honestly if they feel bait   perceptions   implement hunter
     goals       about using         about using bait      hunter                                      question?         analysis     hunters who                   hunter                     stations are not             of baiting    survey
                 bait instead of         stations?         trainings,                                  Have you                       answer yes                    voluntee                   accepted by community.       deer among
                 burning.                                                                              spoken with                                                  rs                                                      hunters;
                                                                                                       anyone about
                                                                                                       using bait
                                                                                                       stations?
                                                                                                       Who?


                 hunters talk to                              SM           KAP survey                   Q28: in the      KAP survey   increase        KAP pre and    CM &        southern                 n/a                   n/a               n/a
                   someone                                 campaign,                                      past 12         analysis    number of       post Survey   voluntee   Guam villages
                 about wildland                              hunter                                    months, have                   hunters who      (July-Sept      rs
                     fires         By September 2010,      trainings,                                  you talked to                  have spoken     2009 & Sept
                                      58 % of Southern                                                 anyone about                   with               2010)
                                     Youth Hunters will                                                wildland fires.                someone
                                     have "spoken with                                                                                about
                                       someone about                                                                                  wildland fire
                                   wildland fires in the                                                                              by 10
                                   past 6 months" (a 10                                                                               percentage
                                      percentage point                                                                                points
                                    increase from 48%;
                                   N=27) (as measured
                                          by Q28.)




                                   By September 2010,                                                                                 increase
                                      36 % of Southern                                                                                number of
                                    Adults Hunters will                                                                               hunters who
                                     have "spoken with                                                                                have spoken
                                       someone about                                                                                  with
                                   wildland fires in the                                                                              someone
                                   past 6 months" (a 10                                                                               about
                                      percentage point                                                                                wildland fire
                                    increase from 26%;                                                                                by 10
                                   N=19) (as measured                                                                                 percentage
                                          by Q28.)                                                                                    points




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             122
                                                                                                  ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (5 of 6)
                                                     ACTION PLAN                                                        MONITORING PLAN                                                      KEY RISKS

    Goals        Results needed                              Key       Required tools   Partner         Metric         Method         Target      Frequency       By          Where        Socio-political,   Information   Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                 whom                       Scientific or         gaps
                                      Key (SMART)


                                                          activities                                                                                                                            other
                                        objectives

Attitude goals   hunters feel that   By September            SM         KAP survey       n/a             Q26C:        KAP survey   increase in    KAP pre and    CM &        southern            n/a             n/a             n/a
                     individuals     2010, 75% of         campaign,                                   Individuals      analysis    the number     post Survey   voluntee   Guam villages
                 starting wildland   Southern Youth         hunter                                      starting                   of hunters      (July-Sept      rs
                  fires should be    Hunters will         trainings,                                 wildland fires                who answer     2009 & Sept
                    prosecuted       "strongly agree"                                                  should be                   strongly          2010)
                                     or "agree" that                                                 prosecuted;                   agree or
                                     "individuals                                                                                  agree by 11
                                     starting wildland                                                                             percentage
                                     fires should be                                                                               points
                                     prosecuted (an
                                     11 percentage
                                     point increase
                                     from from 64%;
                                     N=27)(as
                                     measured by
                                     Q26C).
                                     By September                                                                                  increase in
                                     2010, 58%                                                                                     the number
                                     Southern Adult                                                                                of hunters
                                     hunters will                                                                                  who answer
                                     "strongly agree"                                                                              strongly
                                     or "agree" that                                                                               agree or
                                     "individuals                                                                                  agree by 11
                                     starting wildland                                                                             percentage
                                     fires should be                                                                               points
                                     prosecuted (an
                                     11 percentage
                                     point increase
                                     from 47%; N=19)
                                     (as measured by
                                     Q26C).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         123
                                                                                                    ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (6 of 6)
                                                       ACTION PLAN                                                        MONITORING PLAN                                                      KEY RISKS

    Goals         Results needed                               Key       Required tools   Partner         Metric         Method         Target      Frequency       By          Where        Socio-political,   Information   Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                   whom                       Scientific or         gaps
                                        Key (SMART)


                                                            activities                                                                                                                            other
                                          objectives

Knowledge goals   hunters disagree       By September          SM         KAP survey       n/a              Q26 A:      KAP survey   increase in    KAP pre and    CM &        southern            n/a             n/a             n/a
                     or strongly         2010, 35% of       campaign,                                  wildland fires    analysis    number of      post Survey   voluntee   Guam villages
                    disagree that       Southern Youth        hunter                                      are not a                  hunters who     (July-Sept      rs
                  wildland fires are      Hunters will      trainings,                                 serious threat                answer         2009 & Sept
                    not a serious          disagree or                                                   to Guam's                   strongly          2010)
                  threat to Guam's           strongly                                                    coral reefs;                disagree and
                     coral reefs          disagree that                                                  responses:                  disagree by
                                         wildland fires                                                    strongly                  13
                                       are not a serious                                                disagree and                 percentage
                                       threat to Guam's                                                   disagree                   points
                                         coral reefs" (a
                                         13 percentage
                                         point increase
                                       from 22% N=27)
                                        (as measured in
                                              Q26A).
                                         By September                                                                                increase in
                                          2010, 30% of                                                                               number of
                                        Southern Adult                                                                               hunters who
                                           hunters will                                                                              answer
                                         "disagree" or"                                                                              strongly
                                             strongly                                                                                disagree and
                                         disagree" that                                                                              disagree by
                                         "wildland fires                                                                             15
                                       are not a serious                                                                             percentage
                                       threat to Guam's                                                                              points
                                         coral reefs" (a
                                         15 percentage
                                         point increase
                                       from 15% N=19)
                                        (as measured in
                                              Q26A).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           124
   19.2 ACTION PLAN FOR GENERAL COMMUNITY (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)

                                                                                                 ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (1 of 7)
                                                         ACTION PLAN                                                        MONITORING PLAN                                                             KEY RISKS

       Goals          Results needed                            Key         Required tools      Partner      Metric          Method         Target        Frequency       By       Where              Socio-political,       Information        Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                         whom                          Scientific or             gaps
                                           Key (SMART)


                                                              activities                                                                                                                                   other
                                            objectives


                                                                                                                                                                                6 sites within
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Pulling out data from the
                                                                                                                                                           Annually              target area                                 Current coral
                                                                                                                                                                                                  monitoring that will be
                       improved coral                                                                                                                       (date of                 (Agat                                        cover
                                           by 2015 coral                   NPS Monitoring                                   monitoring                                                            an indicator of changes                       contacted NPS to
                          size class                                                                         % cover?;                    X% increase     monitoring            Municipality/                                 percentages
                                              cover in                      Plan and data       Nationa                     by transect                                                              in sediment load.                           deterimine best
Conservation Result       structure,                                                                      class structure                  or shift in    depends on            Village which                                    or class
                                          monitoring sites       n/a       analysis alreay in    l Park                      and video                                   NPS                                                                 indicators of coral reef
goal:                  indicated by an                                                                      %s? Metric                        class           staff,            includes the                                   structure
                                          will increase by                    place with        Service                       transect                                                           Wil monitoring at these                     health in the short and
                         increase in                                                                            tbd                        structure     weather and              following                                  time required
                                                 10%.                       baseline data.                                    surveys                                                            sites be a good enough                            long term.
                      branching corals.                                                                                                                  each survey -          watersheds:                                     for coral
                                                                                                                                                                                                   sample of the target
                                                                                                                                                               tbd)               Taelayag,                                      growth
                                                                                                                                                                                                          area?
                                                                                                                                                                                 Agat, Cetti)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                125
                                                                                                   ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (2 of 7)
                                                        ACTION PLAN                                                           MONITORING PLAN                                                                    KEY RISKS

     Goals          Results needed                              Key        Required tools        Partner       Metric          Method           Target       Frequency         By          Where              Socio-political,          Information          Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                              whom                             Scientific or                gaps
                                         Key (SMART)


                                                             activities                                                                                                                                            other
                                           objectives

Threat reduction   reduce number of                              SM        Responsible fire       NRCS,       number of          data          decrease      data will be     Guam      6 sites within    there is no acccurate or        number of        acquire most recent
     goals:         wildland fires in                        Campaign       use materials        Forestry       fires        collected by     number of         analyzed       Fire      target area          central reporting         fires; acreage      numbers from fire
                    Southern Guam;                           including:                           , GFD     reported/reco     Guam Fire         fires in     annually but    Departm         (Agat         location for all fires, so       burned;       department/forestry;
                                           By October       presentatio    fire hotline & call                  rded         Department        southern       is collected     ent;     Municipality/     most data is best guess;                         setting up fire watch
                                             2010, the        ns about           center                                           and        communities     year round;     Forestry   Village which    setting up fire call center                      teams and call center;
                                         number of fires     fires, best                                                       Forestry        by 50% by         onging       Dept;     includes the        may initially increase                          establishing a more
                                           recorded in           fire                                                           during       2010; by 75%     monitoring     commun       following           number reported.                                 efficient data
                                        southern villages    practices,                                                          aerial       by 2011; by                       ity     watersheds:                                                        collection procedure
                                         will decrease by   establishme                                                        surveys;      90% by 2015.                    member       Taelayag,
                                        50% (from X% as       nt of fire                                                     also will set                                       s;      Agat, Cetti)
                                         taken from fire        watch                                                         up fire call
                                          dept reports.        teams,                                                          center &
                                                             watershed                                                          hotline
                                                              projects,
                                                            fire hotline
                   reduce amount of                              SM        Responsible fire       NRCS,          total        bi annual       decrease in    bi annually        NPS     6 sites within     may be challenging to            Current          contacted NPS to
                    sediment load at                         Campaign       use materials        Forestry    suspended        testing by          total      by NPS, and       staff,    target area     get a group commited to           turbidity       acquire current data;
                    near shore reefs       By October        including:                           , GFD          solids          NPS;         suspended        possibly      Southern        (Agat        this; NPS has commited           levels at      also will work with NPS
                   in Southern Guam         2012, the       presentatio    fire hotline & call               (turbidity);    monitoring      solids by 20%   monthly by       Guam      Municipality/    as a parter but turn over        monitoring      and several partners to
                                         turbidilty level     ns about           center                         may be       program by      by 2011; and    community       commun     Village which    in staff may create some         sites; time      develop best plan for
                                        of the water on      fires, best                                    different with   community         by 40% by     monitoring         ity     includes the        delays in monitoring         required for           community
                                             reefs at            fire                                          NPS and           TBD             2015*                                    following               program                turbitidy to      monitoring; will read
                                        monitoring sites     practices,                                      community                                                                  watersheds:                                       decrease;          up on other plans
                                           in Southern      establishme                                      monitoring                                                                   Taelayag,                                     realistic goals
                                            Guam will         nt of fire                                                                                                                 Agat, Cetti)
                                        decrease from X         watch                                                                                                                                                                    community
                                          to Y (a 20 pp        teams,                                                                                                                                                                    monitoring
                                            decrease).       watershed                                                                                                                                                                      plan
                                                              projects,
                                                            fire hotline




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            126
                                                                                               ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (3 0F 7)
                                                     ACTION PLAN                                                           MONITORING PLAN                                                        KEY RISKS

    Goals         Results needed                             Key        Required tools        Partner       Metric         Method          Target      Frequency      By        Where          Socio-political,       Information     Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                     whom                       Scientific or             gaps
                                      Key (SMART)


                                                          activities                                                                                                                                other
                                        objectives

Behavior Change     community          By September           SM        Responsible fire       NRCS,      KAP survey      KAP survey     decrease in   KAP pre and   CM, GFD   Southern        there are several         n/a        Establishment of Fire
                  reports wildland        2010, the       Campaign       use materials        Forestry   question 16:      analysis      the number    post Survey               Guam       existing projects about                 Hotline & Call Center
                       arson             number of        including:                           , GFD     in the past 6                        of        (July-Sept              Villages      fire prevention; to
                                      Southern Youth     presentatio    fire hotline & call              months I have    Fire hotline   community     2009 & Sept                         prevent cross messaging
                                     who do not hunt       ns about           center                         never         database       youth who       2010)                             we will need to partner
                                     who have "never      fires, best                                      reported                      have never                                          with those agencies
                                         considered           fire                                         wildland         GFD            reported                                           (NRCS, GFD) in the
                                          reporting       practices,                                         arson         Reports         wildland                                          development of the
                                      wildland arson"    establishme                                                                     arson by 15                                               materials
                                       will decrease       nt of fire                                      Number of                     percentage
                                        from 44% to          watch                                       fires reported                      point
                                           29% (15          teams,                                                                         decrease
                                         percentage       watershed
                                       points N=140)       projects,
                                     (as measured by     fire hotline
                                            Q16).
                                       By September                                                                                      decrease in
                                          2010, the                                                                                      the number
                                         number of                                                                                            of
                                     Southern Adults                                                                                     community
                                     who do not hunt                                                                                     adults who
                                     who have "never                                                                                     have never
                                         considered                                                                                        reported
                                          reporting                                                                                        wildland
                                      wildland arson"                                                                                    arson by 15
                                       will decrease                                                                                     percentage
                                        from 45% to                                                                                          point
                                           30% (15                                                                                        decrease
                                         percentage
                                       points N=137)
                                     (as measured by
                                            Q16).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     127
                                                                                                       ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (4 0F 7)
                                                             ACTION PLAN                                                           MONITORING PLAN                                                         KEY RISKS

       Goals           Results needed                                Key        Required tools        Partner       Metric         Method         Target        Frequency      By        Where           Socio-political,       Information      Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                              whom                        Scientific or             gaps
                                             Key (SMART)


                                                                  activities                                                                                                                                  other
                                               objectives

Barrier Removal goal     establish a fire     By September            SM        Responsible fire       NRCS,       KAP survey     KAP survey    increase in     KAP pre and   CM, GFD   Southern         there are several         n/a          Develop best fire
                        hotline and call       2010, 65% of       Campaign       use materials        Forestry   question 27A:     analysis    the number       post Survey               Guam       existing projects about                   practices materials
                       center to make it     Southern Youth       including:                           , GFD        Tell me                          of          (July-Sept              Villages   fire prevention; to avoid
                            easier for      who do not hunt      presentatio    fire hotline & call              whether you                   community        2009 & Sept                         mixed messaging we will                    Establishment of fire
                           community        will find it "easy     ns about           center                      would find it                 youth who          2010)                               need to partner with                   hotline and call center
                           members to            to report        fires, best                                        easy or                    say it easy                                           those agencies in the
                        report wildland       wildland fires"         fire                                         difficult to                    by 11                                            development of the BMP
                         fires, including     to authorities      practices,                                         report                    percentage                                                    materials
                              arson.              (an 11         establishme                                     wildland fires                   points
                                                percentage         nt of fire                                           to
                                              point increase         watch                                        authorities…
                                                from 54%;           teams,
                                                N=140) (as        watershed
                                               measured in         projects,
                                                  Q27A).         fire hotline
                                              By September                                                                                       increase in
                                               2010, 85% of                                                                                     the number
                                            Southern Adults                                                                                           of
                                            who do not hunt                                                                                     community
                                            will find it "easy                                                                                  adults who
                                                 to report                                                                                     say it easy by
                                              wildland fires"                                                                                        11
                                            to authorities (a                                                                                   percentage
                                              10 percentage                                                                                        points
                                              point increase
                                                from 75%;
                                                N=137) (as
                                               measured in
                                                  Q27A).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                128
                                                                                        ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (5 OF 7)
                                                   ACTION PLAN                                                      MONITORING PLAN                                                   KEY RISKS

    Goals        Results needed                            Key        Required tools   Partner       Metric          Method         Target     Frequency      By     Where          Socio-political,       Information    Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                             whom                    Scientific or             gaps
                                    Key (SMART)


                                                        activities                                                                                                                       other
                                      objectives

 Interpersonal     Community        By September            SM         KAP Survey       NRCS,      Q28: in the      KAP survey   increase      KAP pre and   CM     Southern      People may still be       Speak with         n/a
Communication    members talk to    2010, 34 % of       Campaign                       Forestry      past 12         analysis    number of     post Survey            Guam      hesitant to report fires   Vangie about
     goals       someone about     Southern Youth       including:                      , GFD     months, have                   community      (July-Sept           Villages    and arson because of       fire report
                  wildland fires   who do not hunt     presentatio                                you talked to                  youth who     2009 & Sept                         cultural norms of          reward.
                                       will have         ns about                                 anyone about                   have spoken      2010)                         protecting members of
                                    "spoken with        fires, best                               wildland fires.                with                                              their community
                                   someone about            fire                                                                 someone by
                                   wildland fires in    practices,                                                               10
                                      the past 6       establishme                                                               percentage
                                    months" (a 10        nt of fire                                                              points
                                     percentage            watch
                                    point increase        teams,
                                      from 24%;         watershed
                                     N=140) (as          projects,
                                    measured by        fire hotline
                                         Q28.)
                                    By September                                                                                 increase
                                    2010, 25 % of                                                                                number of
                                   Southern Adults                                                                               community
                                   who do not hunt                                                                               adults who
                                       will have                                                                                 have spoken
                                    "spoken with                                                                                 with
                                   someone about                                                                                 someone by
                                   wildland fires in                                                                             10
                                      the past 6                                                                                 percentage
                                    months" (a 10                                                                                points
                                     percentage
                                    point increase
                                      from 15%;
                                     N=137) (as
                                    measured by
                                         Q28.)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       129
                                                                                            ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (6 OF 7)
                                                       ACTION PLAN                                                      MONITORING PLAN                                              KEY RISKS

    Goals         Results needed                               Key        Required tools   Partner       Metric        Method        Target       Frequency      By     Where      Socio-political,   Information   Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                whom                Scientific or         gaps
                                        Key (SMART)


                                                            activities                                                                                                                  other
                                          objectives

Attitude goals       community           By September           SM         KAP Survey       NRCS,         survey      KAP survey     increase     KAP pre and   CM     Southern          n/a             n/a             n/a
                    members will          2010, 75%of       Campaign                       Forestry     questions      analysis     number of     post Survey            Guam
                      agree and         Southern Youth      including:                      , GFD     26D: Wildland                 community      (July-Sept           Villages
                  strongly disagree    who do not hunt     presentatio                                 fires do not                 youth who     2009 & Sept
                 that wildland fires     will "disagree"     ns about                                   need to be                 disagree and      2010)
                 do not need to be        or "strongly      fires, best                                 prevented                     strongly
                      prevented          disagree" that         fire                                                                disagree by
                                         "wildland fires    practices,                                                                   12
                                        do not need to     establishme                                                              percentage
                                         be prevented"       nt of fire                                                                points
                                       (a 12 percentage        watch
                                         point increase       teams,
                                           from 63%         watershed
                                           N=140) (as        projects,
                                          measured by      fire hotline
                                        question 26D).
                                         By September                                                                                increase
                                          2010, 85% of                                                                              number of
                                       Southern Adults                                                                              community
                                       who do not hunt                                                                              adults who
                                         will "disagree"                                                                           disagree and
                                          or "strongly                                                                                strongly
                                         disagree" that                                                                             disagree by
                                         "wildland fires                                                                                 10
                                        do not need to                                                                              percentage
                                       be prevented" (a                                                                                points
                                         10 percentage
                                         point increase
                                           from 75%;
                                           N=137) (as
                                          measured by
                                        question 26D).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 130
                                                                                              ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY (7 OF 7)
                                                         ACTION PLAN                                                      MONITORING PLAN                                               KEY RISKS

    Goals          Results needed                                Key        Required tools   Partner       Metric         Method         Target      Frequency      By     Where      Socio-political,   Information   Actions needed
                                                                                                                                                                   whom                Scientific or         gaps
                                         Key (SMART)


                                                              activities                                                                                                                   other
                                           objectives

Knowledge goals       community           By September            SM         KAP Survey       NRCS,          Q26 A:      KAP survey   increase in    KAP pre and   CM     Southern          n/a             n/a             n/a
                       members            2010, 40% of        Campaign                       Forestry   wildland fires    analysis    number of      post Survey            Guam
                      disagree or        Southern Youth       including:                      , GFD        are not a                  community       (July-Sept           Villages
                   strongly disagree    who do not hunt      presentatio                                serious threat                youth who      2009 & Sept
                  that wildland fires    will disagree or      ns about                                   to Guam's                   answer            2010)
                   are not a serious         strongly         fires, best                                 coral reefs;                strongly
                   threat to Guam's       disagree that           fire                                    responses:                  disagree and
                       coral reefs        wildland fires      practices,                                    strongly                  disagree by
                                        are not a serious    establishme                                 disagree and                 13
                                        threat to Guam's       nt of fire                                  disagree                   percentage
                                         coral reefs (a 13       watch                                                                points
                                           percentage           teams,
                                          point increase      watershed
                                            from 27%           projects,
                                           N=140) (as        fire hotline
                                           measured in
                                              Q26A).
                                          By September                                                                                increase in
                                          2010, 55% of                                                                                number of
                                        Southern Adults                                                                               community
                                        who do not hunt                                                                               adults who
                                         will disagree or                                                                             answer
                                             strongly                                                                                 strongly
                                          disagree that                                                                               disagree and
                                          wildland fires                                                                              disagree by
                                        are not a serious                                                                             13
                                        threat to Guam's                                                                              percentage
                                         coral reefs (a 13                                                                            points
                                           percentage
                                          point increase
                                            from 42%
                                           N=137) (as
                                           measured in
                                              Q26A).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    131
                                                        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      Jun       Jul       Aug      Sept      Oct       Nov       Dec      Jan       Feb      Mar       Apr      May       Jun
 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


                                                                                                                                                  132
    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.




                                                                                                                                            133
Detailed Barrier Removal Timeline                                                                                          I. Budget & Timeline

                                                                                          Barrier Removal Implementation
                                                                 Before      Jan - 09 Feb - 09 Mar - 09 Apr - 09 May - 09 Jun - 09      Post
                             Steps
                                                                 Jan 09                                                                  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                                                     Detail                       Cost (A$)
Transport to/from site during prep                                        20 boat trips @ $3                             A$ 60
(Boat (Mercruiser 5.7 5500) provided by Forestry, Gas only)
Camping equipment                                                         3 sets tents, sleeping bags, cooking           A$ 210
http://www.breezily.co.uk/products/complete_camping_set_for_two           utensilsiv @$70
Clearing 3000 meters bait lines (labor) 6 men clearing 100 m/day x 5      6 men @ $A 16 for 5 days                       A$ 480
days
Provisions (5 days)                                                       $15 day x 6 people x 5 days                     A$ 450
PVC Protecta Bait Stations (73gound + 120 tree)                           $85 for pack of 6 bait stations need 33        A$ 2,805
                                                                          packs
Equipment (Cutlass, overalls, gloves etc)v                                Equipment package @$81/person x 6              A$ 486



                                                                                                                                           134
Project oversight (donated by Forestry Department)                     No cost to project                       -
TOTAL                                                                                                       A$ 4,491




Baiting and Implementation Phase:

                          Task                                               Detail                        Cost (A$)
Transport to/from site during eradication phase      210 boat trips @ $3                                    A$630
(gas only)
Man days (monitoring bait stations); Daily for 7     105 days x 4 men x $16 daily rate                     A$6,720
weeks, alternate days for 16 weeks – 4 man team
Provisions                                           $10/person/day (105 days) – 4 men                     A$ 4,200
Bait (for ground bait stations) 33 kg                11 buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs    A$ 539
http://kill-                                         $49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks.
fireants.com/mcart/index.cgi?PID=IT647&code=13
Bait (for tree bait stations) 33 kg                  25 buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs   A$1,225
http://kill-                                         $49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks
fireants.com/mcart/index.cgi?PID=IT647&code=13
Equipment                                            Climbing spikes 2 sets @$296                           A$ 592
                                                     http://www.abbeypro.co.uk/subprod/climbing-spikes-
                                                     0001030.aspx
Project oversight (donated by Forestry               No cost to project                                        -
Department)
TOTAL                                                                                                      A$ 13,906

Monitoring Phase:

                        Task                                                 Detail                        Cost (A$)
Transport to/from site during monitoring phase       32 boat trips @ $3                                     A$ 96
(Site will be monitored fortnightly for 8 months)
Gas only


                                                                                                                       135
Man days – 16 days x 4 man team                       16 days x 4 men x $16 daily rate                                         A$ 1024
Provisions                                            $10/person/day (16 days) – 4 men                                         A$ 640
Bait (for bait stations)                              3buckets of Talon Weather Blox: Each bucket costs                        A$ 147
                                                      $49.00 and contains over 200 bait blocks.
Equipment (Chew sticks, sticky boards etc)            Estimated at $300                                                         A$ 300
Project oversight (donated by Forestry                No cost to project                                                           -
Department)
TOTAL                                                                                                                          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                              Number                           Anticipated costs                        Comments
Fact sheet preparation                               1,000                                $1,000
Posters design, production and                       5,000                                $ 7,500
placement
Button preparation                                   5,000                                $ 5,000
School song production                                                                                          Donated
Costume production                                                                         $ 750
                                                                                                                Transportation from Project vehicle.
School visit
                                                                                                                Costs covered by FD
Comic                                                1,000                                $3,000



                                                                                                                                                      136
Popular song                                                                                               Donated
Fisheries storyboard prod                                                              $300
Community visits incl. Serena                                                         $1,000               $1,000 LCD projector. Other costs
Theatre                                                                                                    covered by FD
Sermon sheet                                       1,000                                500
Billboards                                           3                                 2,250
Radio                                                                                                      Donated air time

TOTAL                                                                                 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/guam-
watershed-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.




                                                                                                                                             137
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




                                                                                                                                                   138
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 _______.




                                                                                                                                                 139
140
                                                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




                                                               141
A. Full Stakeholder Matrix, from Section 2.3
       Participant or         Participant, name,     Key Issues              Potential Contribution (what       Motivation to attend (what       Consequences of not        Attended?
       stakeholder group      position and contact                           participants bring to the          meeting can give to              inviting.
                              details.                                       meeting)                           participants)

       GCMP                   Dave Burdick &         Coral reefs, GIS,       Will lead monitoring program;      Will lead monitoring group;      Loss of knowledge
                                                                             GIS expertise, Coral reef          coral reef ecologist; coastal                                NO- Off
                                                                             ecology                            management.
                                                                                                                                                                            Island
                              Evangeline Lujan or    Administrator                                                                                                           NO- Off
                              Tom Quinata            Acting Supervisor
                                                                                                                                                                            Island
       NOAA                   Valerie Brown          Coral reef ecology,     Coral reef expert, GIS,            Will be part of the monitoring   Loss of knowledge/
                                                     monitoring, ongoing     monitoring, extensive              group; coral reef ecologist      partnership
                                                     research                knowledge of past and current
                                                                                                                                                                             NO- Off
                                                                             management.
                                                                                                                                                                            Island
       Forestry               Justin Santos          Forestry                Forestry management;               Head of forestry department.     Loss of knowledge/ major
                                                                             wildfires                                                           partner.
                                                                                                                                                                             NO- chief
                                                                                                                                                                            instead
       Fisheries/Haggan       Shawn Wusstig          Turtle nesting sites;   Hunting practices; ungulates;      Hunter; DOA employee; works      Loss of knowledge/
       Watch                                         hunting; ungulates      rules and regulations; fisheries   with turtle nesting sites in     partnership potential
                                                                                                                affected areas.
                                                                                                                                                                            No- DoAg.
                                                                                                                                                                            Director
       Forestry               Bel Soliva             Forestry/public         Extensive knowledge of             Is public outreach person for    Loss of knowledge/
                                                     outreach                ongoing projects/initiatives.      Forestry department;             partnership potential
                                                                                                                concerned with wildfires
                                                                                                                                                                             No- Chief
                                                                                                                                                                            instead
       Conservation Officer   Mark Aguon             Hunting, poaching,      Hunting rules and regulations,     As CO is involved in wildfire    Loss of knowledge
       (Law Enforcement)                             enforcement             conservation officer,              /poaching prosecution but is
                                                                                                                also a member of hunter
                                                                                                                community, resident of
                                                                                                                southern village

                                                                                                                                                                            No- DoAg
                                                                                                                                                                            Director
       The Nature             Trina Leberer          BR Partner;             Management; CAP; extensive         In charge of Piti watershed      Loss of knowledge/
       Conservancy                                   CAP/management;         knowledge of past and current      CAP partnership; former          partnership potential
                                                                             management/rules from DAWR         DAWR supervisor

                                                                                                                                                                             No –Off
                                                                                                                                                                            island




                                                                                                                                                                                         142
Micronesia Challenge    Ann Marie           UOG students; coral     Micronesian challenge;            Is an intern for MC and would   Loss of knowledge
                                            reefs; local            community involvement             be involved in project.
                                            conservation

                                                                                                                                                                   Yes
Micronesia Challenge    Sheeka Afaisen      High school students;   Micronesian challenge;            Resident of target site;        Loss of knowledge and
                                            local conservation;     resident and fisher in merizo     teacher; MC intern              partnership potential
                                            resident of merizo

                                                                                                                                                                   No
Marine Mania            Linda Tatreau       Environmental           Youth community involvement       EEC partner; possibly project   Loss of knowledge/
                                            education action                                          for students;                   partnership potential
                                                                                                                                                                   No
National Park Service   Jenny Drake         Sedimentation, Local    Local plants/sedimentation        Involved in WAPA                Loss of knowledge/
                                            flora                   studies in Asan                   sedimentation studies           partnership potential
                                                                                                                                                                   No
Southern Soil & Water   Benny San Nicolas   Soil & Water            Knowledge of community, soild     Board member/ respected in      Loss of knowledge,
Conservation Service                        Conservation            and water issues, watershed       community; long time            partnership
                                                                    issues                            participant in SWCB


Historic Preservation   Roland Quitugua     Watersheds              Watersheds/ sedimentation         Involved in watershed           Loss of knowledge/
                                                                                                      restoration projects            partnership


                                                                                                                                                                   No
National Resource       Bart Lawrence       Sedimentation;          Current projects; partnerships;   Has been working in             Loss of knowledge/
Conservation Trust                          erosion                 barriers, etc.                    erosion/sediment on related     partnership potential
                                                                                                      projects

                                                                                                                                                                   No
Marine Lab              Grad student        Roxanna Meyers          Coral Reefs ecology; current      Current Student; related to     Loss of knowledge/support
                                                                    projects at Marine Lab            issues of study



                                                                                                                                                                    Yes
RARE                    Cheryl Calaustro    Campaign Manager        CM Mentor                         Rare campaign manager           Loss of knowledge/ support    No-
                                                                                                                                                                   Dianne
                                                                                                                                                                   instead
Indigenous Rights       Representative      Indigenous rights       Indigenous movements;                                             Loss of knowledge/support/
Group                                                               viewpoints; partnership                                           partnership
                                                                    options



                                                                                                                                                                   No




                                                                                                                                                                             143
Piti Mayors Office     Piti Mayor          Piti Community      Community, concerns, village   Sediment is affecting their         Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                                               involvement, culture           reefs; project will take place in   partnership
                                                                                              their village; community
                                                                                              representation



                                                                                                                                                                No
Asan Mayors Office     Asan Mayor          Asan Community      Community, concerns, village   Sediment is affecting their         Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                                               involvement, culture           reefs; project will take place in   partnership
                                                                                              their village; community
                                                                                              representation


                                                                                                                                                                No
Agat Mayors Office     Agat Mayor          Agat Community      Community, concerns, village   Sediment is affecting their         Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                                               involvement, culture           reefs; project will take place in   partnership
                                                                                              their village; community
                                                                                              representation


                                                                                                                                                                No
Merizo Mayors Office   Ernest Chargualaf   Merizo Community/   Community, concerns, village   Sediment is affecting their         Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                           fishing             involvement, culture           reefs; project will take place in   partnership
                                                                                              their village; community
                                                                                              representation


                                                                                                                                                                No
Fisherman              Dansel Narcis       Reef ecosystems;    Fishing techniques; culture    Sedimentation is affecting          Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                           fishing/culture                                    their fish stocks; village          partnership
                                                                                              resource

                                                                                                                                                                No
Hunter                                     Hunting             Hunting techniques, history,   Hunting issues/regulations will     Loss of knowledge/ support/
                                                               culture                        be addressed; may be                partnership
                                                                                              opportunity for changes



                                                                                                                                                                No




                                                                                                                                                                     144
        B. BRAVO data from Section 6.0
        I. BRAVO Data- Lack of Enforcement


                  Criteria                Explanation                                                                              Score

                  Preliminary              Two (2) new conservation officers                   Estimated total cost
                  projected                   – Salaries                                         $ 60,000.
                  costs                       – Equipment
                                              – Stipends
Costs




                                              – Uniforms




                  Predictability          1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;           4 = Costs are predictable
                  of       cost           and manageable
                                                                                                                                   4
                  burden                  The number of conservation officers will remain the same for the duration
                                          of the grant period. Consequently, the costs are very clear and predictable.

                                                                                                                                   4
              Average Score


                   Criteria                                          Explanation                                           Score

                   Description of revenue streams                    Fundraising  total:   $    60,000
                                                                     Sources: Guam Coastal Management
e
u
n
e
v
e
R




                                                                                                                                           145
                                           Program (CR Grant)
                                           Earned       income        total:       $
                                           Sources: N/A
     Percentage of total cost available    1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75
                                           – 100%
                                                                                       4
                                           Funding has already be approved by
                                           NOAA through the Coral Reef grant.
     Likelihood of fundraising success     1 = Very low likelihood of raising the
                                           necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of
                                           raising necessary funds almost a            4
                                           certainty
                                           Funding is already committed.
     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
                                                                                       4
                                           Funding is well-aligned with the project
                                           timeline and will be available for the
                                           duration of the project and beyond.
     Sustainable Funding                   1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 =
                                           Very sustainable funding source
                                                                                       4
                                           Funding is sustainable through the CR
                                           grant through MOUs with DOA.

                                                                                       4
Average Score

     Criteria                             Explanation                      Score




                                                                                           146
             Attainability &                 1 = Technology
             Availability                    and/or      required
                                             assistance needed
                                             is unavailable; 4 =
Technology




                                             Technology         is
                                             attainable      and
                                             third-party
                                                                     4
                                             assistance,        if
                                             required,          is
                                             available
                                             Training will be
                                             provided by the
                                             Law Enforcement
                                             Division.
             Technology assistance           1 = Technology
                                             assistance      is
                                             required, yet not
                                             available;  4    =
                                             Technology
                                             assistance      is
                                             significant   and
                                                                     4
                                             available
                                             Funding is also
                                             provided through
                                             MOU            for
                                             equipment,
                                             stipends,     and
                                             uniforms.
             Appropriate for circumstances   1    =    Available
                                             technology is not
                                             appropriate     for     4
                                             circumstances; 4 =



                                                                         147
                                                                  Acquirable
                                                                  technology is suited
                                                                  for circumstances
                                                                  Technology     used
                                                                  by LED will be
                                                                  utilized with new
                                                                  COs as well.

                                                                                               4
                         Average Score

                                 Criteria                       Explanation                        Score

                                 Barrier    Removal   Partner   1 = BR Partner does not
                                 support                        exist or is not willing to
                                                                support the project; 4 =
                                                                There exists a willing
Capacity /
Organizational Ability




                                                                Barrier Removal Partner
                                                                The      Barrier  Removal
                                                                partner is the Bureau of           4
                                                                Statistics and Plans Guam
                                                                Coastal        Management
                                                                Program, which is fully
                                                                willing to support the
                                                                project and is the host
                                                                agency for the campaign.
                                 Barrier Removal Partner’s      1 = BR Partner lacks a track
                                 ability to drive change        record of driving behavior;
                                                                4 = BR partner has a
                                                                proven track record of
                                                                                                   4
                                                                driving behavior
                                                                GCMP has been involved in
                                                                many educational outreach
                                                                campaigns including the


                                                                                                           148
                                     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   cost   1 = BR Partner has not
        efficient execution          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           4
                                     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
Average Score



                                                                          149
                         Other critical partners     1 = Other partners do not
                                                     exist or will not be
                                                     impactful 4 = Other
                                                     partners are available and
Other Partners




                                                     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
                                                                                    3
                                                     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                     Explanation                          Score




                                                                                                150
                       Leaders and influencers in the   1 = Dearth of strong leaders and
                       community                        influencers in the community; 4 =
                                                        Visible leaders with clout to drive
                                                        behavior
Community Leadership




                                                        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
                                                                                               4
                                                        particularly influential, and should
                                                        be targeted by the PRIDE campaign
                                                        for collaboration and information-
                                                        sharing. 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.
                       Leadership   willingness   to    1 = Unwilling to get on board with
                       endorse                          project; 4 = Firm commitment from
                                                        leadership to help drive change
                                                        efforts                                4
                                                        As this particular project involves
                                                        more conservation officers, a
                                                        problem regularly mentioned by


                                                                                                   151
                                                                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

                             Criteria                        Explanation                                          Score

                                                             1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will
                                                             hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and legal
                                                             framework will aid program
                                                             The current legislative and legal landscape is
Political Environment




                                                             currently a bit negative towards the
                                                             Conservation Officers as a part of the
                                                             Marine Preserves. There is current political
                             Current legislative and legal   movement that may affect the preserves,
                                                                                                                  2
                             landscape                       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.




                                                                                                                          152
                                                       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
                        Ability to drive legislative   As part of the increased enforcement, there
                                                                                                      3
                        change                         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.

                                                                                                      2.5
                   Average Score
                                                       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
Values and Norms




                                                       environment
                                                       Pride Campaign manager will conduct
                        Assessment of norms                                                           3
                                                       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.
                                                       1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable
                                                       to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are
                        Ability    to       address
                                                       manageable and a clear tack to address         NA
                        normative obstacles
                                                       them is employed
                                                       Not applicable




                                                                                                            153
                                                                                                               3
                      Average Score

                           Criteria               Explanation                                                      Score
                           Likelihood        of   1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 =
                           conservation impact    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
Conservation Impact




                                                  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               3
                                                  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.


                           Impact                 1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be
                           sustainability         sustained in the long-term; 4 = The impact goal should be
                                                  viable in the long-term
                                                  Increasing number of conservation officers will have
                                                                                                                   3
                                                  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.


                                                                                                                           154
                                                                                                                          3
                 Average Score

                         Criteria      Explanation                                                                            Score
                         1st Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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            4
Tipping Points




                                       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.
                         2nd Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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                  2
                                       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.
                         3rd Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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                2
                                       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.
                                                                                                              Average
                                                                                                                              3
                 Score




                                                                                                                                      155
                     Measurable      1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The
                     outcomes        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
  Metrics




                                     reported per man hour and the number of poaching instances cited or gear           2
                                     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
                                                                                                                        2
             Score

        II. BRAVO LMHAs


                 Criteria              Explanation                                                                          Score

                 Preliminary            Land Clearing and Preparation                         Estimated total cost
                 projected costs            – Equipment use for land                            $
                                                clearing
                                            – Tilling     tools    for  land
Costs




                                                preparation
                                            – Tools for sediment trapping
                                            – Organic matter for soil
                                                preparation
                                            – Plants/seeds for planting


                 Predictability of     1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;           4 = Costs are predictable
                 cost burden           and manageable
                                       After completion of a full BROP project costs will be assessed and itemized.         3
                                       Similar projects have been conducted by Department of Agriculture, and costs
                                       should be manageable utilizing volunteer labor. Forestry has agreed to be a



                                                                                                                                    156
                                  partner in this effort and provide plants for designated areas as well as assist
                                  with land preparation.


                                                                                                      Average
                                                                                                                      3
           Score

               Criteria           Explanation                                                                         Score

               Description of     Fundraising total: $ ??          Sources: Guam Coastal Management Program
               revenue streams    (CR Grant)
                                  Earned income total: $                   Sources: N/A
Revenues




               Percentage of      1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100%
               total     cost     Funding is available through the Game Management sector and the Forestry            3
               available          department through h various watershed reforestation initiatives.
               Likelihood    of   1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising
               fundraising        necessary funds almost a certainty
               success            If funds are available through existing projects, raising additional funds should   4
                                  not be needed. There are many partner agencies who would be able to assists
                                  in sourcing funding for this project.
               Fundraising        Funds will be available by January 2010 (for implementation).
               timing

               Funding            1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with project timeline; 4 = Funding timeline
               Alignment          is well-aligned with project timeline
                                                                                                                      3
                                  Funding should be available at the beginning of new grant periods (Fall 2009)
                                  and should fall in well with project timeline.
               Sustainable        1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source
               Funding            Funding is sustainable through the federal grants programs and can be
                                  reapplied for annually. Forestry supports long term reforestation efforts and       4
                                  will continue to work with groups to restore watersheds as part of their
                                  ongoing initiatives.



                                                                                                                              157
                                                                                                                 Average
                                                                                                                                 3.5
                    Score

                          Criteria          Explanation                                                                          Score

                          Attainability &   1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 =
                          Availability      Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is available
                                                                                                                                 4
                                            Planting tools and equipment are available through Forestry and partner
                                            agencies, as well as local mayor’s offices and local farmers.
    Technology




                          Technology        1 = Technology assistance is required, yet not available; 4 = Technology
                          assistance        assistance is significant and available
                                            Partnerships with US Forestry Service and USFWS along with many                      4
                                            universities and research institutes, as well as other Rare affiliates can provide
                                            a wealth of information and technological assistance.
                          Appropriate for   1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable
                          circumstances     technology is suited for circumstances
                                            Technology is simple and should be suitable for community members to run
                                                                                                                                 4
                                            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.
                                                                                                                 Average
                                                                                                                                 4
                    Score

                             Criteria       Explanation                                                                          Score

                             Barrier        1 = BR Partner does not exist or is not willing to support the project; 4 = There
                             Removal        exists a willing Barrier Removal Partner
                             Partner        The Barrier Removal partners would be the Division of Forestry and Soil
                                                                                                                                 4
                             support        Resources and NRCS to provide technical assistance. The Guam Farmers Coop
Ability
al
zation
Organi

                 ty /
                 Capaci




                                            and UOG College of Agriculture may also be engaged for assistance. The
                                            Conservation Officers will also be involved in training volunteer CO’s.




                                                                                                                                         158
                   Barrier          1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner has a
                   Removal          proven track record of driving behavior
                   Partner’s        DFSR has worked on several outreach campaigns in the past and works with
                   ability    to    local farmers and UOG. The have coordinated watershed stewardship training        2
                   drive change     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.
                   Budget           1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills and cost
                   planning and     efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven proficiency in budget
                   cost efficient   planning and cost efficient execution of past plans
                   execution        DFSR has executed many programs through completion. Through federal and           3
                                    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.
                                                                                                      Average
                                                                                                                      3
           Score
                   Other critical   1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other partners are
                   partners         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
                                                                                                                      4
Partners
Other




                                    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
                                                                                                                      4
           Score

                   Criteria         Explanation                                                                       Score




                                                                                                                              159
                                  Leaders and       1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible
                                  influencers in    leaders with clout to drive behavior
                                  the               Village mayors have been engaged in preliminary meetings and are excited to
                                  community         begin reducing threats to water resources such as sediment. Some key village       3
   Community Leadership




                                                    influencers have already been engaged in supporting the campaign, though
                                                    there are many more to include such as the church, and local community
                                                    groups.
                                  Leadership        1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from
                                  willingness to    leadership to help drive change efforts
                                  endorse           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
                                                                                                                                       3
                                                    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.
                                                                                                                       Average
                                                                                                                                       3
                          Score

                                  Criteria          Explanation                                                                        Score

                                                    1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and
                                                    legal framework will aid program
                                  Current           The current legislative and legal landscape is slightly skewed with a negative
                                  legislative       connotation towards conservation efforts. However, with the support of
                                                                                                                                       2
t
Environmen
Political




                                  and       legal   community mayors, the church, and the general public, the legislature can be
                                  landscape         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.




                                                                                                                                               160
                                            1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political environment and unclear timeframe
                                            for advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge and ability to push for
                           Ability     to   appropriate changes within a given timeframe
                           drive            Within the host agency there is a great depth of political knowledge and
                                                                                                                               3
                           legislative      influence. The main driving force to drive legislation if needed will be
                           change           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
                                                                                                                               2.5
                   Score
                                            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
                           Assessment
Values and Norms




                                            next few weeks to better assess cultural and political norms with regards to       3
                           of norms
                                            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.
                                            1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are
                           Ability   to
                                            manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed
                           address
                                            Some feel that burning is a cultural practice, though this is not a widely held    3
                           normative
                                            perception. The survey will provide more accurate information about hunting
                           obstacles
                                            norms.
                                                                                                               Average
                                                                                                                               3
                   Score

                           Criteria         Explanation                                                                        Score




                                                                                                                                       161
                                  Likelihood of     1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is
                                  conservation      very likely to be realized
                                  impact            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
    Conservation Impact




                                                    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
                                                                                                                                       3
                                                    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.


                                  Impact            1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term; 4
                                  sustainability    = 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
                                                                                                                                       4
                                                    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
                                                                                                                                       3.5
                          Score

                                  Criteria         Explanation                                                                         Score
                                  1st Tipping      1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
                                                                                                                                       3
                                  Point            The first tipping point consists of decreasing the number of fires. This is very
o
P

                g
                n
                i
                p
                p
                i
                T




                                                                                                                                               162
                                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   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
                  Point         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
                                                                                                                    3
                                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.
                  3rd Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached
                  Point         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
                                                                                                                    2
                                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.
                                                                                                    Average
                                                                                                                    2.7
          Score
                  Measurable    1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program
                  outcomes      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            3
Metrics




                                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
                                                                                                                    3
          Score




                                                                                                                          163
         III. BRAVO Bait Stations
                    Criteria                     Explanation                                                                     Score

                    Preliminary      projected    Acquisition of bait stations                   Estimated total cost
                    costs                               – Salt Licks ($4.99/ea)                    $4,999 (+shipping)
                                                        – Use local crops
                                                 - Other types of bait may be
 Costs




                                                 acquired as well.




                    Predictability   of   cost   1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable;                      4 = Costs are
                    burden                       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            3
                                                 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
                                                                                                                                 3
                Score

                    Criteria                     Explanation                                                                     Score

                    Description of revenue       Fundraising total: $ ??              Sources: Guam Coastal Management
                    streams                      Program (CR Grant)
                                                 Earned income total: $                    Sources: N/A
es
Revenu




                    Percentage of total cost     1: 0 – 25% 2: 25 – 50% 3: 50 – 75% 4: 75 – 100%
                    available                    Funding is available through the Game Management sector ; additional            3
                                                 funds can be acquired through GCMP grants.




                                                                                                                                     164
                 Likelihood              of   1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of
                 fundraising success          raising necessary funds almost a certainty
                                              If funds are available through existing projects, raising additional funds   4
                                              should not be needed. There are many partner agencies who would be
                                              able to assists in sourcing funding for this project.
                 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
                                                                                                                           3
                                              Funding should be available at the beginning of new grant periods (Fall
                                              2009) and should fall in well with project timeline.
                 Sustainable Funding          1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source
                                              Funding is sustainable through the federal grants programs and can be        4
                                              reapplied for annually.
                                                                                                          Average
                                                                                                                           3.5
             Score

                 Criteria                     Explanation                                                                  Score

                 Attainability &              1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 =
                 Availability                 Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is
                                              available                                                                    4
                                              Training for salt licks can be provided by local hunters/and or
Technology




                                              conservation officers. Tool is simple to use.
                 Technology assistance        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             4
                                              training should be able to sourced locally through hunting community.
                                              Websites for baiting stations provide a wealth of information.




                                                                                                                                 165
                             Appropriate          for   1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 =
                             circumstances              Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances
                                                        Technology is simple and should be suitable for hunters to use easily.        4


                                                                                                                     Average
                                                                                                                                      4
                         Score

                                 Criteria               Explanation                                                                   Score

                                 Barrier    Removal     1 = BR Partner does not exist or is not willing to support the project; 4 =
                                 Partner support        There exists a willing Barrier Removal Partner
                                                        The Barrier Removal partners would be the Department of Agricultures          3
                                                        Game Management Sector and Law Enforcement Division through
Capacity /
Organizational Ability




                                                        providing funding and training for bait stations.
                                 Barrier     Removal    1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner
                                 Partner’s ability to   has a proven track record of driving behavior
                                 drive change           Several community projects have been run through DAWR and the
                                                        current managed hunting program on Anderson Airfoce base is a                 2
                                                        partnership with the department. However, current community view of
                                                        department is not great, Rare campaign would be needed to build
                                                        credibility.
                                 Budget planning and    1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills
                                 cost       efficient   and cost efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven
                                 execution              proficiency in budget planning and cost efficient execution of past plans
                                                        DAWR has executed many programs through completion. Through                   2
                                                        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.
                                                                                                                     Average
                                                                                                                                      2.3
                         Score




                                                                                                                                            166
                                 Other        critical     1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other
                                 partners                  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
                                                                                                                                       4
Partners
Other




                                                           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
                                                                                                                                       4
                        Score

                                Criteria                  Explanation                                                                  Score

                                Leaders        and        1 = Dearth of strong leaders and influencers in the community; 4 = Visible
                                influencers in the        leaders with clout to drive behavior
                                community                 Village mayors have been engaged in preliminary meetings and are
                                                          excited to begin reducing threats to water resources such as sediment.       3
 Community Leadership




                                                          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.
                                Leadership                1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from
                                willingness       to      leadership to help drive change efforts
                                endorse                   Locally run groups such as Soil & Water Conservation and Mayors officers
                                                          will be key in influencing other local leaders. One barrier that may arise
                                                                                                                                       3
                                                          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.
                                                                                                                      Average
                                                                                                                                       3
                        Score

                                Criteria                 Explanation                                                                   Score



                                                                                                                                           167
                                                      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
                                Current legislative   negative connotation towards conservation efforts. However, with the
Political Environment




                                and           legal   support of community mayors, the church, and the general public, the              2
                                landscape             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.
                                                      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
                                Ability to drive      Within the host agency there is a great depth of political knowledge and
                                                                                                                                        3
                                legislative change    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
                                                                                                                                        2.5
                        Score
                                                      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
Values and Norms




                                Assessment      of    cultural and political norms with regards to hunting and wildland fire. An
                                                                                                                                        3
                                norms                 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.
                                Ability to address    1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles
                                                                                                                                        3
                                normative             are manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed



                                                                                                                                              168
                              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
                                                                                                                                 3
                      Score

                              Criteria         Explanation                                                                       Score
                              Likelihood of    1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is
                              conservation     very likely to be realized
                              impact           By providing these bait stations, hunters will be provided with a less
                                               destructive method of finding deer which will eliminate the need for burning.
Conservation Impact




                                               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
                                                                                                                                 3
                                               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.


                              Impact           1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term;
                              sustainability   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     4
                                               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,



                                                                                                                                     169
                                                                                                              Average
                                                                                                                                3.5
                 Score

                         Criteria      Explanation                                                                        Score
                         1st Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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        3
Tipping Points




                                       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.
                         2nd Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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              3
                                       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.
                         3rd Tipping   1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be
                         Point         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               2
                                       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.
                                                                                                              Average
                                                                                                                          2.7
                 Score




                                                                                                                                      170
                  Measurable   1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The
                  outcomes     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        3
Metrics




                               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
                                                                                                           3
          Score




                                                                                                               171
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:


                                                                                                                                              172
[ ] 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   [ ] 25 to 29   [ ] 30 to 34   [ ] 35 to 39   [ ] 40 to 44   [ ] 45 to 49   [ ] 50 to 54   [ ] 55
or older

(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     [ ] Hagatna [ ] Inarajan      [    ]
Mangilao         [ ] Merizo      [ ] Mong Mong-Toto-Maite [ ] Piti [ ] Santa Rita [ ] Sinajana [ ] Talafofo    [ ] Tamuning-Tumon [ ]        Umatac
        [ ] Yigo [ ] Yona        [ ] Other ________________

(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 ________________




                                                                                                                                                173
(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 [ ] Self-
employed       [ ] 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


                                                                                                                                               174
[ ] 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


                                                                                                                     175
(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 ________________




                                                                                                                                               176
(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




                                                                                                                                            177
(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


                                                                                          178
[ ] 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        [ ] Off Roading   [ ] Fishing from shore [ ] Fishing from a boat     [      ]
Hunting        [ ] Farming/agriculture        [ ] N/A

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      [ ] Other ________________

(C) Which methods have you used for land clearing (please choose all that apply):
[ ] backhoe or other mechanical clearing [ ] domestic animal (caribao, etc.) [ ] burning          [ ] no land clearing   [ ] not applicable/no farming
        [ ] Other ________________

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




                                                                                                                                                  179
(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 month      [ ] once every two weeks     [      ]
once a week [ ] more than once a week [ ] not applicable/no hunting



(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).




                                                                                                                                              180
(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.




                                                                                                                                               181
(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:




                                                                                                                                              182
(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       [ ] Neutral   [ ] 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

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.


                                                                                                                                         183
(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:


                                                                                                                                              184
[ ] 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.


                                                                                                                                         185
[ ] 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!


                                                                                                                                    186
    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 trade/professional to trade/professional completed
[ ] some secondary to secondary school completed                                 [ ] some religious school to religious school completed
[ ] some college/university to college university completed                      [ ] prefer not to answer

ETHNICITIES:
[ ] 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 ________________

RELIGIONS:
[ ] Catholic                [ ] Buddhism                   [ ] Muslim            [ ] Anglican     [ ] Methodist             [ ] SDA [ ] Baptist           [ ] Jewish
[ ] Local/traditional       [ ] Other Protestant           [ ] None              [ ] Other ________________

MAIN ACTIVITY:
[ ] Working for wages       [ ] Subsistence or family/housework                  [ ] Student             [ ] Retired        [ ] No current activity

EMPLOYER INFORMATION:
[ ] private company or business                 [ ] Non-government organization                [ ] individual person                  [ ] self-employed
[ ] government (national, state or local)       [ ] not employed                               [ ] other: _________

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR:
[ ] Agriculture                                            [ ] office work                                         [ ] Artisian (crafts)
[ ] Fishing                                                [ ] factory or manufacturing                            [ ] Transportation (shipping, trucking, rail)
[ ] Logging, mining, or other extractive industry          [ ] food preparation or restaurant                      [ ] Education
[ ] small business (shop keeper or sales person)           [ ] professional (lawyer,                               [ ] Military
[ ] other: _____                                                 health care provider)                             [ ] Not currently employed

LEVEL OF STUDENT:
[ ] Secondary student                 [ ] Trade or professional student          [ ] University student                     [ ] Religious student
[ ] Post graduate student             [ ] Not currently a student                [ ] Other: _______

TRUSTWORTHY SCALE:                [ ] Most trustworthy                [ ] Very trustworthy               [ ] Somewhat trustworthy       [ ] Not trustworthy        [ ] Not sure/Don't know

MEDIA PROGRAMS:              [ ] I like it most [ ] I like it a lot   [ ] I like it a little      [ ] I don’t like it.




                                                                                                                                                                                             187
(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)




                                                                                                                                                                     188
THREATS. Please select only three (3).
[ ] There are no threats [ ] Pollution               [ ] Development           [ ] Over harvest                    [ ] Off roading            [ ] Wildland fires
[ ] Forest clearing      [ ] Invasive species        [ ] Diseases              [ ] Unsure/don’t know threats       [ ] Don't know native plants and animals
[ ] Other ________________

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 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 ________________

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT
[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree                [ ] Neutral       [ ] Disagree     [ ] 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 ________________




                                                                                                                                                                   189
            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




                                                                                                                         190
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.




                                                                                      191
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




                                                                                                                                                                 192
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

                                                                                                        The first thing to emphasize to your interviewers is that
                            Guidelines and Rules for Interviewers                                       they should be friendly, polite, and professional in their
                                                                                                        approach to the public. They should either wear their ID
        Schedule a time for when you can complete the survey in a single sitting.                      badge or attach it to their clipboard where it can be easily
        Be courteous, tactful and non-judgmental. Do not react to what the respondent says             seen.
         either verbally, or with an expression or nod of head. Do not engage the respondent in a
         debate.                                                                                        Be Clear on the Audience
        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      It is important that your interviewers understand that they
         the interview with others after it is complete.                                                should not include the following individuals/groups in their
        Introduce the survey by saying who is running it, its general intentions, and how the          survey sample:
         respondent was chosen (usually at random). The interviewer should have identification
         papers to show to respondents.                                                                        Members of their own household or other
        Try to put the respondent at ease                                                                      immediate relatives, or friends;
        Be professional, have all your materials ready and keep to the purpose. Don’t get                     More than one member of the same household; and
         distracted by others or let the respondent wander off track.                                          Anyone who has overheard any of the responses to
        Be familiar with the questionnaire so if there are filters and skip patterns, you know                 a questionnaire.
         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      Study and Practice Beforehand
         clarified, do so by either repeating the question or rephrasing it using the same words in a
         different order.                                                                               Have the interviewers conduct the pre-test. This way, they
        Speak slowly and clearly so you can be understood.                                             can train themselves, familiarize themselves with the
        Do not assume any answers, and don’t mark an answer until the respondent states it.            questionnaire, and make sure they have their technique
        If a response is incomplete, use a neutral probe to get the respondent to fully answer the     down. Each interviewer should conduct two to three
                                                                                                        interviews as part of the pre-test. After any lessons learned
         question.
                                                                                                        are built into the questionnaire, the data from the pre-test
        Before leaving, make sure the questionnaire is fully completed.
                                                                                                        can be discarded.
        Thank the respondent at the end of the interview.
                                                                                                        Prior to their actually conducting their surveys, interviewers



                                                                                                                                                                   193
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




                                                                                                                                                                      194
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.                                                                                                                          195
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.




                                                                                                                                                                     196
       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.”




                                                                                                                                                                  197
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)    ver 3.1 (2001)
   2    Actitis hypoleucos           COMMON SANDPIPER (Eng)               LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
   3    Aglaia mariannensis                                               VU A1c      ver 2.3 (1994)
   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)            VU A2d      ver 3.1 (2001)
                                     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)
   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)                LR/nt     ver 2.3 (1994)
                                     GREY REEF SHARK (Eng)
   16   Carcharhinus falciformis     SILKY SHARK (Eng)                    LR/lc     ver 2.3 (1994)
   17   Carcharhinus longimanus      OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK (Eng)         VU A2ad+3d+4ad           ver 3.1 (2001)
                                     WHITE-TIPPED SHARK (Eng)
                                     WHITETIP OCEANIC SHARK (Eng)
                                     WHITETIP SHARK (Eng)
                                     REQUIN OCÉANIQUE (Fre)
                                     TIBURÓN OCEANICO (Spa)
   18   Carcharhinus melanopterus    BLACKTIP REEF SHARK (Eng)            LR/nt     ver 2.3 (1994)
   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)




                                                                                                                          198
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)                   EN A2bd+3bd     ver 3.1 (2001)
                               HUMPHEAD WRASSE (Eng)
                               HUMPHEAD (Eng)
                               MAORI WRASSE (Eng)
                               NAPOLEON WRASSE (Eng)
                               TRUCK WRASSE (Eng)
                               UNDULATE WRASSE (Eng)
                               NAPOLEON (Fre)




#    Scientific Name           Common Name                          Red List


24   Chelonia mydas            GREEN TURTLE (Eng)                   EN A2bd    ver 3.1 (2001)
                               TORTUE COMESTIBLE (Fre)
                               TORTUE FRANCHE (Fre)
                               TORTUE VERTE (Fre)
                               TORTUGA BLANCA (Spa)
                               TORTUGA VERDE (Spa)
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   ver 3.1 (2001)
27   Cromileptes altivelis     BARAMUNDI COD (Eng)                  VU A4cd    ver 3.1 (2001)
                               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)
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)      EN A1ac    ver 2.3 (1994)
                               POLYNESIAN SHEATH-TAILED BAT (Eng)




                                                                                                                                   199
31   Epinephelus fuscoguttatus    BROWN-MARBLED GROUPER (Eng)        NT      ver 3.1 (2001)
                                  MÉROU MARRON (Fre)
                                  MERO MANCHADO (Spa)
32   Epinephelus lanceolatus      BRINDLE BASS (Eng)                 VU A2d      ver 3.1 (2001)
                                  BRINDLED GROUPER (Eng)
                                  GIANT GROUPER (Eng)
                                  QUEENSLAND GROPER (Eng)
                                  MÉROU LANCÉOLÉ (Fre)
                                  MERO LANCEOLADE (Spa)
33   Epinephelus polyphekadion    CAMOUFLAGE GROUPER (Eng)           NT      ver 3.1 (2001)
                                  LOCHE CRASSEUSE (Fre)
                                  MERO DISFRAZADO (Spa)
34   Eretmochelys imbricata       HAWKSBILL TURTLE (Eng)             CR A1bd ver 2.3 (1994)
                                  CARET (Fre)                        (needs updating)
                                  TORTUE CARET (Fre)
                                  TORTUE IMBRIQUÉE (Fre)
                                  TORTUE À BEC FAUCON (Fre)
                                  TORTUE À ÉCAILLES (Fre)
                                  TORTUGA CAREY (Spa)
35   Falco peregrinus             PEREGRINE FALCON (Eng)             LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
36   Feresa attenuata             PYGMY KILLER WHALE (Eng)           DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                  SLENDER BLACKFISH (Eng)            (needs updating)
                                  EPAULARD PYGMÉE (Fre)
                                  ORQUE PYGMÉE (Fre)
                                  ORCA PIGMEO (Spa)
37   Galeocerdo cuvier            TIGER SHARK (Eng)                  LR/nt     ver 2.3 (1994)
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      ver 3.1 (2001)
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)          LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
                                  SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE (Eng)     (needs updating)
                                  GLOBICÉPHALE TROPICAL (Fre)
                                  CALDRÓN NEGRO (Spa)
45   Gygis alba                   COMMON WHITE-TERN (Eng)            LC      ver 3.1 (2001)




                                                                                                  200
46   Heritiera longipetiolata                               VU D2    ver 2.3 (1994)
47   Heteropoma fulva                                       DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                            (needs updating)
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)         LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
                                HORSE'S HOOF CLAM (Eng)     (needs updating)
                                STRAWBERRY CLAM (Eng)
60   Kogia sima                 DWARF SPERM WHALE (Eng)     LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
                                CACHALOT NAIN (Fre)         (needs updating)
                                CACHALOTE ENANO (Spa)
61   Ladronellum mariannarum                                DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                            (needs updating)
62   Lagenodelphis hosei        FRASER'S DOLPHIN (Eng)      DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                SARAWAK DOLPHIN (Eng)       (needs updating)
                                DAUPHIN DE FRASER (Fre)
                                DELFÍN DE BORNEO (Spa)
63   Lamellidea microstoma                                  DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                            (needs updating)
64   Lamellidea subcylindrica                               DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                            (needs updating)
65   Lamprocystis denticulata                               DD   ver 2.3 (1994)




                                                                                      201
                                                                      (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)                      NT    ver 3.1 (2001)
                                DEVIL RAY (Eng)
                                GIANT MANTA (Eng)
                                MANTA RAY (Eng)
                                PRINCE ALFRED’S RAY (Eng)
                                RAIE MANTA (Fre)
                                MANTA RAYA (Spa)
72   Megapodius laperouse       MICRONESIAN MEGAPODE (Eng)            EN B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)   ver 3.1 (2001)
73   Mesoplodon densirostris    BLAINVILLE'S BEAKED WHALE (Eng)       DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                MÉSOPLODON DE BLAINVILLE (Fre)        (needs updating)
                                BALLENA DE PICO DE BLAINVILLE (Spa)
                                ZIFIO DE BLAINVILLE (Spa)
74   Motacilla cinerea          GREY WAGTAIL (Eng)                    LC    ver 3.1 (2001)
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                                                DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                      (needs updating)
78   Numenius minutus           LITTLE CURLEW (Eng)                   LC    ver 3.1 (2001)
79   Numenius phaeopus          WHIMBREL (Eng)                        LC    ver 3.1 (2001)
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)




                                                                                                              202
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               Common Name                   Red List
94    Omphalotropis submaritima                                   DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                  (needs updating)
95    Omphalotropis suturalis                                     DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                  (needs updating)
96    Orcinus orca                  KILLER WHALE (Eng)            LR/cd ver 2.3 (1994)
                                    ORCA (Eng, Spa)               (needs updating)
                                    EPAULARD (Fre)
                                    ORQUE (Fre)
                                    ESPADARTE (Spa)
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)        CR A2ce ver 2.3 (1994)
                                    TREE SNAIL (Eng)              (needs updating)
100   Partula radiolata             RADIOLATE PARTULA (Eng)       CR A2ce, B1+2abcde     ver 2.3 (1994)
                                    TREE SNAIL (Eng)              (needs updating)
101   Partula salifana              MOUNT ALIFANA PARTULA (Eng)   EX ver 2.3 (1994)
                                    TREE SNAIL (Eng)              (needs updating)
102   Partula salifera                                            EX   ver 2.3 (1994)
103   Peponocephala electra         MELON-HEADED WHALE (Eng)      LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
                                    PÉPONOCÉPHALE (Fre)           (needs updating)
                                    CALDERÓN PEQUEÑO (Spa)




                                                                                                          203
                                ELECTRA (Spa)
104   Philomachus pugnax        RUFF (Eng)                          LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
105   Phoebastria nigripes      BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS (Eng)        EN A3bd       ver 3.1 (2001)
106   Pluvialis fulva           PACIFIC GOLDEN-PLOVER (Eng)         LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
107   Prionace glauca           BLUE SHARK (Eng)                    LR/nt     ver 2.3 (1994)
108   Pterodroma cervicalis     WHITE-NECKED PETREL (Eng)           VU D2       ver 3.1 (2001)
109   Pterodroma longirostris   STEJNEGER'S PETREL (Eng)            VU D2       ver 3.1 (2001)
                                PÉTREL DE STEJNEGER (Fre)
                                PETREL DE MÁS AFUERA (Spa)
110   Pteropus mariannus        MARIANAS FLYING FOX (Eng)           EN A1cd+2cde ver 2.3 (1994)
                                MARIANNA FLYING FOX (Eng)           (needs updating)
                                MICRONESIAN FLYING-FOX (Eng)
                                ROUSSETTE DES ÎLES MARIANES (Fre)
111   Pteropus tokudae          GUAM FLYING FOX (Eng)               EX ver 2.3 (1994)
                                GUAM FRUIT BAT (Eng)                (needs updating)
                                ZORRO VOLADOR DE TOKUDA (Spa)
112   Ptilinopus roseicapilla   MARIANA FRUIT-DOVE (Eng)            EN B1ab(iii,v)     ver 3.1 (2001)
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)                   VU A1bd+2d        ver 2.3 (1994)
                                REQUIN BALEINE (Fre)
                                TIBURÓN BALLENA (Spa)
116   Rhipidura rufifrons       RUFOUS FANTAIL (Eng)                LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
117   Rhizophora apiculata                                          LR/lc     ver 2.3 (1994)
118   Samoana fragilis          TREE SNAIL (Eng)                    CR B1+2cd        ver 2.3 (1994)
119   Semperdon heptaptychius                                       LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                    (needs updating)
120   Semperdon rotanus                                             DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                    (needs updating)
#     Scientific Name           Common Name                         Red List


121   Serianthes nelsonii                                           CR D      ver 2.3 (1994)
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                                            DD ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                                    (needs updating)




                                                                                                        204
   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      ver 3.1 (2001)
   136   Triaenodon obesus                       WHITETIP REEF SHARK (Eng)                                      LR/nt     ver 2.3 (1994)
   137   Tridacna crocea                         BORING CLAM (Eng)                                              LR/lc ver 2.3 (1994)
                                                 CROCUS CLAM (Eng)                                              (needs updating)
                                                 SAFFRON-COLOURED CLAM (Eng)
   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           ver 2.3 (1994)
   141   Xenus cinereus                          TEREK SANDPIPER (Eng)                                          LC      ver 3.1 (2001)
   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)
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.




                                                                                                                                                                                           205
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.   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.
    2.   Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
    3.   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



                                                                                                                                                                                              206
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.



                                                                                                          207
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



                                                                                                        208
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



                                         209
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.



                                                                                                      210
• 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.



                                                                                                        211
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



                                                                                                      212
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



                                                                                                       213
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.



                                                                                                       214
• 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



                                                                                                        215
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



                                                                                                      216
• 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



                                                                                                       217
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) 565-
2524/4335/2531
565-4826
Inarajan/Malojiloj (o) 475-
2509/10/11/12
828-2543
Rita Tainatongo Merizo (o) 828-8312/2941 828-2429
Anthony “Barney” D
Leon Guerrero
Talofofo (o) 789-
1421/3262/4821
789-5251
Tony A Quintana Umatac (o) 828-
2940/2677/8258
828-2676
Jose “Pedo” Terlaje Yona (o) 789-4798/1525/6 789-1821



                                                                                                    218
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



                                                       219
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) 475-5437/472-
3878
(fax) 475-2000
Senator Lou A Leon
Guerrero
(o) 472-
3576/82/83/84/85
(fax) 472-3591
Senator Vicente
“Ben” C Pangelinan
(o) 472-3552/53/54
(fax) 472-3556
Other Partners
Organization Contact Phone/Fax Email/Website



                                                        220
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) 649-5060/646-
6937
Kim’s Dive Academy
Inc
(o) 649-5060
Guam Waterworks
Authority



                           221
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 Channel-
TV
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.



                                                                                                          222
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



                                                                                                        223
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



                                                                                                      224
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



                                                                                                                     225
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:



                                                                                                                      226
-$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.



                                                                                            227
-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



                                                                                                            228
                               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     The specific goals for general community:
want target audience to do?    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:       Knowing that they are stewards concerned with the well being
What reward(s) should the      of their community and resources:
message promise the                 Reduce damage to private property
consumer?                           Reduce destruction of native forests
                                    Reduce erosion & sedimentation of upland areas


                                                                                                  229
                                  Protect clean water resources
                                  Reduce flooding
                                  Protect coral reef ecosystems
Support: How can the promise      Reports show that wildland fires are a threat to
be made credible?                  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
Image: What image should          Stewardship/Ownership
distinguish the action?           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                    When they are listening to the radio
communication openings and        When they are shopping
vehicles should be used?          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)


                                                                                            230
creative, message and/or             Logos of funding agencies (where applicable)
campaign elements that               Slogan
MUST be included in creative
execution?
Campaign Materials: What          Posters
materials do we want the          Stickers
creative team to produce?         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.




                                                                                                                                           231
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.
v
 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-Machete-
Sheath/dp/B000LFXVW8
vi
      Note The Andrea dollar has parity with the US dollar




                                                                                                                                          232

								
To top