are A BLUEPRINT FOR CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE FEDERATED STATES … · 2014-05-29 · 4 A...

micronesiaA BLUEPRINT FOR CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITYOF THE FEDERATED STATES OF

Vision: The Federated States of Micronesia will have more extensive,

diverse and higher quality of marine, terrestrial and freshwater

ecosystems, which meet human needs and aspirations fairly, pre-

serve and utilize traditional knowledge and practices, and fulfill the

ecosystem functions necessary for all life on Earth

Jez

O’ha

re

3C O N T E N T S

Executive Summary 8

1.0 Introduction 10

2.0 The Place and Its People 112.1 Overview of the FSM Ecoregions 112.2 Ecological Context 112.3 Human Context 14

3.0 Building a Foundation for Conservation Design 173.1 Ecoregional Planning Framework 173.2 Planning Teams 173.3 The Planning Process 173.4 Conservation Targets 183.5 Target Occurrences and Viability 223.6 Conservation Goals 24

4.0 The FSM Conservation Blueprint: the Biological Portfolio 274.1 Portfolio Design and Selection 274.2 The Ecoregional Portfolio 284.3 Priority Action Areas 294.4 Success at Meeting Conservation Goals 30

5.0 Threats Assessment 325.1 Critical Threats 32

6.0 Taking Action: Multi-Area Conservation Strategies 366.1 Communtiy/Traditional Actions 376.2 Government Actions Public Policy 376.3 Conservation Plannning 386.4 Securing Public Funds 39

7.0 Addressing Data Gaps Looking Toward The Next Generation 407.1 Geographic Data Gaps 407.2 Conservation Target Data Gaps 407.3 Ecoregional Planning Process Gaps and Next Steps 417.4 Conclusion 41

8.0 References 43

APPENDICESAppendix A. Detailed Maps of Areas of Biodiversity Significance 48Appendix B. Detailed List of Conservation Targets 55Appendix C. Key Terms 71Appendix D. List of Areas of Biodiversity Significance 72Appendix E. Criteria for Prioritizing Areas of Biodiversity Significance 91Appendix F. List of Priority Action Areas 92Appendix G. Summarized Threats to Areas of Biodiversity Significance 98

contents

This Page: Nan Madol ruins onPohnpei Island

Cover Photo:Dausokele Estuary on thenorth side of Pohnpei Island

2 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A

This plan was funded

and supported, and

is owned by: the FSM

National and State Gov-

ernments The Nature

Conservancy, U.S. Forest

Service, UNDP-Global

Environment Fund, US

Department of the

Interior.

funded and supported by

4 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

acknowledgements

This Page: Native dances on Yap.

This plan was a collaboration of many individuals and organizations. It was funded andsupported by: The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service, UNDP-GlobalEnvironment Facility, US Department of the Interior, and the Federated States ofMicronesia and respective state governments. Many thanks to all whom gave generouslytheir time and expertise to help protect the extraordinary biodiversity within theFederated States of Micronesia.

As will be discussed further in Section 3.2, the contributors were organized into four"teams":

CORE TEAMBill Raynor The Nature Conservancy FSM Country ProgramWayne Ostlie The Nature Conservancy Worldwide OfficeKaren Poiani The Nature Conservancy Hawaii Field OfficeStuart Sheppard The Nature Conservancy Worldwide OfficeAudrey Newman The Nature Conservancy Hawaii Field OfficeDonna Shanefelter The Nature Conservancy Hawaii Field OfficeHolly Copeland The Nature Conservancy Wyoming Field Office

NBSAP STEERING COMMITTEEFrancis Itimal NBSAP ChairmanSimpson Abraham Kosrae Island Resource Mgmt. Program, KosraeYouser Anson Dept of Land & Natural Resources, PohnpeiDr. Don Buden College of Micronesia, PohnpeiJane Chigiyal Dept of Foreign Affairs, PohnpeiOKean Ehmes NBSAP Project Manager Jane Elymore Dept of Health, Education & Social Affairs, PohnpeiJoseph Giliko Dept of Resources & Development, YapEdigar Isaac Dept of Finance & Administration, PohnpeiBrett Kant Dept of Justice, PohnpeiSonia Kephas NBSAP Support StaffJoe Konno Chuuk Environmental Protection Agency, ChuukWilly Kostka Conservation Society of Pohnpei, PohnpeiIshmael Lebehn Dept of Economic Affairs, PohnpeiJohn Mooteb Dept of Economic Affairs, PohnpeiEugene Pangelinan National Oceanic Resource Management Authority, PohnpeiMoses Pretrick Dept of Health Education & Social Affairs, PohnpeiMaderson Ramon Dept of Economic Affairs, PohnpeiBill Raynor NBSAP Vice Chairman (NGO)

SCIENCE TEAMSimpson Abraham Development Review Commission, KosraeTony Abraham Division of Marine Surveillance, KosraeDr. Steve Amesbury University of Guam Marine Lab, GuamHerson Anson Division of Forestry, PohnpeiDonald David Division of Marine Development, PohnpeiAhser Edward College of Micronesia-FSMOkean Ehmes FSM National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

Coordinator Coordinator, PohnpeiMarjorie Falanruw US Forest Service, YapDavid Hinchley The Nature Conservancy TNC, PalauTarita Holm Palau National Office of Environmental Response and

Coordination, PalauFrancis Itimai FSM Fisheries Division, PohnpeiEugene Joseph Conservation Society of Pohnpei, PohnpeiJoe Konno Environmental Protection Agency, ChuukWilly Kostka Conservation Society of Pohnpei, PohnpeiIshmael Lebehn FSM Department of Economic Affairs, PohnpeiPatricia Leon The Nature Conservancy, PohnpeiSteve Lindsay Micronesian Aquaculture and Marine Consultant Services, PohnpeiDr. Harley Manner Department of Geography, University of GuamValentine Martin FSM Fisheries Division, PohnpeiMadison Nena Kosrae Conservation and Safety Organization, KosraeRomeo Osiena Department ofMarine Resources, ChuukInnocente Penno Office of the Governor, ChuukDr. Bob Richmond University of Guam Marine LabAndy Tafilicheg Yap Fisheries Division, YapMayoriko Victor The Nature Conservancy, Pohnpei

LOCAL EXPERTS TEAMRooston Abraham Fisheries Development Division, KosraeSimpson Abraham Development Review Commission, KosraeTony Abraham Division of Marine Surveillance, KosraeLes Aidel Dept. of Division of Commerce and Industry, KosraeJackson Albert College of Micronesia Land Grant, KosraeJulita Albert Environmental Protection Agency, ChuukAndy J. Andrew Utwe Resource Management Committee, KosraeSebastian Anefal Department of Economic Affairs, YapHerson Anson Division of Forestry, PohnpeiJocyleen Anson Division of Surveying & Mapping, PohnpeiYouser Anson Dept of Land & Natural Resources, PohnpeiBernard Billimont Municipal Affairs Coordinator, ChuukEthan Brown Division of Forestry, Pohnpei

Continued on page 6

We gratefully ac-

knowledge all those

who contributed pho-

tos: Jez O'hare, Margie

Falanruw, Dave Vecella,

Pius Liyagel, Charles

Chieng, Patricia Leon,

and Holly Copeland.

6 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 7ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

acknowledgements

Above: Young Pohnpeian manpreparing sakau (Piper methysticum)

LOCAL EXPERTS TEAM (CONTINUED)

Soichy Buliche Commission on Resources and Development, SatowanStuart Campbell Department Primary Industries, Cairns, Queensland, AustraliaBlair P. Charley Development Review Commission, KosraeKathy Chaston Yap Community Action Program, YapCharles Chieng Yap Community Action Program, YapEliot Cholymay Department of Education, ChuukMadachiro Christlib State Legislature, ChuukCarlos Jose Cianchini Isla Caja de Muertos Natural Reserve, Department of Natural

Resources, Puerto RicoRob Coles Queensland Department of Primary IndustriesAnne Cummings Development Review Commission, KosraeRinson Edmond Division of Consumer Services, Department of Commerce

and IndustryLargo Edwin Peace Corps, PohnpeiOkean Ehmes FSM Department of Economic AffairsKonrad Englberger South Pacific Commission, PohnpeiAndy George Development Review Commission, KosraeSingkitchy P. George Department of Commerce and Industry, KosraeYosiwo P. George State Court, KosraeBarb Gimlin Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash., D.C.Kondios Gornelius Department of Land, KosraeCharlie Hallers Department of Public Affairs (Youth Division), ChuukFlorencio Harper State Legislature, ChuukJohn B. Ham Council of Pilung, YapMary Jane Hartman ChuukBruce Howell Department of Public Works, KosraePeres Ioanis Environmental Protection Agency, PohnpeiMelissa Iwamoto Division of Marine Resources, YapRobert H. Jackson Development Review Commission, KosraeRainer Jimmy Peace Corps, PohnpeiAmanisio Joseph Department of Agriculture, ChuukBenisio Joseph Department of Education, ChuukPerson Joseph Department of Social Affairs, PohnpeiKainid K. Kanto College of Micronesia-FSM, ChuukMartha Kanus Headstart Program, ChuukDylan Kesler Oregon State UniversityMaheta T. Kilafwasru Malem Municipal Government, KosraeJoe Konno Environmental Protection Agency, ChuukMark Kostka College of Micronesia-Coop. Extension Service, PohnpeiCal Legdesog Department of Education, YapSaimon Lihpai Division of Forestry. PohnpeiSteve Lindsay Micro Aquaculture & Marine Consultant Services, PohnpeiPius Liyagel Division of Agriculture and Forestry, YapJohn A. Mangefel Yap Environmental Stewardship Consortium, YapMoses Marpa Division of Transportation, Yap

Tyler McAdam Conservation Society of Pohnpei, PohnpeiLen McKenzie Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, AustraliaVenantius Meryog Division of Marine Resources, YapThomas A. Mooh YapJohn Mootmag Yap Evironmental Stewardship Consortium, YapToyo Mori Department of Transportation, ChuukCyprian Mugunbey YapDr. V.K. Murukesan Agricultural Experiment Station—Land Grant, College of

Micronesia, YapMadison Nena Kosrae Conservation and Safety Organization, KosraeKosaky Niwwiano Resource Management Committee, Lelu,KosraeYoshiyuki "Alik" Oda Development Review CommissionHerbert Osawa Environmental Protection Agency, ChuukRomio A. Osiena Department of Marine Resources, ChuukKiupu K. Palik KosraeInnocente Penno Dept. of Education, ChuukJackson A. Phillip College of Micronesia-Coop. Ext. Service, PohnpeiJohn Pona Council of Pilung, YapTed Ratun YapTanseny Reynold Governor's Office/Women AffairsJayson Robert Guide and Assist Through Awareness, ChuukMarcus Rosario Nett District Government, PohnpeiFrancis Ruegorong Division of Marine Resources, YapRudolph Ruethin Division of Marine Resources, YapNimos Salik Tafunsak Municipal Government, KosraeStoner Sanney Resource Management Committee,Walung, Kosrae Valentine Santiago Conservation Society of Pohnpei, PohnpeiNarciso Sebastian Department of Education, ChuukAaron K. Sigrah Governor's Office, KosraeBetty Sigrah Development Review Commission, KosraeKachusy Silander Housing Authority, ChuukBumio Silbanuz Division of Tourism & Parks, PohnpeiJohn Silbanuz Division of Forestry, PohnpeiJoshua Simor U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyTamdad Sunog Division of Agriculture and Forestry, YapAndy Tafileiching Division of Marine Resources, YapKaye Taylor Peace Corps, ChuukMason Timothy FSM National Aquaculture Center, KosraeFrancis Tipeno Department of Education, ChuukJohn Tun Historic Preservation Office, YapJames S. Ungin YapImos (Mike) Urumai Department. of Marine Resources, ChuukMayoriko Victor The Nature Conservancy, PohnpeiMatthew M. Yarofalmal Division of Marine Resources, YapElmund Yleizah Environmental Protection Agency, Chuuk

9

This Page Top:Pakin Atoll near PohnpeiIsland

This Page Bottom:Yapese outer island craftsman working on a traditional outrigger canoe

Opposite Page: Traditional dancing in aYapese village

maps around groups of ecologically similartarget occurrences. During ABS delineation,the team focused on areas where nestingand co-occurrence of species and ecologicalsystems contributed to an area's ecologicalcomplexity and integrity. Where possible,the teams extended boundaries to tietogether terrestrial and marine ecologicalsystems and define Areas of BiodiversitySignificance that encompass entire ecosys-tems. The first iteration of the portfolioof Areas of Biodiversity Significance forthe FSM Ecoregional Plan encompasses130 sites. The combined sites encompass291,753 ha (1,126.11 square miles), or 19% ofthe Federated States of Micronesia's entireterrestrial and inshore area (includingreefs and lagoon areas, but excluding thenation's territorial waters, which consistmostly of open ocean).

Using the Conservancy’s methodologyfor developing conservation goals, theplanning team set quantitative goals foreach conservation target that would "sup-port the evolutionary pathway of targetspecies in continually changing ecosystems,looking into the future at least 100 yearsor 10 generations". An assessment of theAreas of Biodiversity Significance revealedthat of 130 sites, goals were met or exceededfor 20 out of the 53 selected conservationtargets (38%). Terrestrial habitats faredespecially poorly due to their smallnessand direct impact of human actions, andrestoration of terrestrial habitats may needto be undertaken to meet the minimumtarget extent for these systems to assuretheir functionality and continued viability.In some cases, limited distribution andviability data on species conservation targetpopulations prevented the teams fromidentifying enough occurrences to meetthe goals. Many species conservation targetswill require further biological monitoringto determine their spatial distribution,population, and overall viability.

Due to limited human and financialresources, a subset of priority ABS siteswere selected through a ranking exercise

carried out by Core and Local Experts Teammembers from Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuukand Yap during a series of workshops fromJune-October 2002. Five criteria wereused to prioritize each ABS: biologicalvalue, feasibility, leverage, urgency of threat,and cultural and historic value. Altogether,24 "Priority Action Areas" were selectedto focus conservation action in the mostbiologically important and threatenedareas within the next three to five years.

A threats analysis was conducted andoverfishing/overhunting was identified asthe most urgent and critical threat acrossmarine and terrestrial ABS in all states,followed by coastal erosion and sea-levelrise, inadequate landfills and dumping,erosion/sedimentation from land-basedactivities, destructive harvesting, andinvasive species. Based on this threatsanalysis, the single multi-area conservationstrategy recommended by this plan is tocreate a government framework that enableslocal communities to establish and maintainconservation areas. Many actions will berequired to support this overarchingstrategy, including community-coalitionbuilding, securing funds, and conservationplanning.

This conservation plan is by no meansan exhaustive study on all that is knownbiologically about the islands and watersof the Federated States of Micronesia.However, as far as we know, it is the firsteffort to capture the collective biologicalknowledge of regional scientists and localexperts and turn that knowledge intomapped focal areas for biodiversity pro-tection. There is much work to be done,especially in understanding more aboutthe size, distribution, life history require-ments and health of the FSM’s flora andfauna. Hopefully, future iterations of thisconservation plan will be enhanced bynew and on-going studies on the region’sbiodiversity. Perhaps most importantly,this plan provides a place to start—wherethose concerned about the special placesin Micronesia can collectively focus theirefforts. A place to begin.

8 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

executive summary

The oceanic islands of the Federated Statesof Micronesia (FSM), also known as theCaroline Islands, are home to some of themost biologically diverse forests and coralreefs in the world. Many individuals,communities, agencies and organizationsare acting to conserve the irreplaceablenatural resources of the FSM. However,for the most part conservation activitieshave been small-scale and disconnected, andlacked comprehensive goals for conserva-tion success. A shared "blueprint" FSM'sbiological resources—a clear picture of theplaces in the nation where those resourcesreside and prioritization of conservationneeds, is required in order to set and achieveconservation objectives. This conservationplan articulates such a blueprint.

This plan is the result of over two yearsof coordinated work by individuals withinthe governments of the Federated Statesof Micronesia, the U.S. Forest Service, TheNature Conservancy, university scientists,and local experts. The impetus for thiseffort was the development of the FSM'sNational Biodiversity Strategy and ActionPlan (NBSAP). Completed in April 2002,a major goal of NBSAP is to protect andsustainably manage a full representation ofthe FSM's marine, freshwater, and terrestrialecosystems. It is a goal of this conservationplan to contribute to the NBSAP objective

and build on the current momentum forconservation.

The methods used to develop the FSMBlueprint, or FSM Ecoregional Plan, havebeen developed by The Nature Conservancy,a global non-profit conservation organiza-tion dedicated to preserving biodiversitythrough the conservation of species, naturalcommunities, ecosystems and the processesthat support them. The key steps in theecoregional planning process are:• Determine the region of interest

(eco-region);• Define the representative ecological

systems, natural communities, and selected species that should be conserved (conservation targets);

• Delineate the healthiest examples of these ecological systems, natural communities, and species;

• Determine how many examples of theseecological systems, natural communities, and species need to be conserved (conservation goals);

• Determine the areas that capture the most and best examples of these eco-logical systems, natural communities, andspecies (Areas of Biodiversity Significance);

• Determine which of these areas are of highest priority to conserve in the short term (priority action areas);

• Develop actions that will help to conservemany Areas of Biodiversity Significance identified above (multi-area strategies).During the planning process, the planning

team identified fifty-three conservationtargets (12 systems, 6 communities, 4 specialecological features, and 29 species) selectedfrom the several hundred systems, com-munities, special ecological features andspecies identified in the FSM. During aseries of six workshops held throughout theFSM, experts employed existing vegetationmaps, field reports, personal observationsand literature to delineate specific examplesof these targets, or "target occurrences".Areas of Biodiversity Significance (ABS)were delineated by drawing boundaries on

The single multi-area

conservation strate-

gy recommended by

this plan is to create

a government frame-

work that enables

local communities to

establish and main-

tain conservation

areas.

10 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 11THE PLACE AND ITS PEOPLE

This Page Top: Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)

This Page Bottom: Pohnpei Island airport and harbor

Opposite Page:Young Pohnpeian womenpreparing for a traditionaldance

Many individuals, communities, agenciesand organizations are acting to conservethe irreplaceable natural resources of theFederated States of Micronesia (FSM)(Raynor 2000; FSM 2002). Until now,conservation activities have been mostlysmall-scale and disconnected, and lackingcomprehensive goals for conservation success. A shared "blueprint" of FSM'sbiological resources—a clear picture of theplaces in the nation where those resourcesreside—and a list of priority conservationneeds was required to set and achievemore effective conservation objectives.This conservation plan, facilitated by theFSM Country Program of The NatureConservancy in coordination with FSMagencies, scientists, and local experts,articulates such a blueprint.

The Nature Conservancy, a global non-profit conservation organization dedicatedto preserving biodiversity, suggested it’secoregional planning process as a frame-work for this conservation plan (TNC2000). Ecoregions are relatively large areasdelineated by biotic and environmentalfactors that regulate the structure andfunction of ecosystems within them.Ecoregional planning is comprehensiveprocess for identifying and prioritizing a set of places or areas that, together, represent the majority of species, naturalcommunities, and ecological systems foundwithin a particular region. Ecoregionalplanning is based on four premises:

1. Planning at scales higher and broader than specific sites will more effectively conserve the full range of biodiversity and promote its persistence;

2. Many significant threats to biodiversity operate at the scale of multiple sites;

3. Coordinated regional efforts can facilitatethe creation of new partnerships and alliances and can help avoid redundancy among groups working independently;

4. This approach can more accurately define an area for conservation, remedi-ation, or restoration than those primarilybased on connecting sites or tailoring plans to political boundaries or agendas.Although this plan’s methodology origi-

nates from The Nature Conservancy, otherconservation organizations such as WorldWildlife Fund use similar assumptions,underlying objectives, and planningmethodologies (Dinerstein 2000).

On Pacific islands, where the abundanceof rare and endemic species is matched bya corresponding lack of data and resourcesfor their preservation, ecoregional planningoffers a practical, rational approach forfocusing and prioritizing conservation action.In response to this need, the Conservancyidentified ecoregional planning as a toppriority for its Pacific Country Programsin the summer of 2001. At the sametime, the government of the FederatedStates of Micronesia was poised to developits National Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan (NBSAP), an outline of thenation's biological resources and currentthreats and a corresponding set of proposedactions. The government requested thatthe Conservancy lead a planning exerciseas part of a process of national consultation.These circumstances allowed participantsto define mutual, obtainable conservationgoals for conserving the biodiversity ofthe FSM.

Ecoregional planning

is a comprehensive

process for identify-

ing and prioritizing a

set of places or areas

that, together, repre-

sent the majority of

species, natural com-

munities, and eco-

logical systems found

within a particular

region.

1.0 introduction the place and its people 2.0

2.1OVERVIEW OF THE FSMECOREGIONSThis conservation plan addresses conser-vation for two World Wildlife Fundecoregions--the Yap Tropical Dry Forestand Carolines Tropical Moist ForestEcoregions (Figure 1). The Yap TropicalDry Forest Ecoregion contains the fourislands of Yap proper, in addition to thenearby atolls of Ulithi, Ngulu, Fais, andFaraulep. The Carolines Tropical MoistForest Ecoregion contains the remainingouter islands of Yap, known as theRemetau group, west through Chuuk,Pohnpei, and Kosrae. The boundaries ofthese two ecoregions also convenientlyencompass the whole of the FederatedStates of Micronesia.

2.2 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT The oceanic islands of the Federated Statesof Micronesia, in the Caroline Islands, arehome to some of the most biologicallydiverse forests and coral reefs in the world.

The proximity of Micronesia to the Indo-Malay region and the relative nearnessbetween the islands themselves enabledthe high islands and reefs to act as bridgesfor the migration of terrestrial and marinespecies. The distance between islands alsoseparated individual populations, causingin some cases, the creation of new species.The islands of the eastern Carolines aremore isolated from continental landmasses.As a result, the total number of speciesdecreases from west to east within theFSM, but the proportion of endemic speciesincreases. This pattern is characteristic ofthe science of island biogeography (Wilson2000), of which the islands of Micronesiaare veritable case studies.

Millions of years ago, volcanic activitycreated the islands and atolls of the FSM.Today, mountain peaks fringed by coral reefsthrust up out of clear blue Pacific waters.In other places, atolls are all that remain ofislands that sunk beneath the surface, leavingrings of coral barrier reefs around coraland sand lagoons. Relatively high rainfall(approximately 120 400 inches/year) anda humid tropical climate dominate the

Figure 1. Map of Ecoregions


FSM due to its location just north of theequator and in the Pacific's IntertropicalConvergence Zone (ICTZ). Rainfallgradually decreases east to west. Kosrae inthe easternmost Caroline Islands averages252 inches/year, Pohnpei averages 200inches/year in its lowlands (and up to 400inches/year in the mountainous interior),while Yap averages 120 inches/year andhas a notable dry season.

Typhoons are a dominant factor shapingbiodiversity in Micronesia, however less sothan farther north in the Marianas Islandsand the Philippines, where typhoons are aregular (nearly annual) occurrence. Mosttyphoons in the region tend to spawn in theeastern Carolines (northeast of Pohnpeiand Kosrae) and then move off towardthe northwest, allowing for taller forests inPohnpei and Kosrae. Occasionally, how-ever, typhoons do devastate the terrestrialand marine environments of the CarolineIslands, with major typhoons occurringinfrequently (25-50 year events). Overall,these factors combine to create a highdiversity of plant and animal species inthe FSM within a relatively small land area.

2.2.1Yap Tropical Dry Forest EcoregionThe Yap Tropical Dry Forest Ecoregioncontains the westernmost islands of YapState (Figure 1). The dominant vegetationtypes are mixed broadleaf forest, swamp,mangrove, savanna, and agroforests.Vegetation maps from 1976 aerial photosindicate that wild forests cover about 40%of the land area of Yap (including mixedbroadleaf forest, swamp, and mangrove)(Falanruw et. al 1987). Agroforests (treegardens) cover another 26% of the landarea, and about 22% of the vegetation issavanna. Scientists believe that prior tohuman habitation, broadleaf deciduousforests covered most islands within thisecoregion. However, the introduction of human-induced wildfires within theWestern Caroline Islands, a region naturallyprone to frequent droughts, has resultedin extensive savannas (in Yap, Guam, andPalau).

Yap's forests and savannas support anumber of endemic plant species, includingDrypetes yapensis, Drypetes carolenesis,Trichospermum ikutai, Hedyotis yapensis,Timonius albus, Myrtella bennigseniana,Casearia cauliflora, and Pentaphalangiumvolkensii. The large tree Serianthes kane-hirae and the distinctive tree Garciniarumiyo, are endemic to Yap and Palau.Yap’s mangroves are the most diverse in theFSM with as many species of mangrovetrees in Yap as in Palau. Bulldozing activities,wildfires, and agricultural burning endangerYap’s native forests and endemic species.

Yap hosts at least three endemic birdspecies a monarch (Monarcha godeffroyi)and two white-eyes (Rukia oleaginea sp.,Zosterops hypolais )--as well as the distinctive Yap Cicadabird and fourrange-restricted birds (Stattersfield et al.1998, Pratt et al. 1987).

Two endemic species or subspecies offlying fox inhabit Yap State (Pteropusmariannus yapensis and P.m. ulithiensis)(Falanruw 1988). Both are listed underCITES (Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species), and arecovered under the U.S. Endangered SpeciesAct; they are also protected by Yap Statelegislation. Hunting and typhoons (Hilton-Taylor 2000), as well as drought and habitatdisturbance, threaten Yap’s flying foxes.

The marine systems of the FSM com-pose an enormous and largely unexploredresource, protecting some of the healthiestremaining populations of many globallythreatened species. At least four of theworld’s seven species of sea turtles arerecorded in Yap State, including the hawks-bill turtle (Erytomochelys imbricata) andthe green turtle (Chelonia mydas). In fact,the largest green turtle (Chelonia mydas )rookery remaining in the insular Pacific isfound on several small islands of the atollof Ulithi in Yap State. FSM’s remote outerislands, including several atolls in Yap Statealso host a number of important seabirdrookeries. The world’s deepest and largelyunexplored ocean trench, the MariannasTrench, reaches its’ greatest depth betweenYap proper and the outer islands to the west.

2.2.2 Carolines Tropical Moist ForestEcoregionThe Carolines Tropical Moist ForestEcoregion contains the islands in Kosrae,Pohnpei, Chuuk, and easternmost islets ofYap State. Mixed broadleaf forests comprisethe dominant vegetation type on the highvolcanic islands. Historically, broadleafforests almost completely covered these highislands, but people have since cleared ordisturbed much of the lowland vegetation.A recent aerial survey of Pohnpei Islandfound two-thirds of the native forest tohave been lost in the past twenty years.

Lowland vegetation on the high volcanicislands is dominated by mangrove andswamp forests, though large portions ofthese forests are being disturbed by humanactivities. Healthy examples of these forestsstill exist, though, along isolated coasts ofPohnpei and Kosrae. Located at just 450meters on Pohnpei and Kosrae, montanecloud forests thrive on the unique combi-nation of relatively high rainfall and elevation.These cloud forests are a global rarity, asthey are some of the lowest elevation cloudforests in the world and are home to over30 species of tree snails, 24 species of birds,and three species of endemic flying foxes(Raynor 1993).

Endemism is very high in this ecoregion,a result of a unique combination of distanceand isolation. Plants and animals fromthe biologically diverse Southeast Asiamainland, although located thousands ofmiles to the west, were able to island hopthrough the Caroline Island archipelago,since the greatest distance between anyisland from Palau to the Marshall Islandsis only 200-300 miles. As a result, over200 endemic species inhabit the CarolinesTropical Moist Forest Ecoregion. PohnpeiIsland, in particular, contains a high numberof endemic species from its unique com-bination of size, soils, climate, geology, andtopography in addition to being the highestgeographic point for more than 2000 milesin any direction creating a geography notfound anywhere else in the world.

The list of endemic species for this ecore-gion includes four endemics with at leastone endemic genus of over twenty-fourspecies of native reptiles (Dahl 1980) andfour flying foxes (P. molosinnus, P. insularis,P. phaeocephalus, P. mariannus ualnus).Thirteen birds are endemic to the ecoregion,including the Truk monarch (Metabolusrugensis), the Pohnpei fantail (Rhipidurakubaryi), the Pohnpei mountain starling(Aplonis pelzeni), and the Pohnpei lory

The marine systems

of the FSM compose

an enormous and

largely unexplored

resource, protecting

some of the healthiest

remaining popula-

tions of many globally

threatened species.

This Page:Pohnpei tree fern (Cyathea nigricans)

Opposite Page:Outer island family living on Pohnpei

the place and its people 2.0


the place and its people

This Page:Pohnpei elder teachingbreadfruit preparation to her grandchild

Opposite Page:Traditional Pohnpeiandancers

(Trichoglossus rubiginosus). On the islandof Tol in Chuuk, one of the world’s mostendangered rainforests survives precariouslyon the peak of Mt. Winipot (and othersmall mountaintops in the Chuuk lagoon).

The islands of FSM exhibit a greatdiversity of marine ecosyste ms, from highvolcanic islands with fringing and barrierreefs to coral atolls, including Chuuklagoon, one of the world’s largest (823mi2/3130 km2) and deepest (60m/200ft). The heart of the world’s largest tunafishery, FSM’s offshore waters containrich stocks of yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack,and other species of fish. According to the2002 National Coral Reef Action Strategy(NOAA), "Reefs support more species perunit area than any other marine ecosystem,including about 4,000 documentedspecies of fish, 800 species of hard coralsand hundreds of other species. Scientistsestimate that there may be another 1 to 8million undiscovered coral reef species(Reaka-Kudla 1997). In many ways, coralreefs rival and surpass tropical rainforestsin their biological diversity and complexity."

2.3HUMAN CONTEXTFactors that led to high biological diversityin Micronesia also led to high culturaldiversity. Nine languages and numerouscultures exist over the 1,800-mile archi-pelago. The FSM’s human population iscurrently 107,000. Most people live in thehigh volcanic island district centers of thefour main island groups: Kosrae, Pohnpei,Chuuk, and Yap. During the 1980’s, thepopulation growth rate was three percentper year, one of the highest populationgrowth rates in the world. Since 1996,emigration to the U.S. and it’s territories(through provisions in the Compact ofFree Association) has slowed populationgrowth to just .3 percent annually. (FSM2002c)

Interestingly, the population on someislands may have been higher during thenineteenth century than it is today. OnPohnpei, for example, the population in1820 was estimated at 15,000 (Ashby1993), yet traditional cultures were able

sustain the biological resources of the islandthrough careful use. The pre-contact pop-ulation of Yap has been variously estimatedat 273-530 people per sq. kilometer (7091,378 people / sq. mile) (Falanruw 1995).

While the impact of such a densehuman population probably contributedto the elimination of forests and expan-sion of savanna (which comprised some22% of the island vegetation as seen from1976 aerial photographs), the culture alsodeveloped a world-class tree garden taropatch system of permiculture. In 1976,these "agroforests" comprised some 26%of the island’s vegetation. Altogether, Yap’ssystem of food production incorporatedlandscape architecture from uplands intonearshore waters (Falanruw 1994) in atraditional form of "ecosystem manage-ment." While there are limits to an island’scarrying capacity, and while the contextfor many traditional practices is no longerpresent, the precedent of traditional management and the practice of someecologically based technologies provides a framework for incorporating modernscience into an island-relevant system ofresource stewardship.

Tenure over land and marine areas variesisland to island and state to state, but themajority of the nation's land and inshoremarine areas are privately or collectivelyowned. The nation’s people depend heavilyon the natural environment for their sur-vival as evidenced by the fact that medianannual household income in 2000 wasonly US$4,618 (FSM 2002c). A healthyenvironment is profoundly linked withadvances in health and education, economicdevelopment, and good governance. Whilegrowth in the FSM is constrained by limitednatural resources, improvements in natural

resource management are limitless.Building a healthy economic future forthe FSM will necessitate sustainablemanagement of the country’s biologicaland natural resources.

Tremendous pressure for economicgrowth and changing cultural practices,combined with population growth andchanging demography in the FSM threatenbiological resources. Interior forests andcoral reefs are rapidly being lost or degradedby bulldozing, deforestation, sedimentation,pollution, dredging and destructive fishingpractices. Conventional western approachesto conservation--government managementand enforcement of large-scale conservationareas--have been ineffective due to landand marine ownership patterns, the diffi-culties inherent to regulating activities inextremely remote locations, and the limit-ed capacity of government naturalresource agencies (FSM 2002; SPREP1993; Micronesian Seminar 2002).

2.0

Figure 2. Population growth

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

01900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

YEAR

FSM Population Since 1920

PO

PU

LA

TIO

N


the place and its people

2.3.1 Political ContextThe Federated States of Micronesia has along history of colonial government by theSpanish, Germans, Japanese, and the UnitedStates, which administered the country aspart of a United Nations Trust Territoryof the Pacific Islands (TTPI) from 1945to 1979. Self-governing since 1979, theFSM entered into a Compact of FreeAssociation agreement with the UnitedStates in 1986. The FSM is currentlycompleting negotiations for a secondCompact agreement with new conditionsto U.S. funding not in the original version.

Annual grants will fund six governmentsectors, including the environment. In2004, the first year of Compact II, theU.S. will give $76 million.

The FSM has a limited history of con-servation management at the national level.Until 1979, there was but one conservationofficer for what is now the FederatedStates of Micronesia, Republic of theMarshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and theCommonwealth of the Northern Marianas.At the 1999 FSM Economic Summit, theFSM’s Environment Sector Strategy wasupdated and improved for inclusion in thecountry's on-going negotiations with theUnited States (Raynor 2000). The strategycalls for the establishment of a "networkof effective community-managed, ecologi-cally representative, and socially beneficialmarine and forest protected areas in thenation to safeguard the country’s preciousnatural heritage."

In April 2002, through a collaborationof local, state, and national stakeholders, theNational Biodiversity Strategy and ActionPlan (NBSAP) was completed. A majortheme of the NBSAP is ecosystem man-agement designed to protect and sustainablymanage a full representation of the FSM'smarine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosys-tems. While there is no established frame-work for governing conservation in theFSM, or an established cadre of personneldedicated to pushing environmental issuesto the forefront today, it is a goal of thisconservation plan to contribute to theNBSAP objective and build on the currentmomentum for conservation.

3.1ECOREGIONAL PLANNINGFRAMEWORK

The Nature Conservancy’s planning frame-work as outlined in Designing a Geographyof Hope (2000b) was selected as theguiding ecoregional planning process.Following this framework the key steps in the ecoregional planning process are:

• Identify the species, natural communities,and ecological systems that represent thebiodiversity of the Federated States of Micronesia;

• Record the best remaining examples of where these species, natural communities,and ecological systems occur;

• Define and delineate "Areas of Bio-diversity Significance"--clusters of high quality examples of species, natural communities, and ecological systems;

• Prioritize Areas of Biodiversity Signifi-cance for action within the next two to five years through a documented consensus-based process;

• Identify threats common to many areas of high biological significance and determine multi-area strategies to guideconservation efforts;

• Identify key data gaps.

3.2PLANNING TEAMSIn October 2001, a core conservationplanning team led by Bill Raynor, theConservancy’s FSM Country Programdirector was assembled. The Core Teamthen selected a diverse group of individualsrepresenting The Nature Conservancy,FSM federal and local state agencies, FSM-based universities, and local landownersand business people to participate at various

stages in the planning process. Brieflysummarized, the four teams assembled tocomplete this plan were:

1. Steering Committee: NBSAP task force.

2. Core Team: Led by Bill Raynor and composed of Conservancy conservation science and GIS staff, this team facilitatedthe planning process and coordinated completion of the final plan.

3. Science Team: A team of experts on the biology and natural resources of Micronesia, including resource manage-ment agency personnel from national and state governments, biologists from the College of Micronesia and Universityof Guam, and regional agency staff (especially the US Forest Service).

4.Local Experts Teams: Composed of local landowners, business people, state and municipal government staff, and NGO staff, these critical teams worked with the Core Team to review and approvethe portfolio design, develop viability specifications, and prioritize the final portfolio into action areas.

3.3 THE PLANNING PROCESSIn October 2001, the Core Team andselected Science Team members focusedon gathering data on potential conservationtargets and devising a plan of action forengaging scientists and local experts in theplanning process (see Figure 3 for timeline).The Core Team hosted two experts work-shops in Pohnpei on October 29-30, 2001and January 8-9, 2002. Scientists and localexperts from all over the FSM attended.Those attending actively participated inthe conservation planning process, sharingnew conservation target occurrence andlocation information, creating a draftecoregional portfolio, and reviewing goals

2.0

17

This Page Top:Traditional cup made from a coconut shell

This Page Bottom:Sea bird islands in FSM'souter islands provide breeding habitat for thousands of birds

Opposite Page:A beach in the outer islandsof Yap.

building a foundation for conservation design3.0

BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION DESIGN

18 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 19BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION DESIGN

building a foundation for conservation design

for conservation targets. By the end of thesecond workshop, the participants hadaccepted a final conservation targets list.

In the summer of 2002, the Core Teammet with the Local Experts Teams in allfour FSM States (Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei,and Kosrae). The goal of these meetingswas to determine the final ABS list andcollect information about them, includingownership, management, and contactinformation. Finally, each was ranked by anumber of factors such as urgency of threat,cultural significance, and biodiversity value.

Following the individual state workshops,members of the Core Team compiledmulti-site strategies based on input fromthe summer workshops. This documentwas written and the draft plan distributedto selected Core, Science, and Local ExpertsTeam members for review.

3.4Conservation TargetsThe principal purpose of an ecoregionalplan is to provide a method to sustain thelong-term viability of a region’s biodiversity.When addressing this task, one must ask:"What are the elements of biodiversity(or "conservation targets") that the planshould focus on?" Because it is impossibleto develop a conservation plan based oneach individual species occurring in a largeregion, a more strategic tactic is necessary.Conservation planners generally use atwo-tiered approach to this problem—a"coarse-filter/fine-filter" approach. The"coarse-filter/fine-filter" strategy stressesthe importance of conserving sufficientviable examples of all major ecologicalsystems or communities (the coarse filter),in addition to any rare or specialized speciesthat have special requirements and maynot be adequately addressed through thecoarse filter (Poiani 2000). For this plan,the Core Team chose the methods outlinedin The Nature Conservancy’s Designing a

Geography of Hope (2000b), a "coarse-filter/fine-filter" approach, to guide conservation target selection. It is thecombination of these coarse- and fine-scalefeatures that helps capture the full arrayof biodiversity within the FSM.

The Core Team spent October 2001consulting the literature and working withselected members of the Science Team to identify conservation targets. First, allterrestrial, freshwater, and near-shoremarine ecological systems for the FSM

Opposite Page Top:A betel nut palm (Areca catechu) overgrown withChromolaena odorata, anintroduced invasive species.

Opposite Page Bottom:A mangrove channel on Yap island

3.0

TYPES OF CONSERVATION TARGETS

• Ecological Systems - Dynamic spatial assemblages of natural communities tied together by similar ecological pro-cesses (e.g., hydrology, nutrient flowsor cycling), underlying environmental features (e.g., soils, geology) or envi-ronmental gradients (e.g., elevation, hydrological-related zones).

• Natural Communities - Finer-scale plant assemblages of definite floristiccomposition and similar habitat condi-tions and physiognomy.

• Special Ecological Features - Unique, irreplaceable features that are criticalto the conservation of a certain speciesor suite of species. Major groupings of species that share common naturalprocesses or conservation require-ments (e.g., freshwater mussels, and forest-interior birds).

• Species - (1) Imperiled and endan-gered native species; (2) Of special concern due to vulnerability, decliningtrends, disjunct distributions, or endemicstatus; (3) Focal species (including eco-logical keystone species, wide-rangingspecies, and umbrella species).

The principal purpose

of an ecoregional

plan is to provide a

method to sustain

the long-term viability

of a region’s biodi-

versity.

Figu

re 3

. Pro

cess

and

Tim

elin

e fo

r FS

M B

luep

rint D

evel

opm

ent

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Atoll Forest-Beach Strand ComplexFern-Sedge SavannaLimestone ForestMontane Cloud ForestRiparian ForestSwamp ForestMixed Broadleaf Forest

TERRESTRIAL NATURAL COMMUNITIES

Atoll Inland MangroveClinostigma Palm ForestCoastal Freshwater MarshIvory Nut Palm ForestMontane Perched Freshwater MarshTerminalia/Nypa Swamp Forest

MARINE & COASTAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Atoll Nearshore MarineEstuaryHigh Island Nearshore MarineMangrove Forest

FRESHWATER AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Freshwater Streams and Rivers

SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

Giant Clam Concentration AreasTurtle Nesting BeachesSeabird Nesting AreasGrouper (Serranidae Family) SpawningAggregation Areas

MARINE SPECIES

Coconut crab (Birgus latro)Manta ray (Manta birostris)Napolean wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus)

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES

Arno skink (Emoia arnoensis arnoensis)Caroline Island ground dove (Gallicolumbakubaryi)Chuuk flying fox (Pteropus insularis)Chuuk greater white-eye (Rukia rukia)Chuuk monarch (Metabolus rugensis)Chuuk poison tree (Semecarpus kraemeri)Cicadabird (Coracina tenuirostris)Giant Micronesian gecko (Perochirus scutel-latus)Gray duck (Anas superciliosus)Kosrae flying fox (Pteropus mariannus ualnus)Long-billed white-eye (Rukia longirostra)Micronesian pigeon (Ducula oceanica)Micronesian pigeon var. Truk (Ducula oceanicateraokai)Micronesian swiftlet (Collocalia inquieta)Mortlocks flying fox (Pteropus phaeocephalus)Pohnpei flying fox (Pteropus molossinus)Pohnpei Island skink (Emioa ponapea)Pohnpei mountain starling (Aplonis pelzelni)Pohnpei short-eared owl (Asio flammeusponapensis)Pohnpei tree snail 1 (Partula emersoni)Pohnpei tree snail 2 (Partula guamensis)Polynesian sheath-tailed bat (Emballoneurasemicaudata)Ulithi flying fox (Pteropus mariannus ulithi-ansis)White-throated ground dove (Gallicolumbaxanthonura)Yap flying fox (Pteropus mariannus yapensis)Yap monarch (Monarcha godeffroyi)

FRESHWATER AQUATIC SPECIES

Pohnpei river goby (Lentipes sp. A)Pohnpei river goby (Sicyopterus eudentatus)

Table 1. Conservation Targets



were identified. (e.g., Mixed BroadleafForest, Nearshore Marine Systems, CoastalFreshwater Swamp). Second, finer-scalenatural communities (e.g., Ivory Nut PalmForest, Terminalia/Nypa Swamp Forest)were identified, which would not likely besufficiently addressed by the ecologicalsystems. Finally, a long list of potentialtarget species were identified using criteriaidentified in Geography of Hope (i.e.,endemic, rare and imperiled, [includingthose classified as imperiled by the U.S.Endangered Species Act and the IUCN RedList] and disjunct). This list of potentialfine-filter species targets was refined to a significantly smaller final targets list bydetermining which of these would not be adequately captured within the broadecological systems identified above as targets.Finally, other critical ecological features(e.g., grouper spawning aggregation areas,sea turtle nesting beaches) were added tothe list as potential conservation targets.

Freshwater Streams and Rivers was addedas a single conservation target to representall freshwater systems due to a lack ofexisting data on freshwater systems and thecapacity to develop it. Had more data orcapacity been available, an attempt wouldhave been made to classify freshwater sys-tems into narrower categories. This remainsas a major data gap to be addressed inupcoming iterations of the plan.

By October 2001, the Core Team had adraft list of potential conservation targets.At a workshop held on Pohnpei fromOctober 29-30, 2001, this list was presentedto marine and terrestrial experts fromaround the region. The experts reviewedthe conservation targets list and suggestedpossible additions and deletions. By theend of the workshop, the list was refinedto a final set of 53 conservation targets,which best captured all the biodiversity of the FSM, including major ecologicalsystems (12), natural communities (6),special ecological features (4), and rareand/or imperiled species (31) (Table 1,Appendix B).

Opposite Page Top:Traditional stone path in aYapese agroforest

Opposite Page Bottom:Hibiscus flower (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis)

3.0

By the end of the

workshop, the list

was refined to a final

set of 53 conservation

targets, which best

captured all the bio-

diversity of the FSM.



3.5TARGET OCCURRENCES ANDVIABILITY Once the final conservation targets werechosen, the Local Experts Team was assem-bled to identify the best remaining examplesof these conservation targets. This wasaccomplished principally during the twoworkshops held in October 2001 andJanuary 2002. Participants relied on personal observations and literature todelineate specific examples of these con-servation targets, or "target occurrences".For terrestrial ecological systems and naturalcommunities, they used existing vegetationmaps (Falanruw et al. 1987a,b; MacLean

et. al 1986, Whitesell et. al 1986). Formarine ecological systems and special eco-logical features team members delineatedexamples based on their field experienceand local accounts.

Data for species was based on previousinventories (where available) and comple-mented by expert knowledge. Collectingreliable species data was more problematicthan for natural communities and ecologicalsystems. Ideally, ecoregional plans are basedon quantitative information such as fieldsurveys of population size and condition.This data is not generally available in theFSM, and is more qualitative or observa-tional in nature. As scientists continue tosurvey and record the flora and fauna of

Participants relied on

personal observa-

tions and literature

to delineate specific

examples of these

conservation targets,

or "target occur-

rences".

3.0

the FSM, future iterations of the plan canimprove in this area (see Section 7 forspecifics on data gaps).

Based on planning guidelines outlined inDesigning a Geography of Hope (TNC2000b), the quality or "viability" of eachtarget occurrence is documented throughestimates of size, condition, and landscapecontext (Table 2).

Based upon best available data and expertjudgement, the teams estimated currentsize, condition, and landscape context forviable occurrences—ones that had a highprobability of continued existence overone hundred years. An example for Mixed

Broadleaf Forest (Table 3) shows howmeasurable, repeatable criteria for size,condition, and landscape context wereestablished for each target. These threefactors combined to create a viability rating(Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) for eachtarget occurrence. Due to a lack of solidscientific data, the criteria above are bestestimates of the participants involved. Infuture iterations of the plan, these numberswill need to be revisited and updated bynewly available data. Criteria for severalconservation target types (e.g., marinespecies) still need to be developed due to lack of available data, specific expertiseon the planning team, and time.

SIZE

A measure of the area or abundance of the conservation target’s occurrence, relative to otherknown, and/or presumed viable, examples. For ecological systems and natural communities,size is simply a measure of the occurrence’s patch size or geographic coverage. For animaland plant species, size takes into account the area of occupancy and number of individuals.Minimum dynamic area, or the area needed to ensure survival or re-establishment of a targetafter natural disturbance, is another aspect of size.

CONDITION

An integrated measure of the composition, structure, and biotic interactions that characterizethe occurrence. This includes such factors as:

• Reproduction, age structure, biological composition, e.g., presence of native versus exotic species or presence of characteristic patch types for ecological systems.

• Structure, e.g., canopy, understory, and groundcover in a forested community; spatial distribution and juxtaposition of patch types or seral stages in an ecological system.

• Biotic interactions, e.g., levels of competition, predation, and disease.

LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

An integrated measure of two factors: the dominant environmental regimes and processesthat establish and maintain the target occurrence, and connectivity.

• Dominant environmental regimes and processes include herbivory, hydrologic and water chemistry regimes (surface and groundwater), geomorphic processes, climatic regimes (temperature and precipitation), fire regimes, and many kinds of natural disturbances.

• Connectivity includes such factors as species having access to habitats and resources needed for life cycle completion, fragmentation of natural communities and ecological systems, and the ability to respond to environmental change through dispersal, migration, or re-colonization.

Table 2. Description of Size, Condition, and Landscape Context

SIZE

Mixed Broadleaf Forests historically covered the high islands. Today, only patches of theseforests remain due primarily to agricultural conversion. On Pohnpei, for example, 10,000hectares of Mixed Broadleaf Forest were lost between 1975 and 1995; only 5,000 hectares ofMixed Broadleaf Forest remain.

• Very Good — large, unbroken/contiguous patches >500 Ha in size; • Good — relatively large, mostly contiguous patches 250 Ha - 500 Ha in size; • Fair — medium-sized, broken patches from 100 Ha to 250 Ha in size; • Poor — small patches <100 Ha in size.

CONDITION

In a natural state, large storms (e.g. wind, rain) periodically prune and fell trees within MixedBroadleaf Forests, but the forest recovers quickly and completely. The forest regeneration processhas been especially altered due to forest bulldozing and burning for roads and agriculture,and the subsequent invasion of exotic species. The lower slopes on all islands are especiallyaltered, and in some places, totally converted. Intact areas remain, but only on ridges, verysteep slopes and valleys. Other unnatural processes impacting, or likely to impact the forestare introduced fire and changing typhoon and drought patterns due to climate change.

• Very Good — native forest intact with no disturbance; • Good — mostly intact (<10% disturbed), possibly some invasive weeds present; • Fair — moderate disturbance (10-25%), invasive species becoming established;• Poor — more than 25% disturbed forest, invasive weeds established.

LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

Fragmentation and accessibility due to roads is the primary concern. In particular, access tothe forest through roads and trails has accelerated agricultural clearing in those areas.

• Very Good — no roads within 1 mile, no major trails to the area; • Good — no roads within 1/2 mile, some minor trails access area; • Fair — road in vicinity (<1/4 mile), and/or major forest trails access area;• Poor — road enters forest area, homesteading present.

Table 3. Sample, Viability Ranking Criteria

CR ITE R IA FOR RAN KI NG U PLAN D BROADLEAF FOR E ST I N TH E FS M

Above:With up to 200 inches of rainfall annually, waterfalls are common on the highislands of FSM (Kepirohi Falls on PohnpeiIsland)



3.6CONSERVATION GOALSConservation goals determine the numberand geographic distribution of viable targetoccurrences required to maintain thelong-term viability of each conservationtarget. One of the most important and mostdifficult steps in regional conservationplanning is determining how many exam-ples of the ecological systems, naturalcommunities, special features, and speciesof focus need to be conserved. Goals wereset relatively high as a proportion of availableexamples due to limited availability of dataon conservation targets, which promptedthe team to set conservative goals to avoidlosing critical occurrences before theirrelative importance can be established.

The process of setting conservationgoals is always difficult—scarcity of dataseems to be the rule, not the exception. Fewspecies have been studied well enough forscientists to estimate population numbersfor long-term persistence (e.g., endangeredspecies recovery plans in the United States).Estimates of the necessary number orextent of ecological systems and naturalcommunities are even fewer. The planningteams, of course, sought to use the bestavailable data. Unfortunately, in the FSM,there is little quantitative information withwhich to set goals; out of necessity, goalswere therefore based primarily on expertopinion and intuition.

The planning team relied on theConservancy’s three-step methodology in developing goals:

Step 1: Stratify the FSM into finer-scale sub-units.Stratification units are important to goal-setting, ensuring that examples of theconservation targets are captured across theregion’s geologic, climatic, and ecologicalvariability. For this conservation plan, FSMstate boundaries (Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk,and Yap) were determined to be excellent

stratification units since they correlate closelywith biogeographic distribution patternsand other dominant environmental features.(see Figure 1).

Step 2: Assign attributes of geographic scale anddistribution to each focal species, naturalcommunity, and ecological system so goalsare adjusted based on ecological requirementsthat differ among the types.

The geographic scale of a conservationtarget refers to its spatial coverage. Scaledto island geography local-scale targets occurat tens of hectares, intermediate-scale tar-gets occur at hundreds of hectares, andcoarse-scale targets occur at thousands totens of thousands of hectares (Figure 4).

The distribution of a species, naturalcommunity, or ecological system definesthe range-wide distribution relative to theplanning unit. For example, endemic targetsare restricted solely to the planning unit,while widespread targets are common inmany other ecoregions (see above for defi-nitions).

Understanding geographic scale anddistribution helps planners set conservationgoals that incorporate the vast differencesin conservation targets and their unique re-quirements for persisting over the long-term.

3.0

Step 3: Set quantitative goals for each conservationtarget.

3.6.1Goals for regional and coarse-scale ecological systems: For coarse-scale terrestrial and marinesystems (Mixed Broadleaf Forest, MangroveForest, High Island Nearshore Marine),goals were defined as a percent of theirhistoric distribution within each stratifi-cation unit across the ecological planningunit (Table 4). Historic distribution wasestimated based on topography, geology,and obvious patterns of land conversion.Percentage goals were difficult to deter-mine scientifically, but regional experts

considered the minimum dynamic areaneeded to withstand potential large-scaledisturbance events such as typhoons anddrought, both of which are expected toincrease in frequency and severity due toglobal climate change (Wilcox 1992). Goalsfor marine ecological systems were set at20%, based on current recommendationsfrom the National Coral Reef ActionStrategy (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, 2002) to designate andmanage 20% of the area of a marine systemas a "no-take zone" as a threshold for main-taining healthy coral reefs and marine speciespopulations. It is likely that future researchwill show that 20% is too small for particularspecies and habitats, so this should be con-sidered a minimum goal, and the completeportfolio should include more, if possible.

DISTRIBUTION DEFINITIONSEndemic conservation targets occurexclusively within the ecoregion, butcan occur exclusively on an island, orwithin a state

Limited conservation targets typicallyoccur within the ecoregion but alsooccur within a few adjacent ecoregions

Widespread conservation targets occurwithin the ecoregion and are commonin many other ecoregions

Peripheral conservation targets occurrarely within the ecoregion - the coreof their range is in other ecoregions

Figure 4. Examples of the Spatial Scale of Biodiversity in the FSM

REGIONAL

COARSE

INTERMEDIATE

LOCAL

BIODIVERSITY

GE

OG

RA

PH

ICS

CA

LE

PACIFIC GREEN TURTLE

UPLAND BROADLEAF FOREST

MANGROVE FOREST

IVORY NUT PALM FOREST

MONTANE CLOUD FOREST

TURTLE NESTINGBEACHES

COCONUTCRAB

Scale ofConservationTarget

Table 4. Conservation Target Goals for Ecological Systems, Natural Communities, and Special Features

Endemic Limited Widespread Peripheral

Local 8 4 4 4

Intermediate 4 4 2 2

Coarse 30% of historic 30% of historic 30% of historic 20-30% of historicdistribution distribution distribution distribution

Regional None exist 4 4 None exist

Conservation goals expressed as number of occurrences per state (stratification unit), or as a percentage of historic distribution.

Opposite Page: Ecotourism is a growing industry in the FSM (Village Hotel, Pohnpei)

26 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 27THE FSM CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT: THE BIOLOGICAL PORTFOLIO

3.6.2Goals for intermediate-scaleand local-scale ecological systems, natural communities,and special ecological featuresConservation goals for local-scale endemicecological systems, natural communities,or special features were highest at eightoccurrences per state since there are relatively few locations where these con-servation targets can be conserved. Aminimum goal of four occurrences perstate was set for limited, widespread, andperipheral local-scale ecological systems,natural communities, and special features.Conservation goals for intermediate-scaleconservation targets ranged from four(endemic) to two (peripheral) (Table 4).

3.6.3 Goals for species targets For species targets, the team consideredhabitat needs and migration patterns (ifapplicable) in setting conservation goals.Based on the Conservancy’s ecoregionalplanning guidelines, two populations perstate (stratification unit) was set as a min-imum goal (The Nature Conservancy2000). The minimum goal was increasedfor species that were:

a) more restricted in their distribution (e.g., endemic and limited),

b) smaller in geographic scale (e.g., local and intermediate), and

c) limited to one or two states (stratifi-cation units) in the planning unit.

As with ecological systems, naturalcommunities, and special features, morerestricted and smaller-scale species warrant-ed higher conservation goals to capturemore ecological variation and becausethese species were often endemic to theFSM (Table 5).

Goals for all conservation targets arelisted in Appendix B. All conservationgoals in this plan reflect best estimates bythe team and must be tested and refinedby monitoring the status and trends ofthe conservation targets over time.

By the end of October

2002, the teams had

a "final" portfolio that

included 130 Areas of

Biodiversity Signifi-

cance.

3.0

4.1 Portfolio Design and Selection A key outcome of ecoregional planning isthe identification of a suite of conservationareas, or "Areas of Biodiversity Significance"(ABS), that serves to capture the full arrayof biodiversity in an ecoregion (as detailedby the established conservation goals). Inessence, it is a depiction of where conser-vation action is needed. This outcome isclosely integrated with the developmentof conservation strategies to address theoccurrences identified for inclusion intothe ecoregional portfolio.

The process for delineating ABS' occurredthrough a series of workshops where theplanning teams drew boundaries on maps

around groups of ecologically similar targetoccurrences in close proximity. For example,an ABS was created to capture Pohnpei’sMixed Broadleaf Forest and all embeddedspecies and natural communities. DuringABS delineation, the team focused on areaswhere nesting and co-occurrence of speciesand ecological systems at multiple spatialscales contributed to an area's ecologicalcomplexity and integrity. Where possible, theteam extended boundaries to tie together

terrestrial and marine ecological systems anddefined Areas of Biodiversity Significancethat encompassed entire ecosystems. In all,87 Areas of Biodiversity Significance weredelineated during a first mapping exercise.During the January 2002 workshop, 100additional target occurrences were recordedand 25 new ABS were delineated basedon these new records.

The FSM ecoregional planning effortwas identified to test an early version ofthe Ecoregional Portfolio Assembly Tool(EPAT) (Shoutis 2002). The tool was usedto: 1) prioritize the ABS' relative to eachother, using factors of number of targets,variety of targets, and ABS functionality;and 2) assemble a draft ecoregion portfolio.Results of the draft portfolio suggestedthat inclusion of most ABS' into theecoregional portfolio was warranted. Veryfew conservation targets had availableoccurrence numbers to actually exceedestablished goals.

Because of a need to gain additionalbuy-in, and understanding the outcomeof the draft portfolio assembly obtainedthrough the use of EPAT, team leaderBill Raynor opted to more actively engagelocal partners and experts in the assemblyof the ecoregional portfolio. BetweenJune and October 2002, members of theCore Team consulted with the Local ExpertTeams at locally-held workshops to solicitrecommendations for the final portfolio.At these workshops, the Local Expert Teamsworked closely with the Core Team toreview and amend the data already gath-ered, and to rank each ABS by ecologicalintegrity, urgency of threat, cultural signif-icance, and feasibility. By the end of October2002, the teams had a "final" portfoliothat included 130 Areas of BiodiversitySignificance.

Scale ofConservationTarget

Table 5. Conservation Target Goals for Species

Endemic Limited Widespread Peripheral

Local 6 (two states) or 4 (two states) or 2 212 (one state) 8 (one state)

Intermediate 4 (two states) 2 2 2or 8 (one state)

Coarse 2 2 2 2

Regional 2 2 2 2

Conservation goals expressed as number of occurrences per stratification unit (state), or as a percentage of historic distribution.

the fsm conservation blueprint: the biological portfolio 4.0

This Page Left:The Nature Conservancy’sProgram Director

This Page Top Right:A male Yap Monarch

This Page Bottom Right:Mantas

Opposite Page:FSM National Capitol complexat Palikir, Pohnpei



the fsm conservation blueprint: the biological portfolio

4.2 THE ECOREGIONAL PORTFOLIOThe first iteration of the portfolio of Areasof Biodiversity Significance for the FSMEcoregional Plan encompasses 130 sites(see Appendices A/D for maps and listsof all sites). The combined sites encompass291,753 ha (1,126.11 square miles), or 19%of the Federated States of Micronesia'sentire terrestrial and inshore area (includingreefs and lagoon areas, but excluding thenation's territorial waters, which consistmostly of open ocean) (Table 6).

Because the land area of FSM is verysmall, 50% of the ABS (64 sites) and amajority of the total area (61% or 688 sq.mi.) are coastal marine sites connectingterrestrial and coastal targets. Marine-onlysites, largely lagoons and coral reefs, com-prise the second largest area at 28% (319sq. mi.) of the total ABS area. Terrestrialsites, mainly upland native forests, makeup just 8% (87.4 sq. mi.) of total ABS area,but total 23 sites. This reflects the relativelylimited extent of natural terrestrial systemson small Pacific islands compared with the

4.0

much larger marine systems surroundingthem. Coastal freshwater areas, primarilycoastal freshwater marshes, total just 3%(31.4 sq. mi.) of the total ABS area.

4.3 PRIORITY ACTION AREASAll Areas of Biodiversity Significance inthis plan are important to the long-termconservation of biodiversity in the FSM andjustify conservation action. However, dueto limited human and financial resources,the Core Team felt that a subset of prioritysites was needed to catalyze partners intoaction and quickly make a conservationimpact. These "Priority Action Areas" areintended to focus conservation action in themost biologically important and threatenedareas within the next three to five years.

All Areas of Biodiversity Significancewere ranked by Core and Local ExpertsTeam members from Kosrae, Pohnpei,Chuuk, and Yap during a series of work-shops from June-October 2002. Five criterion were used to prioritize eachABS: biological value, feasibility, leverage,urgency of threat, and cultural and historicvalue (see sidebar for definitions).

For each ABS, the criterion were scoredhigh, medium, or low. The scores wereaveraged (each criteria was weighted equally)and ranked from highest to lowest overall(see Appendix E for definitions of high,medium, and low for all five criterion).The results were presented and discussedamong the team members, with the highest-ranking ABSs designated Priority ActionAreas.

The 24 Priority Action Areas capturean array of ecological systems, naturalcommunity and species targets, includingthe largest and most biologically importantforests, marine ecological systems and coralreefs remaining in Micronesia (see Appen-dix F for a list of Priority Action Areas).Together, they represent 48% of the total

terrestrial portfolio and 49% of the totalcoastal/marine portfolio, capturing at leastone example of nearly all conservation targets:

• 100% (7 out of 7 total) terrestrial ecological systems

• 100% (4 out of 4 total) marine ecological systems

• 100% (6 out of 6 total) terrestrial naturalcommunities

• 100% (4 out of 4 total) special ecologicalfeatures

• 79% (19 out of 24 total) terrestrial species• 100% (3 out of 3 total) marine species• 100% (2 out of 2 total) freshwater/aquatic

species

Table 6. Number and size of Areas of Biodiversity Significance by type

ABS Site Type

TERRESTRIAL SITES

YapChuukPohnpeiKosrae

TOTAL TERRESTRIAL

MARINE ONLY SITES


TOTAL MARINE

COASTAL MARINE SITES


TOTAL COASTAL MARINE

COASTAL FRESHWATER SITES


TOTAL COASTAL FRESHWATER

OVERALL TOTAL

Number ofABS sites

3992

23

610

5

1

22

2120185

64

2

1134

20

130

Area(Hectares)

651.94

4,328.06

12,833.28

4,835.04

22,648.32

49,471.10

20,683.29

12,480.50

54.52

82,689.39

24,007.4377,089.9175,695.261,466.07

178,258.67

31.76936.66

5,283.091,904.89

8,156.39291,752.77

Area (Sq. Miles)

2.52

16.71

49.53

18.66

87.42

190.95

79.83

48.17

0.21

319.17

92.66

297.55

292.17

5.66

688.04

0.123.62

20.397.35

31.48

1,126.11

Above:Rural family home on Pohnpei

Below:Savanna fire on Yap Island

AB S C R ITE R I O N

Biological value: 1) the number of conservation targets

within an ABS; 2) an overall viability score was calcu-

lated by combining individual viabilityrankings for each conservation targetoccurrence within the area.

Feasibility: The extent to which people,money, and a supportive sociopoliticalenvironment are present to successfullyimplement conservation action.

Leverage: "Example Power," the potentialfor work at one ABS to catalyze effectiveconservation in other areas.

Urgency of threat: The degree to whichan urgent, critical threat exists and islikely to destroy or seriously degrade theimportant species, natural communities,or ecological systems in the area.

Cultural and historic value: Areas withsignificance to the community, state ornation, including archeological sites, sacredgrounds, ceremonial grounds, areas forcollection of traditional use plants, huntingground or trails (Yap and Kosrae only).


the fsm conservation blueprint: the biological portfolio

4.4SUCCESS AT MEETING CONSERVATION GOALS An assessment of the Areas of BiodiversitySignificance revealed that goals were metor exceeded for 20 out of the 53 selectedconservation targets (38%) (Table 7).

Of the ecological system targets, thegoals for Fern-Sedge Savanna, RiparianForests (only in Yap), and Estuaries couldonly be met by selecting non-viable occur-rences not currently in the portfolio. Somespecialized targets, such as Montane CloudForest, Atoll Inland Mangrove, and MontanePerched Freshwater Marsh are so limitednaturally that goals could not be met evenwhen including all occurrences. In addition,despite including all remaining viableoccurrences of historically widespreadforest systems and communities (Mixed

Broadleaf Forest, Clinostigma Palm Forest,Ivory Nut Palm Forest, and Terminalia/Nypa Swamp Forest), goals were not metfor any of them. This suggests a need for restoration of terrestrial habitats in all four states to assure their continuedviability.

Although many species targets are notimminently endangered, distribution andviability data were so poor for some ofthem that the team could not identifyenough occurrences to meet the goals(Table 8). These species will require furtherbiological monitoring to determine theirspatial distribution, population, and overallviability. A few other terrestrial speciesare so rare and endangered, or have rangesso limited that only one, or in some cases,no occurrences could be confidently iden-tified. If these conservation targets are to surviveand remain viable in the FSM, immediateresearch and monitoring on them is needed.

This suggests a need

for restoration of

terrestrial habitats

in all four states

to assure their con-

tinued viability.

4.0

Table 7. Success at Meeting Conservation Goals: All Targets

Target Type TotalTargets 0-25% 25-50%

SYSTEMS

TerrestrialMarine and CoastalFreshwater Aquatic

Total SystemsCOMMUNITIES

Terrestrial

Total CommunitiesOTHER ECOLOGICAL FEATURES

Other Ecological Features

SPECIES

TerrestrialMarineFreshwater AquaticTotal SpeciesTOTALS

741

12

6

6

4

26323153

000

1

1

1

0

10011113

200

2

1

1

0

7007

10

Progress Towards Meeting Conservation Target Goals

50-75% 75-100% Goals Fully Met

200

2

3

3

1

30039

341

8

1

1

3

6311021

3 (43%)3 (75%)1 (100%)

7 (58%)

1 (17%)

1( 17%)

3 (75%)

6 (19%)3 (100%)1 (50%)10 (32%)

20(38%)

SPECIES WITH LIMITED OCCURRENCESIDENTIFIED

Arno skink (Emoia arnoensis arnoensis)Cicadabird (Coracina tenuirostris)Kosrae flying fox (Pteropus ualnus)Micronesian swiftlet (Collocalia inquieta)Pohnpei flying fox (Pteropus molossinus)Pohnpei Island skink (Emioa ponapea)Polynesian sheath-tailed bat (Emballoneurasemicaudata)Pohnpei river goby (Sicyopterus eudentatus)

Table 8. Species with limited or no occurrences identified

SPECIES WITH NO OCCURRENCESCONFIDENTLY IDENTIFIED

Caroline Island ground dove (Gallicolumba kubaryi)Chuuk flying fox (Pteropus insularis)Chuuk greater white-eye (Rukia rukia)Chuuk monarch (Metabolus rugensis)Chuuk poison tree (Semecarpus kraemeri)Giant Micronesian gecko (Perochirus scutellatus)Gray duck (Anas superciliosus)Micronesian pigeon (Ducula oceanica)Mortlocks flying fox (Pteropus phaeocephalus)Pohnpei mountain starling (Aplonis pelzelni)Pohnpei short-eared owl (Asio flammeus ponapensis)Pohnpei tree snails (Partula guamensis and P. emersoni)Polynesian sheath-tailed bat (Emballoneura semi-caudata ssp. sulcata)

Oppostie Page Left:Traditional Yapese meetinghouse in rural Yap Island

Opposite Page Right:Sokehs Rock on PohnpeiIsland

32 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 33THREAT ASSESSMENT

5.1 CRITICAL THREATSDuring the third experts’ workshops heldin the four states, participants were askedto assess the threats to each ABS. Threatassessments were combined with otherbiological and non-biological criteria toprioritize the various ABS for conservation

action, as described in Section 4.4. Thetop three threats across both ecoregions areoverfishing/overhunting, coastal erosion/ sealevel rise, and water pollution (Table 9). Keythreats to ecological systems conservationtargets are summarized in Table 10. Acomplete list of threats to each ABS isprovided in Appendix G.

Overfishing/over-

hunting was identi-

fied as the most

urgent and critical

threat across marine

and terrestrial ABS

in all states.

5.0

Overfishing/overhunting wasidentified as the most urgent and criticalthreat across marine and terrestrial ABSin all states. For the last three decades,population growth and a shifting economyfrom subsistence to cash, has put newpressure on FSM’s already declining naturalresources (see Section 2.3 for details onpopulation growth). Over the last severalyears, a general slow-down of the localeconomy has been prompted by reducedU.S. funding to the FSM through theCompact of Free Association. While FSMadded 1,800 new jobs/year from 1970 to1995, employment figures from 1996 to2001 showed virtually no growth, with a net gain of only 88 jobs (FSM DEA2002a). The public reaction over the lastfive years has been two-fold. Since 1997,an estimated 2,000 FSM citizens per yearhave emigrated to Guam, Saipan, and theU.S. in search of jobs (Hezel 2002). At thesame time, citizens residing in Micronesiahave become more exploitive of naturalresources (terrestrial and marine) to survive—dynamiting coral reefs in Chuukfor fish, clearing watersheds to plant sakauon Pohnpei, and cutting mangroves inKosrae for firewood. The people—whohave elected to remain in FSM when somany others have left—are by default theguardians of the land, but they are also itsmain despoilers.

The breakdown of traditional manage-ment systems throughout Micronesia hasexacerbated the situation. Historically,resource use in the FSM was governed bycomplex land and sea tenure systems anda variety of other methods including socialstratification, territorialism, resourceapportionment, harvest limitations, andeffective sanctions (Falanruw 1982).However, use of traditional practices is

declining due to a changing context, growingdesire for western material goods, and ageneral lack of awareness about environ-mental problems. With the move away fromtraditional subsistence lifestyles towards acash-based economy, most FSM citizens areunaware that the inshore fishery can onlysustain a continuation of subsistence prac-tices, with some small-scale commercialfishing in certain localities (FSM 1999).The result is that many finfish and shellfishpopulations are declining, and certain spe-cies such as the giant clam (Tridacna gigas)have been almost completely eliminatedin some parts of the FSM (FSM 1999).

The following deficiencies in nationallegislation also contribute to overfishingand overhunting (Harding 1992):

• There is no specific national legislation which considers the exploration of min-erals or covers environmental problems arising from dredging or coral mining;

• The current Endangered Species Act dates from the Trust Territory era and isneither sufficiently specific nor inclusive;

• There is no provision for the establish-ment of protected areas.

In addition, the government frameworkfor conservation is insufficient. Modeledafter the structure of the former TrustTerritory of the Pacific Islands, it providesjust one conservation officer all of theFSM, Republic of Palau, Republic of theMarshall Islands and Commonwealth ofthe Northern Marianna Islands.

Coastal Erosion and Sea-LevelRise, including increases in storm surgeand saltwater intrusion into freshwaterecosystems, are already being experiencedacross the FSM, especially in low coral atollislands (FSM 1999). Some scientistsbelieve these events are a precursor of climate change. Humans have aggravated

threats assessment

Table 9. Major Threats summarized across all Areas of Biodiversity Significance

Threat Chuuk Pohnpei

Overfishing/overhuntingCoastal erosion/sea level riseWater pollutionDestructive harvestingBurningErosion/SedimentationIncompatible commercial developmentInvasive speciesDredgingLandfill/dumping

No.28241652

5

3

5

60

%88%75%50%16%6%

16%

9%

16%

19%0%

No.174269

1

1

1

05

Number of ABS sites affected by threatKosrae Total

%34%8%4%12%18%

2%

2%

2%

0%10%

No.94024

5

5

4

12

Yap%

26%11%0%6%11%

14%

14%

11%

3%6%

No.101263

4

6

2

32

%83%8%17%50%25%

33%

50%

17%

25%17%

No.6433201918

15

15

12

109

%50%26%16%15%14%

12%

12%

9%

8%7%

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Estuary

Mangrove Forest

High Island and Atoll Nearshore Marine

Freshwater Rivers and Streams

Coastal Freshwater Marsh

Montane Cloud Forest

Fern-Sedge Savanna

Table 10: Selected ecological systems and key threats

THREATS

Dredging; Filling; Erosion; "Reclamation"; Channelization/levees; Oil spills; Clorox fishing; Sea level rise; Invasivespecies (e.g. Tilapia)

Incompatible coastal development & reclamation; Alterationof Freshwater Regime; Dredging; Pollution (oil spills);Acidification; Nutrification; Sea level rise

Water Warming (bleaching); Nutrification; Siltation; Loss of Herbivores; Disease; Divers; Trawling; Blast, Clorox, andCyanide Fishing; Dredging

Clorox fishing; Pollution (human and animal waste);Sedimentation

Filling in; Pollution; Nutrification; Redirecting streams;Changing patterns of water flow; Inundation by salt water;Quarrying; Trampling

Sakau cultivation; Overhunting; Invasive plants/animals; Alteredcomposition due to Climate Change; Recreational activities

Burning; Invasive species

Above: Clinostigma Palm Forest(Clinostigma ponapensis) atmid-elevation on PohnpeiIsland

34 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 35THREAT ASSESSMENT

threats assessment

these effects by unwise construction ofsea walls, jetties, and other poorly plannedcoastal infrastructure, mostly from themid-eighties through nineties, when theCompact provided large amounts of moneyfor infrastructure development. Anticipatedimpacts from climate change include(FSM 1999):

• Tendency towards more frequent typhoons during local summer and fall seasons;

• Gradual increase in dry season in the western two-thirds on the FSM (Yap and Chuuk), especially December-April,with concomitant fire hazards;

• Projected accelerated sea level rise of 0.15(minimum) to 0.95 meters (maximum) by 2100.

Under the higher estimates of sea levelrise, many coral atoll islands in the FSMmay become uninhabitable to humans andnatural terrestrial ecological systems.Climate change induced sea-level rise islikely to have significant impacts tomarine biodiversity (Buddemeier 1993;Wilkinson 1999) —effecting TurtleNesting Beaches, low-lying SeabirdNesting Areas, and Mangrove Forests.

Water Pollution from the improperdisposal of both solid and liquid wastes,mainly from domestic sources are a seriousthreat to coastal and marine inshore areas.This is especially true for population cen-ters where people live in over-crowdedconditions with only minimal sewagetreatment. Existing sewage systems areoften poorly constructed and inadequatefor the population in the fast-growingdistrict centers; coliform contaminationof surface and ground waters is common

(Detay et. al. 1989; SPREP 1993). Outerislands are particularly vulnerable as thepresence of water lens makes it unwise touse septic systems for waste disposal.

Inadequate disposal of solid waste andlack of suitable landfill sites are also a majorpollution issue in urban centers, and to agrowing extent, in rural areas. The adoptionof western packaged food and beveragesand other products (refrigerators, cars, airconditioners, etc.) on all islands has createdconcentrations of solid waste that are majoreye-sores, sources of pollution, and breedinggrounds for rats, flies, and mosquitoes.Existing dumpsites are not adequatelymaintained, nor do any sites, with theexception of Pohnpei, have specific areasset aside for the disposal of hazardousmaterial. In rural areas, garbage is dumpedalong roads, in streams, and in lowlandmarsh areas. On some high islands, solidwaste is dumped in the mangrove zone tocreate land for community or private use,causing human health hazards from waterpollution and reducing the health of themangrove forests and their function asfish nurseries and nutrient regulators.

Erosion/Sedimentation from land-based activities (incompatible commercialdevelopment, agriculture, and other activ-ities) has degraded freshwater, coastal,and marine areas on all islands. Soils onMicronesian islands vary from thin mantleoverlying volcanic rock (often on very steepslopes) through stony clays, clay silts, loamand loamy sands, peat and swamp soils tosand and coral rubble (Spengler et. al. 1992;Laird 1982; Laird 1983a&b; Smith 1983).The high volcanic islands are especiallyprone to erosion and landslides. Steepmountainous areas make up 70% of Kosrae,61% of Pohnpei, and 73% of Chuuk.

In the last 150 years,

over 457 new plants

and animals have

been introduced to

the islands of the FSM

(Falanruw 2001).

5.0

Over the last two decades, Compact ofFree Association funds for infrastructureimprovements greatly increased dredging,road construction and to a lesser extent,home-site and agricultural clearing—themajor causes of earthmoving and distur-bance. Fortunately, with a projectedreduction in funds under Compact II, wecan expect reduced home constructionand road building, and consequently lessexcavation and access to ecologically fragileareas. Urban development resulting fromrapid large-scale economic growth, in theform of resort hotels, golf courses, andgarment factories, are also likely to decrease.With the option to go abroad to earn aliving, economic development will seemless urgent than it once did (Hezel 2002).

Destructive harvesting of all typesis significantly impacting FSM’s biodiversity,primarily, the mangrove and broadleafforests, freshwater and marine fish, andcoral reefs. The people of the FSM dependheavily on marine resources for subsistenceand commercial sales. Nothing exemplifiesthis more than resort to dynamite fishing.On Chuuk, and to a lesser extent otherislands, dynamite and poisons are used to harvest large quantities of fish at atime, especially where fish populations are low. Unfortunately, these practices are endangering marine biodiversity.Exploitation and unsustainable use of terrestrial resources is also a significantproblem especially forests, which arecleared for sakau and other crops.

Invasive species, especially in terrestrial systems, are a growing threat(Space & Falanruw 1999, Meyer 2000,Cowie 2000, Atkinson & Atkinson 2000).The isolation of the Micronesian islands

makes them highly susceptible to invasiveplants and animals. Invasive species (e.g.,grasses, shrubs, vines, rats, cats, and parasiticsnails) are believed to have contributed to the decline in a number species andcommunities currently in peril.

In the last 150 years, over 457 new plantsand animals have been introduced to theislands of the FSM (Falanruw 2001). The South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP) recently publishedInvasive species in the Pacific: a technicalreview and draft regional strategy, summa-rizing the status of invasive species inMicronesia. In all, the report documented10 "significant invasive land vertebrates"and 25 "dominant" and "moderate" invasiveplants in FSM. The threat of invasivespecies remains very high with daily airand sea connections to neighboring islandnations and territories with well-document-ed invasive species problems (e.g., the browntree snake on Guam).

Dredging of sand and coral, especially onthe high islands in state centers, has seriouslyimpacted coastal environments and coralreefs. Besides physically destroying the coralat the dredging site, it induces siltation,increasing turbidity, and smothering coralwith a blanket of sediment deposits. Thesesediment deposits reduce the amount oflight reaching corals, upsetting their naturalprocesses and possibly killing them.Unfortunately, urban development spurredby the first Compact of Free Associationagreement (largely during 1986-96), alsofueled much of the coral and sand dredging.Reduced funding from Compact II maydecrease dredging as demand for homeconstruction and road-building decreases(Hezel 2002).

Opposite Page:Rainbow over Yap Island

36 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 37TAKING ACTION: MULTI-AREA CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

This ecoregional plan describes a networkof biologically significant areas that, ifconserved, would ensure the continuedviability of critical ecological systems, naturalcommunities, and species in Micronesia.The planning teams believe a real oppor-tunity exists to designate protected status(either legal or traditional) on some, if notmost, of the Areas of Biodiversity Signifi-cance, and manage for sustainable uses there.

The highest priority multi-area strategyrecommended by this plan to protect theFSM biodiversity is to create a governmentframework that enables local communitiesto establish and maintain conservation areas.Of course many actions will be requiredto support this overarching strategy, suchas community-coalition building, securingfunds, and conservation planning (Figure 5).

6.0

6.1 COMMUNITY/TRADITIONALACTIONS

6.1.1 Enhance organizational capacityWith few exceptions, limited institutional,technical, and financial resources hinderlocal institutions engaged in biodiversityconservation. The Conservancy and itspartners will help organizations workingin the 24 marine and coastal PriorityAction Areas identified by this plan toassure that scientifically and culturallyviable management strategies are developed,implemented, and monitored. The mainstrategy to accomplish this will be theMicronesia Leaders in Island ConservationNetwork (MLIC). Through MLIC, atleast 40 leaders of Micronesian governmentand non-government resource managementagencies and organizations will be engagedin an active peer learning network toincrease the effectiveness of conservationprograms in at least five Micronesiancountries and territories (including theFSM, Palau, Republic of the MarshallIslands, Commonwealth of the NorthernMarianas, and Guam).

6.2 GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (PUBLIC POLICY)

6.2.1 Build Coalitions to work onImprovements to LegislationCoalitions of local partners are needed toimprove public awareness of key threatsand to recommend solutions to protectthe FSM's biodiversity. These locally-ledstate coalitions can improve biodiversityprotection legislation by updating theNational Endangered Species Law and

developing state-level comprehensivespecies protection acts focusing on inshoreand forest biodiversity. Mutually supportingnetworks of state, municipal and traditionalvillage-level organizations will work togetherto improve enforcement and compliancewith all level of legislation. The privatesector will be engaged to help developbiodiversity-friendly community solutionsto unsustainable activities.

6.2.2 Enact Enabling Legislation forConservation AreasEnabling legislation is needed at state andmunicipal levels that support the establish-ment and management of conservationareas in each state. For example, Pohnpei’s1999 Marine Sanctuary Law enables des-ignation of conservation areas that can bemanaged to sustain biodiversity. That lawhas allowed communities on Pohnpei toproactively designate new sanctuaries(MPAs) in marine and terrestrial envi-ronments.

taking action: multi-area conservation strategies

COMMUNITY/TRADITIONAL ACTIONS

• Build and maintain partnerships between NGOs, government, and local community• Build locally-led coalitions that raise awareness of biodiversity conservation in the states • Engage local conservation leaders in peer conservation learning network

Figure 5. Multi-area Strategy Diagram

CONSERVATION PLANNING

• Train local leaders in conserva-tion area planning and completeCAPs for priority areas

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (PUBLIC POLICY)• Enact enabling legislation for

Conservation Areas• Designate % of US Compact funds for

biodiversity conservation• Improve enforcement and monitoring of

Conservation Areas

SECURE FUNDING

• Secure funding to support newConservation Area projects (MCT, gov’t and others)

CONSERVATION PLANNING

• Complete State Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (SBSAPs)

COMMUNITY ESTABLISHED AND MANAGED CONSERVATION AREAS NETWORK

Above:Lowland sakau nursery onPohnpei Island

Opposite Page Top:Pohnpeian man carrying asakau plant

Opposite Page Bottom:Nan Madol ruins on PohnpeiIsland

38 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 39TAKING ACTION: MULTI-AREA CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

6.2.3.Establish National and StateGovernment BiodiversityManagement AgenciesA national government agency within theDepartment of Economic Affairs is need-ed to oversee biodiversity preservationand management, and to coordinate out-side assistance for this effort. State agen-cies are also needed to coordinate andsupport local biodiversity management.

6.3 CONSERVATION PLANNING

6.3.1 Conservation Area Planning (fine-scale conservation planning)To encourage and guide the developmentof site-based management strategies for thePriority Action Areas, the Conservancywill introduce fine-scale ConservationArea Planning (CAP) to a cadre of at least20 experienced FSM-based conservationprofessionals over the next five years.This process will help conservationistsdevelop local strategies for the ABSs by

establishing baseline and desired forestcover and coral reef health conditions,and by setting guidelines for monitoring.

Within five years, the Conservancy and partners will begin to connect stateConservation Area Networks into a regionalnetwork. Conservation area planning willbe completed in at least three sites in eachstate, and will include the development ofshared standards for MPA selection, design,and management, improvement of local andnational policies on marine management(e.g., protection of spawning aggregationand turtle nesting areas, and improvedcompliance and decreased overharvest),and assessing connectivity between theFSM MPA network.

6.3.2 Complete State BiodiversityAction PlansIn April 2002, the FSM completed andsubmitted their National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) tothe Secretariat for the Convention onBiological Diversity to fulfill their obliga-tions to the international communityunder the Convention. Currently, naturalresource management authority is dele-gated to state governments, but state governments have yet to develop theirown State Biodiversity Strategy and ActionPlans (SBSAPs). The FSM Departmentof Economic Affairs needs to assist eachstate in developing a SBSAP. Each planshould specify local objectives and actionsthat ensure the long-term protection andmanagement of biodiversity.

6.3.3. Ecoregional Planning:Replicating Success acrossMultiple AreasBetween 2004 and 2007, the Conservancy,with a suite of regional, national, and local

Within five years,

the Conservancy

and partners will

begin to connect

state Conservation

Area Networks into

a regional network.

6.0

partners and scientists, will undertake andcomplete ecoregional planning for otherecoregions in Micronesia. The Micronesianregion covers an area of nearly 4.7 millionsquare miles in the northeast centralPacific Ocean. It includes six countries(Palau, FSM, Guam, Commonwealth ofthe Northern Marianas, Republic of theMarshall Islands, Kiribati, and Nauru),five terrestrial ecoregions (Palau TropicalMoist Forest, Yap Tropical Dry Forest,Marianas Tropical Dry Forest, EasternCaroline Tropical Moist Forest, and EasternMicronesia Tropical Moist Forest), and asyet an undetermined number of marineecoregions.

The Conservancy proposes to add a full-time Conservation Planner/GIS analystin the FSM Country Office the next 1-2years for ecoregional database management.This person could maintain and updatetabular and spatial ecoregional databases,integrate these data with ecoregional datafrom Palau, and work with local and regionalpartners to periodically update occurrence,viability, and threat data.

6.4 SECURING PUBLIC FUNDS

6.4.1 Secure funding from USCompact II for the EnvironmentSectorThere are two primary tactics to this strategy:

1) Implement the FSM NBSAP by securing Compact Environment Sectorfunding for state-level biodiversity conservation programs.

2) Mainstream biodiversity conservationinto all levels of government decision-making to complement other environ-mental objectives.

Develop effective coordination andimplementation of NBSAP, includingsecuring funding from U.S. Compact IIfor the Environment Sector. Currently, the

states are under no obligation to allocateU.S. Compact II funds to the environment.The primary strategy is to educate staterepresentatives about the ongoing effortsof biodiversity conservation in the FSM,including the Ecoregional Plan. Increasededucation will facilitate better understandingabout biodiversity conservation and itsimplications for the long-term health andwell-being of FSM’s citizens, and will inturn encourage states to dedicate sufficientfunds in their respective budgets to supportit.

6.4.2 Micronesia Conservation TrustThe Conservancy will assist the MicronesiaConservation Trust (MCT) to promote andsupport effective biodiversity conservationin FSM by maintaining a capable andcommitted Board of Directors, developingeffective operating procedures, engagingskilled staff, implementing successful grantprograms, and raising $20 million in capital(including pledges) by 2023. The primaryfocus is to raise $600,000 a year—$300,000 of which would support thecreation of a $20,000,000 endowment,and $300,000 of which would supportbiodiversity conservation activities of thetrust each year. The Conservancy’s FSMOffice will assist the Board of MCT inbuilding a sound financial institution,including technical assistance in networking(at all levels national, state, and local),fundraising, organizational management,and awarding grants. MCT funds will bechanneled to support priority action areasidentified by this plan.

taking action: multi-area conservation strategies

This Page:Kapingamarangi (Pohnpeiouter island) preparing a mangrove wood fish carvingfor the local tourist trade

Opposite Page:Scientists visiting theClinostigma Palm Forest(Clinostigma ponapensis) on Pohnpei Island

40 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 41ADDRESSING DATA GAPS LOOKING TOWARD THE NEXT ITERATION

The lack of comprehensive data on nearlyall the conservation targets was a seriousconstraint to developing an ecoregionalconservation plan that will ensure thelong-term viability of the FSM's nativeecological systems, natural communities,and species. The Nature Conservancy’sFSM Conservation Planner will workwith partners to proactively address keydata gaps encountered during the devel-opment of the first iteration of this plan.

7.1GEOGRAPHIC DATA GAPSOuter islands. The islands of FSM aredispersed over thousands of miles of ocean.Transportation and communication aresporadic and unreliable, except on the mainislands. Because of this, the planning teamdepended primarily on local knowledge or resource agency partner staff that hadrecent personal experience with the outerislands. As a result, occurrences weremapped very generally, and the viabilitydata is questionable--use of this data shouldbe treated with caution. As opportunitiesarise, the team recommends biologicalinventories be conducted on all outer islands.

7.2CONSERVATION TARGET DATAGAPSFreshwater aquatic systems. Due to the lackof a freshwater expertise on the planningteam and amongst partners, only a fewgeneral freshwater aquatic conservationtargets, including Freshwater Streams andRivers, Swamp Forest, Coastal FreshwaterMarsh, Montane Perched Freshwater Marsh,and Terminalia/Nypa Swamp Forest, weremapped and used in this analysis. All otherfreshwater elements are grouped within theFreshwater Rivers and Streams conservation

target. This remains a significant data gap.The FSM Planning Team will work withthe Conservancy's Freshwater Initiative todevelop a more comprehensive classificationand map the FSM's freshwater aquaticsystems to inform the second iteration ofthis ecoregional plan (currently anticipatedto begin in FY05).

Open ocean. The Pacific Ocean itselfis the largest system in the FSM, and wasnot identified as a conservation target dueto a serious lack of data. There are severalfeatures of the territorial ocean waters of theFSM that make this system worth includingin the plan. The Marianas Trench, theworld's deepest ocean trench at -35,000feet, is located within the FSM’s 200 mileExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)/territorialwaters. Numerous and extensive submergedreefs, important to the nation's fishing fleets,are located throughout Micronesia, but theirbiological health is largely unknown. TheFSM government should work with regionaland international science community toimprove our knowledge of the ocean andits' biodiversity and this information, onceavailable, needs to be integrated into thenation's biodiversity conservation actions.

Terrestrial vegetation. Vegetation maps for the FSM are largelyoutdated. Most terrestrial occurrences weremapped from vegetation data derived fromtwenty year-old aerial photographs pro-duced by the Trust Territory Governmentand the US Forest Service. The FSMdesperately needs updated vegetationmaps, similar to those produced from The Nature Conservancy's recent effortsin Pohnpei, where aerial photographsproduced new vegetation maps for 1995and 2002.

7.0

Savanna/grasslands. The savannasof western Micronesia contain a variety ofnative and even endemic species. Furtherstudies are needed to better understandthe origin, dynamics and role of fire in thesesystems in order to develop appropriateconservation strategies.

Low-elevation broadleaf forests. Previous botanical work on Pohnpei (Glass-man 1952) suggests the existence of a dis-crete form of low-elevation broadleaf forestseparate from the Mixed Broadleaf Forest.Due to extensive human modification ofthe island's lowlands, only a few remnantsof this forest type remain. This plan doesnot recognize the low-elevation broadleafforest as a separate target largely becausethe planning teams lacked vegetation mapsto distinguish it from the higher-elevationbroadleaf forest. Consequently, severalnative and endemic species limited tolower elevations may not be protected bythis plan. Additional work is required tocharacterize, map, and protect this rareforest type on Pohnpei.

Marine ecological systems. TheLocal Experts and Stakeholder Teams thatfocused on marine ecological systemswere continually confounded by a lack ofbiological data for lagoons, coral reefs, andsea grass beds. To convey a sense of generalityconsistent with the lack of data, marinesystems were classified into two categoriesHigh Island Nearshore Marine and AtollNearshore Marine. Nation-wide biologicalsurveys are needed to demarcate marinecommunities, understand their relationshipsand dynamics, and determine their healthand viability.

Chuuk broadleaf native forest. Chuuk's remnant native forests are limitedto a few ridges on four of the lagoon islandsand are by far the most endangered eco-logical system that are identified by thisecoregional plan. There is an urgent needfor rapid fieldwork to assess the extentand viability of these remnant patches.

Flying foxes. Six distinct endemicspecies of flying fox (Genus Pteropus,also known as fruit bats) are found withinthe FSM, but very little is known abouttheir habitat needs or current populationcondition and trends. Since data on flyingfoxes is so sparse, the planning teams wereforced to rely on roosting sites withinhealthy forest as a surrogate indicator forpopulation occurrence and viability. Clearly,more research is needed on the biology,current status, and recommended actionsfor these species.

addressing data gaps looking toward the next iteration

This Page:Traditional Pohnpei dancersperforming

Opposite Page Top:Kepirohi waterfall in Pohnpei

Opposite Page Bottom:Young Micronesians at theirhome in Pohnpei


Pohnpei short-eared owl. Little isknown about the very rare Pohnpei short-eared owl (Asio flammeus var. ponapensis),a Pohnpei endemic subspecies that inhabitssavannas. Lacking specific population data,savanna was used as a surrogate indicatorto map populations. Serious concernsexist for the stability of the owl populationon Pohnpei. Immediate work is needed tounderstand the biology, population status,viability, and threats to this species.

Arno skink (Emoia arnoensis).Little is known about this species, thus far recorded only in the Marshall Islands,Kosrae, and Nauru.

Giant Micronesian gecko. Thusfar, the giant Micronesian gecko (Perochirusscutellatus), believed endemic to theFSM's outer islands, has been found ononly two atolls at opposite ends of thecountry. More work needs to be done toconfirm species distribution and viability.

Other reptiles. Biological surveys for reptiles are scarce on all islands exceptPohnpei. There is a strong likelihood thatnew endemic reptiles will be identified inongoing work. Studies are needed to iden-tify species present, their distribution, lifehistories, and viability.

7.3 ECOREGIONAL PLANNINGPROCESS GAPSViability Assessment and Goal Setting.Determining a conservation target’s viabilityand conservation goals was a tremendouschallenge to the planning teams. The generallack of data, especially for species, made itextremely challenging to determine viabilityand set meaningful conservation goals withconfidence. The team had very little to drawon in terms of guidelines and examples

from similar ecoregions, and as such, werecognize the very tentative nature of thefirst iteration of this plan. In future itera-tions of the plan, the viability assessmentsand goals will need to be revisited andupdated by newly available data.

7.4 CONCLUSIONThis conservation blueprint is by no meansan exhaustive study on all that is knownbiologically about the islands and watersof the Federated States of Micronesia.However, as far as we know, it is the firsteffort to capture the collective biologicalknowledge of regional scientists and localexperts and turn that knowledge intomapped focal areas for biodiversity pro-tection. There is much work to be done,especially in understanding more about thesize, distribution, life history requirementsand health of the FSM’s flora and fauna.Hopefully, future iterations of this con-servation blueprint will be enhanced bynew and ongoing studies on the region’sbiodiversity. Perhaps most importantly,this plan provides a place to start—wherethose concerned about the special placesin Micronesia can collectively focus theirefforts. A place to begin.

Hopefully, future itera-

tions of this con-

servation blueprint

will be enhanced by

new and ongoing

studies on the region’s

biodiversity.

7.0 addressing data gaps looking toward the next iteration

43

This Page:Stone money along a path in a rural Yapese village

44 A B L U E P R I N T F O R C O N S E R V I N G T H E B I O D I V E R S I T Y O F T H E F E D E R AT E D S TAT E S O F M I C R O N E S I A 45REFERENCES

references

Falanruw, M., T. Cole, A. Ambacher, K. McDuffie & J. Maka (1987). Vegetation Survey of Moen, Dublon, Fefen and Eten, State of Truk, Federated States of Micronesia,USDA Forest Service, Resource Bull. PSW-20, 6pp+ 3 maps.

Falanruw, M. (1988) On the status, reproductive biology and management of fruit bats of Yap. Micronesia 21 (1-2), pp. 39-51.

Falanruw, M. (1995) The Yapese Agricultural System. PhD Dissertation, University of the South Pacific.

Falanruw, M (2001) Terrestrial Biodiversity of the FSM. Report prepared for the FSM National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Unpublished.

Federated States of Micronesia (1999) National Communication prepared under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 90 pp.

Federated States of Micronesia (2002a) The Federated States of Micronesia National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. 66 pp.

Federated States of Micronesia (2002b) Economic Review. Department of Economic Affairs, Pohnpei, FSM. 89 pp.

Federated States of Micronesia (2002c) 2000 Population and Housing Census Report, Division of Statistics, Dept of Economic Affairs, FSM National Government, Pohnpei, FSM. 163 pp.

Glassman, S. (1952) The flora of Ponape. Bulletin 209. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Harding, E. (1992) Federated States of Micronesia Legal Review. . South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme (SPREP). Apia, Western Samoa.

Hezel, F. (2002) Rough Seas Ahead: The FSM Economy During Compact II. MicronesianCounselor, Issue 44. 14 pp.

Laird, W. (1982) Soil Survey of Island of Ponape, Federated States of Micronesia. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 81 pp w/maps.

Laird, W. (1983a) Soil Survey of Island of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 67 pp w/maps.

Laird, W. (1983b) Soil Survey of Island of Truk, Federated States of Micronesia. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 65 pp w/maps.

Lindsay, S. and A. Edward (2000) Coral Reef Status Report for the Federated States of Micronesia. College of Micronesia publication. 29 pp.

MacLean, C., T. Cole, C. Whitesell, M. Falanruw, A. Ambacher (1986) Vegetation Survey of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. USDA Forest Service, Res. Bull. PSW 18. 19p. + 11 maps.

Meyer, J.Y. (2000). Preliminary review of the invasive plants in the Pacific islands. (SPREP Member Countries). In; Invasive species in the Pacific: A technical review and draft regional strategy. (Ed.) G. Sherley, SPREP, 2000.

Mickleburgh, S., A. Hutson, and P. Racey (1992) Old World Fruit Bats. An Action Plan for their Conservation. IUCN/SSC Chiroptera Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

8.0 references8.0

Atkinson, I.A.E., and T.J. Atkinson (2000) Land vertebrates as invasive species on the islands of the South Pacific. In; Invasive species in the Pacific: A technical review and draft regional strategy. (Ed.) G. Sherley, SPREP, 2000.

Buddemeier, R.W. (1993) Corals, climate and conservation. Proc. 7th Inter. Coral Reef Symposium., 1: 3-10.

Buden, D. (2000) A Comparison of 1983 and 1994 Bird Surveys of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. The Wilson Bulletin 112(3):403-410.

Buden, D. (2001) The Gobiid Fishes (Teleostei: Gobioidei Sicydiinae) of the headwater streams of Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands, Federated States of Micronesia. Micronesia 34(1): pp. 1-10.

Buden, D.W., D.B. Lynch, and G.R. Zug. 2001. Recent records of exotic reptiles on Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia. Pacific Science 55: (1) 65-70.

Buden, D.W., D.B. Lynch, and R.E. Watson, 2001. The gobiid fishes (Teleostei: Gobioidei: Sicydiinae) of the headwater streams of Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands, Federated States of Micronesia. Micronesia 34: (1) 1-10.

Buden, D.W., D.B. Lynch, J. Short, and T. Leberer, 2001. Decapod crustaceans of the headwater streams of Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands, Federated States of Micronesia. Pacific Science 55: (3) 257-265.

Cowie, R.H. (2000) Non-indigenous land and freshwater mollusks in the islands of the Pacific: conservation impacts and threats. In; Invasive species in the Pacific: a technical review and draft regional strategy. (Ed.) G. Sherley, SPREP, 2000.

Dahl, A. (1980) Regional ecosystems survey of the South Pacific Area. IUCN/SPC technical paper no. 179. SPC, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Dahl, C. and B. Raynor (1996) Watershed planning and management: Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 37(3):235-253.

Detay M., Alessandrello E., Come P. and Groom I. (1989). Groundwater contamination and pollution in Micronesia. J. Hydrol. 112: 149-170.

Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Olson, D., Wikramanayake, E., Abell, R., Loucks, C., Underwood, E., Allnutt, T., Wettengel, W., Ricketts, T., Strand, H., O'Connor, S., and N., Burgess. (2000) A workbook for conducting biological assessments and developingbiodiversity visions for ecoregion-based conservation. Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. 249 pp. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org.

Engbring, J., F. Ramsey, and V. Wildman (1990) Micronesia Forest Bird Surveys. The Federated States: Pohnpei, Kosrae, Chuuk, Yap. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

Falanruw, M. (1982) People pressure and management of limited resources on Yap. Paper presented to the World Parks Congress, Bali, Indonesia. 22 pp.

Falanruw, M., C. Whitesell, T. Cole, C. MacLean, A. Ambacher (1987). Vegetation Survey of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia, USDA Forest Service, Resource Bull. PSW-21, 9pp+ 4 maps.


references8.0

Mueller-Dombois, D., and F. Fosberg (1998) Vegetation of Tropical Pacific Islands. Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2002) National Coral Reef Action Strategy. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Office of Response and Restoration, Silver Spring, MD. 156 pp. Retrieved from http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov.

OTA (1987) Integrated Renewable Resource Management for US Insular Areas. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. 441 pp.

Polhemus, D., J. Maciolek, and J. Ford (1992) An Ecosystem Classification of Inland Waters for Tropical Pacific Islands. Micronesica 25(2): 155-173.

Poiani, K.A., Richter, B., Anderson, M., and Richter, H. (2000) Biodiversity Conservationat Multiple Scales: Functional Sites, Landscapes, and Networks. Bioscience 50(2): 133-146.

Pratt, H., P. Bruner, and D. Berrett (1987) The Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Raynor, B. (1993) Montane cloud forests in Micronesia: Status and future management. In Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Proceedings of an International Symposiumat San Juan, Puerto Rico. L. Hamilton, J. Juvik, and F. Scatena, editors, East-WestCenter Program on the Environment, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Raynor, B. (1996) Developing a Community Approach to Watershed Management Planning on Pohnpei. In Consultants Reports. Prepared for the Asian DevelopmentBank. TA FSM-1925. Watershed Management and Environment. Pp. 1-28.

Raynor, B. (2000) A String of Pearls: Preserving the Federated States of Micronesia’s Globally Important Natural Heritage. DRAFT FSM Environment Sector Strategy. Unpublished. 10 pp.

Shoutis, D. (2002) Beta version of the Ecoregional Portfolio Assembly Tool software. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Available through Wayne Ostlie, contact: [email protected].

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (1993) The Federated States of Micronesia: Nationwide Environmental Management Strategies. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). Apia, Western Samoa. 154 pp.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (2000) Invasive species in the Pacific: a technical review and draft regional strategy. (Ed.) G. Sherley. SPREP. Apia, Samoa.

Smith, C. (1983) Laird, W. (1983b) Soil Survey of Island of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 90 pp w/maps.

Stattersfield, A., M. Crosby, A. Long, and D. Wege (1998) Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. 846 pp.

Space. J.C. and M. Falanruw (1999) Observations on invasive plant species in Micronesia.Report to the Pacific Islands Committee, Council of Western State Foresters, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Spengler S.R., Peterson F.L. & Mink J.F. (1992). Geology and hydrogeology of the island of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Tech. Rpt. 189, Water Resources Research Centre, Univ. of Hawaii, 79pp.

The Nature Conservancy (1996) Pohnpei’s Watershed Management Strategy 1996-2000:Building a Sustainable and Prosperous Future. Prepared by the Pohnpei WatershedProject Team. Funding and assistance provided by The Nature Conservancy, AsianDevelopment Bank, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme.108 pp with maps.

The Nature Conservancy (2000a) The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner’s Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation Success, First Edition. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

The Nature Conservancy (2000b) Designing a Geography of Hope: A Practitioner’s Handbook to Ecoregional Conservation Planning. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

The Nature Conservancy (2002) Pacific Island Countries Operating Unit Pacific Action Plan FY 2003-2007. Auckland, New Zealand. 27 pp.

Trustrum, N. (1996) Pohnpei’s Watershed Spatial Plan and Management Guidelines. In Consultants Reports. Prepared for the Asian Development Bank. TA FSM-1925.Watershed Management and Environment: i, ii,1-62.

United States Coral Reef Task Force (2000) The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. 34 pp. Retrieved from http://coralreef.gov.

USDA (1995) Pohnpei Island Resource Study. Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forest Service, U S Department of Agriculture. 112 pp.

USDA (2001) Kosrae Island Resource Study. USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service. Pacific Basin Area. 40 pp.

Wilcox, B.A. (1992) Insular ecology and conservation. Pp. 95-118. In: Conservation Biology: An Ecological-Evolutionary Perspective. M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox (eds.). Sinauer, Sunderland.

Wilkinson, C.R. (1999) Global and local threats to coral reef functioning and existence: review and predictions. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50: 867-878.

Wilson, E.O., D. Perlman (2000) Conserving Earth’s Biodiversity [CDROM]. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Whitesell, C., C. MacLean, M. Falanruw, T. Cole, A. Ambacher (1986). Vegetation Survey of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia, USDA Forest Service, Resource Bull. PSW-17, 8pp+map.

World Wildlife Fund (2001) Caroline tropical moist forests (OC0101). Unreviewed document.

World Wildlife Fund (2001) Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. Bioscience Vol. 51, No. 11.

World Wildlife Fund (2001) Yap dry forests (OC0204). Unreviewed document.

47

references8.0

REFERENCES

are A BLUEPRINT FOR CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE FEDERATED STATES … · 2014-05-29 · 4 A...

Documents

Transcript of are A BLUEPRINT FOR CONSERVING THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE FEDERATED STATES … · 2014-05-29 · 4 A...