bravo: barrier removal assessment and viability overview

A tool for assessing the feasibility and impact potential of Rare project plans

BRAVO: Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview

GUAM WATERSHED CAMPAIGN-

Deer Bait & Hunter Training

Economics Technical Cultural/Political Impact & Metrics

BRAVO Scores

BRAVO: Executive Summary

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.

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).

Feasibility Score: 3.2

Impact Score: 3.1

Confidential

Copyright © 2008 Monitor Company Group, L.P. — Confidential — XXXCAS-COD-Prez-Date-CTL 3

Criteria Explanation Score

Co

sts

Preliminary projected costs

Acquisition of bait stations– Salt Licks ($4.99/ea)– Use local crops

- Other types of bait may be acquired as well.

Estimated total cost $4,999 (+shipping)

Predictability of cost burden

1 = Costs are ambiguous and unpredictable; 4 = Costs are predictable and manageable

Initial purchase of ready made bait stations is predictable. As concept catches on, programs could be developed with local farmers and local hunters to provide more sustainable and cost effective bait stations. It is not yet clear if this will occur, but if it does, funding does not need to be long term.

3

Average Score 3

Guam BRAVO Detail

Economics (1 of 2)

Confidential



Reven

ues

Description of revenue streams

Fundraising total: $ ?? Sources: Guam Coastal Management 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%

Funding is available through the Game Management sector ; additional funds can be acquired through GCMP grants.

3

Likelihood of fundraising success

1 = Very low likelihood of raising the necessary funds; 4 = Likelihood of raising necessary funds almost a certainty

If funds are available through existing projects, raising additional funds should not be needed. There are many partner agencies who would be able to assists in sourcing funding for this project.

4

Fundraising timing

Funds will be available by January 2010 (for implementation).

Funding Alignment

1 = Funding timeline is not aligned with project timeline; 4 = Funding timeline is well-aligned with project timeline

Funding should be available at the beginning of new grant periods (Fall 2009) and should fall in well with project timeline.

3

Sustainable Funding

1 = Unsustainable funding source; 4 = Very sustainable funding source

Funding is sustainable through the federal grants programs and can be reapplied for annually. 4

Average Score 3.5

Guam BRAVO Detail

Economics (2 of 2)

Confidential



Tech

no

log

y

Attainability &

Availability

1 = Technology and/or required assistance needed is unavailable; 4 = Technology is attainable and third-party assistance, if required, is available

Training for salt licks can be provided by local hunters/and or conservation officers. Tool is simple to use. 4

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 training should be able to sourced locally through hunting community. Websites for baiting stations provide a wealth of information.

4

Appropriate for circumstances

1 = Available technology is not appropriate for circumstances; 4 = Acquirable technology is suited for circumstances

Technology is simple and should be suitable for hunters to use easily. 4

Average Score 4

Guam BRAVO Detail

Technical (1 of 2)

Confidential



Cap

acity

/

Org

anizatio

nal A

bility

Barrier Removal Partner support

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

The Barrier Removal partners would be the Department of Agricultures Game Management Sector and Law Enforcement Division through providing funding and training for bait stations.

3

Barrier Removal Partner’s ability to drive change

1 = BR Partner lacks a track record of driving behavior; 4 = BR partner has a proven track record of driving behavior

Several community projects have been run through DAWR and the current managed hunting program on Anderson Airfoce base is a partnership with the department. However, current community view of department is not great, Rare campaign would be needed to build credibility.

2

Budget planning and cost efficient execution

1 = BR Partner has not demonstrated sufficient budget planning skills and cost efficient execution of plans; 4 = BR Partner has proven proficiency in budget planning and cost efficient execution of past plans

DAWR has executed many programs through completion. Through federal and local funding they have effectively managed budgets. The department is very short staffed, but this program does not require intensive long term staffing after initial training.

2

Average Score 2.3

Oth

er Partn

ers

Other critical partners

1 = Other partners do not exist or will not be impactful 4 = Other partners are available and capable of assistance

This project may involve other partners in the training and outreach components such as the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, The University of Guam extension program, The Guam Farmers Cooperative Association, and the Soil and Water Conservation Board. Many of these partners share overarching goals with the project and have expressed and interest in assisting as needed.

4

Average Score 4

Guam BRAVO Detail

Technical (2 of 2)

Confidential



Co

mm

un

ity Lead

ership

Leaders and influencers in the community

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

Village mayors have been engaged in preliminary meetings and are excited to begin reducing threats to water resources such as sediment. Some key village influencers have already been engaged in supporting the campaign goals, though there are many more to include such as the church, and local community groups.

3

Leadership willingness to endorse

1 = Unwilling to get on board with project; 4 = Firm commitment from leadership to help drive change efforts

Locally run groups such as Soil & Water Conservation and Mayors officers will be key in influencing other local leaders. One barrier that may arise is local native rights groups, but as this project seeks to assist with hunting through providing alternatives to burning, it is hoped that these groups will buy in. These groups will be engaged to participate in the planning and implementation.

3

Average Score 3

Guam BRAVO Detail

Cultural/Political (1 of 2)

Confidential



Po

litical En

viro

nm

en

t

Current legislative and legal landscape

1 = Legislative and legal restrictions will hamper efforts; 4 = Legislative and legal framework will aid program

The current legislative and legal landscape is slightly skewed with a negative connotation towards conservation efforts. However, with the support of community mayors, the church, and the general public, the legislature can be persuaded into supporting this project as they are driven by community input. There needs to be more education of this group as well so that they can make the right decisions with regards to natural resource management.

2

Ability to drive legislative change

1 = Lack of knowledge regarding political environment and unclear timeframe for advocacy; 4 = Depth of political knowledge and ability to push for appropriate changes within a given timeframe

Within the host agency there is a great depth of political knowledge and influence. The main driving force to drive legislation if needed will be community support. With the Pride campaign the community can be educated and encourage to vocally support the project, thus driving the legislature to support it as well.

3

Average Score 2.5

Valu

es and

No

rms

Assessment of norms

1 = Plan is unconcerned with political and cultural norms 4 = Plan assesses and takes into account the values and norms governing the political and cultural environment

Pride Campaign manager is completing a qualitative survey and will assess cultural and political norms with regards to hunting and wildland fire. An understanding of the norms will help to develop a strategic pride campaign. As deer meat is considered a delicacy and culturally important, this project should support local norms by assisting local hunters to find and catch deer in less destructive ways. A strong benefit of the alternative must be shown.

3

Ability to address normative obstacles

1 = Normative obstacles are too formidable to be overcome; 4 = Obstacles are manageable and a clear tack to address them is employed

Some feel that burning is a cultural practice, though this is not a widely held perception. The survey will provide more accurate information about hunting norms and the perceptions of wildland fires.

3

Average Score 3

Guam BRAVO Detail

Cultural/Political (2 of 2)

Confidential



Co

nservatio

n Im

pac

t

Likelihood of conservation impact

1 = Conservation impact is unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Conservation impact is very likely to be realized

By providing these bait stations, hunters will be provided with a less destructive method of finding deer which will eliminate the need for burning. This will decrease the number of poachers starting fires to find the deer which will protect the soil, vegetation, and the watershed.

By reducing the number of arson related fires, the vegetation will hold the soil in place, the amount of sedimentation will decrease. Sedimentation has been listed as the greatest threat to Guam’s coral reef ecosystem. As sediment is prevented and reduced and the turbidity around the reefs will decrease, and water quality improve and general reef health will be protected. This results will take longer than the duration of the project to see. Monitoring will have to be set up for long term, after the completion of the campaign. Proxy indicators such as the number of fires can be used to monitor intermediate progress while the watersheds recuperate.

3

Impact

sustainability

1 = The conservation impact goal is unlikely to be sustained in the long-term; 4 = The impact goal should be viable in the long-term

This project has the potential to be very successful in the long term. The goal is to assist hunters in finding deer more easily, without burning, through providing them with sustainable alternatives. Once the tools are proven to be effective at attracting deer, and the community is engaged preventing fires, they will become stewards of these areas. As the number of fires decline and even badland areas are revegetated the conservation results will only become better over the long term,

4

Average Score 3.5

Guam BRAVO Detail

Impact and Metrics (1 of 2)

Confidential



Tip

pin

g P

oin

ts

1st Tipping Point 1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached

The first tipping point consists of decreasing the number of fires. This is very likely to be achieved by providing an easy to use alternative. It will take time, but as the bait tools prove effective at attracting deer, the number of poaching incidences will decline. The metric will be the number of fires reported and the acreage burned.

3

2nd Tipping Point

1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached

The second tipping point is the reduction in the amount of sediment running of the upland areas into the rivers and then out to adjacent reefs. This tipping point should be reduced over time by increasing the amount of vegetation in upland areas, and reducing the number of fires. The metric used to measure the amount of sedimentation will be turbidity measurements taken and several sites in the southern watersheds before, during, and after the campaign, and monitored for years afterwards.

3

3rd Tipping Point

1 = Tipping point unlikely to be achieved; 4 = Tipping point likely to be reached

The third tipping point will be improving the coral cover and diversity in the adjacent reefs monitoring areas. The metric used will be coral cover measurements taken by the National Park Service studies. This result will take the longest to achieve and will not be measureable until several years after a reduction in the amount of burning occurs.

2

Average Score 2.7

Metric

s

Measurable outcomes

1 = The program lacks clear metrics or are difficult to measure; 4 = The program has established clear, measureable metrics

The measurable outcomes would be very clear. Not only the above mentioned metrics, but also community involvement, number of hunters who stop using arson, and changes in attitudes towards watersheds and the detrimental effects of fires. This program would be one component of the successful reduction in the number of fires.

3

Average Score 3

GUAM BRAVO Detail

Impact and Metrics (2 of 2)

Confidential


Category Subcategory ScoreAverage

Category ScoreFeasib

ility

Economics

Costs 3

3.3 Revenues 3.5

Income Substitution N/A

Technical

Technology 4

3.4 Capacity / Organizational Ability 2.3

Other Partners 4

Cultural / Political

Community Leadership 3

2.8 Political Environment 2.5

Cultural Norms 3

Feasibility Score 3.2Imp

act

Impact and Metrics

Conservation Impact 3.5

3.1 Tipping Points 2.7

Metrics 3

Impact Score 3.1

Barrier Removal Assessment and Viability Overview (BRAVO)

Composite Score

Confidential


GUAM BRAVO Detail

Risk Factors

Risk Factors Consequence Mitigation Strategies

• There is the possibility that the partner agencies will not have the capacity or funding to fully support the project. •Current director is not very supportive of GCMP projects. He may make the process difficult.•Conservation officers may feel that bait stations will increase poaching occurrences (non fire related_

Funding shortages will result in not getting the bait stations

Lack of staffing to assist may hinder the training and implementation of project.

Officers may not support the project .

GCMP can source funding if needed while a more sustainable partner is found. Also, Rare pressure may help push Ag to assist.

MOUs must be developed with DoAg to make sure they are held accountable

It will be important to take ideas of CO’s into planning process and ensure them that the benefits will be great.

• There may be disagreement with hunters as to whether or not bait stations are “fair” as they provide an advantage; other hunters may worry they will “take all of the deer”

This may cause lack of trust with hunters and the project designed to support them. Without their support the project will be very difficult to implement.

This could also affect the community support for the strategy.

Many facilitated discussions need to occur between various hunting groups and CM, Cos, and they need to see the benefit outweighing the cost (less fires).

Hunters must be engaged in the project and their ideas, concerns and needs also taken into consideration, keeping the exact methods adaptive.

Education of the hunters and general public needs to show that deer populations are sustainable, even with more effective hunting tools.

• Communities may not see the value providing this alternative to the “lazy hunters” and may resent making it so easy to kill the deer.

Lack of support in the BR strategy could affect the entire watershed campaign, making it difficult to engage them in the activities.

The supplemental Pride social marketing campaign and strong education need to happen throughout the project to explain the value of providing an alternative (and the detriment of the fires)

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

Confidential


GUAM BRAVO Detail

Authors and approvals

Elaina Todd Guam Coastal Management Program, Campaign Manager

Evangeline Lujan Guam Coastal Management Program, Administrator

Joe Torres

Celestino Aguon

Department of Agriculture

Guam Game Management Section

Approved by:

bravo: barrier removal assessment and viability overview

Documents

types of bait

effective bait stations

local hunters

local sustainable sources

local farmers

needed stations

guam bravo detaileconomics

use of baiting stations