final marina friut bat management plan 8 08 src · final mariana fruit bat management plan andersen...

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

36 WG 36th Wing

AFB Air Force Base

AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

BRD United States Geological Service, Biological Resources Discipline

BTS Brown treesnake oC degrees Celsius

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

DAWR Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources

DoD Department of Defense

e²M engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ESQD Explosive Safety Quantity Distance

g grams

ha hectares

INRMP Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan

ISR/Strike Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike capability Project on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

km kilometers

kph kilometers per hour

m meters

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSA Munitions Storage Area

mm millimeters

Guam NWR Guam National Wildlife Refuge

NWRC United States Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center

P. mariannus Pteropus mariannus mariannus

Plan Mariana Fruit Bat Management Plan

REPI Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

sq square

SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

USAF United States Air Force

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

FINAL

MARIANA FRUIT BAT (Pteropus mariannus mariannus)

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

Prepared for

Andersen Air Force Base

36 CES Environmental Flight 18001 Arc Light Boulevard Andersen AFB, GU 96929

and

Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

HQ AFCEE/IWPH 25 E Street, Suite E-317

Hickam AFB, HI 96853-5330

Prepared by

engineering-environmental Management, Inc. 9449 Balboa Avenue, Suite 111

San Diego, California 92123

Contract No.: F41624-03-D-8599, Task Order 0081

Project No.: AJJY 62-1849 e2M Project No.: 3100-081

August 2008

Final Mariana Fruit Bat Management Plan

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 2008 ES-1

Executive Summary Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) contracted engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e2M) to prepare a Mariana Fruit Bat (Fanihi; Pteropus mariannus mariannus) Management Plan (Plan) for Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam. The Plan was deemed necessary to evaluate the efficiency of current management practices and protocols and assess threats to the species and habitat. Overall, the purpose of the Plan is to act as a management tool to assist Federal resource managers in planning fanihi protection measures.

The Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), has monitored fanihi populations for the past 45 years. Quantitative population estimates on Guam range from 3,000 in 1957 to fewer than 50 in 1978. Guam’s fanihi population has been in decline since before population monitoring first began in the early 1960s. Sporadic immigration from islands north of Guam, and the relative security afforded by Andersen AFB have warded off extirpation. Today, the Guam fanihi population is approaching the all-time low with fewer than 100 individuals.

Fanihi throughout the Mariana Archipelago are threatened by illegal hunting and the loss and alteration of habitat by growing human and feral ungulate populations. On Guam, predation by introduced brown treesnakes (Boiga irregularis) (BTSs) may also pose a significant problem.

Northern Guam has long supported the majority of fanihi remaining on the island; 22 different colony roost sites have been observed along the northern cliff line of Andersen AFB since 1981. Undeveloped forest on Andersen AFB makes up one of the largest remaining contiguous forest areas on Guam and is an essential foraging and roosting resource for fanihi.

Andersen AFB has assisted in the protection of fanihi by limiting illegal hunter access to vulnerable colony roosting areas through regular security patrols. Fanihi have also benefited from Andersen AFB’s continued support of research into BTS control in pursuit of the long-term goal of eliminating BTSs. However, the persistence of high-density ungulate populations on Andersen AFB continues to degrade the important foraging and roosting resources necessary for the long-term survival of fanihi on Guam. In addition, hunters and poachers pursuing deer or pigs may opportunistically take solitary fanihi.

Land use needs brought about by the changing military mission of Andersen AFB have resulted in the recent clearing of significant areas of fanihi habitat, increasing the value of the remaining habitat and placing an added importance on restoring habitat quality. The management goals and strategies presented in this Plan are designed to increase the quality of fanihi roosting and foraging habitat by limiting human disturbance in critical habitat areas; restoring the density and diversity of fanihi foraging and roosting resources by reducing or removing high-density ungulate populations, and continuing to support research into BTS control. Successful implementation of this Plan would improve the habitat to support growth of the fanihi population, thereby aiding in the recovery of the species and providing a relatively safe environment for fanihi from islands north of Guam during periods of environmental disturbance (e.g. typhoons and volcanic activity) and increased hunting pressure. Educational programs are recommended as a way for Base personnel to understand the need for conservation programs such as the ones suggested by this Plan. Additional management opportunities that should aid fanihi as a species in the Mariana Archipelago are suggested.


Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 2008 ES-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 2008 i

FINAL MARIANA FRUIT BAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................... INSIDE FRONT COVER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Installation Location and Setting ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.5 Installation Mission ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.6 Species Description ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.7 Taxonomy and Distribution .................................................................................................... 1-8 1.8 Legal Status ............................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.9 Historic Population Status and Trends ................................................................................... 1-9

1.9.1 Guam ....................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.9.2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .................................................... 1-9

1.10 Current Use of Andersen Air Force Base ............................................................................. 1-10 1.10.1 Roosting ................................................................................................................. 1-10 1.10.2 Foraging ................................................................................................................. 1-17 1.10.3 Predators ................................................................................................................ 1-19

2. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND AGREEMENTS ........................................................................ 2-1

3. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 3-1

4. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 5-1

APPENDICES

A – Federal Register Mariana Fruit Bat Threatened Status B – Federal Register Mariana Fruit Bat Critical Habitat Designation C – Guam NWR Andersen AFB Overlay MOU and Cooperative Agreement


Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 2008 ii

FIGURES 1-1. Mariana Archipelago ......................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2. Location of Andersen AFB on Guam ................................................................................................ 1-3 1-3. Andersen AFB Existing Vegetation .................................................................................................. 1-5 1-4. Fanihi Counts on Guam, 1984 – 2006. ............................................................................................ 1-10 1-5. Fanihi Roosting Habitat Along Cliff Line on Andersen AFB (Photo by Dan Savercool) ............... 1-12 1-6. Bat Observation Map from Janeke (2006b) and D. Janeke pers. obs. ............................................. 1-14 1-7. Fanihi Foraging Habitat on Andersen AFB and Areas of Development Since 2000 that have

Required Removal of Fanihi Foraging and Roosting Habitat ........................................................ 1-15 2-1. Guam NWR and the Overlay Refuge on Andersen AFB and Fanihi Foraging Areas....................... 2-2 3-1. Areas of Fanihi Roosting Habitat ...................................................................................................... 3-7 3-2. Ungulate Management Priority Areas ............................................................................................... 3-8

TABLES 1-1. Trees and Shrubs Commonly Associated with the Current Limestone Forest Cover Types on

Andersen AFB, Guam ...................................................................................................................... 1-6 1-2. Fanihi counts (minimum population estimates) in the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands (CNMI) .................................................................................................................. 1-11 1-3. Known Food Plants of Fanihi in the Mariana Archipelago ............................................................. 1-17 3-1. Management Goals and Rationale ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3-2. Management Priorities and Implementation Strategies ..................................................................... 3-9


Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 2008 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan

The Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) contracted engineering-environmental Management (e2M) under contract number F41624-03-D-8599-0081 to prepare a Mariana Fruit Bat (Fanihi; Pteropus mariannus mariannus) Management Plan (Plan) for Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam, in the Mariana Archipelago. The Plan was deemed necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the current management practices and protocols established for managing fanihi on Andersen AFB, assess threats to the species and habitat, and provide management goals and recommendations. This Plan is intended to provide natural resources managers on Andersen AFB with a comprehensive document identifying specific management strategies for protection of the species and habitat within the context of the military mission. Development of this Plan was proposed in the 2003 Andersen AFB Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) as a Natural Resources Project with Class 1 funding priority (Andersen AFB 2003). This National Resources Project will be included as a component plan to the 2007 Andersen AFB INRMP. Management recommendations in this Plan are based on recovery objectives applicable to Andersen AFB as proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guam Mariana Fruit Bat and Little Mariana Fruit Bat Recovery Plan (1990), and are consistent with recovery objectives proposed for the revised Mariana Fruit Bat Recovery plan due in 2008.

1.2 Installation Location and Setting

Guam is the largest and southernmost of the 15 islands that make up the Mariana Archipelago (see Figure 1-1). Located in the Western Pacific between 13° 15’ and 13° 40’ N latitude and 144° 30’ and 144° 57’ E longitude, it is approximately 1,931 km east of the Philippine Archipelago and 5,632 km west of the Hawaiian Islands (see Figure 1-2). Guam is an organized unincorporated territory of the United States and the remaining 14 islands of the archipelago constitute the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

The Mariana Archipelago is volcanic in origin with the northern arc (Anatahan north to Farallon de Pajaros) made up of younger, somewhat active volcanoes, and the older southern arc (Guam north to Farallon de Medinilla) consisting of elevated coral limestone covering old weathered volcanic material (Fosberg 1960). Guam can be divided geologically into a mostly flat northern half composed primarily of elevated coral limestone, and rolling hills in the southern half of mostly weathered volcanic rock. An argillaceous mixture of volcanic soils and limestone material can be found where the northern and southern halves meet (Fosberg 1960).

Guam is approximately 45 km long and up to 13 km wide and covers 541 sq km. Andersen AFB occupies the majority of the northern end of the island of Guam (see Figure 1-2). The entire installation is approximately 64 sq km or 6,258 hectares (ha). Any non-contiguous properties held by the United States Air Force (USAF) on Guam are not included in the installation size above.

1.3 Climate

The climate of Guam is characterized as tropical marine with an annual mean high temperature of 30oC and an annual mean low temperature of 24oC with little variation in temperature between seasons (Western Regional Climate Center 2005). Average annual precipitation is 2,249 millimeters (mm) with the majority of rain falling in the wet season months of July to October. Less rain and stronger winds typically occur during the dry season, January to April. The intervening months are transitional and may

North

west F

ield,

Ander

sen AF

B


Figur

e 1-1.

Mar

iana A

rchipe

lago

Andersen Air Force Base, Guam August 20081-2

China

Austr

alia

Mong

olia

India

Thail

and

Indon

esia

Russ

ia

Laos

Japa

n

Vietna

m

Myan

mar

Malay

sia

Papu

a New

Guin

ea

Camb

odia

North

Kor

ea

Philip

pines

South

Kor

ea

Taiw

an

Brun

ei

Singa

pore

Pacif

ic Isl

ands

(Pala

u)

Chris

tmas

Islan

d

Guam

Maria

na A

rchip

elago

050

100

150

200

250

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean

Pacif

ic Oc

eanPa

jaros Ma

ug Asun

cion

Agrih

an

Paga

n

Alam

agan

Guga

un

Sarig

anAn

ataha

n

Medin

illa

Saipa

nTin

ianAq

uijan Ro

ta

Guam

Pacific Ocean



Figure 1-2. Location of Andersen AFB on Guam

Scale

Andersen AFBGuam

0 3 6Kilometers

Northwest Field,Andersen AFB Andersen AFB

Andersen MainAirfield



be wetter or drier depending on regional climate cycles (Stone 1970, Western Regional Climate Center 2005). Tropical weather systems occur frequently in the Western Pacific and can rapidly escalate to typhoon strength with winds in excess of 119 kph. Typhoons can strike Guam during any month of the year, but the probability of tropical weather system formation in the Western Pacific is greatest between May and November (United States Naval Maritime Forecast Center/Joint Typhoon Warning Center 2005).

1.4 Vegetation

Prior to human occupation, the vegetation on Andersen AFB was limestone forest, but centuries of anthropogenic influences, including military, urban, and agricultural development, World War II, and the introduction of invasive plants and animals, combined with natural events like typhoons, have altered the original forest composition. It is unlikely that any forest resembling pre-human contact composition remains on Andersen AFB, and only scattered patches of the forest types described by Fosberg (1960) remain. Due to the extent of military development, current forest condition, and the lack of more comprehensive baseline vegetation analysis in the past, the term “primary limestone forest” has been used to identify areas of indigenous forest which have never been cleared for development, and “secondary limestone forest” to identify areas which were once cleared and are currently regenerating (Quintana 1994). A comprehensive survey of vegetation occurring on Andersen AFB was conducted in 2007 and 2008 (e2M 2008). Based on the survey, primary limestone forest has been subdivided into mixed limestone forest-plateau/primary, mixed limestone forest-toe slope/primary, and mixed limestone forest-fore slope. The secondary limestone forest is classified as mixed limestone forest-plateau/secondary and mixed limestone forest-toe slope (see Figure 1-3). Primary and secondary limestone forests cover types contain many of the same species (see Table 1-1) and differ primarily in the more open, discontinuous canopy and shorter stature of secondary forest.

In addition to limestone forest, the remains of old coconut (Cocos nucifera) plantations form forests covering large areas of Tarague Basin (see Figure 1-3). Strand vegetation consisting of forestrand/sand, strand/rock, backstrand/sand, and backstrand/rock is also found along the shoreline. Vegetation associated with strand habitats is described by Fosberg (1960).

1.5 Installation Mission

The 36th Wing (36 WG) is the host unit at Andersen AFB. The major tenants units include the 734th Air Mobility Support Squadron, Navy Helicopter Combat Support Squadron 25, 750th Space Group, and the Guam Air National Guard. The primary mission of the 36 WG is to provide a United States-based war fighting platform for the deployment, reception, and throughput of air and space forces in the Asia-Pacific region. The 36 WG maintains manpower infrastructure to provide support for tactical and strategic peacetime, contingency, and wartime deployment and employment operations, strategic airlifts, transient support, and staging operations. Guam serves as a stopping point for numerous aircraft enroute to Japan, Korea, and other Asian locations.

1.6 Species Description

Pteropus mariannus mariannus Desmarest, or “fanihi” as it is known in the native Chamorro language, is a medium sized member of the genus Pteropus (Family Pteorpodidae), or Old World flying foxes. Forearm lengths for adults and subadults are reported to range from 134 to 154 mm and a wingspan of 860 to 1065 mm, and body mass ranges from 330 to 577 grams (g) with males slightly larger than females (Andersen 1912, Perez 1972, Wiles 1985 cited by USFWS 1990, Janeke 2006b). Wings and body are dark brown to black in color with occasional silver hairs scattered on the body (Andersen 1912). The

Ande

rsen A

FBVe

getat

ion C

ommu

nities

B/R, B

acks

trand

/Roc

k

B/S, B

acks

trand

/Sand

CF, C

asua

rina F

ores

t

CP, C

ocon

ut

D, De

velop

ed La

nd

EF, E

ugen

ia Fo

rest

HL, H

ibisc

us - L

auca

ena

HL, H

ibisc

us-Le

ucae

na Sh

rub

HOS,

Hibis

cus -

Och

rosia

Scru

b

HSC,

Hibis

cus S

crub C

ommu

nity -

Plate

au

MHS,

Mixe

d Herb

aceo

us Sc

rub

MLF-F

S, Mi

xed L

imes

tone F

orest

- For

eslop

e

MLF-P

(P), M

ixed L

imes

tone F

orest

Prim

ary

MLF-P

(S), M

ixed L

imes

tone F

orest

Seco

ndary

MLF-T

S(P)

, Mixe

d Lim

eston

e For

est -

Toe S

lope -

Prim

ary

MLF-T

S, Mi

xed L

imes

tone F

orest

- Toe

Slop

e

MSC,

Mixe

d Shr

ub C

ommu

nity

NF, N

eisos

perm

a For

est

OE, O

chro

sia Ed

ge

S/R, S

trand

/Roc

k

S/S, F

orestr

and/S

and

VC, V

itex -

Clos

ed C

anop

y

VO, V

itex -

Ope

n Can

opy

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB


Figur

e 1-3.

And

ersen

AFB E

xistin

g Veg

etatio

n


Ande

rsen A

FB



Table 1-1. Trees and Shrubs Commonly Associated with the Current Limestone Forest Cover Types on Andersen AFB, Guam

Species Status Growth Form Primary Growth Limestone Forest

Cover Types

Secondary Growth Limestone Forest

Cover Types

*Aglaia mariannensis Merr. Native Small to Medium Tree (7-8 m) X X *Artocarpus mariannensis Trec. Native Medium to Large Tree (to 20 m) X X *Cestrum diurnum L. Introduced Shrub (3-4 m) X X Cordia subcordata Lam. Native Small to Medium Tree (5-7 m) X *Cycas micronesica K. D. Hill Native Small Tree (5 m) X X *Cynometra ramiflora L Native Small to Medium Tree (8-15 m) X *Elaeocarpus joga Merr. Native Large Tree (15-16 m) X X Eugenia palumbis Merr. Native Shrub (2-3 m) X X Eugenia reinwardtiana (Bl.) DC. Native Small to Medium Tree (3-8 m) X X Eugenia thompsonii Merr. Native Small Tree (5-6 m) X X *Ficus prolixa Forst. f. Native Medium to Large Tree (15-20 m) X X *Ficus microcarpa L.f. Native Medium to Large Tree (15-20 m) X X *Ficus tinctoria var. neo-ebudarum (Summerh) Fosb. Native Medium Tree (8 m) X X

Guamia mariannae (Saff.) Merr. Native Small Tree (5-7 m) X X *Guettarda speciosa L. Native Small Tree (4- 6 m) X Hibiscus tiliaceous L. Native Small to Medium Tree (6-8 m) X X Intsia bijuga (Colebr.) Ktze. Native Medium to Large Tree (to 25 m) X X Ixora triantha Volk. Native Shrub or Small Tree (3-5 m) X X Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit. Introduced Small Tree (8-10 m) X Macaranga thompsonii Merr. Native Small to Medium Tree (5-12 m) X X Maytenus thompsonii (Merr.) Fosb. Native Small Tree (3 m) X X *Mammea odorata (Raf.) Kosterm. Native Medium Tree (5-10 m) X



Table 1-1. Trees and Shrubs Commonly Associated with the Current Limestone Forest on Andersen AFB, Guam (continued)

Species Status Growth Form Primary Growth Limestone Forest

Secondary Growth Limestone Forest

Melanolepis multiglandulosa var. glabrata (Muell.-Arg.) Fosb. Native Small to Medium Tree (4-7 m) X X

Morinda citrifolia L. Native Small Tree (4-5 m) X X *Neisosperma oppositifolia (Lam) Fosb. & Sachet Native Medium Tree (to 15 m) X X

*Ochrosia mariannensis A. DC. Native Small to Medium Tree (6-8 m) X X *Pandanus tectorius Sol. ex Park. Native Small to Medium Tree (5-10 m) X X Pandanus dubius Sprengel Native Small Tree (5-8 m) X *Pipturus argenteus (Forst. f.) Wedd. Native Small Tree (5-6 m) X X Pisonia grandis R. Br. Native Large Tree (10-15 m) X X *Premna serratifolia L. Native Small to Medium Tree (to 10 m) X X Psychotria mariana Bartl. ex DC. Native Small Tree (to 10 m) X X Triphasia trifolia (Burm. f.) P. Wils. Introduced Shrub/Tree (2-6 m) X X *Tristiropsis obtusangula Radlk. Native Large Tree (15-18 m) X X Vitex parviflora Juss. Introduced Medium Tree (10-15 m) X Wikstroemia elliptica Merr. Native Shrub (1-4 m) X X Sources: Quintana 1994, D. Janeke pers. obs. Note: * Known food plants of fanihi (Wiles & Fujita 1992)



mantle and sides of the neck are gold in color, and can range from bright to pale gold or even brown. The neck coloration may continue to the foreneck region in some individuals forming a complete collar, and can also extend onto the head and face (Andersen 1912, D. Janeke pers. obs.).

1.7 Taxonomy and Distribution

Various authors have treated P. mariannus in the Western Pacific as a complex of as many as seven subspecies, ranging from the Ryukyu islands of southern Japan south through the Mariana Archipelago to Palau, and east through the Caroline Islands to Kosrae (Yamashina 1932, Kuroda 1938, Honacki et al. 1982, Corbet and Hill 1991). Additional authors elevate the subspecies outside the Mariana Archipelago to specific status (Andersen 1912, Corbet and Hill 1980), or include some island populations from the Western Carolines and southern Japanese islands together with the Mariana Archipelago as P. mariannus, and elevate the remaining subspecies (Nowak 1994, Flannery 1995). A second subspecies has been reported from the Mariana Archipelago; however, the validity of P. mariannus paganensis, described by Yamashina (1932) from the islands of Alamagan and Pagan, has been questioned (Wiles and Glass 1990). This management plan recognizes the taxonomy currently accepted by the USFWS of a single subspecies, P. m. mariannus, occurring from Guam north to the island of Maug in the CNMI (USFWS 2005). For ease of reading, this taxon is hereafter referred to as fanihi.

1.8 Legal Status

The introduction of firearms and unlimited shooting were likely responsible for the initial decline of fanihi on Guam (Coultas 1931, Woodside 1958, Perez 1972, Wheeler and Aguon 1978). Much of the remaining fanihi population on Guam has found relative safety on military bases where limited development over the last 50 years has protected forested areas, and military security patrols have somewhat limited illegal hunting (Woodside 1958, Wiles 1987b). Population surveys initiated in 1962 by the Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) indicated a declining trend in the fanihi population on Guam, particularly in the Fena Reservoir area of southern Guam. Hunting and habitat loss were suspected as the cause of the decline (Perez 1972). The waning population prompted the removal of fanihi from the list of unprotected wildlife in 1965 (Guam Public Law 8-43), and its subsequent management as a game species in 1966 in an attempt to control hunting pressure (Guerrero 1966). Game management for this species over the next seven years progressively reduced the length of hunting seasons and bag limits as fanihi populations continued to drop. All hunting was finally prohibited in 1973 (A.W.R 1974-1977 cited in Wheeler and Aguon 1978). In 1981, fanihi were placed on Guam’s territorial Endangered Species list (Wiles 1982a), and in 1984 the Guam population was added to the Federal Endangered Species list as an endangered species (USFWS 1984).

In 1991, the USFWS proposed a rule to designate critical habitat for six endangered species on Guam, including the fanihi (USFWS 1991). The proposed rule was withdrawn in 1994 after the inclusion of most of the proposed critical habitat lands into the Guam National Wildlife Refuge (Guam NWR), and the USFWS determined that no additional benefit would be realized from a critical habitat designation (USFWS 1994). In 2000, the Marianas Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the USFWS’s 1994 withdrawal of critical habitat. As a result, the USFWS set a June 2003 deadline to determine prudency and set critical habitat for the six original species, including the fanihi. In October 2002, the USFWS proposed a rule designating 10,037 ha of critical habitat for fanihi (USFWS 2002). In October 2004, the USFWS published a final rule designating 152 ha of critical habitat on the Guam NWR (USFWS 2004). Guam NWR overlay lands on Andersen AFB were exempted from critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act as amended by Section 318 of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2004 (U. S. Public Law 108-136). Section 318 of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act permits the Secretary of the Interior to exempt Department of



Defense (DoD) lands from the designation of critical habitat provided that an approved INRMP that specifically addresses the listed species is implemented. The 2003 Andersen AFB INRMP contained management objectives and implementation strategies for listed and proposed species, including the fanihi. Management goals included continued protection for fanihi habitat, the restoration of two fanihi colonies of 500 animals each, and eventual downlisting of the species to threatened status (Andersen AFB 2003).

In 2005, the USFWS reclassified fanihi in the Mariana Archipelago, combining the Guam population with previously unlisted island populations in the CNMI, as a single threatened subspecies (Pteropus mariannus mariannus) (USFWS 2005). The Federally listed status of the fanihi necessitates consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act between Andersen AFB and the USFWS whenever a proposed action has the potential to impact fanihi or their habitat.

1.9 Historic Population Status and Trends

1.9.1 Guam

Little is known about fanihi populations before the 1900s when forests were healthier and more expansive, and the human population was much lower (Lujan 1992). The earliest reports regarding Guam’s fanihi population date from before World War II, and are limited to subjective generalizations of “not an uncommon sight” in 1921 (Crampton), leading to “not common” a decade later (Coultas 1931). The first quantitative estimate of the Guam population was made in 1957 when a visiting USFWS biologist estimated there to be no more than 3,000 fanihi (Woodside 1958). Fewer than 1,000 fanihi remained by 1972 (Drahos, unpublished report cited in Wiles 1987b). An intensive island-wide search in 1978 resulted in an estimate of fewer than 50 fanihi on Guam. Between 1980 and 1982, Guam’s fanihi population increased to 850-1,000 animals, likely due to immigration of fruit bats from the island of Rota, 60 km to the north of Guam (Wiles 1987b). Movements of fanihi between islands in the Mariana Archipelago were likely more frequent in the past when fanihi populations were greater. Movements probably resulted from overpopulation, dispersal of young, changes in seasonal food supplies or large-scale environmental disturbances such as typhoons or volcanic eruptions (Wiles and Glass 1990). The large influx of bats to Guam in the early 1980s, however, was likely the result of hunting pressure on Rota (Wiles 1987b). After the short period of fanihi population increase, the population resumed a steady decline, punctuated by sporadic immigration events that caused temporary spikes in the overall trend (see Figure 1-4). Today, fewer than 100 fanihi remain on Guam, most of which reside in a single colony on Andersen AFB.

1.9.2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Less is known of the historic fanihi populations on the islands north of Guam in the CNMI. The first survey of fanihi in the CNMI was conducted on the island of Rota in 1977 by biologists from DAWR and found only one colony of 100-150 animals (Wheeler 1979). Fanihi surveys in 1979 on the islands of Rota, Tinian and Saipan estimated 200-400 animals on Rota, 25 on Tinian, but no fanihi were observed on Saipan. In 1983 an expedition was launched to census all 15 islands in the Mariana Archipelago. Two survey trips between 1983 and 1984 resulted in an estimated population of 8,700-9,000 fanihi in the entire archipelago, with 475-500 estimated from Guam (Wiles et al. 1989). Glass and Taisacan (1988) report an estimated 10,915-11,510 fanihi in the CNMI based on several surveys and incidental data gathered between 1983 and 1987. A survey of 13 islands in the Mariana Archipelago in 2001 (Farallon de Medinilla and Farallon de Pajaros [aka Uracas] were not surveyed) yielded an estimated population of 7,125-7,675 with only 150-200 estimated from Guam (Johnson 2001). Following a severe typhoon in 2002, the fruit bat population on Rota declined by 70%, from 1,167 animals in 2002 to 345 in 2003 (Esselstyn et al. 2006). A temporary increase of 100 bats was noted during the same time at the Pati Point



colony on Guam (Esselstyn et al. 2006). In May 2003, the island of Anatahan in the CNMI experienced a major volcanic eruption. Anatahan supported 3,000 fanihi in 1983, and 1,000 fanihi in 2001 (Wiles et al. 1989, Johnson 2001). Continued volcanic activity has covered the island with ash deposits and

Figure 1-4. Fanihi Counts on Guam, 1984 – 2006. Red line indicates the point at which fanihi used only one colony at Pati Point (modified from Janeke 2006a).

decimated the vegetation (Kessler 2006). Known fanihi roost sites have been destroyed and the fate of the resident bats is unknown, only a few individuals have been observed recently (Kessler 2006). No sizable increases of fanihi have been recorded on Sarigan to the north or Saipan to the south (Kessler 2006). Fanihi population survey data from the CNMI are summarized in Table 1-2.

1.10 Current Use of Andersen Air Force Base

1.10.1 Roosting

Fanihi colonies have been recorded roosting in 21 separate locations along the northern cliff lines of Andersen AFB since 1981 (Wiles 1987c, Wiles 1990). All roost sites were located in primary growth limestone forest cover types within 100 m of a cliff line (USFWS 1990) (see Figure 1-5). Mature Ficus spp. (nunu) and Mammea odorata (chopak) trees appear to be preferred roosting species, but Casuarina equisetifolia (gagu), Macaranga thompsonii (pengua), Guettarda speciosa (panao) and Neisosperma oppositifolia (fagot) are also used (Wiles 1981, Wiles 1982b, Wiles 1983). A review of DAWR annual count records indicates that the current Pati Point roost is the only site known to have been occupied by a colony since 1994 (DAWR 1994-2006). While colonial roosting is typical for this species, it is known that a portion of the population will roost solitarily or in small groups (Wheeler 1979, Wiles et al. 1989, Johnson 2001, Janeke 2006b). On Andersen AFB, individuals and small groups have been observed roosting in both primary and secondary growth limestone forest cover types (Janeke 2006b). In addition to previously mentioned species, Premna serratifolia (ahgao), Cocos nucifera (niyog), Aglaia



Table 1-2. Fanihi counts (minimum population estimates) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)

Count year and reference

Island 1979

(Wheeler 1980)

1983-1984

(Wiles et al. 1989)

1983 (Anonymous

1984)

1986-1987 (Glass

and Taisacan

1988)

1991 (Rice and Taisacan

1993)

1995 (Marshall et al.1995)

1995 (Worthington and Taisacan)

2000 (Johnson

2001)

2001 Johnson

2001)

2002 Esselstyn

et al. 2006)

2003 Esselstyn

et al. 2006)

Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas)

0 0 0#**

Maug 0 - 25-50 50 Asuncion 394 400 500 800 Agrihan 517 1,000 1,500** 1,000 1,000 Pagan 1,339 1,249 2,500** 1,500 1,500 Alamagan 0 0 0# 200 100 Guguan 150 350 400 350 550 Sarigan 213 150 150# 200 400

Anatahan 1,204 974 3,500* 1,792-2,043 1,000 1,000

Farallon de Medinilla

0 - 0

Saipan 0 0 100 for all

three islands

100-200 25-75 50 Tinian 25 6 <50 25-75 25 Aguijan 3 40-60 100-125 150-200

Rota 200-400 600-1,000 2,000 2,200-

2,600 1,324 982 1,500-2,000

993-1,341 237-453

Notes: # (Payne 1984 cited in Glass and Taisacan 1988) * CNMI Department of Fish and Game 1983 progress report data reported by Glass and Taisacan (1988). ** (Lemke 1983 cited in Glass and Taisacan 1988).



Figure 1-5. Fanihi Roosting Habitat Along Cliff Line (Photo by Dan Savercool) mariannensis (mapunyao), Elaeocarpus joga (yoga) and Vitex parviflora are also used by individuals and small groups (Janeke pers. obs.). Recent studies suggest that solitary animals are faithful to a particular day roost area, and individuals who typically roost in a colony may on occasion roost solitarily away from the colony (Janeke 2006b).

The gregarious nature of fanihi has made them particularly vulnerable to hunting when they roost as large colonies (Perez 1972, Wiles 1987a, Wiles 1987b). Bunched close together, several animals can be killed by a hunter with a single shotgun shell. Hunters have reported that 50 or more fanihi can be killed in a single successful raid on a roost (Wiles 1987b). Hunting fanihi at colony roosts has become less common as fanihi numbers decline and the number of colony roosts has decreased to one. The last confirmed instance of fanihi hunting at a colony occurred in July, 1991 in the Pati Point area on Andersen AFB, and led to the temporary abandonment of the roost site (Wiles 1991). Currently, the primary hunting threat to roosting fanihi likely occurs when a hunter, out hunting coconut crabs (Birgus latro), Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus) or feral pigs (Sus scrofa), encounters a solitary roosting fanihi (Wheeler and Aguon 1978, Wiles 1987b, Janeke 2006b).

Human activity in the forest has been known to disturb roosting fanihi and has caused the abandonment of colony roost sites. Wiles (1987c) reported that a lost deer hunter wandered into the area of a fanihi colony on Pati Point during a special deer hunt, causing the abandonment of the roost. Wiles (1989) relates another incident where human scent, carried to the colony by shifting winds during biological



observations also caused the roost to be disturbed. Half the colony abandoned the roost immediately, and the remainder abandoned the site within a week. Fanihi sensitivity to human activity is likely a response to former heavy hunting pressure at colony roost sites. In areas where other species of flying foxes are not persecuted at their day roosts, they are remarkably tolerant of human activities and can be found roosting in botanical gardens in downtown Sydney and Melbourne, Australia (Tidemann and Vardon 1997).

Solitary fanihi may be more tolerant of human activities in the forest, but will still take flight if approached too close (Janeke 2006b). Solitary roosting fanihi may seek out day roost areas where human activity in the forest is limited. Two non-colony-roosting male fanihi were known to day-roost in areas designated by Andersen AFB as Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) arcs, where high levels of security reduce the potential for human activities in the forest (Janeke 2006b). These day-roost areas continued to be used despite pipeline construction in 2005 near one ESQD area, and regular small arms range and Explosive Ordnance Disposal exercises near the other ESQD area (Janeke 2006b). Noise associated with Andersen AFB activities in these ESQD areas might have been tolerated because human foot traffic in the forest and around roosting trees remained limited to nonexistent. Additional fanihi, male and female, have been observed day-roosting in ESQD areas (D. Janeke pers. obs.).

Fanihi appear to prefer roosting in rough cliff line areas that may give a measure of protection from hunters (Wheeler and Aguon 1978) (see Figure 1-5). Similar colony roost site selection preferences have been suggested for other Pacific Island flying fox species that have experienced hunting pressure at colony roost sites (Wiles et al. 1997, Brooke et al. 2000). Solitary roosting fanihi can be found more widely distributed across the primary and secondary limestone forest cover types of Andersen AFB (see Figure 1-6). Development in these areas has remained relatively limited over the past 50 years (Wiles 1987b), but recent and proposed development on Andersen AFB, including the Cargo Drop Zone (FONSI signed in 2001), 73 ha; the beddown of training and support initiatives at Northwest Field (ROD signed in 2006), 47 ha; and the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike capability at Andersen AFB (ISR/Strike) (ROD signed in 2006), 58 ha, have already cleared, or are proposed to clear, areas of potential solitary fanihi roosting habitat (see Figure 1-7).

Ande

rsen A

FBGe

neral

Eve

ning

Disp

ersal

Move

ment

Fora

ging E

viden

ceNi

ght O

bser

vatio

nDa

y Obs

erva

tion

Bat 4

51 R

adiot

rack

ingBa

t 579

Rad

iotra

cking

Bat 6

50 R

adiot

rack

ing

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean


Figur

e 1-6.

Bat

Obser

vatio

ns M

ap fr

om Ja

neke

(200

6b) a

nd D

. Jan

eke p

ers. o

bs.


North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB

Ande

rsen A

FB

Ande

rsen A

FBAr

ea of

Dev

elopm

ent

Fanih

i For

aging

Hab

itat

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean


Figur

e 1-7.

Fan

ihi Fo

ragin

g Hab

itat o

n And

ersen

AFB

and A

reas o

f Dev

elopm

ent S

ince 2

000 t

hat h

ave R

equir

ed R

emov

al of

Habit

at


Cargo

Drop

Zone

ISR/St

rike A

ircraf

t Stag

ing Ar

ea

Bedd

own o

f Trai

ning a

ndSu

pport

Intia

tives

atNo

rthwe

st Fie

ld

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB

Ande

rsen A

FB

North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB



Colony roosting flying foxes by nature have a negative effect on the trees in which they roost, causing defoliation, broken branches, and even death of the roost tree (Tidemann 1999). The fanihi colony at the current Pati Point location has used several trees historically, moving to a new tree or set of trees as the old roost declines in condition. The chopak tree used by the colony up to 2001 experienced severe defoliation, near total branch loss, and died before the colony moved to the current set of four new chopak roost trees nearby. In five years of use, the current roost trees have lost all crown foliage, many lateral branches, and one of the four trees has died. Roost tree damage has likely been slowed by the current small fanihi population. Roost tree damage necessitates periodic movement from old damaged roosts to new roost trees. If no suitable roost trees remain, the roost site will likely be abandoned.

Feral ungulates (Philippine deer and feral pigs) on Guam negatively impact the native limestone forest by feeding on or uprooting seeds, seedlings and even saplings of native forest species, including those species used by fanihi colonies for roosting, and impair the natural process of forest regeneration (Conry 1988, Wiles et al. 1996, Schreiner 1997, Ritter and Naugle 1998, Perry and Morton 1999, Wiles et al. 1999, Morton et al. 2000, Marler and Lawrence 2003, Wiles 2005, D. Janeke pers obs). The same military security patrols that have afforded fanihi a measure of increased protection from illegal hunting have also protected feral ungulates, resulting in increased ungulate populations on Andersen AFB and some of the highest recorded feral ungulate densities in the world (Wiles et al. 1999, Knutson and Vogt 2002). The large deer population recorded by Wiles et al. (1999) in the area between Tagua Point and Pati Point may be significantly degrading fanihi roosting resources in an area that contains 11 of the 21 historic roost sites recorded on Andersen AFB, including the eight most recently used sites (Wiles 1987c, Wiles 1990).

1.10.2 Foraging

Fanihi in the Mariana Archipelago have a broad diet and are reported to forage on the fruit, flowers, or leaves of at least 40 native and introduced species (see Table 1-3) with additional species likely to be consumed as well (Perez 1972, Wiles 1987a, USFWS 1990, Wiles and Fujita 1992). On Andersen AFB, fanihi are reported to forage in primary and secondary limestone forest cover types, as well as in coconut forests and strand vegetation (USFWS 1990, Janeke 2006b). While little is known of the nightly foraging habits of fanihi on Guam, recent studies indicate that individuals have regular foraging areas that are visited nightly, and that current foraging activity of fanihi roosting on Andersen AFB is largely restricted to Andersen AFB (Janeke 2006b).

Fanihi foraging resources have been impacted in many of the same ways as have roosting resources. Limited development in primary and secondary limestone forest cover types on Andersen AFB over the past 50 years has preserved large tracks of contiguous areas used by fanihi for foraging and roosting. Recent and proposed developments that reduce roosting habitat for fanihi on Andersen AFB will also reduce foraging resources. Removal of forested areas for development increases the relative value of the remaining habitat since fewer foraging resources will remain to support current and future fanihi populations. High quality diverse forest supports more fanihi than low quality, degraded forest; so as forest area is reduced for development the quality of the remaining habitat becomes increasingly more important in addition to the size of remaining forests for maintaining current and future fanihi populations. Damage caused by the large feral ungulate populations, however, is causing a decline in the quality of the remaining fanihi foraging habitat. Tree species such as Guamia mariannae (paipai), Ochrosia mariannensis (langiti), and Aglaia mariannensis (mapunyao) that appear to be unpalatable to ungulates are dominating forest areas, while important fanihi food trees, such as Artocarpus mariannensis (dogduk), Erythrina variegata (gaogao), and Terminalia catappa (talisai) are now rare on Andersen AFB and exist only as adults with no seedlings or saplings present (Wiles et al. 1999, Wiles 2005, D. Janeke pers. obs.). Guamia mariannae (paipai), a native understory tree species, composed 65% of the forest in areas used by fanihi for foraging, but paipai is not known to be a part of the fanihi diet (Janeke 2006b).



Table 1-3. Known Food Plants of Fanihi in the Mariana Archipelago

Forage Species Components Consumed

Common Name Scientific Name Fruit Flower Leaves

century plant Agave rigida P. Mill. X mapunyao* Aglaia mariannensis Merr X custard apple, annonas* Annona reticulate L. X seedless breadfruit, lemai* Artocarpus altilis (Park.) Fosb. X seeded breadfruit, dogduk* Artocarpus mariannensis Trec. X X fish-kill tree, puting* Barringtonia asiatica (L.) Kurz X palomaria, da’ok* Calophyllum inophyllum L. X papaya Carica papaya L. X ironwood, gagu* Casuarina equisetifolia L. X kapok, algidon* Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. X inkberry, tinta’n-china* Cestrum diurnum L. X coconut palm, niyog* Cocos nucifera L. X cycad, fandang* Cycas micronesica K.D. Hill X gulos* Cynometra ramiflora L. X No common name Dendrocnide latifolia (Gaud.) Chew X yoga, ghumar* Elaeocarpus joga Merr. X X coral tree, gaogao* Erythrina variegata (L.) Merr. X wengu* Fagraea berteriana var. ladronica Fosb. X Chinese banyan, nunu* Ficus microcarpa L.f. X strangler fig, nunu* Ficus prolixa Forst. f. X

Dyer’s fig, hodda* Ficus tinctoria var. neo-ebudarum (Summerh) Fosb. X

No common name Freycinetia reineckei Warb. X X zebrawood, panao* Guettarda speciosa L. X nonak* Hernandia sonora L. X chopak* Mammea odorata (Raf.) Kosterm. X X mango, mangga* Mangifera indica L. X

faniok* Merrilliodendron megacarpum (Hemsl.) Sleumer X

sea bean Mucuna gigantea (Willd.) DC X banana Musa sp. X fagot* Neisosperma oppositifolia (Lam) Fosb. X lipstick tree, langiti* Ochrosia mariannensis A. D.C. X

No common name Osmoxylon mariannense (Kanehira) Fosberg & Sachet. X

screwpine, kafu* Pandanus tectorius Sol. ex Park X X wild passionfruit Passiflora suberosa L. X avocado, alageta* Persea americana Mill. silvery pipturus, amahadyan* Pipturus argenteus (Forst. f.) Wedd. X false elder, ahgao* Premna serratifolia L. X guava, abas* Psidium guajava L. X Pacific almond, talisai* Terminalia catappa L. X X fanog* Tristiropsis obtusangula Radlk. X

Source: Wiles and Fujita 1992 Note: * Chamorro name



Impaired reproductive potential of native limestone forest species caused by ungulates prolongs the persistence of forest gaps caused by typhoon-related tree mortality. Invasive vine growth and the invasion of nonnative shrubs into primary forest are stimulated by prolonged gap persistence. Recovery of short-stature secondary forest to tall closed canopy forest is also slowed by the reduced recruitment of native forest species. The loss of tree species susceptible to ungulate herbivory reduces the diversity of native limestone forest and limits the variety of seasonal foods available to fanihi at any particular time of the year. A reduced variety of foods available to fanihi may result in dietary shifts to foods that may be of lesser nutritional value, have increased energetic costs associated with finding and consuming them, or are potentially toxic (e.g. inkberry, Cestrum diurnum) (Janeke 2006b).

Degraded forest conditions may lead to larger foraging ranges, increased energy expenditures associated with increased need to change foraging locations, and a reduction in the overall carrying capacity of the remaining habitat (Janeke 2006b). The maintenance of high quality, diverse, productive habitat is particularly important to female fanihi. The lack of seasonal reproductive periods for fanihi (Wiles 1987a) on Guam results in the potential for the overlapping of gestation with the lactation of a previous pup, as observed in the closely related Pteropus mariannus yapensis from the island of Yap in Micronesia (Falanruw 1988). The combined nutritional demands of overlapping gestation and lactation make female fanihi particularly sensitive to degraded habitat conditions.

1.10.3 Predators

Fanihi have no native predators on Guam, but they do face several threats from introduced predators at roost sites. Mangrove monitors (Varanus indicus) have been observed actively hunting for fanihi in colony roost trees (D. Janeke pers. obs.). Though no successful attempts were observed, it is likely that monitors do succeed on occasion. However, the level of monitor predation on fanihi is unknown. Feral cats (Felis catus) are known to prey on medium sized island flying foxes (Tidemann et al. 1994). Feral cats occur in forested areas used by solitary roosting fanihi, including the Munitions Storage Area (MSA) and Tarague basin, at an unknown population level. Feral cats in the MSA have impacted endangered species release programs previously, killing 21 of 26 radio collared Guam rails (Gallirallus owstoni) released in the MSA in 2003 (Wenniger 2003). The most important introduced predator of fanihi may be the brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) (BTS). Only one confirmed case of a BTS consuming fanihi has been reported, but additional circumstantial evidence supports the belief that BTSs are impacting the fanihi population on Guam (Wiles 1987b). Included among the circumstantial evidence is the near total absence of large size class juvenile fanihi (Wiles 1987a). Large juveniles are vulnerable to BTS predation because they are too large to remain constantly attached to their mothers when they forage, yet they are too young to fly and escape snakes. It is currently not known if snake predation of juvenile fanihi occurs principally at the main colony roost, or out in foraging areas at temporary night roosts. Raptors are also known to prey on flying foxes (Gilette and Kimbrough 1970, White et al. 1988). Guam does not have a native raptor species, but occasional visits by migrating peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) have been recorded (Beck 2001), and an unknown species of owl was observed in 2004 on Andersen AFB by Security Forces.



2. Interagency Cooperation and Agreements Andersen AFB works to enhance, protect and conserve wildlife resources in cooperation with the DAWR under a cooperative agreement signed in 1964. DAWR biologists currently conduct monthly population surveys of the Pati Point colony, and monitor other areas of Andersen AFB less frequently for new colony sites. In the past, DAWR biologists have conducted studies on the foraging, roosting, reproductive behavior, and social organization of the fanihi. Most recently, DAWR funded research through the University of Guam to study the nocturnal movements and habitat use of fanihi on Andersen AFB.

In 1994, the Overlay Refuge was established in an agreement between Andersen AFB and the USFWS (see Figure 2-1). The Overlay Refuge represents a commitment by the USFWS and Andersen AFB to protect threatened and endangered species, native flora and fauna, and the native ecosystems and biological diversity in cooperation with the DAWR. Virtually all of the over 10,300 acres of overlay refuge at Andersen AFB is used by fanihi for foraging and roosting (see Figure 2-1). The Refuge allows for close coordination between Andersen AFB and the USFWS for natural resource planning and during Federal actions that may affect the fanihi.

Andersen AFB also consults formally and informally with the USFWS when actions on the Base may impact threatened or endangered species. Andersen AFB consulted with the USFWS in 2000 to determine the potential impacts to fanihi under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act from the development of a Cargo Drop Zone in Northwest Field. The USFWS concurred with the Air Force’s determination that the removal of 73 ha of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat would have no adverse affect on the potential for fanihi to survive and recover on Guam. The Air Force therefore issued a finding of no significant impact for the Cargo Drop Environmental Assessment. In 2005, Andersen AFB requested consultation with the USFWS on the proposed Beddown of Training and Support Initiatives at Northwest Field and the ISR/Strike project. The USFWS agreed with the Air Force that the removal of 47 ha of potential fanihi foraging and roosting habitat would have no adverse affect on the potential for fanihi to survive and recover on Guam, and the Air Force issued a finding of no significant impact for the Beddown of Training and Support Initiatives at Northwest Field Environmental Assessment (Andersen AFB 2006a). Additional consultations determined that the adverse affects on fanihi that may result from removal of 58 ha of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat for the ISR/Strike project are not likely to cause a significant reduction in the potential for fanihi survival and recovery throughout its range. The USFWS therefore issued a “no jeopardy” Biological Opinion for the ISR/Strike Environmental Impact Statement in October, 2006 with several required “reasonable and prudent measures,” developed in consultation with Andersen AFB, to offset the potential project impacts on fanihi (Andersen AFB 2006b. USFWS 2006).

Formal consultations with the USFWS have resulted in proposals to enclose 254 ha of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat in ungulate proof fencing, followed by the removal of ungulates from within the fenced areas (see Figure 3-2) (Andersen AFB 2006b). Removal of ungulates from fenced areas should foster improved forest regeneration and better quality roosting and foraging habitat for fanihi. Consultations with the USFWS have also led to proposals to reduce ungulate densities outside of fenced exclosure areas, improve fanihi foraging resources by planting forage tree species, reduce BTS predation on fanihi pups at colony sites, and fund law enforcement travel assistance to help protect fanihi on Rota from post-typhoon hunting, protecting the likely source population of fanihi that supports the fanihi population on Guam.

Ande

rsen A

FBFa

nihi F

orag

ing H

abita

ton

And

erse

n AFB

Guam

NWR

Over

lay R

efuge

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean


Figur

e 2-1.

Gua

m NW

R an

d the

Ove

rlay R

efuge

on An

derse

n AFB

and F

anihi

Fora

ging A

reas


Ritidi

an Po

int

Tarag

ue Ba

sinTa

gua P

oint

Pati P

oint

Guam

NWR

Ande

rsen A

FB

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB

North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB

Refug

e Ove

rlay



3. Management Recommendations Maintaining healthy fanihi populations throughout the Mariana Archipelago is critical for the long-term persistence of this species. Guam is the largest of the islands in the archipelago, but the large human population, extensive military and civilian development, habitat alteration, and the ecological challenges posed by the BTS will likely limit Guam’s ability to serve as home to a large fanihi population. However, sufficient habitat remains on Guam to support a viable source population to further fanihi recovery in the archipelago, and to act as relatively safe habitat for fanihi from islands north of Guam to escape the immediate pressure of hunting or environmental disturbance. The persistence of fanihi on Guam will be largely dependent on the habitat management strategies implemented by Andersen AFB as land steward for one of the largest contiguous areas of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat, and home to the last remaining fanihi colony on Guam. Fanihi population size on Andersen AFB can be influenced by many factors outside Andersen AFB’s sphere of control, including habitat condition, hunting, and predation pressure elsewhere on Guam, as well as on islands north of Guam (e.g. Rota) making target population sizes an unreliable benchmark by which to measure management success on Andersen AFB. The following management goals (see Table 3-1) and implementation strategies (see Table 3-2) are therefore designed to restore and maintain the greatest amount of fanihi habitat possible.

Table 3-1. Management Goals and Rationale

Management Goal Rationale

3.1 Continued protection of existing colony site at Pati Point and historic colony roost sites

Persistence of fanihi on Andersen AFB is dependent on maintaining sufficient area containing the necessary roost site characteristics, including extremely low to no human activity, and roost tree diversity.

3.1.1 Restrict access to areas of high priority roosting

habitat.

Continue restricting access to forest areas actively occupied by fanihi colonies (groups of five or more fanihi) to avoid disturbance. Restrict access to areas defined as high priority colony roosting habitat (Figure 3-1). High priority colony roosting habitat is defined by the location of historic fanihi colony roost locations on Andersen AFB and current habitat conditions. High priority colony roosting habitat extends a minimum of 200 m from the cliff line. Fanihi colonies are generally located within 100 m of a cliff line (Wiles 1987a), and the 200 m extent includes an additional 100 m buffer area. This may be extended if necessary. Limiting human activity in high priority colony roosting areas is important for colony establishment.

3.1.2 Limit activity in areas

of medium priority roosting habitat.

Limit activities such as hiking, plant collection and hunting in areas of medium priority roosting habitat. Medium priority colony roosting habitat (Figure 3-1) is cliff line area with fanihi roost tree species present, but no historical records of colonies in that area. Medium priority colony roosting habitat extends the same 200 m from the cliff. If a fanihi colony is observed roosting in medium priority area, the area will be managed in accordance with that of high priority roosting areas and consultation with the USFWS will be undertaken. Limiting human activity in potential colony roosting areas is important for colony establishment.



Table 3-1. Management Goals and Rationale (continued)


3.1.3

Restore normal forest regeneration in areas of

high priority colony roosting habitat to

ensure the availability and diversity of roost

trees.

Significantly reduce or eliminate feral ungulate populations in areas of high priority colony roosting habitat to allow natural regeneration of fanihi roost tree species (see Figure 3-1). Regeneration of roost tree species will ensure that new roost trees are available in suitable locations as old roost trees become unusable or die. Experimentation with artificial roost trees for flying foxes is being conducted as part of the Flying Fox Campsite Management Plan, Yarra Bend Park in the State of Victoria, Australia (Crocker et al. 2005). The two artificial tree models to be tested at Yarra Bend represent the first attempts to use artificial roosts with Pteropids in Australia. If successful, artificial roosts may provide a viable option for fanihi roost site augmentation on Andersen AFB, but consult with the USFWS before installing artificial roosts.

3.1.4 Monitor and control

nonnative predators in areas of high priority

colony roosting habitat.

Preventing predation by nonnative predators on fanihi, particularly large age class juveniles, is essential for maintaining and increasing the population of fanihi on Andersen AFB. Currently, the major nonnative predator of fanihi may be the BTS which is believed to prey upon large age class juvenile fanihi. Monitor lizards have been observed hunting fanihi on Guam, and feral cats are also potential predators.

3.1.5 Prevent clearing of land

for development in areas of high priority

colony roosting habitat.

Locate future development in areas away from high priority colony roosting habitat (see Figure 3-1). This will maintain the forest characteristics necessary, including a variety of roost tree species and undisturbed forest areas, to support colony establishment.

3.1.6 Monitor active colony roost sites for illegal

hunting.

Observe area near active roost sites for signs of illegal human activities. Check abandoned roost sites as soon as possible after abandonment to ascertain the cause of abandonment. Continued vigilance for potential poaching threats is critical to maintaining fanihi on Andersen AFB.





3.2 Habitat restoration Restore native forest habitats to conditions more closely representative of the forest types described by Fosberg (1960). Increase the density of canopy species including Artocarpus mariannensis (dogduk), Ficus prolixa and F. microcarpa (nunu), Intsia bijuga (ifit), Terminalia catappa (talisai), Elaeocarpus joga (yoga), Erythrina variegata (gaogao), Tristiropsis obtusangula (faniog), Barringtonia asiatica (putting), Pisonia grandis (umumu), and Serianthes nelsonii (trongkon guafi), while maintaining a diverse secondary and understory including Mammea odorata (chopak), Ochrosia mariannensis (langiti), Cynometra ramiflora (gulos), Dendrocnide latifolia (No common name), Eugenia thompsonii (atoto), Pouteria obovata (lalaha) and Macaranga thompsonii (pengua) among others. Restore natural forest regeneration ensuring a full range of growth stages for each species. This restoration goal will support the recovery of a healthy, diverse native limestone forest that will better support the foraging and roosting requirements of fanihi as well as other native wildlife

3.2.1 Ungulate control Ungulate (deer and pig) impacts are currently affecting the health and condition of the native limestone forest. Reduction of ungulate populations to a level that will allow natural forest regeneration is necessary to maintain adequate foraging and roosting resources for solitary fanihi. Ungulate removal or reduction in areas of high ecological value was proposed as a Natural Resources Project with Class 1 funding priority in the 2003 Andersen AFB INRMP and is necessary to comply with the Biological Opinion from the ISR/Strike development project (Andersen AFB 2003, Andersen AFB 2006b, USFWS 2006). Ungulate control priorities (see Figure 3-2) are based on forest restoration needs specific to use by fanihi. Priorities were determined based on night observation of fanihi activity, current habitat type, current land use, and distance from current and historical roost sites. High priority areas are located closer to the Pati Point colony in areas of primary growth limestone forest. Current feral ungulate management is administered on Andersen AFB through the public hunting program, controlled hunts by volunteer conservation officers, or depredation hunting. However, much of the highest priority ungulate control areas have no existing ungulate control due to their proximity to restricted access areas. Lowest priority areas are found furthest from the Pati Point colony in secondary growth limestone forest cover types. All of the lowest priority ungulate management areas are currently managed under the Andersen AFB public hunting program





3.2.2 Monitor vegetation in areas under ungulate

control

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of ungulate management programs through the use of long-term vegetation plots in areas under ungulate management. The purpose of ungulate control on Andersen AFB is to allow forest recovery. Monitoring vegetation in areas under ungulate management will enable Andersen AFB to track forest changes and adapt ungulate management strategies based on effectiveness.

3.2.3 Monitor and control

nonnative predators in fanihi foraging areas.

Preventing predation by nonnative predators on fanihi, particularly large age class juveniles, is essential for maintaining and increasing the population of fanihi on Andersen AFB. Currently, the major nonnative predator of fanihi may be the BTS which is believed to prey upon large age class juvenile fanihi when left at solitary night roosts in maternal foraging areas. Monitor lizards have been observed hunting fanihi on Guam, and feral cats are also potential predators

3.2.4 Facilitate native forest revegetation

Planting nursery raised seedlings or collecting and scattering native forest tree seeds would aid in the recovery of the native forest. See 3.3.7.

3.2.5

Replacement of nonnative vegetation

with native fanihi forage tree species.

Removal of nonnative vegetation would reduce competition for resources with native plant species and aid in the recovery of native forest species. Removal of nonnative species will also remove potentially toxic food items, such as inkberry, from the diet of the fanihi.

3.2.6 Use native fanihi

forage tree species in landscaping.

Use native fanihi forage trees in developed and semi-developed areas to provide additional foraging opportunities to fanihi. Discourage the use of nonnative trees like Spathodea campanulata (African tulip tree), Delonix regia (flame tree), and Samanea saman (monkeypod). Fanihi forage trees recommended for planting include Terminalia catappa (talisai), Artocarpus mariannensis (dogduk), Elaeocarpus joga (yoga), Erythrina variegate (gaogao), and Mammea odorata (chopak). Emphasize the planting of these trees in areas bordering native forest. Plant in groups for typhoon resistance.

3.3 Research Needs Andersen AFB should seek to fund or support research in the following areas as a way to better direct management goals and priorities regarding fanihi. The Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development (SERDP) program is an excellent potential source of funding.

3.3.1

Regular surveys of limestone forest and cliff line areas for additional fanihi

colonies and extra-colonial individuals.

Regular surveys of high priority colony roosting habitat and fanihi foraging areas are important for detecting increases or decreases in the fanihi population on Andersen AFB. New colonies can be identified in a timely manner and the appropriate management steps can be taken to protect new roosting areas, such as closing additional hunting and hiking areas.





3.3.2 Impacts of increased noise from airfield

operations.

Morton (1996) conducted a study of the effects of aircraft overflights on fanihi and determined that fanihi do react, at least some of the time, to aircraft noise. Future developments on Andersen AFB may lead to an increase in airfield operations that could result in a more pronounced disturbance to fanihi in the Pati Point area. Andersen AFB should monitor fanihi behavior patterns as future airfield operations increase and consult with the USFWS before starting any undertaking that would increase noise in the Pati Point area.

3.3.3 Habitat use by fanihi.

Habitat use by fanihi is only beginning to be understood. More information would be useful to focus management priorities and goals. Additional information that would aid in managing fanihi on Andersen AFB include foraging range and foraging location of individuals, particularly lactating females and harem holding males; mother-pup behavior and its relation to BTS predation; post-typhoon foraging behavior; and interisland movements. Comparative studies with fanihi populations on other islands would also yield valuable information.

3.3.4 Foraging ecology by fanihi

Fanihi are known to feed on at least 40 species of native and nonnative foods in the Mariana Archipelago. Further studies are likely to show the presence of additional food sources in the fanihi diet. Research on seasonal food preferences and the importance of various forage species in the diet is also of high priority. Comparative studies between fanihi on Andersen AFB and fanihi on other islands (such as Rota) may reveal important dietary deficiencies that may help explain the current population trends on Guam. Further exploration of the potential negative effects of the nonnative shrub inkberry in the fanihi diet should be conducted.

3.3.5 Phenology of fanihi forage tree species

Understanding the seasonal fruiting patterns of fanihi forage tree species will help natural resources specialists understand the patterns of fanihi food availability on Andersen AFB. Phenological data combined with foraging ecology data can help in developing habitat restoration priorities.

3.3.6 Effects of introduced

insects on fanihi forage and roost tree species

Several introduced insect pests currently compete with fanihi for food resources or impact fanihi forage tree species on Andersen AFB. These insects include the Oriental flower beetle (Protaetia orientalis), Asian cycad scale (Aulacaspis yasumatsui), cycad blue butterfly (Chilades pandava), Indian wax scale (Ceroplastes ceriferus), croton caterpillar (Achaea janata), blue banded king crow caterpillar (Euploea eunice) and the erythrina gall wasp (Quadrastichus erythrinae). The effects of introduced insect herbivory on fanihi forage trees species should be assessed to determine the threats to fanihi food resources. Future insect pest introductions should be monitored closely for potential threats to fanihi and their foraging resources.





3.3.7 Methods for limestone forest restoration

Research is needed to develop methods for restoration of secondary growth limestone forest cover types to a more diverse, closed canopy forest type. Methods are also needed to rehabilitate open field areas and recently disturbed Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites. Restoring secondary forests will provide more suitable roosting and more productive foraging areas for fanihi. Restoring open fields and recently disturbed ERP sites will convert currently nonproductive habitats into viable roosting and foraging habitat for fanihi and other wildlife.

3.4 Education Develop a wildlife education program on Andersen AFB to increase awareness and appreciation of the unique environment and wildlife of Andersen AFB. Educational programs should be structured for grade school children through adults. More specific environmental programs should be designed for military personnel working in areas where threatened and endangered species occur (eg. MSA 1).

Ande

rsen A

FBFa

nihi R

oosti

ng H

abita

tHi

gh P

riorit

yMe

dium

Prior

ity

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean


Figur

e 3-1.

Area

s of F

anihi

Roo

sting

Hab

itat


Ritidi

an Po

int

Tarag

ue Ba

sinTa

gua P

oint

Pati P

oint

North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB

Ande

rsen A

FB

Ande

rsen A

FBUn

gulat

e Man

agem

ent A

reaHi

gh P

riorit

ySe

cond

ary P

riorit

yTe

rtiary

Prior

ityPr

opos

ed E

xclos

ure

00.5

11.5

22.5

Kilom

eters

Scale

Pacif

ic Oc

ean


Figur

e 3-2.

Ung

ulate

Man

agem

ent P

riorit

y Area

s


Ritidi

an Po

int

Tarag

ue Ba

sinTa

gua P

oint

Pati P

oint

Ritidi

anWe

st Un

it90

ha.

Ritidi

anEa

st Un

it11

0 ha.

North

west

Field

Prop

osed

Actio

n54

ha.

North

west

Field,

Ande

rsen A

FB

Main

Airfie

ld,An

derse

n AFB

Ande

rsen A

FB



Table 3-2. Management Priorities and Implementation Strategies

Objective Priority Ranking Strategy Implementation

Duration Comments/Notes

Restrict access to areas of high priority fanihi roosting habitat.

1 Install signs indicating an ecologically sensitive area for authorized personnel only along roads and trails bordering high priority colony roosting habitat. Distribute maps of Andersen AFB indicating ecologically sensitive areas to all Base personnel, and publish the map once per month in the Andersen AFB newspaper. No signs would be required around medium priority roosting habitat unless a colony is observed.

On going Current Andersen AFB hunting areas would need to be modified to avoid high priority colony roosting areas. Hunters in areas boarding high priority colony roosting areas should be advised of the boundary location prior to entering the hunting area. If a fanihi colony is present in an area boarding a hunting area, the hunting area will be closed. Access into high priority colony roosting areas will be limited to the DAWR and Andersen AFB biologists and others at the discretion of Civil Engineering.

Restore natural forest regeneration in areas of fanihi foraging and roosting by reducing or eliminating feral ungulates (Philippine deer, feral pigs).

1 Continue current practice of roadside depredation hunts while a long-term permanent solution is designed and implemented. Develop a Base-wide ungulate management plan. Potential actions to consider in the development of such a plan would include the use of management areas enclosed by ungulate-proof fencing; ungulate removal by lethal methods including gun hunting, snares, use of hunting dogs, and spotlighting; and the use of long-term contraceptives if available for feral pigs and Philippine deer at the time of plan development.

On going

20 + years

Potential funding sources for ungulate management include Legacy Natural Resource Management Program, and Military Construction (for construction of ungulate fencing). Seek cooperative agreements with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),Wildlife Services for animal damage control. Work with Guam NWR and the DAWR to develop additional outside funding sources.



Table 3-2. Management Priorities and Implementation Strategies (continued)



Monitor vegetation in areas of ungulate control

1 Monitor effectiveness of road side depredation hunts using permanent vegetation plots and photo plots at 10 m, 50 m and 100 m from the road edge along depredation hunt routes. Document all vegetation changes. Correlate vegetation data with depredation kill data to determine if, where, and under what circumstances roadside depredation hunts are successful in achieving the goal of natural forest regeneration. Monitor the effectiveness of the Base-wide ungulate management plan using permanent vegetation plots and photo plots.

5 years

5 years

Success of ungulate management programs would be determined by vegetation changes that include greater understory growth, increased groundcover, increased canopy cover, increased species diversity, and increased numbers of forest tree seedlings and saplings. Effective evaluation of roadside depredation hunts will depend on detailed reports of depredation efforts including location and date of successful depredation kills.

Evaluate the potential need for brown treesnake control at the Pati Point roost site

1 Conduct nighttime observations of the Pati Point colony to determine if fanihi pups are left at the colony roost at night. Observations should begin in daylight hours to observe the presence of pups in the colony and their estimated age class. Observations would continue throughout primary colony dispersal until midnight to observe for pups remaining at the colony roost. Observations should be conducted using Gen III night vision optics with magnification on nights with adequate moonlight to facilitate observation. It is strongly recommended that thermal imaging optics be tested to assess their potential usefulness in conducting these observations.

4 months BTS predation on fanihi pups is likely a significant factor preventing the recovery of fanihi on Guam. Predation on pups most likely occurs when the female and pup are separated during foraging. However, it is not known if significant predation takes place at the main colony roost or at night roosts in foraging areas. Attempting to control BTSs at a main colony roost is risky due to the potential for disturbance as observed with previous colonies on Guam. Before BTS control measures are conducted in sensitive areas such as an active colony roost, additional observation should be made to determine if the threat of BTS predation exists, and if the degree of threat outweighs the potential risk of disturbance. Consultation with the USFWS must occur prior to any such undertaking.






Continue to support research into area-wide BTS control methods

1 Continue to work with organizations such as the United States Geological Service, Biological Resources Discipline (BRD), USDA Wildlife Services, and the United States Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), to control BTSs on Andersen AFB, particularly research directed at area-wide BTS control methods using toxicants. Provide research support including access to Andersen AFB areas for experimental work, and other necessary research resources.

On going Area-wide methods will allow BTS control in remote areas with limited disturbance to fanihi. Aerial dispersal of toxicants should also reduce the manpower necessary to control snakes using bait stations or traps, making snake control over large and remote areas more cost effective.

Control feral cat populations in areas of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat

2 Remove feral cats from forested areas. Priority areas to target are the MSA 1, Tarague basin, and Northwest Field. Prohibit the feeding and keeping of feral cats as building pets in these areas.

5+ years It is further suggested that Andersen AFB institute a pet microchipping program to track pet ownership and reduce the potential for people releasing pets to the forest should they no longer want them. Controlling feral cats will aid all wildlife recovery programs on Andersen AFB.

Evaluate the threat of other potential fanihi predators (monitor lizards, migratory birds of prey) at colony roosts.

3 Record observations of monitor lizard or bird of prey predation on fanihi. Communicate with the DAWR to exchange information on monitor lizard and bird of prey predation attempts.

On going Observations are likely to come during routine colony counts and monitoring.

Protect contiguous areas of fanihi foraging and roosting habitat from development

1 Work with project designers, developers and land-use planners to reduce or prevent additional fragmentation of fanihi habitat. Ensure that any areas included in essential habitat for fanihi are not disturbed without consultation with the USFWS.

Consider for every

development project

Small patches of forest are more susceptible to disturbance from surrounding human activity and are therefore less likely to be used by fanihi for roosting or foraging. Maintaining large contiguous areas of habitat would provide a buffer against human activities and reduce the potential for disturbance.






Protect known colony sites from illegal hunting

1 Continue to suppress illegal hunting on Andersen AFB. Inform Security Forces of the general location of fanihi colonies and the potential for illegal hunting activities in those areas. Notify Security Forces if the colony location changes.

On going Fanihi colony roosting areas occur near high security areas such as MSA 1 and 2, flight line, small arms range and Explosive Ordnance Disposal. Increased vigilance for illegal hunting activities in these areas will also serve the military mission of protecting sensitive assets.

Monitor the fanihi population at colony roost sites.

1 Conduct monthly colony counts at known fanihi roosts. Conduct regular spot checks in high priority colony roosting habitat for new colonies.

Monthly The DAWR currently conducts monthly counts at the Pati Point colony site. Regular spot checks of historic colony roosting sites will help detect new colonies or splinter groups from existing colonies.

Facilitate better communication within the natural resource community

2 An annual fish and wildlife collaboration meeting amongst Andersen AFB, the DAWR, Guam NWR, and other agencies as needed, should be instituted to address conservation topics important to fanihi. For yearly planning purposes, this meeting should be conducted late in the fiscal year to recap the current year and plan for the following year, and should be tied to the annual INRMP review.

Annually For Andersen AFB, the DAWR and the Guam NWR to properly manage fanihi on Andersen AFB, and plan military related activities, training and development, it is essential to share information on population changes, colony movements, solitary fanihi roosting locations and other associated behavioral observations. Monthly exchanges of field data and an annual meeting for discussing fanihi issues for the year would promote effective communication and cooperative conservation measures.






Develop a working agreement with the owners of private land bordering Andersen AFB to protect fanihi.

2 Draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Andersen AFB, Guam NWR, the Government of Guam (owners of Anao and Falcona areas) and private owners in Uruno and Jinapsan, to manage land use and development in a way that will encourage the recovery of fanihi in northern Guam.

Renew agreements annually to bi-annually

This MoU would not seek to impose limitations on development, but to encourage Andersen AFB neighbors to pursue conservation strategies similar to those recommended by this Plan, including ungulate management, area-wide BTS control, limestone forest restoration, and protecting fanihi from hunting and human disturbance. Consider purchasing or acquiring conservation easements at Jinapsan beach area for incorporation under the Guam NWR overlay. Investigate the DoD Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) as a possible source of funding for acquiring conservation easements on adjacent private lands.

Consider collaborative opportunities in the Northern Mariana Islands for conservation management.

3 Seek opportunities for long-term collaborative conservation and restoration management programs in the Northern Mariana Islands. High priority management projects would include removal of feral animals, including feral goats (Capra hircus) and pigs by lethal methods including helicopter shooting, hunting dogs, night spotlighting, and the use of radio collared goats to locate feral goat herds (Taylor and Katahira 1988), vegetation monitoring, and active revegetation of habitat. See Kessler (2002) for existing programs in the Northern Mariana Islands. Development of a vegetation monitoring program would be important for assessing the success of ungulate management. Vegetation restoration, including seed scattering, and invasive vine control would also benefit the restoration of ungulate impacted habitats.

< 10 years Obtaining permanent conservation easements on an island such as Pagan would limit development of the island that may be detrimental to the persistence of fanihi in the Northern Mariana Islands. Management should include feral ungulate removal and native forest restoration that could be sub-contracted to the USFWS. Andersen AFB conservation management of a Northern Mariana island would help restore and maintain valuable habitat in a remote area of the archipelago and would have long lasting positive effects for fanihi in the Marianas.



4. List of Preparers This Plan has been prepared under the direction of Andersen AFB. The individuals who contributed to the preparation of this document are listed below.

Dustin Janeke engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e2M) A.S. Exotic Animal Training and Management B.S. Zoo Science M.S. Biology Years of Experience: 6

Cheryl Schmidt e2M B.S. Biology M.S. Biology Ph.D. Biology Years of Experience: 22

J. Douglas Ripley e2M B.A. Biology M.A. Biology Ph.D. Plant Ecology Years of Experience: 38

Christian Wood e2M B.S. Business and Office Technology Years of Experience: 4

Dan Savercool e2M A.A.S. Natural Resources Conservation B.S. Zoology/Marine Science M.S. Biological Oceanography Years of Experience: 25

Dale R. Lindeman, GISP e2M B.S. Wildlife Management M.S. Geography Years of Experience: 10

Cheryl Myers e2M A.A.S. Nursing Years of Experience: 18



5. References Andersen 1912 Andersen, K. 1912. Catalog of the Chiroptera in the collection of the

British Museum. Volume 1: Megachiroptera. 2d ed. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK.

Andersen AFB 2003 Andersen Air Force Base (AFB). 2003. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan For Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Mariana Islands. Department of the Air Force, 36th Air Base Wing, Civil Engineer Squadron.

Andersen AFB 2006a Andersen AFB. 2006. Draft Environmental Assessment; Beddown of Training and Support Initiatives at Northwest Field, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Department of the Air Force Pacific air Force Base, Hawaii.

Andersen AFB 2006b Andersen AFB. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike Capability; Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Force Base, Hawaii.

Anonymous 1984 Anonymous. 1984. Oxford University Expedition to the Mariana Islands, 1983. Bulletin of Oxford University Exploration Club. 7:73-84

Beck 2001 Beck, B. 2001. Personnel Communication with Dustin Janeke.

Brooke et al. 2000 Brooke, A.P. 2000. Roosting behavior of colonial and solitary flying foxes in American Samoa (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Biotropica. 32(2): 338-350.

Conry 1988 Conry, P.J. 1988. Management of feral and exotic game species on Guam. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 24: 26-30.

Corbet and Hill 1980 Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1980. A world list of mammalian species. British Museum (Natural History), Comstock Publishing Associates, London, UK.

Corbet and Hill 1991 Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species. 3d. ed. British Museum (Natural History), Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Coultas 1931 Coultas, W.F. 1931. Whitney South Sea expedition journals. Vol. W. Journal and letters. Vol. II. Of William F. Coultas. November 1930 to December 1931. American Museum of Natural History. New York. Unpublished. 290 p.

Crampton 1921 Crampton, H.E. 1921. A journey to the Mariana Islands – Guam and Saipan. Journal of the American Museum of Natural History. 21: 127-145.

Crocker et al. 2005 Crocker, R., Abbott, D. and Kern, L. 2005. Flying Fox Campsite Management Plan, Yarra Bend. Department of Sustainability and Environment, State of Victoria, AU. 89p.

DAWR 1994-2006 Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR). 1994-2006. Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Annual Reports. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.



e2M 2008 e2M. 2008. Draft Base-wide Vegetation Survey, Mapping, and Report at Anderson AFB, Guam. August 2008.

Esselstyn et al. 2006 Esselstyn, J.A., Amar, A. and Janeke, D.J. 2006. Impact of post-typhoon hunting on Mariana fruit bats (Pteropus mariannus). Pacific Science. 60(4): 531-537.

Falanruw 1988 Falanruw, M.V.C. 1988. On the status, reproductive biology and management of fruit bats of Yap. Micronesica. 21: 39-51.

Flannery 1995 Flannery, T.F. 1995. Mammals of the South-West Pacific and Moluccan Islands. Reed Books, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia.

Fosberg 1960 Fosberg, F.R. 1960. The vegetation of Micronesia. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 119: 1-75.

Gilette and Kimbrough 1970

Gilette, D.D. and Kimbrough J.D. 1970. Chiropteran mortality. Pp. 262-283 In About bats, a chiropteran biology symposium Ed by B. H. Slaughter and D.W. Walton. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, Texas, USA, 339p.

Glass and Taisacan 1988 Glass, P. and Taisacan, E.M. 1988. Marianas fruit bat surveys and research. Pp. 1-22 In Five year Progress Report. Fiscal Year 1982-87. Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid In Wildlife Restoration Program. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Guerrero 1966 Guerrero, M.F.L. 1966. Annual report of the Governor of Guam. (Report submitted to the Secretary of the Interior.) Federal Register, Washington, D.C., USA, 173 p.

Honacki et al. 1982 Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (Eds.). 1982. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Allen Press Inc. and the Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Janeke 2006a Janeke, D.S. 2006a. Habitat use by the Mariana flying fox (Pteropus mariannus mariannus) on Guam. Presentation for the first meeting of the Mariana fruit bat recovery team. Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam. July 18-19, 2006.

Janeke 2006b Janeke, D.S. 2006b. Nocturnal movements and habitat use by the Mariana flying fox (Pteropus mariannus mariannus) on Guam. Masters thesis University of Guam, Mangilao.

Johnson 2001 Johnson, N.C. 2001. A survey of Mariana fruit bats in the Mariana Islands, including recent minimum population estimates, July 2001. Pp.49-90 In Annual report FY 2001, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Joint Typhoon Warning Center 2005

Joint Typhoon Warning Center. 2005. 2005 annual tropical cyclone report. http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/atcr_archive.html (Accessed 04-Jan-07).



Kessler 2002 Kessler, C.C. 2002. Eradication of feral goats and pigs and consequences for other biota on Sarigan Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Pp. 132-140 In Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species Ed by Veitch, C.R. and Clout, M.N. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Kessler 2006 Kessler, C.C. 2006. Personnel Communication with Dustin Janeke.

Knutson and Vogt 2002 Knutson, K. and Vogt, S. 2002. Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus) and feral pig (Sus scrofa) population sampling in the secondary limestone forests of northern Guam. Report for Andersen Air Force Base, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Office, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam and the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. 14p.

Kuroda 1938 Kuroda, N. 1938. A list of the Japanese mammals. L.M. Zoological Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.

Lujan 1992 Lujan, R.J. 1992. Local policies and protection by the government of Guam. Pp. 131-134 In Proceedings of an international conservation conference Ed by D.E. Wilson and G.L. Graham. USFWS Biological Report 90(23). Washington, DC., USA.

Marler and Lawrence 2003 Marler, T.E. and Lawrence, J.H. 2003. Yoga tree recovery for readiness, DMND17-00-2-0021. 37 p.

Marshall et al. 1995 Marshall, A.P., Worthington, D.J., Wiles, G.J., Grout, D.J., Kessler, C.C., Camacho, V.A., Taisacan, E.M., and Rubenstien, T. 1995. A survey of the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus) on Anatahan. Unpublished report. CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Morton 1996 Morton, J.M. 1996. The effects of aircraft overflights on endangered Mariana crows and Mariana fruit bats at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished report. 81 p.

Morton et al. 2000 Morton, J.M., Amidon, F.A. and Quintana, L.R. 2000. Structure of a limestone forest on Northern Guam. Micronesica. 32(2): 229-244.

Nowak 1994 Nowak, R.M. 1994. Walker’s mammals of the world. 5th ed. Volume 1. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Perez 1972 Perez, G.S.A. 1972. Observations of Guam bats. Micronesica. 8: 141-149.

Perry and Morton 1999 Perry, G. and Morton, J.M. 1999. Regeneration rates of the woody vegetation of Guam’s Northwest Field following major disturbance: Land use patterns, feral ungulates, and cascading effects of the brown treesnake. Micronesica. 32(1): 125-142.

Quintana 1994 Quintana, L.R. 1994. Vegetation baseline survey Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Rice and Taiscan 1993 Rice, C.G. and Taiscan, E.M. 1993. Mariana Fruit Bat Surveys. In Progress Report, Fiscal Year 1988-1992; Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program. CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.



Ritter and Naugle 1998 Ritter, M.W. and Naugle, C.M. 1998. Population characteristics, germination and proposed management of Elaeocarpus joga Merr. on Guam: A regionally endemic tree. Micronesica. 31: 275-281.

Schreiner 1997 Schreiner, I.H. 1997. Demography and recruitment of selected trees in the limestone forest of Guam in relation to introduced ungulates. Micronesica. 30(1): 169-181.

Stone 1970 Stone, B.C. 1970. The flora of Guam. Micronesica. 6: 1-659.

Taylor and Katahira 1988 Taylor, D. and Katahira, L. 1988. Radio telemetry as an aid in eradicating remnant feral goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 297-299.

Tidemann et al. 1994 Tidemann, C.R., Yorkston, H.D. and Russack A. J. 1994. The diet of cats, Felis catus, on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean. Wildlife Research. 21:279-286.

Tidemann 1999 Tidemann, C.R. 1999. Biology and management of the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus. Acta Chiropterologica. 1(2): 151-164.

Tidemann and Vardon 1997

Tidemann, C.R. and Vardon, M.J., 1997. Pests, pestilence, pollen and pot-roasts: The need for community-based management of flying foxes in Australia. Australian biologist. 10(1): 77-83.

USFWS 1984 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for seven birds and two bats of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Federal Register 49(167): 33881-33885/

USFWS 1990 USFWS. 1990. Guam Mariana fruit bat and little Mariana fruit bat recovery plan. Portland, Oregon, USA. 42p.

USFWS 1991 USFWS. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Determinations of Prudency for Two Mammal and Four Bird Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Designations of Critical Habitat for One Mammal and Two Bird Species. Federal Register 56: 27485.

USFWS 1994 USFWS. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Little Mariana Fruit Bat, Mariana Fruit Bat, Guam Broadbill, Mariana Crow, Guam Micronesian Kingfisher, and Guam Bridled White-Eye. Federal Register 59: 15696.

USFWS 2002 USFWS. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determinations of Prudency for Two Mammal and Four Bird Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for One Mammal and Two Bird Species. Federal Register 67(199): 63738-63772.

USFWS 2004 USFWS. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mariana Fruit Bat and Guam Micronesian Kingfisher on Guam and the Mariana Crow on Guam and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Federal Register 69(208): 62943-62990.



USFWS 2005 USFWS. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus): Reclassified from endangered to threatened in the territory of Guam and listing as threatened in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Federal Register 70(4): 1190-1210.

USFWS 2006 USFWS. 2006. Biological Opinion on the Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike Capability Project on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. October 3, 2006. 63 p.

Wenniger 2003 Wenniger, P. 2003. Establishment of Populations of Endangered Species in Snake Free Areas; Establishment of a Guam Rail Population at Area 50, Norwest Field, Andersen AFB. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao GU. Unpublished report to United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 3p.

Western Regional Climate Center 2005

Western Regional Climate Center. 2005. Guam NAS, Pacific Ocean (914226): Period of record monthly climate summary, period of record: 1-9-45 to 31-12-05 Located at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?pignas (Accessed 04-Jan-07).

Wheeler 1979 Wheeler, M.E. 1979. The Marianas fruit bat: Management history, current status and future plans. California-Nevada Wildlife Transactions. 1979: 149-165.

Wheeler 1980 Wheeler, M.E. 1980. The Status of the Mariana Fruit Bat on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. Elepaio. 40(8): 109-113.

Wheeler and Aguon 1978 Wheeler, M.E. and Aguon, C.F. 1978. The current status and distribution of the Marianas fruit bat on Guam. Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Division Technical Report No. 1. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA. 26p.

White et al. 1988 White, C.M., Brimm, D.J. and Clunie, F. 1988. A study of peregrines in the Fiji Islands, south Pacific. Pp. 275-288 In Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery Ed by T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.C. Thelander, and C. M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc., Boise, Idaho, USA.

Wiles 1981 Wiles, G.J. 1981. Movement patterns and habitat utilization of Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 167-172 In Aquatic and wildlife resources annual report, fiscal year 1981 Ed by R.D. Anderson and Alan Hosmer. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1982a Wiles, G.J. 1982a. The current status, distribution and natural history of Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 204-211 In Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1982 Ed by R.D. Anderson, M.E. Molina and A.J. Hosmer. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1982b Wiles, G.J. 1982b. Movement patterns and habitat utilization of Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 212-216 In Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1982 Ed by R.D. Anderson, M.E. Molina and A.J. Hosmer. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.



Wiles 1983 Wiles, G.J. 1983. Movement patterns and habitat utilization of Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 174-180 In Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1983 Ed by R.D. Anderson, M.E. Molina. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1987a Wiles, G.J. 1987a. Current research and future management of Mariana fruit bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) on Guam. Australian Mammalogy. 10: 93-95.

Wiles 1987b Wiles, G.J. 1987b. The status of fruit bats on Guam. Pacific Science. 41: 148-157.

Wiles 1987c Wiles, G.J. 1987c. Natural history, biology, and habitat protection for the Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 124-135 In Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Division annual report, fiscal year 1987 Ed by G.R. Grimm and L.L. Mariano. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife resources, Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1989 Wiles, G.J. 1989. Natural History, Biology, and Habitat Protection for the Marianas Fruit Bats. Pp. 59-71 In Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1989 Ed by C.F. Aguon, G.J. Wiles, and L.L. Mariano. Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1990 Wiles, G.J. 1990. Natural history, biology, and habitat protection for Marianas fruit bats. Pp. 136-144 In Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1990 Ed by R.D. Andersen, G.W. Davis, L.L. Mariano, T.J. Pitlik and G.J. Wiles. Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 1991 Wiles, G.J. 1991. Natural history, biology, and habitat protection for Mariana fruit bats. Pp. 123-129 In Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources annual report, fiscal year 1991 Ed by R.D. Andersen, G.W. Davis, L.L. Mariano, G.J. Wiles. Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. Mangilao, Guam, USA.

Wiles 2005 Wiles, G.J. 2005. Decline of a population of wild seeded breadfruit (Artocarpus mariannensis) on Guam, Mariana Islands. Pacific Science. 59(4): 509-522.

Wiles and Glass 1990 Wiles, G. J. and Glass, P.O. 1990. Interisland movements of the fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus) in the Mariana islands. Atoll Research Bulletin. 343: 1-6.

Wiles and Fujita 1992 Wiles, G.J. and Fujita, M. 1992. Food plants and economic importance of flying foxes on Pacific Islands. Pp. 24-35 In Proceedings of an international conservation conference Ed by D.E. Wilson and G.L. Graham. USFWS Biological Report 90(23). Washington, DC., USA.

Wiles et al. 1989 Wiles, G.J., Lemke, T.O. and Payne N.H. 1989. Population estimates of fruit bats (Pteropus mariannus) in the Mariana Islands. Conservation Biology. 3(1): 66-76.



Wiles et al. 1996 Wiles, G.J., Schreiner, I.H., Nafus, D., Jurgensen, L.K. and Manglona, J.C. 1996. The status, biology, and conservation of Serianthes nelsonii (Fabaceae), an endangered Micronesian tree. Biological Conservation. 76: 229-239.

Wiles et al. 1997 Wiles, G.J., Engbring, J. and Otobed, D. 1997. Abundance, biology, and human exploitation of bats in the Palau Islands. Journal of the Zoological Society of London. 241: 203-227.

Wiles et al. 1999 Wiles, G.J., Buden, D.W. and Worthington, D.J. 1999. History of introduction, population status and management of Philippine deer (Cervus mariannus) on Micronesian islands. Mammalia. 63: 193-215.

Woodside 1958 Woodside, D.H. 1958. Fish and wildlife investigations. Guam Department of Agriculture. Unpublished.

Worthington and Taiscan 1995

Worthington, D.J. and Taiscan, E.M. 1995. Fruit Bat Research. Pp. 6-16 In Annual Report, fiscal year 1995. CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yamashina 1932 Yamashina, Y. 1932. New subspecies of bats from the mandated South Pacific Islands. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa. 22(121): 240-241. (in Japanese).

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER MARIANA FRUIT BAT THREATENED STATUS

final marina friut bat management plan 8 08 src · final mariana fruit bat management plan andersen...

Documents