Guam National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Guam National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
safety hazard for people going to and returning from the refuge. Because of the overgrown, some
areas on Route 3A is reduced from a 2 lane road, to about a 1 lane; made more dangerous with
potholes. Since the Refuge is a Federal entity, hopefully it can work with the Air Force (as the
landowner of Route 3A) in repairing the potholes and cutting the overgrown trees and grass.”
Response: Route 3A is under the jurisdiction of the territory of Guam. We agree that there is a
need for maintenance and will offer whatever assistance that we are able to.
Overlay Refuge
Comment: “Although not addressed in the CCP, I also with to strongly encourage the USFWS to
work aggressively on all Refuge overlay lands occurring on military property. Part of the original
intention of the Guam NWR was to improve the management of all natural resources on these
lands, but this goal seems to have been lost for a number of years now, especially on Andersen Air
Force Base.”
Response: We agree. The bases on Guam are in the process of developing Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plans. The Service is a part of the planning for resource management
and hopes that the INRMPS will provide the opportunity for increased resource management on
these lands.
Additional information
Comment: “I want to draw your attention to the following published paper, which was not cited in
the CCP: Wiles, G. J. 2005, Decline of a population of wild seeded breadfruit (Artocarpus
mariannensis) on Guam, Mariana Islands. Pacific Science 59:509-522. It will hopefully provide
information that may be useful in managing the refuge for native tree species, especially seeded
breadfruit, which is a valuable wildlife food plant.”
Response: We appreciate the information.
Land ownership/Refuge disposition
Comment: “There have been two considerations for land swaps with other private land owners
near the Jinapsan and Uranao areas, which is proof that Ritidian is not conducive for the
regenerating of birds, bees and fauna.”
“Just compensation was never given or completed. The land does not belong to the government
and is in fact still private property.”
Adjacent and former landowners from Ritidian Point attended both public meetings in Guam to
express their desire to re-acquire the lands that were taken by eminent domain during the 1950s.
They do not believe that the land was acquired legally and request that the U.S. Government
vacate the land and return and/or sell the land back to the original owners. Some individuals claim
continued ownership of the property.
Response: The issue of federal land ownership at Ritidian Point has been contentious for a
number of years and includes litigation. The Service considers the issue of land ownership
A-2 Appendix A. Response to Comments