SITE SPECIFIC REPORT SSR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EV-1307 APRIL 2013

CALENDAR YEAR 2012 ASSESSMENT OF NEAR SHORE MARINE RESOURCES AT FARALLON DE MEDINILLA, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

By

Stephen H. Smith

Donald E. Marx Jr. Lee H. Shannon Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors; Administrative/Operational Use; April 2013. Other requests for this document shall be referred to NAVFAC EXWC or NAVFAC PAC.

Printed on recycled paper

This page is intentionally left blank.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE (SF 298) Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0811

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information, it if does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From – To)

APRIL 2013 Site Specific Report 6-12 August 2012 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

CALENDAR YEAR 2012 ASSESSMENT OF NEAR SHORE MARINE RESOURCES AT FARALLON DE MEDINILLA, 5b. GRANT NUMBER COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Stephen H. Smith 16940-57-001001 Donald E. Marx Jr. 5e. TASK NUMBER Lee H. Shannon

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER NAVFAC-EXWC SDS SSR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EV-1307 1100 23rd Ave Port Hueneme, CA 93043 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S)

PACIFIC FLEET ENVIRONMENTAL PAC FLT 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) N/A 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors; Administrative/Operational Use; April 2013. Other requests for this document shall be referred to NAVFAC EXWC or PAC FLT. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT. Farallon De Medinilla (FDM) is an uninhabited island in the Mariana Archipelago; it has been used by DoD as a live and inert range since 1971. As a result of the NMFS Biological Opinion (1998) and subsequent agreements, the Navy has conducted annual marine ecological surveys of the near shore marine resources from 1999 through 2012 (except for 2011). NAVFAC EXWC Scientific Diving Services with support from EOD Detachment Marianas has performed all the surveys since 2004. Although minor impacts have been detected, which could be clearly associated with military training, no significant or substantial impacts to the physical or biological environment have been detected between 1999 and 2012. This conclusion is based on four criteria: 1) very few areas of disturbance have been detected, 2) most of the disturbed areas have been in natural rubble environments, 3) the size of the disturbed areas were generally less than 2 sq. m and 4) substantial or complete recovery has occurred within one year. The restricted access to FDM has resulted in a de-facto preserve effect, with the result that marine natural resources at FDM are comparable to or superior to those any of the other islands within the Mariana Archipelago. There was strong evidence during the 2012 survey that FDM has become subject to commercial spear fishing; this has resulted in changes to the numbers and behavior of some key fishery target species. An infestation of coral barnacles was observed in 2012, but this is not related to training activities. The greatest threat to FDM’s marine resources is overfishing.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Farallon De Medinilla live fire range, De-Facto Marine Protected Area

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18.NUMBER OF 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON ABSTRACT PAGES a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Stephen H. Smith U U U Unlimited 108 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) (808) 472-1405

iii This page is intentionally left blank.

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Farallon De Medinilla (FDM) is an uninhabited island in the Mariana Archipelago. The island is approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) long and is located 278 km north of Guam. FDM has been used by the Department of Defense (DoD) as a live and inert range since 1971. Under the direction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the Navy has conducted 13 annual marine ecological surveys of near shore marine resources at FDM between 1999 and 2012 (no survey was performed in 2011). The 1999 – 2004 surveys were completed by a Navy contractor and a representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. All surveys since 2004 have been performed by the Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center’s Scientific Diving Services (SDS). Explosive Ordnance Disposal Detachment Marianas provided oversight for all surveys.

This report presents the findings of the calendar year 2012 survey and compares those findings with the previous 12 surveys. Although minor ecological impacts, which could be attributed to military training, were detected in 2012 and previous surveys, no significant or substantial impacts to the physical or biological environment have been detected between 1999 and 2012. This conclusion was reached by all the investigators (1999 – 2012) and was based upon four criteria:

1) very few areas of disturbance have been detected,

2) most of the disturbed areas have been located in natural rubble environments,

3) the size of the disturbed areas were generally less than 2 m2 and,

4) substantial or complete recovery has occurred within one year.

The restricted access to FDM has resulted in a de-facto preserve effect. The marine natural resources at FDM are comparable to or superior to those of any of the other islands within the Mariana Archipelago. There was strong evidence during the 2012 survey that FDM has become subject to commercial spear fishing. This has resulted in changes to the estimated total numbers of some key fishery target species and changes in the behavior of those species towards divers. An infestation of coral barnacles was observed in 2012, but this is not related to DoD training activities. The greatest threat to FDM’s marine resources is overfishing.

v This page is intentionally left blank.

vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BDU Bomb, Dummy Unit BRT Biological Review Team CCA Crustose Coralline Algae cm Centimeters CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands COTS Crown-of-thorns starfish CRED Coral Reef Ecosystem Division DoD Department of Defense DoN Department of the Navy DPV Diver Propulsion Vehicles EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EOD DET MARI Explosive Ordnance Disposal Detachment Marianas ERW Expanding Regional Warning ESA Endangered Species Act FDM Farallon De Medinilla GP General Purpose H2O Water ha Hectare HIG Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics ID Identification IO Indian Ocean Watch Bulletin IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature JMA Japan Meteorological Agency km Kilometers lb. Pound LPI Line Point Intercept LT Lieutenant m Meter mi Mile(s) MK Mark MPA Marine Protected Area MRAMP Mariana Reef Assessment Monitoring Program MT Motor Tug Boat Mw Moment Magnitude NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC EXWC Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center NAVFAC PAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nm Nautical Mile PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

vii RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat SCUBA Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SDS Scientific Diving Services TIB Tsunami Information Bulletin TL Total length TWI Tsunami Watch Information

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General Geography and Geology ...... 2

1.1.1 EARTHQUAKES ...... 3 1.1.2 TSUNAMIS ...... 3 1.1.3 VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ...... 5 1.1.4 TYPHOONS...... 7 1.2 Biological Environment ...... 7

2.0 OBJECTIVES ...... 8

3.0 SURVEY METHODS ...... 8 3.1 General Overview ...... 8

3.1.1 AREAS AND PROCEDURES ...... 9 3.2 Physical Factors ...... 10 3.3 Biological Factors ...... 11

3.3.1 ALGAE ...... 11 3.3.2 CORAL ...... 11 3.3.3 MACROSCOPIC BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES ...... 14 3.3.4 FISHES...... 14 3.3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 14

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 15 4.1 Physical Environment ...... 15

4.1.1 BLAST IMPACTS ...... 16 4.1.2 ORDNANCE AND ROCK FRAGMENTS ...... 17 4.1.3 INTACT ORDNANCE ITEMS ...... 18 4.1.4 FISHING RELATED IMPACTS...... 19 4.1.5 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY ...... 19 4.2 Biological Resources ...... 20

4.2.1 ALGAE ...... 20 4.2.2 CORALS – GENERAL OVERVIEW ...... 21 4.2.3 MACROSCOPIC BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES ...... 26 4.2.4 FISHES...... 28 4.2.5 PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 34

5.0 CONCLUSIONS...... 35 5.1 General Remarks ...... 36

ix 5.2 Physical Environment ...... 36 5.3 Biological Environment ...... 38

5.3.1 ALGAE ...... 39 5.3.2 CORALS ...... 40 5.3.3 OTHER INVERTEBRATES ...... 40 5.3.4 FISHES...... 41 5.3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 42

6.0 FIGURES ...... 43

7.0 PLATES ...... 53

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 75

REFERENCES ...... 77

APPENDIX A ...... A-1

APPENDIX B ...... B-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Dates of FDM Annual Marine Surveys...... 1 Table 2: Classification of Tsunami Cause Codes (Source: NOAA, USGS)...... 3 Table 3: Tsunami Run Up Events in CNMI ...... 4 Table 4: Coordinates of Vents Unit...... 6 Table 5: Factors Assessed on Each Dive...... 10 Table 6: Fish Species and Families Assessed Semi-Quantitatively...... 14 Table 7: Indicators of Potential Anthropogenic Disturbances...... 16 Table 8: Most Commonly Encountered Ordnance Items With Nominal Weights and Case Dimensions...... 18 Table 9: Major Coral Taxa Sighted During the 2009, 2010 and 2012 Surveys...... 22 Table 10: Original 16 Candidate Corals and 9 Proposed Corals Present at FDM Based Upon Field Identifications...... 26 Table 11: Fish Families Sighted. Bolded families contain key fishery target species...... 28 Table 12: Summary of Shark Sightings 2006 Through 2012...... 31 Table 13: Summary of Underwater Sea Turtle Sighting 2005 through 2012...... 34 Table 14: Underwater and Surface Sightings of Sea Turtle Sightings 1999 through 2012...... 35 Table 15: Common Coral Reef Stressors Which Are Absent or Reduced at FDM (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap 1998; Harriott 1997)...... 39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: CNMI-Within a global perspective...... 43 Figure 2: Mariana Archipelago...... 44

x Figure 3: Farallon De Medinilla Viewed from the South...... 45 Figure 4: Farallon De Medinilla Viewed from the East...... 46 Figure 5: Earthquake activity greater than Mw 4 in the Marianas Islands from Oct 2011- Jul 2012. Depth in km...... 48 Figure 6: Details specific wave heights and Tsunami travel times from witnesses and observation systems...... 49 Figure 7: The map excerpt above shows high amounts of volcanic and seismic activity in the Marianas. Red triangles indicate recent volcanic eruptions from 1900-2003, black, grey, and white dots/circles indicate recorded earthquakes, with large size equating to higher magnitude (Simkin et al. 2006)...... 50 Figure 8: Known submerged volcanic vents within the archipelago ...... 51 Figure 9: History of tropical storm activity in the Marianas from 1995 to June 2012. (Source: Joint Typhoon Warning Center, Pearl Harbor, HI) ...... 52 Figure 10: Tropical storm tracks approaching Farallon de Medinilla from October 2010 to June 2012. (Source: Joint Typhoon Warning Center, Pearl Harbor, HI)...... 52

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Top: Z1E cliff line @ 10 m. Bottom: Z1W typical sea floor @ 20 m; note blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) and two unidentified bombs. Both photos from 2010...... 53 Plate 2: Top: Z2E. Typical sea floor at 12 m. Note abundant & diverse fish fauna. Bottom: Z2W @ 6 m with bar jack (Caranjoides ferdau) in foreground...... 54 Plate 3: Top: Z1W @ 15 m typical rubble/boulder sea floor. Bottom: Z1W cliff line @12 m; note abundant small – medium Pocillopora sp.colonies...... 55 Plate 4: Top: Z3E cliff block/boulder @ 22 m. Bottom: Z3W (2010 survey) the Southern portion of Z3W supports the best developed coral community on FDM...... 56 Plate 5: Top: Z4 (from 2010) off N tip of FDM @ 25 m. Bottom: Z1 spur reef off S tip of FDM @ 13 m...... 57 Plate 6: Top: bigeye trevally/jack (Caranx sexfasciatus). Bottom: black jacks (Caranx lugubris), both jack species are important fishery target species. Note, grey reef shark below the black jacks...... 58 Plate 7: Top: rudderfishes/sea chubs (Kyphosus sp.) are common at FDM. Bottom: bluelined snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) are among the three most common snapper species at FDM...... 59 Plate 8: Top: Oriental sweetlips (Plectorhinchus orientalis) left of center, and Moorish idols (Zanclus cornutus) have been sighted every year. Bottom: The argosy/peacock grouper (Cephalopholis argus) is one of the most common groupers at FDM...... 60 Plate 9: Top: The presence of substantial numbers of apex predators is indicative of a healthy ecosystem. The giant trevally (Caranx ignobilis) were each approx. 90 cm TL, note two grey reef sharks below. Bottom: 2 m grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos)...... 61 Plate 10: Top: Silver pompano (Trachinotus blochii) are common at FDM; note the clouds of unidentified baitfish in the background. Bottom: At least two giant clams species, Tridacna squamosa & Tridacna gigas, have been sighted at FDM...... 62

xi Plate 11: See also Plates 12 and 13 and Section 4.2.2. Pocillopora meandrina (center right foreground) was heavily infested with the coral barnacle Cantellus sp. Pocillopora eydouxi colonies were virtually free of the infestation. Note the adjacent dead colonies overgrown with crustose coralline algae...... 63 Plate 12: See Plates 11 and 13 and Section 4.2.2.2. Pocillopora meandrina infested with the coral barnacle Cantellius sp...... 64 Plate 13: See also Plates 11 and 12 and Section 4.2.2.2. This photo illustrates the apparent progression from infestation, to loss of zooxanthellae, death and overgrowth by algae. .65 Plate 14: Top: Acropora sp. This genus is well represented at FDM. Bottom: The large greenish/tan colonies are Porites (tentatively) lobata, the purplish colony to the right is Montipora sp...... 66 Plate 15: Top: An inert MK 84 2,000 lb bomb that had clearly made a direct impact into the sea floor (Z1E). Bottom: An inert MK 83 1,000 lb bomb also in Z1E. Both of these bombs impacted an area of sea floor that was naturally rubble and small boulders. These two items are believed to have been dropped approximately one month prior to the survey. .67 Plate 16: An inert MK 82 500 lb bomb in Z1W. This bomb was believed to have hit the island first and bounced off, due to the absence of fin assembly and damage to the casing. The bomb appears to have been submerged less than 3 months based upon degree of fouling. Bottom: MK 80 series bomb in Z1E...... 68 Plate 17: Top: Tentatively live M 117 750 lb bomb in Z1W. Bottom: Unidentified bomb in Z1E...... 69 Plate 18: Top: From 2007 survey , this inert MK 82 500 lb. bomb directly impacted the sea floor on 5 or 6 Sept. 2007 and was photographed on 13 Sept 2007. By 2008, the bomb had disappeared into deeper water and the site had new coral and algae recruits. Bottom: MK 84 2,000 lb bomb in Z3E, believed to have hit the island first and to have been submerged for 12 -18 months...... 70 Plate 19: Top & Bottom: green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) with estimated straight line carapace lengths of 45 cm and 65 cm, respectively. The smaller turtle was immature, sex could not be determined. The larger turtle was a female. Both specimens sighted off the N tip of Z4. Note, the exceptionally clean shells, with no barnacles, fibro- papilloma tumors, or bit scars. Top photo by LT Brent Wadsworth...... 71 Plate 20: Top: The black-blotched sting ray (Taeniura meyeni) has been the second most common ray every year at FDM. Bottom: The tawny nurse shark (Nebrius ferrugineus) has had the largest average size of all shark species sighted; many specimens have exceeded 3 m. TL...... 72 Plate 21: Top: grey reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) are more abundant at FDM than at many locations within their range. In addition, many of the specimens are near their maximum recorded lengths of about 2.4 m. Bottom: Sheer walls are common around much of FDM. These walls, as well as the large submerged cliff blocks and boulders support dense growths of the calcareous green algae Halimeda sp...... 73 Plate 22: Top: From 2010, MK 80 series bombs in Z1E. Based upon the marine growth, the bombs had been in place for at least 8 years. Bottom: Exceptionally robust fish stocks have been present during every FDM survey since 1999. The black/sleek unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) and yellowback fusiliers (Caseo teres) are among FDM’s most abundant species...... 74

xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Farallon De Medinilla (FDM) is an uninhabited island located within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The island is located approximately 83 km (45 nm) north of Saipan (see Figures 1 through 4). FDM has been used as both a live fire and inert range since 1971. It is under a lease agreement until 2075 for use as a Department of Defense (DoD) target range. The initial FDM marine survey was conducted in July 1997 as part of the Marianas Training Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DoN 1999). Annual marine surveys were performed from 1999 through 2010. No survey was required in 2011. The current report describes the survey conducted in calendar year 2012 and compares the findings with those of previous surveys.

Between 1999 and 2004, the surveys were conducted by marine ecologists from the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife and a Navy consultant. All the surveys after 2004 were performed by marine ecologists from the Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center Scientific Diving Services (NAVFAC EXWC SDS) group. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit Detachment Marianas (EOD DET MARI) has provided oversight and support for all the FDM marine surveys and identification of and commentary on all ordnance items. Appendix A lists all the participants in the 2012 effort.

The original basis for the FDM surveys was derived from the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion dated December 29, 1998. Subsequent guidance documents have supported this requirement. The marine surveys are intended to monitor the long-term effects to near shore marine habitats from continued use of FDM as a military firing range. Due to range training requirements and weather conditions, it has not been possible to conduct the surveys at the same time each year. Table 1 shows the survey dates.

Table 1: Dates of FDM Annual Marine Surveys.

July 1999 July 2000 July 2001 October 2002 July 2003 July 2004 November 2005 September 2006 September 2007 October 2008 August/September 2009 October 2010 2011 No Survey August 2012

The objectives of all the FDM marine surveys have been to collect data and information concerning physical and biological conditions and resources in the near shore waters of FDM. To facilitate comparisons between the yearly surveys, the annual reports follow the same basic format and include the following sections:

1) Introduction,

2) Objectives,

1 3) Survey Methods,

4) Results and Discussion;

5) Conclusions;

6) Figures,

7) Photographic Plates,

8) References, and

9) Appendices.

This report for the 2012 survey also follows that general format. Underwater photographs provide graphic and detailed information on the conditions at FDM. All the photos were taken by Stephen H. Smith at FDM during the 2012 survey, unless otherwise indicated. These photographs are presented as 22 Plates in Section 7 and provide important documentation of the conditions; the reader is urged to review them. Metric measurements are used exclusively throughout this document after their first occurrence when both metric and English measurements are listed.

The survey dates of the 2012 survey were August 6 through August 11. Three typhoons (Saola, Damrey and Haikui) and a severe tropical storm (Kirogi) produced adverse sea conditions at FDM and it was not possible to conduct diving operations on the western side of the island until Wednesday August 8th. Nevertheless, the team successfully circumnavigated the island at multiple depths.

1.1 General Geography and Geology

Farallon De Medinilla (FDM) is located within the Mariana Archipelago, a chain of 15 volcanic islands in the western Pacific, roughly 2,300 km (1,400 miles) south of Japan and 5,800 km (3,600 miles) west southwest of Hawaii (see Figures 1 through 4). The archipelago can be divided into two geologic segments. The southern segment includes Guam, Rota, Aguijan, Saipan, Tinian, Rota and FDM. These islands all have an extensive limestone cap, primarily Mariana Limestone, covering their volcanic cores. All the remaining islands are volcanically active and lack limestone caps (Riegl et al. 2008). FDM is heavily eroded and surrounded by steep, unstable sea cliffs. There are no surface water bodies or streams on FDM. Most of the island is vegetated by herbaceous and shrubby littoral species (DoN 1999a).

FDM is approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) long and has an area of about 72 hectares (180 acres). The island’s coordinates are approximately 16° 01' 02" N; 146° 03' 30"E. Politically, FDM belongs to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); the submerged lands, however, are owned and controlled by the Federal government. The study area for this project is limited to the submerged lands from the shoreline to a depth of approximately 30 m.

The entire Mariana Archipelago, including FDM, is subject to some of the most severe and frequent physical events of any archipelago in the world. Earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and

2 volcanoes have and continue to shape and impact both the physical and biological environment. Because of their importance to this study, each is briefly discussed in the following sections.

1.1.1 Earthquakes

The Mariana Archipelago is located on one of the most seismically active plate boundaries in the world. Figure 5 shows the Mariana and Philippine Plates in relation to the Mariana fault. Figure 6 shows a summary of earthquake activity (magnitude 4.5 or greater) along the Marianas convergence from 1964 to 2011, highlighting this extraordinary level of activity (Mueller et al. 2012). For the time period between October 2011 and July 2012, 197 earthquakes above magnitude (Mw) 4.0 were recorded in the archipelago (Figure 7) (IRIS SeismiQuery, 2012). Thirty-five of those quakes were magnitude 5.0 and above.

Although a single small to moderate size earthquake is unlikely to produce significant impacts on FDM, the cumulative impact from this level of seismic activity has very likely contributed to the huge boulders and rock slides that are present around the island. The presence of these boulders and rock slides in the intertidal and subtidal zones affects the distribution of flora and fauna within the near shore marine environment.

1.1.2 Tsunamis

Most tsunamis are produced by fault movements connected with earthquakes; however, they can also be caused by volcanic activity such as pyroclastic flows and steam releases, and underwater landslides (Loomis 2002). Table 2 lists the 11 tsunami cause codes.

Table 2: Classification of Tsunami Cause Codes (Source: NOAA, USGS).

Tsunami Cause Codes 0 Unknown 1 Earthquake 2 Questionable Earthquake 3 Earthquake and Landslide 4 Volcano and Earthquake 5 Volcano, Earthquake, and Landslide 6 Volcano 7 Volcano and Landslide 8 Landslide 9 Meteorological 10 Explosion 11 Astronomical Tide

3 There has been no official confirmation that tsunamis have impacted FDM during the time period the marine surveys have been conducted. However, according to the International Tsunami Information Centre, there have been numerous events that could have produced tsunami or micro-tsunami effects at FDM. As used in this report, the term micro-tsunami refers to unusually strong currents, eddies, upwellings and downwellings that occur in very localized areas during and after the passage of a tsunami. For events with a surface wave or moment magnitude (Mw) greater than or equal to 6.5 and a depth no greater than 100 km, or an event for which a Tsunami Information Bulletin (TIB), Expanding Regional Warning (ERW) or Indian Ocean Watch Bulletin (IO) and/or JMA (J) Tsunami Watch Information (TWI) was issued, it is assumed that FDM could have been impacted. For example, between the end of the 2008 survey (October 11, 2008) and the beginning of the 2009 survey (August 31, 2009) there were at least 28 reported earthquake or tsunami events within the geographic area which could have produced un-recorded tsunami or micro-tsunami impacts at FDM. Point of origin tsunami damage was reported for seven of the 28 events (for example, the 7.7 Mw earthquake/tsunami of March 19, 2009 off Tonga and the 6.6 Mw event of August 10, 2009 off Honshu). Tsunami wave energy extends much deeper than wind wave energy and multi-day oscillations are common.

Since the 2010 FDM survey, the wave heights of several tsunami run up events have been recorded in the Mariana Islands (Table 3) (Tsunami Data and Information, 2012). It is reasonable to presume these affected FDM. The most notable were from the March 11, 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0. The largest recorded wave height in Guam was 1.2 meters (4 ft).

Table 3: Tsunami Run Up Events in CNMI

Tsun. Tsunami Distance Max EQ Year Mo Day Hr Cause Run up from Water Mag Code Location Source Height (km) (m) 2010 2 27 6 1 8.8 Saipan 15549 .15 2010 5 29 11 6 N/A Saipan 267 .04 2010 8 13 21 1 6.9 Saipan 888 .07 2010 12 21 17 1 7.4 Saipan 2116 .05 2011 3 11 5 1 9.0 Guam 2758 1.2

Large ordnance items, including 2,000 pound bombs, observed during the 2005 through 2009 surveys, could not be located during the 2010 survey. Likewise, large ordnance items sighted in 2010 could not be relocated during the 2012 survey. The authors believe that the most likely explanation for the apparent disappearance of these ordnance items was that they were moved down slope due to extreme water movement, possibly from tsunamis or micro-tsunamis based upon the reduced level and intensity of typhoons during that time period.

The Tohoku, Japan earthquake of March 11, 2011 triggered devastating tsunami waves in Tohoku which then spread across the Pacific Ocean. The tsunami waves reached heights of up to 40.5 meters (133 feet) in Miyako Tohoku's Iwate Prefecture, and traveled up to 10 km (6 miles) inland in the Sendai area (Factsheet: The Tohoku, Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March 11, 2011). In Guam, the waves broke two U.S. Navy submarines from their moorings, even though

4 Guam was 2,758 km (1,714 miles) away from the source of the tsunami (Tsunami Data and Information, 2012). Figure 8 is a computer model of the actual travel of the tsunami wave, with the position of the Mariana Islands highlighted (Tohoku, Japan Tsunami of March 11, 2011 Energy Plot, 2012 and March 11, 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011). Tsunami waves from this event also struck the coasts of Oregon and California, causing severe damage to the harbor of Crescent City, California 7,700 km from the earthquake. Records show that the ocean remained disturbed by tsunami wave action off the coast of California for several days after the earthquake. The tsunami even caused damage over 16,000 km away at Isla Chiloe, Chile (March 11, 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011).

1.1.3 Volcanic Activity

Four large active submarine volcanoes within the CNMI are currently being tracked by the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program (Global Volcanism Program, 2012 and The Northern Marianas, 2012).

• Ahyi, 20.42N 145.03E (-137 m below sea level), Recent Eruption: 2001

• Esmeralda Bank, 15N 145.25E (-43 m below sea level), Recent Eruption: Unknown

• Ruby, 15.62N 145.57E (-230 m below sea level), Recent Eruption: 1995

• Supply Reef, 20.13N 145.1E (-8 m below sea level), Recent Eruption: 1989

Based on personal communication with scientists at the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, there are no known researchers studying changes in sea water temperature, salinity, etc, due to subsurface eruptions or the subsequent effects on marine life near shore in the Marianas (Rumpf, E. and Parcheta, C., 2012). The distance emissions from these eruptions travel underwater would depend on prevailing ocean currents and thermoclines. However, some relevant observations were made at the Ahyi seamount. It is a large conical submarine volcano that rises to within 137 m of the sea surface about 18 km SE of the island of Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas). Water discoloration has been observed over the submarine volcano, and in 1979, the crew of a fishing boat felt shocks over the summit area of the seamount followed by upwelling of sulfur-bearing water. The event was well constrained (+/- 15 km) at a location near the southern base of Ahyi; the summit of the seamount lies within the location uncertainty. Sulfur boils, water discoloration, and fish kills (which have variously been attributed to eruptive events) have also been observed above Esmeralda Bank and Ruby (Global Volcanism Program, 2012 and The Northern Marianas, 2012). Figure 9 depicts volcanic and seismic activity in the archipelago.

In addition to submarine volcanoes, aerial volcanoes also have been shown to alter marine communities in the Mariana Archipelago (Schils 2012). Richmond et al. (2008) list volcanic activity and the re-suspension of volcanic ash as two of the five key limiting factors impacting marine natural resources in the northern Marianas. The closest active volcano to FDM is Anatahan, located approximately 72 km away. The most recent eruption was in 2005, although pillars of smoke and steam have been observed rising from the mountain during several of the marine surveys. A total of nine active aerial volcanoes are being monitored in the Northern Mariana Archipelago by the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program. They are:

5 • Agrigan, 18.77N 145.67E (965 m high), Recent Eruption: 1917

• Alamagan, 17.6N 145.83E (744 m high) , Recent Eruption: > 1000 Years Ago

• Anatahan, 16.35N 145.67E (790 m high) , Recent Eruption: 2005

• Asuncion, 19.67N 145.4E (857 m high), Recent Eruption: 1906

• Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas), 20.53N 144.9E (360 m high), Recent Eruption: 1967

• Guguan, 17.32N 145.85E (287 m high), Recent Eruption: 1883

• Maug Islands, 20.02N 145.22E (227 m high), Recent Eruption: Unknown

• Pagan, 18.13N 145.8E (570 m high), Recent Eruption: 2006

• Sarigan, 16.708N 145.78E (538 m high), Recent Eruption: Unknown

Known submerged volcanic vents within the archipelago are shown in Figure 10 and Table 4 (Mariana Trench Marine National Monument, 2012).

Table 4: Coordinates of Vents Unit.

Vents Unit Longitude Latitude Vents Unit Longitude Latitude Volcano 143°27’30” E 21°56’30” N E. Diamante 145°40’47” E 15°56’ 31” N Fukujin 143°38’30” E 21°36’36’ N Ruby 145°34’24” E 15°36’15” N

Minami 144°2’36” E 21°29’15” N Esmeralda 145°14’45” E 14°57’30” N Kasuga #2 NW 144°2’36” E 21°29’15”N NW Rota #1 144° 46’30” E 14°36’00” N Eifuku Minami 143°38’00” E 21°24’00” N W Rota 144°50’00” E 14°19’30” N Kasuga #3 Daikoku 144°11’39”E 21°19’27” N Forecast 143°55’12” E 13°23’30” N Ahyi 145°1’45” E 20°26’15” N Seamount X 144°1’0” E 13°14’48” N

Maug 145°13’18’ E 20°1’15” N South 143°37’08” E 12°57’12” N Backarc Alice 144°30’00” E 18°12’00” N Archaean 143°37’55’ E 12°56’23” N Springs Site Central 1144°45’00” 18°01’00” N Pika Site 143°38’55” E 12°55’07”N Through E Zealandia 145°51’04” E 16°52’57” N Toto 143°31’42” E 12°42’48” N

6 1.1.4 Typhoons Typhoon wave action and surge strongly impact nearshore subsurface environments. FDM is located within one of the most active tropical storm/typhoon regions in the world. As shown in Figure 11, multiple tropical depressions and cyclones regularly pass through the Mariana Island chain. Highlighted in the figure are three islands of high Navy interest in the Northern Marianas – Tinian, Farallon de Medinilla (FDM), and Pagan – with range rings denoting storms that have approached within 200 nm of the islands from 1995 to June of 2012.

Interestingly, the period between the last FDM survey (October 2010) and the August 2012 survey has had a remarkably light pattern of storm activity. From October of 2010 to June of 2012, only two tropical depressions and one tropical cyclone have passed within 200 nm of the island (Figure 12). These calm conditions increased the likelihood that any impacts from military training would be detected, versus being obscured by typhoon impacts.

1.2 Biological Environment

The Mariana Archipelago falls within the marine biogeographic region known as the Indo- Pacific. This region is widely recognized as supporting the world’s most diverse assemblage of corals, fishes, and other associated coral reef organisms. For example, Spalding et al. (2001) lists 719 scleractinian corals, 690 alcyonarian corals, and 4,000 fish species within the Indo-West Pacific, but in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean only 62 scleractinian corals, 6 alcyonarian corals, and 650 fish species. In comparison, Richmond et al. (2008) list over 375 scleractinian corals and 1,000 fish species within the Mariana Archipelago, in Hawaii Jokiel (2008) lists about 40 scleractinian species and Randall (2007) lists 612 fish species. While these numbers should not be considered exact, they clearly show that the archipelago contains a rich marine flora and fauna compared to other biogeographic areas.

FDM’s marine community is less complex and diverse than those around the larger islands like Guam, Saipan and Rota. This is due to a number of factors, including FDM’s small size, the lack of shallow water and the absence of any lagoons, reef flats, or fringing reefs. The five key elements cited by Richmond et al. (2008) that restrict reef development in the northern Marianas all apply, to some extent, at FDM:

i. unfavorable bathymetry,

ii. lack of favorable substrate on which corals can recruit and grow,

iii. high exposure to wave energy,

iv. re-suspension of volcanic ash, and

v. volcanic eruptions.

Of these five factors, exposure to high wave energy is believed to be the most important limiting factor at FDM.

The underwater terrain, topography, and representative marine life are illustrated in Plates 1 through 22 in Section 7.

7 Mariana Trench Marine National Monument

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush issued Proclamation 8335 and created the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument. The Monument consists of two separate units. The Island Unit covers approximately 42,500 km2 (12,388 nm2) and the Trench Unit approximately 204,900 km2 (59,732 nm2). The southern edge of the Island Unit, which includes Farallon De Pajaraos (aka Uracas), Maug and Asuncion, is 350 km north of FDM. The closest segment of the Trench Unit is 150 km east of FDM. Proclamation 8335 allows the government to restrict commercial fishing and other extractive uses within the Monument. Anticipated fishing restrictions within the monument could result in increased fishing pressure at FDM.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of the 2012 marine survey and previous surveys were to:

a. Assess the condition of the marine resources in the near shore habitats using qualitative and semi-quantitative observations.

b. Document any changes or disturbances to the physical environment and changes, disturbances, or anomalies to selected biological resources.

c. Determine, to the extent possible, if any disturbances or anomalies are the result of anthropogenic activities or natural factors.

d. Evaluate the ecological significance of (apparent) anthropogenic disturbances and anomalies in the context of (apparent) natural disturbances and anomalies.

3.0 SURVEY METHODS

3.1 General Overview

Previous FDM marine surveys (1999-2004) were conducted by biologists from the National Marine Fisheries Service (John Naughton), US Fish and Wildlife Service (Michael Molina), CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, (Michael Trianni) and a consulting marine ecologist (Steven Dollar). Personnel from EOD DET MARI participated in all of those surveys. During most of those survey years, that team made six SCUBA dives per biologist (24 total ‘biological’dives) to a maximum depth of 18 m and a series of surface snorkel tows.

The Navy team has always chosen to rely exclusively on SCUBA to allow closer examination of the sea floor. Diver propulsion vehicles (DPVs) were used on many of the dives. The entire island was circumnavigated underwater during the 2012 survey, and during all the previous surveys except 2005. Diving depths ranged from 3 to 31 m. The increased number of dives, increased depths and increased underwater/sea floor coverage (compared to pre-2005 surveys) may have increased the likelihood of detecting impacts, disturbances, or anomalies, especially since most of the nearshore area is deeper than 15 m. The senior author (Smith) participated in all the surveys, Marx participated in 2005 through 2011 and one or more of the same EOD DET MARI team members participated each subsequent year. This continuity, and the continuity of the investigators between 1999 and 2004, has helped ensure that the same sites were visited

8 yearly and that the observations, primarily qualitative, have been as consistent as possible. Training range requirements and adverse weather have precluded conducting the surveys at the exact same time period each year; however, temporal changes related to seasonal differences do not appear to have been significant, with the possible exception of some species of macro-algae.

For the 2012 survey, the team was transported by the MT Chamorro operated by Saipan Crewboats, Inc. Appendix A lists the crew and team members. This vessel also provided storage for compressors and dive gear as well as messing and berthing facilities. EOD DET MARI provided dive supervision, support and ordnance safety. They also identified ordnance and provided observational data on selected, easily identifiable species such as spotted eagle rays and green sea turtles. Actual dive operations were conducted from a 28 foot rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB), operated by EOD DET MARI. Open circuit compressed air SCUBA was used to make observations and collect data.

The 2012 survey was conducted 10 days after ordnance training/bombing operations were completed.

FDM is routinely subject to high surf and strong surge. Even when the seas are relatively calm, currents of up to 4 knots are not uncommon. Because of these conditions, utilizing common quantitative methods such as photographic quadrats and transects is generally not possible. Therefore, the surveys have focused primarily on qualitative observations, counts that can be made from randomly taken photographs, and counts made while ‘riding’ the currents. Such procedures are judged to produce results generally comparable to those from the towed diver surveys used by NOAA’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Division and other investigators. At the end of the week, (Friday, 10 August 2012) sea conditions improved sufficiently to allow conducting five Line Point Intercept (LPI) transects, as described by various investigators (e.g. Hill and Wilkinson 2004, Liddell and Ohlhorst 1987).

3.1.1 Areas and Procedures

The near shore waters surrounding FDM were divided into zones (see Figures 3 and 4). The zones correspond to operational areas on the island designated in the Mariana Islands Range Complex Management Plan (dated October 2007). Proceeding from south to north, Zone 1 is used for live and inert ordnance; Zone 2 is a no fire/no drop zone; Zone 3 is a live and inert ordnance zone, although for target preservation purposes, live ordnance is generally only used in the southern half of Zone 3; Zone 4 is a no fire/no drop zone. During the last seven years, most live ordnance has been expended in Zone 1. For assessment purposes, each of the four zones was subdivided into an eastern and western side, resulting in a total of eight zones. Hereafter, these zones are referred to as follows: Z1E, Z1W, Z2E, Z2W, Z3E, Z3W, Z4E, and Z4W.

Z1, the primary live fire zone, was given the highest survey priority. This was because it was the most likely area to sustain adverse impacts. Z2, the small no fire/no drop zone between Z1 and Z3 was ranked second, due to its proximity to Z1 and the southern half of Z3. Zones 3 and 4 were ranked third and fourth, respectively. Actual dive sequences and locations were determined based on the sea state.

9 All eight of the zones were visually surveyed by the Navy civilian marine ecologist using open circuit compressed air SCUBA. On all dives, the marine ecologist was accompanied by members of EOD DET MARI who recorded the number and types of ordnance items observed. The EOD divers also provided supplemental observations of any anomalies, such as broken corals or craters and selected marine life (sea turtles, sharks and Napoleon wrasse).

The dive tracks were planned to cover the same general areas surveyed in all previous years. Figures 3 and 4 show the approximate areas covered during each dive. Lateral underwater visibility generally averaged 30 m, but ranged from 7 to 70 m. The divers swam in parallel, usually spaced approximately 15 to 20 m apart depending on the sea floor contours and visibility. Therefore, a wide surveillance swath of 75 to 100 m was completed on most dives. Using this procedure and swimming relatively close to the sea floor maximized the likelihood of detecting any disturbed or impacted areas.

Quantitative and qualitative observations of both physical and biological parameters were made during each dive. Table 5 lists the major parameters and conditions evaluated.

Table 5: Factors Assessed on Each Dive.

Factors Factors Craters, pits or peels Recently cracked, broken or (peeled layers of rock) fragmented boulders and rocks Bomb, rocket or missile fragments Partially exploded bombs, rockets or missiles (generally < 15 cm each max dimension) Intact bombs, rockets, or missiles Fishing line, sinkers, hooks, nets, traps spears, anchor line/chain and anchors Macroscopic benthic algae Corals: ID to genera when possible Corals: evidence of physical damage Stony corals: apparent health (e.g. cracks or broken branch tips) (e.g. bleached, overgrown w/ algae, black band disease) Abnormalities of any kind on other macroscopic ID of selected invertebrates, including benthic invertebrates Tridacna sp. and Acanthaster planci Fish ID to lowest taxa, Sea turtles: ID, size, sex, apparent health, apparent health, and semi-quantitative estimates of activity when 1st sighted abundance Marine mammals: ID, size, apparent health, activity

3.2 Physical Factors

The physical environment was examined for evidence of damage, including craters, pits, peeled layers of rock, cracked, broken or fragmented rocks and boulders and recent rock slides. The locations of any such disturbances were recorded.

The presence of any munitions, including intact or partially exploded items, ordnance fragments, and small arms casings was noted. Where possible, the type and approximate age of observed ordnance was identified by EOD DET MARI divers. Based upon the condition of the ordnance

10 item and its location a determination was made as to whether the item entered the sea directly or first hit the island. All sightings of fishing line, sinkers, hooks, nets, traps and spears were recorded as well as anchors, chain and mooring lines.

3.3 Biological Factors

3.3.1 Algae

There are four major phyla of Algae: Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), Chlorophyta (green algae), Phaeophyta (brown algae) and Rhodophyta (red algae). Tropical algae are also often placed into one of three functional groups: turf algae, crustose coralline algae and macro algae. Turf algae, as used in this report, are defined as the multi-species assemblage of diminutive, generally filamentous algal species with heights of less than 10 cm. The crustose coralline group contains species which are heavily calcified and have encrusting and/or hard lumpy growth patterns. Macroalgae includes all remaining species, including heavily calcified upright branching genera, like the green algae Halimeda sp.

The (apparently) dominant functional group and/or genera of algae were noted on all dives. A subjective estimate of dominance was made based upon the percentage of the sea floor occupied by various algal groups. Identification was based upon Huisman et al. (2007), Littler and Littler (2003) and Paulay et al. (2003).

3.3.2 Coral

Data were gathered on the seven major taxonomic coral orders (Milleporina–fire corals, Stylasterina-lace corals, Scleractinia-stony corals, Antipatharia-black and wire corals, Alcyonacea-soft and Tubipora corals, Gorgonacea-horny corals and sea fans, and Helioporacea- blue corals). Scleractinia are the dominant coral order at FDM (see Plates).

The observations of corals emphasized visually assessing the colonies for the following factors:

1. Physical damage (e.g. cracks and broken branches)

2. Complete or partial mortality of individual colonies

3. Mucus production

4. Disease

5. Predation (e.g. by Crown of Thorns Starfish– COTS)

6. Bleaching

In addition to taking real time notes on underwater paper of the six factors listed above, the underwater photos taken on each dive were examined to provide supplemental data.

Line Point Intercept (LPI) transects, as described by Hill and Wilkinson (2004), were performed to obtain additional estimates on the health status of corals in general and Pocillopora sp. in

11 particular. Each LPI transect was 15 m long and data were recorded at one m intervals. Two transects were conducted in Z3E and three in Z3W. All transects were completed at a depth of 11 m. The data categories used were: sand/rubble, algal turf, crustose coralline algae (CCA), other coralline algae, macro algae, sponge, Pocillopora meandrina, Pocillopora eydouxi, Porites lobata, Acropora sp., other Scleractinia, Alcyonacea (soft coral), and other. For all the Scleractinia, the condition of each colony was recorded as: 100% healthy/live, <100% >50% live/healthy, <50% live/healthy, 100% dead. For each coral category notes were recorded as to which, if any, of the six factors listed above were detectable.

Physical damage, of course, can be the result of natural phenomena or anthropogenic causes such as commercial fishing or military training. A careful effort was made to try and distinguish between the two. Partial mortality as used in these studies refers to surface lesions/dead areas on stony corals. Hughes and Jackson (1980), Riegl (1995) and others have shown partial mortality on the surface of stony corals can be effective indicators of stress. Stony coral mucus production is another indicator of stress from pollutants, sedimentation, etc. (Stafford-Smith and Ormond, 1992; Stafford-Smith, 1993 and Wild et al. 2005). Bruno et al. (2003) and Sutherland et al. (2004) have shown that corals are more susceptible to disease when they are stressed by changes in the environment. All apparent evidence of disease was recorded. The author’s assessment of predation included action by Crown of Thorns Starfish (COTS), parrotfishes and macro- bioeroders (e.g., boring sponges). Cooper et al. (2008) have correlated high densities of macro- bioeroders with diminished water quality. Bleaching refers to the loss or reduction of symbiotic zooxanthellae which reside within the coral polyps. This results in the coral appearing lighter in color, mottled or white.

Corals were identified to the lowest possible taxa and identification was based on Paulay et al. (2003), Randall (2003), and Veron (2000).

3.3.2.1 Corals Proposed for Threatened or Endangered Status

Appendix B lists the 52 species which were proposed for listing and which are confirmed to be, or may be, present within the Mariana Archipelago. The following is excerpted from NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27 dated September 2011 and entitled: Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act:

“On October 20, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list 83 coral species as Threatened or Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The petition was based on a predicted decline in available habitat for the species, citing anthropogenic climate change and ocean acidification as the lead factors among the various stressors responsible for the potential decline. The NMFS identified 82 of the corals as candidate species, finding that the petition provided substantive information for a potential listing of these species. The NMFS established a Biological Review Team (BRT) to prepare this Status Review Report that examines the status of these 82 candidate coral species and evaluates extinction risk for each of them. This document makes no recommendations for listing, as that is a separate evaluation to be conducted by the NMFS…”

12 “The BRT considered two major factors in conducting this review. The first factor was the interaction of natural phenomena and anthropogenic stressors that could potentially contribute to coral extinction… The second major factor was the fundamental ecological character of each candidate coral species—particularly life history, taxonomy, and abundance… The BRT chose to evaluate extinction risk as the likelihood of a species status falling below a Critical Risk Threshold by the year 2100, a time frame over which climate projections are readily available and have been sufficiently vetted through extensive scientific peer review to be deemed to have reasonable reliability.”

“The Critical Risk Threshold describes a condition where the species is of such low abundance, or so spatially fragmented, or at such reduced genetic and/or genotypic diversity that extinction is extremely likely. Assessment of the Critical Risk Threshold took into consideration depensatory processes, environmental stochasticity, and catastrophic events….”

“This process yielded a list of the 82 candidate coral species ranked by the mean likelihood of falling below the Critical Risk Threshold by 2100… Given the myriad uncertainties described above, this list must be understood as a qualitative ranking, not supporting fine parsing among species whose mean scores differ by only a few points. While the mean likelihood of a species status falling below the Critical Risk Threshold by 2100 is an important indicator of the extinction risk, the broad distribution of points… highlights the high level of uncertainty in these estimates of Critical Risk Threshold likelihood by the BRT members. …Among the 82 candidate coral species, the mean estimated likelihood of a species status falling below the Critical Risk Threshold by 2100 ranged from 78% (“likely” to fall below the Critical Risk Threshold by 2100) to 19% (“unlikely” to fall below the Critical Risk Threshold by 2100)….”

“…the mean likelihood scores for 26 of the 82 species were in the ‘less likely than not’ (25) or ‘unlikely’ (1) risk likelihood categories and 56 of the 82 species were in the ‘more likely than not’ (46) and ‘likely’ (10) risk likelihood categories.”

In the Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 236 December 7, 2012, NOAA revised its previous proposed listing and dropped 16 of the 82 species from further consideration. Within the Mariana Archipelago 40 species are still being considered for listing, two are proposed as Endangered and 38 as Threatened. As stated above, Appendix B lists these species, plus the 12 which were dropped. The species that were dropped have been retained for reference, because it is the authors’ understanding that they may be reconsidered for a future listing.

During the 2012 survey, an effort was made to document the presence of any of the 53 proposed species that are known to be, or may be within the archipelago. In addition, the species lists developed during past surveys were reviewed to determine if any of the proposed species had been previously sighted. Due to morphological plasticity among many coral species, positive identification is not always possible in the field.

13 3.3.3 Macroscopic benthic invertebrates

Non-coral sessile macro-invertebrates are well represented at FDM. Opportunistic observations of selected sessile and mobile macroscopic benthic invertebrates were recorded, with particular emphasis placed on looking for abnormalities/deformities and group aggregations. Opportunistic counts were made of Tridacna sp. (Giant clams), Octopus sp. (octopus), Trochus niloticus (top shell), Lambis sp. (spider conch), Panulirus penicillatus (double spined rock lobster and Panulirus sp. unidentified rock lobster), and Acanthaster planci (COTS). Paulay et al. (2003) was used for general invertebrate identification.

3.3.4 Fishes

Fish species were recorded to the lowest possible taxa. Fish identification was based on Myers (1991) and Randall (2001 and 2007). Semi-quantitative observations of fish abundance were made for selected species or families (see Table 6). Due to strong currents and surge during most of the 2012 survey the collection of fish data was limited. The species were ranked as abundant (>25 individuals), common (15 – 25 individuals), occasional (5 – 14 individuals) and rare (< 5 individuals). Dive times generally ranged from 20 to 40 minutes, counts were ‘normalized’ to a 20 minute standard. The apparent indicators of health of fishes, including deformities, lesions or other anomalies, were recorded, as well as behavior. Total length (TL) was estimated for selected species.

Table 6: Fish Species and Families Assessed Semi-Quantitatively.

Carcharhinus C. amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus sp. Triaenodon obesus Nebrius ferrugineus Aetobatis narinari melanopterus Grey Rf. Shk. Whitetip Rf. Shk. Nurse Shk. Spotted eagle R. Blacktip Rf.Shk. Taeniura meyeni Caranx melampygus C. lugubris Black C. sexfasciatus C.ignobilis C. ferdau Black-blotched R. Bluefin trv. jack Bigeye trv. Giant trv. Bar jack Elegatis bipinnulata Lutjanus bohar L. gibbus L.kasmira Naso hexacanthus Cheilinus undulatus Rainbow runner Twinspot snp. Humpback snp. Bluelined snp. Sleek unicornfish Napoleon wrasse

Scaridae Mullidae Caesionidae Chaeotodontidae (all Parrotfishes) (all Goatfishes) (all Fusiliers) (all Butterflyfishes)

Subjective observations of key fishery target species behavior towards divers were recorded, as they have been during all surveys since 2004. The response of many fish species to divers can be a good indicator of spear fishing pressure on those species.

3.3.5 Protected species

The coral species proposed for protected status are discussed under the coral sections of this report.

The Napoleon/humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and the humphead/bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) are both present within the Mariana Archipelago and are listed as Species of Concern under the ESA. On November 7, 2012, NOAA denied a petition to list the humphead parrotfish as Threatened or Endangered, but it remains a Species of Concern. Information on these two species is presented in the ‘Fishes’ sections of this report.

14 Five sea turtle species are present within the region. Two species, the Threatened green (Chelonia mydas) and the Endangered hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been observed at FDM. All sightings of sea turtles were recorded, both underwater and from the dive boat. Where possible the following data was noted: species, carapace length (< 50 cm, >50 < 100 cm, > 100 cm), sex, apparent health, distinguishing features (scars, barnacles, tumors) and the sea turtle’s activity when first observed (swimming, resting, or feeding). Marine mammal sightings were also recorded, to include species, size, number of individuals and location.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Physical Environment

Physical disturbances from the training activities and fishing related actions are summarized in Table 7. Plates 1, 15-18 and 22 illustrate some of the items/effects described. It is the authors’ opinion that although training related disturbances were observed, they have not had a significant adverse impact to the marine community at FDM. This is due, in each case, to one or all of the following (documented in every survey conducted 1999 through the current 2012 survey):

1. very few areas of disturbance have been observed,

2. most of the areas of disturbance were in the portions of Z1E, Z1W and the southern portions of Z3E which are extreme high energy environments dominated by natural rubble and boulders, 3. most areas of disturbance were very small (less than 2 m2) in areal extent and 4. substantial or complete recovery appears to have occurred within one year for all disturbances observed in 1999 through 2009; disturbed areas sighted in 2010 appeared ‘normal’ at the time of the 2012 survey.

15 Table 7: Indicators of Potential Anthropogenic Disturbances.

Z1E Z1W Z2E Z2W Z3E Z3W Z4E Z4W Fresh*, un-colonized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 craters, pits or peels

Fresh/ cracked, broken Y Y 0 0 Y 0 0 0 or fragmented coral or seafloor rocks

Freshly derived Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 terrestrial rock frag or boulders

Fresh ordnance Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 fragments

Old ordnance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y fragments

Fresh* intact ordnance Y 3 items ** Y 4 items** 0 0 0 Y 9 items** 1 0 0 MK80 SER. 2 MK80 SER. all M117 5 MK80 of which 1st hit of which 1st hit SER. 3 Laser seafloor island Bombs 2 items 1st hit seafloor

Old intact ordnance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Fishing line, sinkers, Y Y Y Y Y O Y hooks nets, traps spears, anchor line/chain & anchors

*Fresh ordnance items are those believed to have been submerged for < 6 months based upon the amount of marine growth on the item. **Based upon the condition and position of the ordnance EOD determined whether the item most likely ricocheted or bounced off the island or 1st hit the seafloor.

4.1.1 Blast impacts

There was no evidence that any blasts/detonations of ordnance items had occurred at the waterline, on the sea surface, or on the sea floor. No blast pits, craters, or rock peels were sighted. The two suspected blast areas observed in 2009 and 2010, respectively, could not be distinguished from the adjacent areas when observed in 2012.

In 2010, there was clear evidence that a small bomb or projectile had exploded at the waterline along a cliff ledge in Z1W. A newly exposed rock face was observed, measuring approximately 5 m in its maximum dimension parallel to the sea surface and approximately one m above and below the sea surface. Fresh, white rock fragments were present below the newly exposed impact area. These rock fragments ranged in size from 2 cm to 30 cm and were observed at depths ranging from 2 m to 12 m. This section of the island is one of the most exposed and the natural seafloor is typical of a very high energy environment subject to strong scour and surge. Coral is

16 present, but most of the colonies are small Pocillopora sp. with maximum dimensions of less than 8 cm. This genus is noted for being a pioneering one which colonizes high energy environments (Hoover 1998). The small sizes of the colonies in this area are probably due to the fact that every year or two, most of the colonies are removed by large wave events, hence the predominance of very small specimens in the shallow waters near the blast site.

During the 2010 survey, a fresh shallow crater was observed for the first time since 1999. It was located in the southern portion of Z3W. The crater pit was 5 m across in its maximum dimension and the cratered portion of the seafloor was a maximum of 50 cm deeper than the surrounding sea floor. Water depth at the site was 12 m. EOD DET MARI personnel judged that a bomb had detonated at the water surface to produce the disturbance. This event occurred in an area that was dominated by relatively barren bedrock. No corals or any other sessile benthic invertebrates or the remains thereof were observed in the crater/blast pit or within a distance of approximately 4 m from the edge of the crater. Past the 4 m perimeter, (approximately 9 m from the center of the impact site) sea floor cover by corals was estimated to be less than 5%. The bedrock segments of the sea floor with less than 5% coral cover are ‘natural’ around much of FDM at depths of 14 m or less. Note, this low percentage of sea floor cover by coral was uniform for most of Z3W, except on the tops of some large cliff blocks and boulders where coral cover ranged up to 50% and the SW portion of Z3W where extensive coral development occurs with coverage > 50%. Attempts to relocate the 2010 crater in 2012 were not successful. Either the site had become indistinguishable from the surrounding area or the coordinates were incorrect. If the first alternative is correct, then the site had recovered to its pre-impact condition.

4.1.2 Ordnance and rock fragments

Ordnance fragments and secondarily produced rock fragments can be projected from the detonation site for many hundreds of meters (Alley, 2010) at which point (around FDM) water depths are generally over 40 m. In Z1, water depths several hundred meters off shore are in excess of 75 m. Approximately 95% of all rock and ordnance fragments observed were less than 5 cm in their maximum dimension. Fragments of this size have little potential to significantly impact marine life, especially after sinking down through the water column. Fresh ordnance fragments were observed in Z1E, Z1W and Z3W. Fresh, as used in this context, is defined as ordnance and rock fragments that appear to have been submerged for less than six months, based upon the amount of marine growth present on the item. Of course, items landing in rubble zones subject to surge and scour might never support marine growth due to the abrasive actions they are subjected to.

During the 2005 through 2012 surveys, fresh ordnance fragments were observed in all zones except Z4, although the preponderance of ordnance fragments and ordnance items have always been sighted in Z1E, Z1W and Z3W. During the seven yearly surveys conducted by SDS, only two observations of an ordnance fragment landing on and breaking off the branch of a coral colony have been made. No coral colonies were ever observed to have been killed by ordnance fragments, although a few have sustained broken branch tips.

17 4.1.3 Intact ordnance items

As used in this report, intact ordnance items include all items in which the bomb, rocket or missile case was intact, although the fins may have been broken off and the case may have been dented or twisted. Since the 2005 survey, it has been the unanimous opinion of all the EOD personnel who participated in these surveys, that more than 90% of all ordnance items sighted probably hit the island first, and then bounced off, ricocheted off or were eroded or washed off. These conclusions were based on the condition of the ordnance item. For example, twisted, deeply dented, or scratched bomb cases indicated the item had hit solid rock before entering the sea. On the other hand, ordnance items which had penetrated directly into the seafloor (Plate15) or were laying on the sea floor unmarked (Plate 18 top) almost certainly entered the sea directly and never hit the island. It should be noted that both non explosive training bombs, containing no explosives, and live armed bombs (which failed to detonate) were found which had both hit the island first and which had entered the sea first.

The most commonly observed intact ordnance items during all surveys are shown in Table 8. The dimensions and weights are approximate depending upon the type of guidance, fusing and tail fin assemblies. MK 82 bombs have always appeared to be the most common.

Table 8: Most Commonly Encountered Ordnance Items With Nominal Weights and Case Dimensions.

Bomb Type Inert Practice Bomb Live/Armed Bomb MK 76 25lb Y N (58 cm X 10 cm) MK 82 500 lb Y Y (168 cm X 27cm) MK 83 1000 lb Y Y ( 302 cm X 36 cm) MK 84 2000 lb Y Y (328 cm X 48 cm) M 117 750 lb N Y (206 cm X 43 cm)

The MK 80 series bombs are the most commonly encountered bombs underwater at FDM. The MK 80 series bombs can be configured as non-guided, low drag, free-fall, general purpose explosives. The cases are relatively heavy; approximately 45 percent of their total weight is explosive filler. They are designed to be streamlined, so as to reduce aerodynamic resistance. MK 80 series GP (general purpose) bombs are typically used in situations where pin-point accuracy is not critical and where maximum blast and explosive effects are desired. These bombs may be equipped with both nose and tail mechanical fuses for ground bursts, or a radar- proximity fuse for air-bursts. For low altitude delivery, the MK 80 series bombs may be equipped with either a high-drag "pop out" tail fin assembly or "ballute" (combination balloon/parachute) drogue assembly. These retardation devices slow the descent rate of the bomb

18 significantly, allowing the releasing aircraft to maneuver clear of the target area prior to detonation. Since the 2005 survey, only one fresh bomb has been sighted with the ballute assemble attached.

As described by Smith and Marx (2009), three MK 82 bombs were observed in 2007 which directly impacted the sea floor (Plate 18). These bombs are 152 cm long without their fins and 27 cm in diameter. It was determined that the bombs had been dropped on either 5 or 6 September 2007, only four or five days prior to the 2007 survey. The damage from these inert bombs was minimal. During the 2008 survey, an effort was made to relocate the bombs and those areas of disturbance. No broken coral or disturbed sea floor areas could be relocated during the 2008 survey, or during the 2009, 2010 or 2012 surveys. It is most likely that the ordnance items were moved into deeper water by natural forces and that that new algae, sponges and/or corals recruited to the disturbed area making it indistinguishable from the adjacent areas.

The 2010 survey provided the best opportunity to assess impacts based upon the number of ordnance items expended and the time period between the training and the marine survey. Between 1 September and 4 October 2010, 957 ordnance items were expended on terrestrial targets: 340 inert bombs, 551 live bombs, 65 5”/54 projectiles and one CAS missile (Smith and Marx 2010). The marine survey was begun less than 72 hours after bombing stopped. Only 12 new ordnance items were detected on the seafloor during the 2010 survey. This is 1.25% of the total number expended. None of these items landed on live coral. The area of disturbance at the time of each sighting was restricted to the foot-print under the ordnance item. Based upon the appearance of and damage to the ordnance items, it was the opinion of EOD personnel that most had hit the island and bounced off. The items seen were: five 25 pound practice bombs, two inert MK 80 series bombs and one inert MK 67 Mod 3 bomb, one live MK 80 bomb, one missile, one GBU bomb, one 5”/54 projectile casing.

Approximately 2,758 bombs were dropped on FDM during 2012, prior to the August survey. Only two of those bombs could be definitively shown to have hit the sea floor directly, versus having hit the island first and then skipped or eroded off.

4.1.4 Fishing Related Impacts

More physical evidence of fishing was observed during 2012 than in any previous survey. Fresh fishing line, sinkers, hooks, or net fragments were observed in seven of the eight zones. Only Z4E, the most high energy segment of FDM, appeared to be free of fishing gear. Based upon discussions with the ship’s crew, during survey years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012 it appears that FDM is being subjected to growing pressure from commercial spear fishermen, hook and line fishermen, and lobster fishermen. These reports could not be verified; however, the increased amount of lost fishing gear and the behavior of many fishery target species support the testimony of the crew. The impacts to fish are discussed in Section 4.2.4.

4.1.5 Physical Environment Summary

In summary, no substantial or ecologically significant long-term training related impacts to the physical component of FDM’s near shore marine environment (shoreline to 30 m depth contour) have been detected during thirteen (13) years of annual marine surveys (1999 through 2012).

19 While such impacts may have occurred, it is highly unlikely that the survey teams would have failed to detect them.

4.2 Biological Resources

The observations and data on biological resources are presented under five sub-headings: algae, corals, benthic macro-invertebrates, fishes and protected species.

4.2.1 Algae

A robust and diverse community of algae has been observed at FDM during all the previous assessments. Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), Chlorophyta (green algae) Phaeophyta (brown algae) and Rhodophyta (red algae) were all represented by many species. The prevalence or occurrence of algal species can vary substantially from year to year and seasonally.

Based upon total sea floor cover, crustose coralline algae (Rhodophyta) and turf algae (a multi- species assemblage as previously noted) were clearly the dominant functional algal groups from the intertidal zone to 30 m. This has been the case during every survey between 2005 and 2012 and for all zones. However, at depths below 15 m on the near vertical faces of large boulders, cliff blocks and sheer portions of the island’s submerged walls, the calcareous green algae Halimeda sp. was very abundant and sometimes dominant in these ‘micro-habitats’.

Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) were most abundant in 2007. This observation was consistent with findings made by NOAA’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Division during their 2007 MARAMP cruise where a number of their study sites supported more blue-green algae in 2007 than they had observed during their 2003 or 2005 surveys (PIFSC, 2008). Blue-green algal cover was lowest during the 2009 survey, possibly due to extreme sea conditions which literally swept many of these specimens away. In 2010, blue-green cover was estimated to be greater than during any of the previous surveys except 2007. Note that the 2010 survey was conducted after an extended period of exceptionally calm seas. Estimated cover in 2012 was judged to be comparable to 2009, when blue-green algal cover was very limited. The two most common blue- green genera were believed to be Lyngbya and Phormidium during all survey years.

Chlorophyta (green algae), like the reds, did not appear to show any significant changes from year to year. As noted, in every survey year the genus Halimeda has been one of the most important based upon subjective estimates of the percentage of the sea floor covered. A second very common genus during each survey year has been Neomeris.

The brown algae Padina sp. was very abundant on the flattish tops of submerged boulders and cliff blocks between 12 and 18 m during the surveys of 2005 and 2006. This algae was observed during the 2008 through 2012 surveys, but was much less abundant. Such fluctuations in Padina sp. populations are common and were not likely to have been related to any training activities.

The crustose coralline species (all members of Rhodophyta – red algae) showed no observable changes between 2005 and 2012. Other red algae species appeared to vary only slightly from year to year.

20 4.2.2 Corals – General Overview

Representatives from each of the seven major taxonomic coral orders (Milleporina –fire corals, Stylasterina-lace corals, Scleractinia-stony corals, Antipatharia-black and wire corals, Alcyonacea-soft corals, Gorgonacea-horny corals and sea fans, and Helioporacea-blue corals were observed in 2012. Blue coral specimens were rare and were not sighted during every survey. The Tubipora corals (organ pipe corals) are an important sub-group within the Order Alcyonacea, but they are not present within the Mariana Archipelago.

Scleractinia (stony corals) are the dominant coral group at FDM based upon the percentage of the sea floor which they cover, frequency of occurrence, species diversity, and influence upon other invertebrates and fishes. Using estimated percent of sea floor covered and frequency of occurrence, the genus Pocillopora is the dominant stony coral at FDM; the two most abundant species during all survey years were Pocillopora meandrina and Pocillopora eydouxi. The third most abundant member of this genus at FDM is probably Pocillopora verrucosa. It is important to note, that based upon genetic evidence and the morphological plasticity of many members of the genus Pocillopora, the validity of some species are being disputed. For example Pocillopora verrucosa, elegans, and meandrina may prove to be a single species. Per field identifications, the authors believe that the majority of specimens fall within the traditionally accepted species Pocillopora meandrina.

True coral reefs do not exist at FDM (Riegl et al. 2008). There is coral bearing substrate, but the corals are not sufficiently developed to be “…framework- or biogenic morphology-producing” (Riegl and Dodge 2008). Rather, the corals occur on cliff faces, boulders, exposed bedrock and even ordnance items, generally scattered rather widely. The densest coral cover observed during all survey years was on the tops of large cliff blocks at depths of over 15 m. A single exception to this characterization can be found off the northern half of Z2W and southern portion of Z3W. There, a relatively gentle sloping plateau extends from approximately 15 to 22 m deep and supports dense coral cover, over 60%, with much of that comprised of massive Porites sp., predominately Porites lobata. The distribution of stony corals at FDM is similar to the situation in Hawaii, as described by Fenner (2005) where he states: “On the main Hawaiian Islands, corals grow on many coasts, but coral material only accumulates to build reefs within areas protected from the largest waves. Occasional storms pummel the Hawaiian Islands with giant waves, often 15-20 feet (5-7 m) tall. Waves of such height remove most of the corals and sweep the fragments of their skeletons into deeper water. In the years after such storms, corals reestablish themselves in exposed sites.” The small size and exposed position of FDM subject it to even more frequent large wave events than the Hawaiian Islands. This is undoubtedly the reason coral development is very limited in water depths less than 15 m.

4.2.2.1 Coral Taxonomic Composition and Distribution

Table 9 summarizes coral observations from 2009 through 2012. With the exception of Pocillopora meandrina (see Section 4.2.2.2) corals from all groups were determined to be in excellent health. Mydlarz et al. (2006) showed that stress impacts coral health and compromises immune responses, making the corals more vulnerable to disease, competition and other detriments. The absence and/or scarcity of excess mucous secretions, growth anomalies, white syndrome, black band disease, bleaching, and algal over growth of live stony coral colonies

21 indicates that corals are healthy and not being significantly stressed by the training activities at FDM. Another fact supporting the good health of FDM’s coral community is that during 2012 and all previous surveys conducted by the authors, large numbers of one and two year old stony coral recruits were observed. While coral recruitment is considered to be depressed in Guam (Burdick et al. 2008) due to adverse environmental conditions, Richmond et al. (2008) does not consider coral recruitment to be a limiting factor in the northern Mariana Islands. If training related activities had a significant adverse impact upon coral, one would expect that coral recruitment would also be adversely affected. There is no visual evidence that it has been adversely influenced.

Table 9: Major Coral Taxa Sighted During the 2009, 2010 and 2012 Surveys.

Coral Taxa Order Order Order Order Order Order Order Milleporina Stylasterina Scleractinia Antipatheria Alcyonacea Gorgonacea Helioporacea (Fire Coral) (Lace Coral) (Stony Coral) (Black & Soft Coral) (Horny, (Blue Coral) Wire Corals) Whip corals & Sea Fans) Zone All All except All All All Z1, Z3 & Z4E where Z2E Z4 Present Evidence None None Very Minor None None None None 2009 of < 1% of Disease colonies or Stress Apparent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Health Overall Zone All All except All All All All Z3W where Z2E Present Evidence None None Very Minor None None None None 2010 of <1% of Disease colonies or Stress Apparent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Health Overall Zone All All except All All All All Z4E, Z4W 2012 where Z2E Present Evidence None None Only within None None None None of Pocillopora 2012 Disease sp. & or Stress Acropora sp.* Apparent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 2012 Health except Overall Pocillopora

22 * See following paragraphs for discussion.

4.2.2.2 Coral Disease

With two exceptions, the general health of the coral community has been excellent. The first exception was the moderate coral bleaching event noted in 2007 and the second was a species- specific barnacle infestation in 2012. The bleaching event was regional and extended from southern Japan through the Mariana Archipelago and south at least as far as the Republic of Palau. Smith and Marx (2009) noted that by the time of the 2008 survey, the fire corals and soft corals, which had been bleached in 2007, appeared to have recovered completely. Several very large positively identified colonies of the soft corals Sinularia sp. and Sarcophyton sp. (bleached in 2007 and recovered in 2008) had increased in size by approximately 50% between 2008 and 2012. Of the stony corals which had been bleached (primarily Pocillopora eydouxi or Pocillopora meandrina), the authors estimated that 75% had fully recovered by 2008. Most colonies which did not survive were recognizable to genus, but were overgrown with crustose coralline algae. During the 2009, 2010 and 2012 surveys, those overgrown specimens were still visible.

At the time of the 2012 survey, approximately 40% of all the Pocillopora meandrina colonies were dead or dying, as explained below. The 40% estimate was derived based upon: 1) the analysis of 100 photos taken at random around FDM, 2) Smith’s qualitative estimate, and 3) limited LPI transect data. Comparative dives were made at two submerged reefs approximately 2 km north of FDM. Like FDM, Pocillopora meandrina was the dominant coral at those locations. Based upon photo analysis and Smith’s qualitative estimate, approximately 65 to 75% of the Pocillopora meandrina colonies at the un-named reef locations were dead or dying. (Note, as discussed previously, Pocillopora meandrina, Pocillopora verrucosa and Pocillopora elegans exhibit a great deal of morphological plasticity and may actually represent only a single species. Unless otherwise noted, this report assumes the specimens were all Pocillopora meandrina.)

The dead and dying Pocillopora meandrina colonies appeared to be undergoing a three-phase “disease process” (Plates 11 - 13).

• First, the colonies were severely infested with blister like formations caused by the coral barnacle (Family Pyrgomatidae – Genus Cantellius).

• Second, coral colonies with numerous barnacles on all of their branches took on a bleached appearance; presumable due to the loss/expulsion of their zooxanthellae.

• Third, the bleached coral colonies were overgrown with Cyanobacteria, followed by other algal groups. Based on the physical condition of the colonies and algal communities on their skeletons, most of the deceased specimens appeared to have been dead for six to 12 months.

Photographic confirmation was provided by G. Paulay and M. Malay (personal communication, 2012). Drs. Paulay and Malay suggested the species was probably pallidus. M. Malay completed her PhD on the Cantellius group of coral barnacles. Cantellius is known to be very host specific to Pocillopora meandrina and closely related corals. Furthermore, M. Malay has collected coral barnacles from Pocilllopora sp. off the Zealandia Bank in the Mariana Archipelago confirming

23 the group’s presence in the archipelago (M. Malay personal communication 2012). While hundreds of Pocillopora meandrina colonies were infested with Cantellius sp., only one colony of Acropora sp. and seven colonies of Pocillopora eydouxi were sighted with any Cantellius sp. barnacles. All eight of those colonies were judged to be ‘holding their own’ against the barnacles. M. Malay (personal communication 2012) notes that Cantellius barnacles are a large, taxonomically complex group, members of which also infest the coral genera Acropora, Montipora and Porites. Although those three genera are well represented at FDM, only a single colony of Acropora was infested. Cantellius sp. barnacles found on Pocillopora sp. are usually rare, and cryptic, and only found on the lower or inner branches of the coral colonies. At FDM in 2012, over 90% of the infested colonies were covered with the barnacles all the way out to the tips of the branches. Both M. Malay and G. Paulay (personal communication 2012) stated that they had never observed such heavy barnacle infestations on Pocillopora, or any other coral genera.

In further discussions on this phenomenon, M. Malay (personal communication) wrote:

“…coral barnacles don't usually cause their hosts to die, even when infestation levels are high. Taking this as an assumption, I see two [sic] possible explanations for your observations:

(1) the presence of high densities of barnacles indicates the Pocillopora colonies are highly impacted by other stressors. Coral barnacles can be likened to an "opportunistic infection" that are merely indicative of a "weakened immune system". It's these unknown stressors that are causing the Pocillopora to die.

(2) the presence of high densities of barnacles is a complete coincidence. One possible reason why barnacles are so prevalent is because of local entrainment of their larvae. There could have been a one-time incident of high larval densities, causing a high settlement rate of spats, resulting in the infestation you observed. And the cause of death was something completely unrelated...

(3) because the density of coral barnacles that you observed is unprecedented for Pocillopora, it could also be that this level of infestation is lethal for Pocillopora meandrina(?) even though it's tolerable for other coral species....”

Neither Smith nor Marx ever noted these barnacles during previous FDM surveys. However, after re-checking photos in September 2012 (from the 2009 and 2010 surveys) a single infested colony of Pocillopora meandrina was discovered in a 2010 photo. It had a minor infestation of what appeared to be Cantellius sp. barnacles.

With the exceptions discussed above, the coral fauna at FDM was healthy and robust. This conclusion is based upon the following: 1) limited amount of physical damage, 2) very low levels of partial mortality and disease (< 1% of all other species observed), 3) absence of excessive mucus production, 4) absence of predation by COTS, 5) ‘steady-state’ predation by fish, 6) good coral recruitment, 7) recovery from the 2007 bleaching event, and 8) the limited number of macro-bioeroders. These factors provide strong evidence that the military training activities have not had a significant adverse impact upon the coral fauna at FDM. As previously

24 noted, many authors have clearly shown that the absence or low levels of these factors/conditions are indicative of healthy reef environments (Bruno et al. 2003; Cooper et al. 2008; Ghiold and Smith 1990; Hughes and Jackson 1980; Riegl 1995; Stafford-Smith 1993; Stafford-Smith and Ormond 1992; Sutherland et al. 2004 and Wild et al. 2005). The 2003 FDM report produced by stakeholder agencies and a Navy contractor stated: “As in 1997-2002, results of underwater surveys in 2003 revealed no serious impacts to marine communities from exploded ordnance. Numerous intact pieces of unexploded ordnance did not appear to cause any negative effects, and were often the sites of settlement of a variety of marine invertebrates.” (DoN 2004).

Harsh environmental conditions and not a lack of recruitment have been judged to be the key limiting factor for corals in the northern islands (Richmond et al. 2008). The authors believe this is also the case at FDM. Attempts to quantitatively assess recruitment of corals to ordnance items in 2006 failed when all the tagged ordnance items ‘disappeared’. Establishment of long term transects, marked with rebar and heavy duty zip ties were also unsuccessful when all the rebar pins and zip ties were either lost or displaced from their initial locations. The severe sea conditions at FDM preclude the use of many standard benthic survey methods which rely on fixed transects, quadrats and other techniques.

Using subjectively estimated frequency of occurrence and percentage of the sea floor covered, Alcyonacea (soft corals) rank second to Scleractinia. Alcyonacea are quite well represented by the genera Sarcophyton, Lobophyton and Sinularia. These corals are most abundant at depths between 20 and 30 m in Z1W and Z4W. As noted above, during the 2007 bleaching event, a number of soft coral specimens showed slight signs of bleaching (as used here, ‘slight’ means that less that 10% of the colonies surface area was bleached). The percentage of all soft corals showing some bleaching was estimated to be about 5% in 2007. All the soft corals observed in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 appeared to be healthy, including several positively identified colonies which had been partially bleached in 2007. Sea floor cover by Sarcophyton sp. and Sinularia sp. has increased each year.

None of the other coral groups have been abundant since the surveys began. Antipatheria (black and wire corals) were most often seen below 25 m. Several black coral trees observed in Z1E and Z4W during 2005 were still present in 2012. Millepora (fire corals) appeared to be best represented on very large boulders and cliff blocks, some distance from the shoreline. Stylasterina (lace corals) and Gorgonacea (horny and whip corals and sea fans) were most common in the large sea caves and undercut ledges. No sea fans over 50 cm were seen. A few blue coral colonies (Helioporacea) were sighted at the north and south ends of the island.

4.2.2.3 Corals Proposed for Threatened or Endangered Status

On 27 September 2011, NOAA published the NOAA Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27 September 2011. Seventy-five of the 82 species assessed by NOAA occur in the Pacific and or Indian Oceans; 52 of the 75 are known to be, or may be present within the Mariana Archipelago. On 30 November 2012, in NOAA’s Letter to Constituents, and again on 7 December 2012 in Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 236/Friday December 7, 2012 Proposed Rules pp 72220-73262, NOAA issued their proposed rule for the

25 Candidate Species assessed in the September 2012 document. As a result of additional analysis and public comments, NOAA has reduced the proposed listing from 82 species to 66 species.

NOAA’s most recent announcements include 40 species which are known to be, or may be present within the Mariana Archipelago. Of these 40, two are proposed for Endangered status and 38 are proposed for Threatened status. Appendix B summarizes information on the original 52 species considered and the 40 remaining species proposed for listing. The original 52 have been retained in Appendix B, because it is the authors’ understanding that they may be reintroduced for protective status. It is important to note, that per the BRT’s report, and numerous other reliable sources (e.g. Veron 2000 and Fenner 2005), the taxonomy of 11 and presence of 16 of the 52 species are disputed. As previously noted, based upon genetic evidence and the morphological plasticity of many of the genera evaluated, a number of these genera may actually contain fewer species than previously thought. Because of these factors, positive field identification of many of the proposed species found within the Mariana Archipelago is not possible.

Table 10 below lists 16 species which have been tentatively field identified at FDM during one or more surveys between 1999 and 2012.

Table 10: Original 16 Candidate Corals and 9 Proposed Corals Present at FDM Based Upon Field Identifications.

Species Proposed=T Species Proposed=T Species Proposed=T Dropped=X Dropped=X Dropped=X Montipora caliculata T Montipora T Acropora aculeus T patula/verrilli Acropora globiceps T Acropora palmerae T Pocillopora elegans T Pavona bipartita X Pavona venosa X Leptoseris incrustans X Turbinaria mesenterina X Turbinaria reniformis X Acanthastrea brevis T Cyphastrea agassizi* X Alveopora allingi T Millepora tuberosa T Heliopora coerulea X * Cyphastrea agassizi closely resembles two other species (Cyphastrea microphthalma and Leptastrea inaequalis) both of which have been confirmed at FDM. Inclusion of C. agassizi is based on the presence of numerous specimens of the other two species which may have been misidentified in the field.

4.2.3 Macroscopic Benthic Invertebrates

All sessile and mobile macroscopic benthic invertebrates sighted appeared to be healthy. None of the macroscopic benthic invertebrates had any visible abnormalities.

The sessile urn tunicate Didemnum molle (tentative field identification) was present in 2012. This species has not previously been recorded at FMD. This organism was more abundant and had substantially greater sea floor coverage at the two northern reefs than it had at FDM. Nevertheless, at FDM there were several irregular sea floor patches of approximately 2 m2 where Didemnum molle cover was approximately 50%.

Among mobile invertebrate groups, the most widely distributed and abundant were members of the phylum Echinodermata (e.g., feather stars, sea stars, brittle stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers). Sea urchins (Echinoidea) and sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea) were the most frequently observed.

26 During all assessments, sea cucumbers were seen on every dive. The leopard sea cucumber (Pearsonothuria graeffei) was the most common species sighted; they were observed on all dives and aggregations were seen in Z1W, Z3W and Z4W between 2005 and 2008. No aggregations of any sea cucumber species were sighted during any of the other survey years. Note, Pearsonothuria graeffei was formerly placed in the genus Bohadschia and B. graeffei was not listed as present within the archipelago by Paulay (2003). However, Alexander Kerr (personal communication, 2008) positively identified this species based upon photos taken by the authors during the 2007 FDM survey. Other tentatively identified sea cucumber species included: Stichopus chloronotus, Thelonata anax, Thelonata ananas, Actinopyga mauritiana, Bohadschia argus, Bohadschia marmorata, Holothuria atra, and Holothuria sp.

Sea urchins (Echinoidea), sea stars (Asteroidea), and brittle stars/serpent stars (Ophiuroidea) were observed on every dive. In 2008, hundreds of sea urchins (Diadema savignyi, Diadema setosum, Echinothrix calamaris and Echinothrix diadema) were observed on most dives, particularly in Z2E and Z3E. These were the largest populations of sea urchins observed during the 2005 to 2012 time period and apparently since the surveys began. During 2009 very few urchins were sighted, although this may have been due to severe weather conditions which caused the urchins to take shelter from the surge or move into deeper water. In either case, they would not have been observed. Sea urchin population levels in 2012 appeared to be higher than all previous years except for 2008.

Acanthaster planci (COTS) is an important predator of scleractinian corals; these sea stars have periodically devastated reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific. PIFSC (2008) recorded substantial numbers of COTS around many of the Mariana Islands. Between 1999 and 2012 COTS were only recorded at FDM during the 2003 survey when they were listed as rare, fewer than five individuals sighted (DOD 2004). No evidence of COTS predation on corals was ever observed, except during the 2003 survey. The absence of COTS may be due to the presence of large, mature Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), one of the few known predators of COTS.

Feather stars, also known as sea lilies (Crinoidea) were common in Z4W and present in Z1E and Z1W during all the authors’ surveys. Alexander Kerr (personal communication 2008) tentatively identified the most commonly sighted specimens as Oxycomanthus bennetti.

Porter et al. (2005) lists four species of molluscs as being of particular economic importance in Guam and CNMI: the giant clam (Tridacna squamosa), top shells (Trochus niloticus), spider conch (Lambis sp.) and octopus (Octopus sp.). Two species of giant clams (Tridacna squamosa and Tridacna maxima) have been sighted during every survey year. Adult specimens have never been abundant at FDM, but they have been present in every zone. Based upon the authors’ opportunistic observations, Tridacna squamosa was the most frequently sighted. Specimens up to 18 cm were measured. Young/juvenile specimens in the 3 to 4 cm size range were common. The numbers of Tridacna sp. do not appear to have fluctuated from year to year. Top shells (Trochus niloticus) and Lambis sp. (spider conch) were sighted each year but were not abundant. No octopuses (Octopus sp.) were recorded in 2006, however, one was sighted in 2007 and eight were observed in 2008. During 2009, no octopuses were sighted; five were seen in 2010 and one was sighted in 2012.

27 Few doubled spined rock lobsters (Panulirus penicillatus) have ever been observed, except during 2010. The exceptionally calm conditions in 2010 allowed observations to be made in small caves and crevices that have seldom been accessible on other surveys. Twenty-two lobsters were observed in 2010. The low numbers of lobster sightings has always been surprising because much of the island provides potentially good lobster habitat. In 2012 two intact double spined rock lobster shells were sighted, but no live lobsters were seen. The limited number of crustacean and mobile mollusc sightings may be due to the fact that only one night dive has ever been made and that on most dives, the divers were covering large tracks versus slower and more methodical swimming checking grottos and crevices which would normally be used to assess invertebrates.

4.2.4 Fishes

Table 11 lists the fish families which were observed during the 2012 surveys.

Table 11: Fish Families Sighted. Bolded families contain key fishery target species.

Ginglymostomatidae Carcharhinidae Dasyatidae Myliobatidae (Nurse sharks) (Requiem sharks) (Stingrays) (Eagle rays) Muraenidae Clupeidae Synodontidae Holocentridae (Moray eels) (Herrings, Sardines) (Lizardfishes) (Soldier & Squirrel fishes) Aulostomidae Scorpaenidae Caracanthidae Serranidae (Trumpetfishes) (Scorpionfishes) (Coral Crouchers) (Anthiases, Groupers, etc.) Cirrhitidae Apogonidae Malacanthidae Carangidae (Hawkfishes) (Cardinalfishes) (Sand tilefishes) (Jacks & Trevallys) Lutjanidae Caesionidae Haemulidae Lethrinidae (Snappers) (Fusiliers) (Sweetlips & Grunts) (Emperors) Mullidae Pempheridae Ephippidae Chaetodontidae (Goatfishes) (Sweepers) (Spadefishes & (Butterflyfishes) Batfishes) Pomacanthidae Kyphosidae Pomacentridae Labridae (Angelfishes) (Chubs & (Damselfishes) (Wrasses) Rudderfish) Scaridae Pinguipedidae Blenniidae Gobiidae (Parrotfishes) (Sandperches) (Blennies) (Gobies) Microdesmidae Siganidae Zanclidae Acanthuridae (Dartfishes) (Rabbitfishes) (Moorish Idol) (Surgeon & Unicornfishes) Sphyraenidae Scombridae Bothidae Balistidae (Barracuda) (Tunas, Mackerels) (Lefteye Flounder) (Triggerfishes) Monocanthidae Ostraciidae Tetraodontidae Oplegnathidae (Filefishes) (Trunkfishes & (Pufferfish) (Knifejaws) Cowfishes) Diodontidae (Porcupinefishes)

28 One or more representatives of 45 fish families were sighted during 2012. Members of at least 42 families were seen each year. Representatives of some of the rarer families, for example, Ephippidae (spadefish), were only sighted in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012 and they were never abundant (< 5 individuals per observation period). Most families whose members reached common or abundant levels varied little from year to year.

Numerous investigators, including Schroeder et al. (2006) and Myers (1991) have shown that fish biomass is greater in the northern portions of the archipelago than in the south. FDM is roughly in the middle. It has been the consensus of all FDM investigators (1999 to 2012) that the density and size of fishery target species at FDM is greater than it is around the islands to the south. Based on the estimated total number and size of fishery target species, and the biomass per unit area stocks at FDM appear to be superior to those of Guam, Rota, Tinian and Saipan. Total fish diversity is somewhat less, as expected, due to the reduced number of habitat types; for example, there are no lagoon or mangrove environments at FDM.

All of the fishes sighted appeared to be healthy and robust. No fish with lesions or abnormalities were ever observed. It is important to note that all observations relative to fishes were consistent with previous literature observations and were what one would expect from a relatively isolated island in that biogeographic region. Specifically, the numerically dominant species at FDM closely matched the numerically dominant fishery target species in the Marianas Archipelago as reported by Schroeder et al. (2006); and the location of the sightings and behavior matched descriptions of preferred habitat and activity patterns for these species as reported by Myers (1991), Randall (2001, 2007), and other investigators. Examples of this consistency (2005-2012) include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The twinspot snapper (Lutjanus bohar) was the most common large snapper.

2. Sleek unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) were the numerically dominate surgeonfish.

3. Bluefin trevally (Caranx melampygus), black jack (Caranx lugubris), bigeye trevally (Caranx sexfasciatus) and rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) were the four most commonly sighted jacks. Schroeder et al. (2006) reported that bluefin trevally was the dominant jack in the northern islands. However, bigeye trevally and not bluefin trevally were numerically dominant during the 2006 through 2012 surveys at FDM. This difference is not considered to be particularly significant biologically. For most of the fish taxa at FDM, the (subjectively) slight variations noted year to year were probably due to the high variability characteristic of fish populations. There were three notable exceptions to this ‘stable state’. During 2010 and particularly in 2012 changes were noted, which could be attributed to increased fishing pressure.

1) Large parrotfish, such as Scarus rubroviolaceus and Chlorurus frontalis were sighted in all zones between 2005 and 2009. Large specimens showed no fear of divers and could be easily approached. In 2010, fewer large specimens were sighted, and they behaved in a skittish manner, quickly swimming away from the divers. That behavior is characteristic of parrotfish in areas subject to spear fishing. In 2012, this situation was dramatically worse; that is, few large Parrotfish of any species were observed in any zones and those which were sighted fled when approached.

29 2) The peacock grouper (Cephalopholis argus) and the lyretail grouper (Variola louti) were the most common groupers during the 2005 to 2010 surveys. Per Schroeder et al. (2006), this was an expected finding for the Marianas. Not a single lyretail grouper was sighted during the 2012 survey and fewer than ten peacock groupers were seen. Both these species are highly sought after by commercial spear fishermen. 3) Lutjanidae (snappers) includes some of the world’s most popular food fish and many of its members in the Marianas are heavily fished. Lutjanids are one of the more abundant fish families at FDM. The twinspot snapper (Lutjanus bohar) was subjectively judged to contribute more to fish biomass than any other snapper, grouper or emperor. This species was abundant during the 2005 to 2010 surveys (> 25 individuals counted / 20 minutes) in all Zones, except Z2E and Z2W. Aggregations of more than 100 individuals were sighted in 2007 in Z1W and Z4W. In 2008, aggregations were also sighted, but the number of individual fish was estimated to be less, 50 – 75 individuals. No aggregations of the twinspot snapper were observed in 2009 and 2010, although schools of 10 to 15 individuals were sighted in all zones. In 2012, the largest number of twinspot snappers sighted during any dive was 20 and their total island wide numbers were subjectively estimated to be less than half of previous years. The usually bold and inquisitive twinspot snappers swam away when approached by divers in 2012. The humpback snapper (Lutjanus gibbus) was the second most common snapper during the 2006 to 2008 period followed by the bluelined snapper (Lutjanus kasmira). In 2009 and 2010 the bluelined snapper was judged to be more abundant than the humpback snapper. The 2009 and 2010 normalized counts (20 minute time periods) for both species resulted in many more than 25 individuals counted in every zone meaning that these two snappers were abundant around the island. Counts of these two snapper species were not made during 2012. However, on six of the 19 dives, neither species was sighted. The total numbers of all three of these three most common snapper species appear to have declined significantly between 2010 and 2012. During biennial surveys (2000 – 2007) of coral reef shark populations performed around 50 U.S. Pacific islands, including the Mariana Archipelago, only five species of sharks were recorded in sufficient numbers to perform statistical analyses (Nadon et al. 2008). The five species were:

• grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos),

• Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis),

• whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus),

• blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), and

• tawny nurse shark (Nebrius ferrugineus).

During the authors’ surveys of FDM the sharks which have been positively identified were the grey reef, blacktip reef, whitetip reef and tawny nurse. No Galapagos sharks were positively identified although there have been several specimens sighted that were only identified to genus (Carcharhinus); one of more of those may have been a Galapagos shark. Shark populations have

30 declined sharply around the world due to severe overfishing and the shark populations in the Mariana Archipelago are no exception.

There were 38 shark sightings made during the 2012 survey. Table 12 summarizes sightings made between 2006 and 2012. Specimens greater than 300 cm TL (total length) were seen every year except 2007. All shark species observed appeared to be healthy and stout. No serious threatening behavior toward the divers was demonstrated.

Table 12: Summary of Shark Sightings 2006 Through 2012.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Species & Size Range Carcharhinus melanopterus 9 0 1 1 1 NA 0 Blacktip Reef (aka Reef Blacktip) <100 cm TL Carcharhinus melanopterus 0 0 0 1 12 NA 3 Blacktip Reef (aka Reef Blacktip) >100 cm < 150 cm TL Carcharhinus melanopterus 0 2 1 3 6 NA 4 Blacktip Reef (aka Reef Blacktip) >150 cm < 200 cm TL Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 3 0 0 0 31 NA 6 Grey Reef >100 < 150 cm TL Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0 0 0 0 0 NA 7 Grey Reef >150 cm TL Carcharhinus sp. 0 1 0 0 1 NA 0 Unidentified Carcharinid >250 cm TL Triaenodon obesus 0 0 7 3 5 NA 0 Whitetip Reef >100 < 150 cm TL Triaenodon obesus 1 3 5 0 4 NA 3 Whitetip Reef >150 < 250 cm TL Nebrius ferrugineus 0 3 0 1 6 NA 2 Tawny Nurse >150 < 200 cm TL Nebrius ferrugineus 1 0 1 1 8 NA 13 Tawny Nurse > 200 cm TL Total Blacktip Sightings 9 2 2 5 19 NA 7 Total Grey Reef Sightings 3 0 0 0 31 NA 13 Total Whitetip Sightings 1 3 12 3 9 NA 3 Total Tawny Nurse Sightings 1 3 1 2 14 NA 15 Total Other sp. 0 1 0 0 1 NA 0

Grand Total Shark Sightings 14 9 15 10 74 NA 38

31 The largest sharks sighted, by estimated total length, were tawny nurse sharks. Three of the specimens sighted were 250 to 310 cm TL. The bellies of five of the females were distended; they were either pregnant, or had recently eaten large meals.

The spotted eagle ray (Aetobatis narinari) was the most common ray observed during all surveys. Schools of 25 spotted eagle rays have been sighted off the southern tip of the island in previous years; in 2012 the largest school of spotted eagle rays sighted consisted of six individuals. Spotted eagle rays have been routinely observed in all zones around FDM and range in size from 100 to 200 cm in disc (wing) width. Fewer spotted eagle rays were sighted in 2010 and 2012 than in any previous years; this may be due to the increased number of sharks. The black-blotched stingray (Taeniura meyeni) has been the second most common ray during the 2005 to 2012 time period. Like the spotted eagle ray, they have been observed in all zones.

Four new distribution records for rays at FDM have been made between 2005 and 2012. The Tahitian stingray (Himantura fai) was documented in 2010 in Z1W. Two separate sightings of the porcupine ray (Urogymnus asperrimus synonymous with Urogymnus africanus) were made in 2007. The disc widths were approximately 90 and 125 cm for the specimens in Z2E and Z3E, respectively. An exceptional honeycomb stingray (Himantura uarnak), over 200 cm in disc width, was sighted in Z4E during the 2007 survey. Paulay (2003) does not list this species as being present in the Marianas although Myers (1991) records this species from Micronesia. The fourth new stingray record for FDM was the mangrove whipray (Himantura granulata). It was observed in Z2E in 2008.

Tunas and mackerel (Scombridae) are the most important fishery target group worldwide. Although one would expect to have a moderate number of encounters with species from this family at a location like FDM, very few specimens have been observed during any of the previous FDM surveys. This may be due to the fact that the group is wide ranging, would probably not be resident at FDM, and is very heavily fished throughout this region. Solitary dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) were sighted in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012. The double-lined mackerel (Grammatorcynos bilineatus) was tentatively identified in 2006, 2007 and 2012 and the narrow-barred king mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) was observed during 2010 and 2012. Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri ) up to 1.5 m TL were sighted for the first time in 2012. Wahoo are considered to be pelagic fish, but are known to enter nearshore waters and feed on reef fish. Wahoo were reportedly ‘running’ during the August 2012 survey (personal communication, LT Brent Wadsworth).

Acanthuridae includes surgeonfishes and unicornfishes. This family is well represented at FDM, based upon the number of species and total number of individuals. The sleek unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) is arguably the most important fishery target species within this group and it is the dominant Acanthurid at FDM based upon biomass and total numbers. Per the authors’ counts of the sleek unicornfish, it was rated as either common or abundant in every zone. The estimated numbers of sleek unicornfish has remained stable since 2005.

Sweetlips (Haemulidae) are also an important fishery target group. These fishes were not abundant, but three species have been sighted. The spotted sweetlips (Plectorhinchus picus) was recorded in 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2012. The oriental sweetlips (Plectorhinchus orientalis) and the giant sweetlips (Plectorhinchus obscurus) were both observed during each survey year. This

32 group was considered rare with <5 sightings/20 min. A very large (100 cm TL) giant sweetlips (Plectorhinchus obscurus) was sighted in Z4W on several dives during 2006, 2007 and 2008. It is believed to be the same individual fish. Four separate 60 cm TL giant sweetlips were sighted in Z4W during 2008. No giant sweetlips have been observed since 2008. These large reef fish are sought after by commercial and recreational spear fishermen.

Wrasses (Labridae) are one of the most speciose groups at FDM (DoN, 2005). This group includes the Napoleon wrasse (aka humphead wrasse Cheilinus undulatus). NOAA has listed this fish as a Species of Concern and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List designates them as Endangered. Zgliezynski et al. (2008) conducted surveys for Napoleon wrasse at 32 U.S. flag Pacific islands, including the Mariana Archipelago, but not at FDM. Zgliezynski et al. (2008) recorded the highest densities of this species at Wake Atoll. During the FDM surveys, juvenile, adult female and adult male specimens were observed each year. The number of sightings and locations at which sightings have been made has increased with each survey and specimens up to 200 cm TL were observed, until 2012. During the 2007 and 2008 surveys, the numbers sighted were comparable to those reported at Wake Atoll. During the 2010 survey, more large specimens were sighted than on any previous survey. The presence of Napoleon wrasse and their increasing numbers up to 2010 was considered highly significant, given the depressed numbers of this species in most of the archipelago and most of their global range. During 2012, only two mature Napoleon wrasse were sighted; TLs were estimated at 0.6 and 1.0 m, respectively.

A second fish Species of Concern, the humphead parrotfish (aka bumphead parrotfish Bolbometopon muricatum), occurs within the Marianas, but has never been recorded from FDM. None were sighted during the 2005 to 2012 surveys. Other members of the parrotfish family (Scaridae) are well represented at FDM. Unidentified juveniles were very abundant, particularly in Z2E, where hundreds were sighted on every dive.

Three species of barracuda (Sphyraenidae) were recorded during the 2012 survey. The species were great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), blackfin barracuda (Sphyraena genie) and the arrow barracuda (Sphyraena novaehollandiae). The latter two species are new records for FDM. More great barracuda were seen than in 2010 and 2012 than in previous years. Eighteen great barracuda were sighted in 2012, including five individuals simultaneously. The great barracuda were estimated to range from 90 to 175 cm TL. Approximately 10 blackfin barracuda and 100 arrow barracuda were sighted in 2012. The presence of these high and mid-level predators, like the large number of sharks, is indicative of a healthy ecosystem.

During the 2009 and 2010 surveys, the species within each of four families were pooled to estimate family abundance. By using that procedure, all four families (Scaridae – parrotfishes, Mullidae – goatfishes, Caesionidae – fusiliers and Chaetodontidae – butterflyfishes) were characterized as abundant. Fusiliers were the most abundant in every zone. The counts for all four families exceeded the >25 individuals/20 minute time period to be classified as abundant. Only qualitative observations were made of these families during the 2012 survey. There did not appear to have been any changes in abundance or size distribution between 2012 and previous years for goatfishes, fusiliers or butterflyfishes. As noted, the number of large parrotfishes is believed to have declined.

33 A marlin (tentatively a blue marlin, Makaira nigricans) estimated to have a body length of 2 m was seen jumping out of the water in Z1E. This is the first billfish that has been sighted at FDM.

4.2.5 Protected Species

Both the Threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) were sighted during the 2012 survey. All sightings took place underwater. Four of the green turtle sightings took place at the northern end of Z4W, all of these were considered to be separate individuals based upon their carapace lengths, which were estimated to range from 35 to 55 cm. Two additional green turtle sightings were made in Z1W. Those individuals had estimated carapace lengths of 45 and 90 cm, respectively. The 45 cm specimen was feeding on macro algae when first sighted. The other green turtles were swimming when first sighted. Specimens with < 50 cm straight line carapace length were regarded as immature and not sexed. Specimens over 50 cm were considered mature. All the individuals sighted were females, or immature. A single hawksbill was sighted; it was swimming off Z4E and had an estimated carapace length of 55 cm. Tables 13 and 14 summarize sea turtle data.

Table 13: Summary of Underwater Sea Turtle Sighting 2005 through 2012.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unidentified 0 0 1 2 0 1 NA 0 Eretmochelys imbricate 1 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 <30 cm carapace Eretmochelys imbricate 1 1 0 0 0 1 NA 1 >30 cm carapace Chelonia mydas 2 1 2 4 0 1 NA 2 <50 cm carapace Chelonia mydas 0 1 1 5 3 6 NA 4 >50 <100 cm carapace Chelonia mydas 1 1 1 0 0 0 NA 0 > 100 cm carapace Total 5 5 5 11 3 9 NA 7

All of the sea turtles sighted between 2005 and 2012 appeared to be healthy. None of the specimens had any visible fibropapiloma tumors, barnacles, lesions or visible abnormalities.

34 Table 14: Underwater and Surface Sightings of Sea Turtle Sightings 1999 through 2012.

Hawksbill Green Unidentified Total 1999 0 9 0 9 2000 0 9 0 9 2001 2 11 0 13 2002 0 6 0 6 2003 0 4 5 9 2004 1 3 3 7 2005 2 3 0 5 2006 2 3 0 5 2007 0 5 1 6 2008 0 9 2 11 2009 0 3 0 3 2010 1 7 1 9 NO SURVEY NA NA NA NA PERFORMED 2012 1 6 0 7

The number of sea turtle sightings per biologist dive may provide a more realistic view of the population at FDM. Those numbers are: 0.28 turtles per dive (2005), 0.23 (2006), 0.13 (2007), 0.25 (2008), 0.19 (2009), 0.23 (2010) and 0.36 (2012). For comparative purposes, there are study sites off Oahu, Hawaii which the authors have been surveying since 1999 with an average of more than 10 sea turtles sighted per dive; 28 times higher than the FDM densities. The authors believe that there are few if any year round resident sea turtles at FDM. Sea turtles are more likely to simply be transient visitors.

A pod of mature and juvenile spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) was sighted from the MT Chamorro during the 2012 survey. It was estimated that there were more than 25 individuals; the pod was sighted approximately 300 m off the shoreline of Z3E. No marine mammals were sighted or heard underwater at FDM during any of the survey years, although sightings of spinner dolphins were made from the boats during transits to and from FDM and during some dive operations.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions are presented in three sub-sections:

1) General Remarks, 2) Physical Environment, and 3) Biological Environment.

35 5.1 General Remarks

Based upon 13 years of surveys, six by stakeholders/contractors and seven by Navy civilian marine ecologists, there is no evidence that any significant and/or long term adverse impacts to the physical or biological near shore resources of FDM have taken place as a result of military training. This finding of no significance is based upon the total number of detectable impacts, the size of those impacts and the time taken for impacted areas to recover.

Six annual surveys were performed by personnel from stakeholder agencies and a single Navy contractor between 1999 and 2004. From 2005 through 2010 and in 2012, Navy civilian marine ecologists conducted the surveys. The Navy marine ecologists averaged 15 SCUBA dives per person per survey, circumnavigated the island every year but one, and completed dive surveys to depths of 31 m. Nineteen dives per biologist were made in 2010 and 2012. In addition, many of the Navy surveys were conducted within less than four days of live fire training. It was not possible to conduct the 1999 to 2004 surveys within such close temporal proximity to training events and the maximum survey depths were 18 m. Possibly as a result of these factors, the Navy team detected the only conclusive evidence of direct air to sea floor impacts from bombs.

5.2 Physical Environment

Direct ordnance impacts upon the submerged physical environment, which were clearly attributable to training activities, were detected in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012. Indirect impacts, such as ordnance that skipped or eroded off the island and rock and ordnance fragments blasted off the island, were detected every year. However, natural phenomena such as typhoons, tropical storms, large wave events, tsunamis/micro-tsunamis and earthquakes are the primary disturbances which shape and modify FDM’s physical environment between the intertidal zone and depths of 30 m.

Between the initial 1997 survey and 2003, the stakeholders and the contractor observed physical impacts to the environment, some of which they attributed to training activities. However, in the report of their 2003 survey, they concluded: “As in 1997-2002, results of underwater surveys in 2003 revealed no serious impacts to marine communities from exploded ordnance. Numerous intact pieces of unexploded ordnance did not appear to cause any negative effects, and were often the sites of settlement of a variety of marine invertebrates.” (DoN 2004).

During the 2004 survey the same team (stakeholders and Navy contractor) noted changes to the submerged lands relative to observations made between 1999 and 2003. These physical changes included:

• fresh boulder/rock slides,

• submerged rock areas off the southern tip of FDM, that appeared to have been peeled back to expose bright yellow-orange patches of underlying rock, and

• cracked and broken coral colonies.

Some members of the 2004 survey team initially attributed these changes to the increased expenditure of ordnance which took place between 2003 and 2004. However, after detailed

36 analysis and discussion, the 2004 report made the following conclusion: “Although some damage can be directly attributed to ordnance impacts, natural factors also contribute to the changes. Examination of photographs from 1944 indicate that changes in the geologic structure of the island by erosion and mass wasting …have been going on for decades…With respect to damage associated with the passage of Typhoon Ting Ting…it is clear that the breakage of some coral branches is a result of the concussive force of large waves….These factors suggest that the breakage was the result of storm surf…” (2004 survey reported in DoN 2005).

At the time of the 2005 survey, the ‘disturbed’ sites observed by the 2004 investigators showed no color differences compared to the surrounding areas. In addition, these relatively flat smooth rock segments supported scattered colonies of small (<3cm) corals and crustose coralline algae. During the 2006 through 2012 surveys, the same area was examined again. There was no visual evidence of any abnormalities, damaged or diseased coral. These observations support the conclusions of the 2004 report; namely, that the disturbances seen in 2004 and the peeled areas off the southern tip of the island were most likely the result of the direct hit by Typhoon Ting Ting shortly before the 2004 survey. Note: Typhoon Ting Ting is the only typhoon to directly hit FDM since the initial survey in 1997.

No newly submerged cliff blocks were observed between 2005 and 2012. The detonation of live ordnance, and the impact of inert ordnance both act to fracture rock and make the island more susceptible to the impacts of earthquakes, typhoons and other natural erosional forces. Small to moderate sized (generally < 30 cm) fresh rock fragments have been observed yearly. Many, if not most of these, are clearly the result of training activities. However, the number and size of these items and the locations in which they occur have not resulted in any significant changes to the topography or significant adverse impacts upon marine biological resources.

Based on the physical condition of the ordnance items and the general absence of fins and tail assemblies it was the unanimous opinion of the EOD technicians that the substantial majority of all ordnance items sighted on the sea floor initially hit the island. These items then skipped or ricocheted off or were eroded or washed off at a later date.

As previously discussed, during the 2007 survey the first clear indication of a direct air to sea floor bomb impact was observed. The impact area was small, approximately 9 m2, and within that area not all the corals were destroyed. A second, possible air to sea floor bomb impact was observed in 2008, with an area of disturbance of less than one m2. While disturbances of this size are not desirable, they are not biologically significant. It should also be noted that in 2008, the 2007 area of disturbance supported new growth of stony corals and crustose coralline algae. In 2009 and 2010 no trace of the 2008 disturbance could be found. The authors have assessed anchor damage in the Caribbean, Eastern, Central and Western Pacific, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean. Commercial and recreational dive boats frequently leave an impact footprint from 20 to 80 m2 in tropical habitats. Cruise ships and cargo vessels have been shown to destroy over 3,000 m2 (Smith 1988) during a single anchoring event. When compared to the anchor damage routinely caused by commercial and recreational sport diving boats in tropical nearshore environments a 9 m2 impact area is small.

The shoreline detonation and sea floor shallow crater observed in 2010 resulted in approximately 10 m2 and 20 m2 of ‘lost’ rock/sea floor. The adjacent areas of physical disturbance were

37 estimated to be roughly 20 m2 and 110 m2, respectively. These impact areas were located in very high energy segments of FDM’s coastline and natural coral cover at both sites was less than 1%. Disturbances of this size, while regrettable, are not physically or biologically significant when compared to the magnitude of regular natural disturbances, such as big wave events. In 2012, those disturbed sites were reexamined and the flora and fauna could not be distinguished from the adjacent areas.

The ordnance items which directly impacted the sea floor in 2012 were in natural rubble and sand substrate. Plate15 demonstrates that the impacts were minimal.

5.3 Biological Environment

There was no evidence that any of the biological resources assessed had been adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training activities being conducted at FDM. In fact, the benefits of restricted access to FDM and its remote location have resulted in a moderate de-facto preserve effect and outweigh the minor negative impacts of training. NOAA’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) conducted the Mariana Reef Assessment Monitoring Program (MRAMP) cruises in 2003, 2005 and 2007; their surveys did not include FDM. Comparisons with CRED data indicated that the marine natural resources assessed at FDM are comparable to or superior to those at other locations within the Archipelago surveyed by CRED (PIFSC, 2008).

During 13 years of marine surveys, no significant adverse long-term impacts to algae, corals, macroscopic benthic invertebrates, fishes or protected species have been detected that could be reasonably attributed to training at FDM. The abundance, diversity and health of the near shore marine natural resources have remained steady.

FDM is free of many common stressors. Daszak et al. (2000), Worm et al. (2006) and many other investigators have noted that coastal development and associated activities are having increasingly adverse impacts upon coastal ecosystems around the world. These impacts have resulted in the severe degradation of many near shore marine habitats including coral reefs and their associated flora and fauna. During the last decade, ecologists have discovered that while marine natural resources on many publicly accessible coastal areas are declining, the same natural resources in areas under DoD control, with little or no public access, are thriving and/or in significantly better condition than adjacent areas. Stein et al. (2008) demonstrated that DoD properties support three times the densities of ESA status species and imperiled species as are found on public lands. Marine resources within these DoD controlled areas are generally healthier, more abundant, and larger than those outside. These areas not only act as de-facto Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that conserve the structure and function of the local ecosystem (Halpern 2003; Selig and Bruno 2010), but also provide beneficial “spill over” effects into adjacent marine areas related to increased fish populations (Roberts et al. 2001) and enhanced ecosystem services.

Many anthropogenic stressors that have highly deleterious impacts upon coral reefs and the associated flora and fauna are either completely absent in DoD controlled areas or experienced at much lower levels of intensity than in public coastal zones. Anthropogenic stressors include, but are not limited to those listed in Table 15. These stressors are either completely absent, or minimal at FDM except for the recent development of increased fishing pressure.

38 Table 15: Common Coral Reef Stressors Which Are Absent or Reduced at FDM (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap 1998; Harriott 1997).

Stressors Stressors Reef walking Grounding of personal watercraft Skin /SCUBA Diving Untreated sewage discharge by personal watercraft Spear fishing Improper/inadequate waste water disposal Trap & net fishing Improper/inadequate storm water runoff disposal Hook & line fishing Illegal dumping of hazardous materials/waste Jet skiing Improper/inadequate erosion control Motorized personal watercraft Harassment of marine life by beachgoers

Collection of corals & invertebrates Reduced H2O quality from large volumes of for the aquarium trade sun block Anchor damage from commercial Improper disposal of refuse, particularly plastics, recreational & private boaters diapers, pull tabs, bottle caps and cans

Non-consumptive recreational activities, like skin/SCUBA diving can have profound negative long-term adverse impacts to corals, coral reefs and associated marine resources; this fact has been well established by numerous investigators world-wide (e.g., Sudara and Nateekarnchanalap 1988; Harriott, Davies and Banks 1997; and Van Treech and Schumacher 1998).

Consumptive recreational and commercial activities, primarily fishing and the collection of aquarium specimens, adversely impact corals/coral reefs as well as the species actually captured. Raymundo et al. (2009) demonstrated that functionally diverse and healthy reef-fish communities reduce the incidence of coral disease. Raymundo et al. (2009), Smith et al. (2006) and other investigators have shown that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and DoD de-facto MPAs support significantly higher fish diversity and biomass than adjacent public areas. These healthier, more natural fish populations play a key role in maintaining healthier corals and coral reefs on DoD properties.

5.3.1 Algae

Turf algae and crustose coralline algae were the dominant functional algal groups observed during the 2012 survey. This has been the case since the annual surveys began in 1999. The species composition and distribution of all algae were comparable to similar sites within the Mariana Archipelago and with observations made at FDM in previous years, although the abundance of certain species varied from year to year. The most obvious examples of this were increased cover by blue-green algae in 2007 and yearly variations in cover by the brown alga Padina sp. Since the increase in blue-green algae was noted in 2007 at other locations within the Mariana Archipelago by both CRED (PIFSC, 2008) and the authors; and since dramatic

39 fluctuations in Padina cover have been recorded during previous surveys and in other areas and regions, these changes are regarded as natural fluctuations and not the result of training activities.

5.3.2 Corals

There was no visual evidence from the 2012 survey to support a conclusion that the training activities at FDM had a significant adverse impact on the coral resources around the island. All major coral taxa present within the Mariana Archipelago are represented at FDM. The diversity of corals appears to have remained relatively constant since the surveys began. With the notable exception of the coral barnacle infestation of Pocillopora meandrina, the health of the corals was judged to be excellent based upon the extremely low incidence of algal over growth and coral diseases.

As noted in the 2004 survey report (DoN 2005) the ability of storm waves to damage corals has been well documented in the literature (e.g., Dollar and Tribble 1993; Dollar 1982; Randall and Eldredge 1977). With the exception of previously described ordnance impacts, all of the areas of coral damage and disturbance observed since 1999 are likely to have been the result of natural forces, primarily large waves. Even if one attributes these disturbed areas to DoD activities versus natural factors, it is important to note that (1) by 2005 there was no visual evidence of the disturbance reported in 2004 at the Z1W site, and (2) the 2007 disturbance sites showed substantial recovery by 2008 and complete recovery by 2010. Most of the impacts, whatever the cause, are of short duration. The numerically and spatially dominated corals at FDM are in the genus Pocillopora. Most species within this group grow rapidly, compared to other corals. We recognize, however, that large specimens of slow growing species, like Porites lobata, will take many years to recover to their pre-disturbance state if they are badly damaged.

The severe infestation of Pocillopora meandrina colonies by the coral barnacle Cantellius sp. is, indeed, a significant adverse change. However, based upon the fact that these infestations are substantially worse at the unnamed reefs to the north of FDM, which have never been used for training, it is reasonable to assume that this disease phenomenon is unrelated to DoD training activities.

5.3.3 Other Invertebrates

The wide variety of other invertebrates sighted at FDM all appeared to be normal. They did not have any visible abnormalities, nor did they exhibit any other unusual attributes, such as size, color, or the locations in which they were observed. Some tunicate species are regarded as invasive. It is not know if the presence of the urn tunicate Didemnum molle could pose a problem.

The authors’ opportunistic observations of selected species appear to be in keeping with the findings reported for the 2003, 2005 and 2007 MRAMP surveys by CRED. There was one very clear and significant exception. The coral eating COTS (Acanthaster planci) was recorded in substantial numbers by PIFSC (2008) around many of the Mariana Islands. Not a single specimen was seen at FDM between 2005 and 2012 and there was no evidence that any of the coral colonies had been attacked by COTS. The absence of COTS may be due to the presence of

40 large mature Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus). Napoleon wrasses are one of the few known predators of COTS.

5.3.4 Fishes

There is no evidence that the training activities being conducted at FDM have had an adverse impact upon fish stocks. On the contrary, its designation as a bombing range is believed to provide a moderate ‘de-facto’ MPA effect.

The physical habitat of near shore environments plays a pivotal role in determining the structure of fish populations. The near shore physical environment and basic habitat types at FDM have remained unchanged since the surveys began. A second key element in determining fish populations is water quality. As an oceanic island routinely subject to strong currents and large waves and free from sewage discharges and other forms of pollution, FDM’s water quality has never been a limiting factor for fish populations. It has been the consensus of all FDM investigators (1999 to 2012) that the density and size of fishery target species and non-target species at FDM is greater than it is around the islands to the south (Guam, Rota, Tinian and Saipan). There is large inherent variability in coral reef and near shore fish populations; however, most of the fish taxa at FDM appear to have remained stable. The reduced numbers of several fishery target species in 2010 and 2012, and the changed behavior of some of these species towards divers is believed to be due to increased fishing pressure. No biologically significant changes have been detected since 1999 which could be attributed to training activities. No bony fishes were sighted which had any visible abnormalities or lesions; all appeared to be healthy. Some of the grey reef sharks and nurse sharks had bite marks; that is not uncommon for sharks.

It has been reported that commercial spear fishermen as well as commercial hook and line fishermen visit FDM. During the 2010 survey, three separate fishing boats were sighted at FDM, two of which anchored and remained over night. During 2012, for the first time, lost fishing gear was present in all the FDM zones except Z4E. As noted, the estimated numbers of key fishery target species, such as certain snapper and parrotfish species, was lower in 2012 than at any time since 2005. The small size of FDM makes it very vulnerable to overfishing, particularly spear fishing. The behaviors of some of these species, as observed by the authors during recent surveys, are indicative of spear fishing activities. Parrotfishes, wrasses and snappers are highly vulnerable groups.

The distance of FDM from population centers and its exposed nature afford it some protection. However, three socio-political-financial factors may be countering those conditions and increasing fishing pressure at FDM. Due to fiscal shortfalls, the CNMI government began implementing “austerity holidays” in 2010 for government workers. These measures increased the number of days off and reduced the pay of government workers. The general economy of CNMI has suffered substantially since 2010, placing additional financial strains on the population. Thirdly, the CNMI government has increased enforcement of fishing restrictions in MPAs around Saipan and Tinian. These conditions could be incentives for commercial, recreational and subsistence fishermen to increase their use of FDM.

The authors believe that the greatest threat to FDM’s fishes is from fishermen, not military training activities. The large numbers and large sizes of fishes at FDM are well known to many.

41 In The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam (Burdick et al. 2008) overfishing and water pollution are listed among the most serious threats to the marine environment. FDM has been free and will remain free of the latter, but is highly susceptible to the adverse impacts of overfishing.

5.3.5 Protected Species

The most commonly sighted protected marine species observed at FDM were the Threatened green and Endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Chelonia mydas and Eretmochelys imbricata). These species have been sighted in roughly comparable numbers during every survey between 1999 and 2012.

No sea turtle remains, such as carapace or bone fragments, have ever been sighted or reported at FDM. The authors have encountered such remains at various locations in the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Hawaiian Islands and Malaysia, where there are resident sea turtle populations. In addition to the annual marine surveys, regular aerial counts of sea birds, sea turtles and marine mammals have been made by the Navy since 1999. No dead or injured sea turtles or marine mammals have ever been observed. The number of sea turtle sightings has shown little variability. In conclusion, the island appears to serve as transient habitat for a limited number of sea turtles whose numbers have remained stable between 1999 and 2012.

No marine mammals have been sighted or heard during the underwater diver based surveys of 2005 through 2012. Single dolphins and small pods (< 15 individuals) of dolphins have been sighted during transits between Saipan and FDM. The dolphins were tentatively identified as spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris). Pods sighted near FDM were recorded in 2006 and 2007 off the southern tip of the island; they were observed from the dive boat. All pods appeared to be spinner dolphins and to contain about a dozen individuals. During the 1999 to 2004 surveys spinner dolphins were sighted, but the investigators concluded in their 2004 report (DoN 2005) that “…FDM does not appear to be an especially favored habitat.” The largest pod of spinner dolphins sighted to date, occurred during the 2012 survey in Z3E. It was estimated to contain about >25 individuals.

42 6.0 FIGURES

Figure 1: CNMI-Within a global perspective.

43

Figure 2: Mariana Archipelago.

44 Figure 3: Farallon De Medinilla Viewed from the South.

45

Figure 4: Farallon De Medinilla Viewed from the East.

46

Figure 5: Geographic and tectonic setting of the Mariana Islands region. The Pacific plate subducts west-northwestward beneath Guam at 6.3 cm/yr and the back-arc Mariana trough opens at 4.7 cm/yr full rate (Sella and others, 2002).

Figure 6: Earthquakes in the Marianas from 1964–2011 with Mw e 4.5 (stars, color-coded by depth). Megathrust zone and outer-rise zone boundaries are plotted as dashed and dotted lines, respectively (Mueller et al. 2012).

47

Figure 5: Earthquake activity greater than Mw 4 in the Marianas Islands from Oct 2011- Jul 2012. Depth in km.

48 Figure 6: Details specific wave heights and Tsunami travel times from witnesses and observation systems.

49

Figure 7: The map excerpt above shows high amounts of volcanic and seismic activity in the Marianas. Red triangles indicate recent volcanic eruptions from 1900-2003, black, grey, and white dots/circles indicate recorded earthquakes, with large size equating to higher magnitude (Simkin et al. 2006).

50

Figure 8: Known submerged volcanic vents within the archipelago

51

Figure 9: History of tropical storm activity in the Marianas from 1995 to June 2012. (Source: Joint Typhoon Warning Center, Pearl Harbor, HI)

Figure 10: Tropical storm tracks approaching Farallon de Medinilla from October 2010 to June 2012. (Source: Joint Typhoon Warning Center, Pearl Harbor, HI). 52 7.0 PLATES

The following 22 plates illustrate the environment at FDM. The reader is urged to review them carefully to gain a fuller understanding of physical and biological conditions around the island. All photos were taken by Stephen H. Smith at FDM during the 2012 survey, unless otherwise indicated.

Plate 1: Top: Z1E cliff line @ 10 m. Bottom: Z1W typical sea floor @ 20 m; note blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) and two unidentified bombs. Both photos from 2010.

53 Plate 2: Top: Z2E. Typical sea floor at 12 m. Note abundant & diverse fish fauna. Bottom: Z2W @ 6 m with bar jack (Caranjoides ferdau) in foreground.

54 Plate 3: Top: Z1W @ 15 m typical rubble/boulder sea floor. Bottom: Z1W cliff line @12 m; note abundant small – medium Pocillopora sp.colonies.

55 Plate 4: Top: Z3E cliff block/boulder @ 22 m. Bottom: Z3W (2010 survey) the Southern portion of Z3W supports the best developed coral community on FDM.

56 Plate 5: Top: Z4 (from 2010) off N tip of FDM @ 25 m. Bottom: Z1 spur reef off S tip of FDM @ 13 m.

57 Plate 6: Top: bigeye trevally/jack (Caranx sexfasciatus). Bottom: black jacks (Caranx lugubris), both jack species are important fishery target species. Note, grey reef shark below the black jacks.

58 Plate 7: Top: rudderfishes/sea chubs (Kyphosus sp.) are common at FDM. Bottom: bluelined snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) are among the three most common snapper species at FDM.

59 Plate 8: Top: Oriental sweetlips (Plectorhinchus orientalis) left of center, and Moorish idols (Zanclus cornutus) have been sighted every year. Bottom: The argosy/peacock grouper (Cephalopholis argus) is one of the most common groupers at FDM.

60 Plate 9: Top: The presence of substantial numbers of apex predators is indicative of a healthy ecosystem. The giant trevally (Caranx ignobilis) were each approx. 90 cm TL, note two grey reef sharks below. Bottom: 2 m grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos).

61 Plate 10: Top: Silver pompano (Trachinotus blochii) are common at FDM; note the clouds of unidentified baitfish in the background. Bottom: At least two giant clams species, Tridacna squamosa & Tridacna gigas, have been sighted at FDM.

62 Plate 11: See also Plates 12 and 13 and Section 4.2.2. Pocillopora meandrina (center right foreground) was heavily infested with the coral barnacle Cantellus sp. Pocillopora eydouxi colonies were virtually free of the infestation. Note the adjacent dead colonies overgrown with crustose coralline algae.

63

Plate 12: See Plates 11 and 13 and Section 4.2.2.2. Pocillopora meandrina infested with the coral barnacle Cantellius sp.

64

Plate 13: See also Plates 11 and 12 and Section 4.2.2.2. This photo illustrates the apparent progression from infestation, to loss of zooxanthellae, death and overgrowth by algae.

65 Plate 14: Top: Acropora sp. This genus is well represented at FDM. Bottom: The large greenish/tan colonies are Porites (tentatively) lobata, the purplish colony to the right is Montipora sp.

66 Plate 15: Top: An inert MK 84 2,000 lb bomb that had clearly made a direct impact into the sea floor (Z1E). Bottom: An inert MK 83 1,000 lb bomb also in Z1E. Both of these bombs impacted an area of sea floor that was naturally rubble and small boulders. These two items are believed to have been dropped approximately one month prior to the survey.

67 Plate 16: An inert MK 82 500 lb bomb in Z1W. This bomb was believed to have hit the island first and bounced off, due to the absence of fin assembly and damage to the casing. The bomb appears to have been submerged less than 3 months based upon degree of fouling. Bottom: MK 80 series bomb in Z1E.

68

Plate 17: Top: Tentatively live M 117 750 lb bomb in Z1W. Bottom: Unidentified bomb in Z1E.

69 Plate 18: Top: From 2007 survey , this inert MK 82 500 lb. bomb directly impacted the sea floor on 5 or 6 Sept. 2007 and was photographed on 13 Sept 2007. By 2008, the bomb had disappeared into deeper water and the site had new coral and algae recruits. Bottom: MK 84 2,000 lb bomb in Z3E, believed to have hit the island first and to have been submerged for 12 -18 months.

70 Plate 19: Top & Bottom: green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) with estimated straight line carapace lengths of 45 cm and 65 cm, respectively. The smaller turtle was immature, sex could not be determined. The larger turtle was a female. Both specimens sighted off the N tip of Z4. Note, the exceptionally clean shells, with no barnacles, fibro-papilloma tumors, or bit scars. Top photo by LT Brent Wadsworth.

71 Plate 20: Top: The black-blotched sting ray (Taeniura meyeni) has been the second most common ray every year at FDM. Bottom: The tawny nurse shark (Nebrius ferrugineus) has had the largest average size of all shark species sighted; many specimens have exceeded 3 m. TL.

72 Plate 21: Top: grey reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) are more abundant at FDM than at many locations within their range. In addition, many of the specimens are near their maximum recorded lengths of about 2.4 m. Bottom: Sheer walls are common around much of FDM. These walls, as well as the large submerged cliff blocks and boulders support dense growths of the calcareous green algae Halimeda sp.

73 Plate 22: Top: From 2010, MK 80 series bombs in Z1E. Based upon the marine growth, the bombs had been in place for at least 8 years. Bottom: Exceptionally robust fish stocks have been present during every FDM survey since 1999. The black/sleek unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) and yellowback fusiliers (Caseo teres) are among FDM’s most abundant species.

74 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge LT Brent Wadsworth and all the members of EOD DET MARI. They performed in a consistent and outstanding manner; without their support it would not have been possible to conduct the survey. Saipan Crewboats Inc., and the crew of the MT Chamorro, also provided mission essential assistance to this effort. Both the groups went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure a safe and productive project. In addition, we would like to thank Marc Myer of NAVFAC PAC for assistance with graphics and Joyce Patterson of NAVFAC EXWC for editorial assistance. This project was funded by U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental.

A-75 This page is intentionally left blank.

A-76 REFERENCES

[1] Alley D., 2010. Personal communication between Donald E. Marx Jr., NAVFAC Engineering Service Center and LT Doug Alley EOD DET Panama City FL. August 11, 2010.

[2] Bruno, J. F. et al. Nutrient Enrichment Can Increase the Severity of Coral Disease. Ecol Lett 6 (2003) 1056-1061.

[3] Burdick, D. et al. The state of coral reef ecosystems of Guam. In: The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Cooperation with Partners from Federal, Territorial and Commonwealth Agencies and the Pacific Freely Associated States. Pages 465-509.

[4] Cooper, T. F. et al. Temporal Dynamics in Coral Bioindicators for Water Quality on Coastal Reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Freshw Res # 59 (2008) 703-716.

[5] Daszak, P. et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases of Wildlife - Threats to Biodiversity and Human Health. Science # 287 (2000) 443-449.

[6] Dollar, S. J. Wave Stress and Coral Community Structure in Hawaii. Coral Reefs # 1 (1982) 71-81.

[7] Dollar, S. J. and G. W. Tribble. Recurrent Storm Disturbance and Recovery: a Long- Term Study of Coral Communities in Hawaii. Coral Reefs # 12 (1993) 223-233.

[8] Factsheet: The TMhoku, Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March 11, 2011. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. July 16, 2012. http://www.tsunami.gov/events/11Mar2011factsheet.php

[9] Fenner, D. Corals of Hawai`i, Honolulu, Hawaii: Mutual Publishing, 2005.

[10] Ghiold J. and S. H. Bleaching and Recovery of Deep-Water, Reef-Dwelling Invertebrates in the Cayman Islands, B.W.I. Caribbean Jour Sci # 26 No. 1-2 (1990) 52-61.

[11] Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. June 28, 2012. http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0804-17=

[12] Halpern, B. S. The Impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications # 13 (2003) S117–S137.

[13] Harriott, V. J. Recreational Diving and its Impacts in Marine Protected Areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio. # 26 (1997) 173-179.

A-77 [14] Hill, J. and C. Wilkinson 2004. Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs Version 1. Australian Institute of Marine Science. 123 pp.

[15] Hughes, T. P. and Jackson, JBC. Do Corals Lie About Their Age? Some Demographic Consequences of Partial Mortality, Fission and Fusion. Science #209 (1980) 713- 715.

[16] Huisman, J. M. et al. Hawaiian Reef Plants, Honolulu, HI: Sea Grant College Program, University of Hawai’i, 2007

[17] IRIS SeismiQuery – Event Query. Plot created from database by Lee Shannon of NAVFAC SDS on 10 July, 2012. http://www.iris.edu/SeismiQuery/sq-events.htm

[18] Jokiel, P. L. Chapter 12: Biology and Ecological Functioning of Coral Reefs in the Main Hawaiian Islands. B.M. Riegl and R.E. Dodge (eds.), Coral Reefs of the World 1: Coral Reefs of the USA. Springer Science + Business Media #1 (2008) 489-517.

[19] Karig, D.E., et al., Characteristics of Back Arc Spreading in the Mariana Trough. Journal of Geophysical Research # 83, no. B3 (1978) 1213–1226.

[20] Kerr A. 2008. Personal communication between Stephen H. Smith NAVFAC Engineering Service Center and Alexander Kerr University of Guam. Multiple dates 2009 and 2010.

[21] Liddell, W.D. and S.L. Ohlhorst. 1987. Patterns of Reef Community Structure, North Jamaica. Bulletin of Marine Science 40(2): 311-329.

[22] Littler, D. S. and M. M. Littler. South Pacific Reef Plants. A Diver’s Guide to the Plant Life of South Pacific Coral Reefs. Washington, D.C.: Offshore Graphics, Inc., 2003.

[23] Loomis, H. G. The Momentum of Tsunami Waves. Science of Tsunami Hazards #20-1 (2002) 38.

[24] Malay, M. 2012. Personal communication between Stephen H. Smith, NAVFAC EXWC and Machel Malay, Florida Museum of Natural History September 5, 2012.

[25] March 11, 2011 Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Summary Report, March 9, 2011. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center. June 30, 2012. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsunami/pdf/2011_0311.pdf

[26] Mariana Trench Marine National Monument. Map and Plot of Submarine Vent Locations within the Island Chain. 14 August 2012. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hsTuDxtqI7c/SWbvhTTSulI/AAAAAAAAIv8/4p7W_9a Uaig/s1600-h/monumentmap_page_7.jpg

A-78 [27] Mydlarz, L. D. et al. Innate Immunity, Environmental Drivers, and Disease Ecology of Marine and Freshwater Invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 37 (2006) 251-288.

[28] Myers, R. F. Micronesian Reef Fishes, Second Edition, Barrigada, Guam: Coral Graphics, 1991.

[29] Nadon M. et al. Central Pacific Survey Reveals Lower Shark Density Near Human Population Centers. Proc. 11th Int. Coral Reef Symposium # 194 (2008) 22-48. (Abstract)

[30] The Northern Marianas. United States Geologic Survey Volcano Hazards Program. June 28, 2012. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/about/volcanoes/nmi/index.php

[31] Parcheta, C. 2012. Personal Communication between Lee Shannon of NAVFAC EXWC SDS and Carolyn Parcheta, graduate student at Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

[32] Paulay G. et al. 2003. Marine biodiversity resource survey and baseline reef monitoring survey of the southern Orote Peninsula and north Agat Bay Area, COMNAVMARIANAS. 37pp.

[33] Paulay, G. and M. Malay. 2012. Personal communication between Stephen H. Smith NAVAC EXWC and Gustav Paulay and Machel Malay Florida Museum of Natural History. September 4, 2012.

[34] Porter, V. et al. 2005. Status of the coral reef ecosystems of Guam. University of Guam Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 113. 69 pp.

[35] Randall, J. E. Surgeonfishes of Hawaii and the world, Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing and Bishop Museum Press, 2001.

[36] Randal, J. E. Reef and shore fishes of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, HI: Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai`i, 2007.

[37] Randall, R. H. An annotated checklist of hydrozoan and scleractinian corals collected from Guam and other Mariana Islands. Micronesica #35-36 (2003) 121-137.

[38] Randall R. H. and L. Eldredge. Effects of typhoon Pamela on the coral reefs of Guam. Proc. 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium #2 (1977) 526-531.

[39] Raymundo, L. J. et al. Functionally Diverse Reef-Fish Communities Ameliorate Coral Disease. PNAS # 106 (2009)17070-17076.

[40] Richmond R. H. et al. Chapter 19: Aspects of Biology and Ecological Functioning of Coral Reefs in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

A-79 B.M. Riegl and R.E. Dodge (eds.), Coral Reefs of the World 1: Coral Reefs of the USA. Springer Science + Business Media #1 (2008) 719-739.

[41] Riegl B. M. Effects of sand deposition on Scleractinian and Alcyonacean corals. Mar Biol #121 (1995) 517-526.

[42] Riegl B. M. et al. Chapter 18: Geologic Setting and Geomorphology of Coral Reefs in the Mariana Islands (Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). B.M. Riegl and R.E. Dodge (eds.), Coral Reefs of the World 1: Coral Reefs of the USA. Springer Science + Business Media #1 (2008) 691-718.

[43] Roberts C. M. et al. Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science #294 (2001) 1920–1923.

[44] Rumpf, E. 2012. Personal Communication between Lee Shannon of NAVFAC EXWC SDS and Elise Rumpf, graduate student at Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

[45] Schroeder R.E. et al. Status of Fishery Target Species on Coral Reefs of the Mariana Archipelago. Proceedings of 10th International Coral Reef Symposium (2006) 1016-1027.

[46] Selig, E. R. and Bruno, J. F. A Global Analysis of the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Preventing Coral Loss. PLoS ONE, 2010:5(2).

[47] Sella, G. F., et al., REVEL—A Model for Recent Plate Velocities from Space Geodesy. Journal of Geophysical Research #107, no. B4 (2002) ETG 11–1–ETG 11–30.

[48] Simpkin, T. et al. This Dynamic Planet; World map of volcanoes, earthquakes, impact craters, and plate tectonics: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2800, 1 two-sided sheet, scale 1:30,000,000. 2006.

[49] Smith S. H. and Marx D. E. 2009. Assessment of near shore marine resources at Farallon De Medinilla: 2006, 2007 and 2008 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. NAVFAC Engineering Service Center Technical Report, 73 pp.

[50] Smith SH, Deslarzes KJP, Brock R. 2006. Characterization of fish and benthic communities of Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor Entrance Channel Hawaii. Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program, Project No. 03- 183. 73 pp.

[51] Spalding, M. D., et al. World Atlas of Coral Reefs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001.

[52] Stafford-Smith, M.G. Sediment Rejection Mechanisms of 22 Species of Australian Scleractinian Corals. Mar Biol #115 (1993) 229-243.

A-80 [53] Stafford-Smith, M. G. and Ormond, R. F. G. Sediment Rejection Mechanisms of 42 Species of Australian Scleractinian Corals. Aust J Mar Freshw Res # 43 (1992) 683-705.

[54] Stein, B. A. Biodiversity and the military mission. In: N. Benton, D. Ripley, and F. Powledge eds., Conserving Biodiversity on Military Lands: A Guide for Natural Resources Managers. NatureServe, Arlington, VA: 2008.

[55] Sudara, S. and Nateekarnchanalap, S. Impact of Tourism Development on the Reefs of Thailand. Proc. 6th Int. Coral Reef Symposium. #2 (1988) 273- 278.

[56] Sutherland K. P., et al. Disease and immunity in Caribbean and Indo-Pacific zooxanthellate corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser #266 (2004) 273-302.

[57] TMhoku, Japan Tsunami of March 11, 2011 Energy Plot. NOAA PMEL Center for Tsunami Research. July 16, 2012. http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/honshu20110311/Energy_plot20110311_no_tg_lables_cr opped.png

[58] Tsunami Data and Information. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center. Search data compiled by Lee Shannon of NAVFAC SDS on 11 July, 2012. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu.shtml

[59] U. S. Government. National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion –Use of the Farallon De Medinilla live fire range by the U.S. Navy and other services. December 29, 1998. 24pp.

[60] U. S. Government. Department of the Navy (DoN). Prepared for the U.S. Pacific Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by Belt Collins, Hawaii. Final Environmental Impact Statement; Military training in the Marianas. Honolulu, HI 1999.

[61] U. S. Government. Department of the Navy. Prepared for the U.S. Pacific Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by Belt Collins Hawaii. Botanical Survey of Farallon De Medinilla, CNMI in Final Environmental Impact Statement: Military Training in the Marianas. Honolulu, Hawaii: 1999a.

[62] U. S. Government. Department of the Navy (DoN). Prepared for the U.S. Pacific Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by TEC. Year 2004 Assessment of the Marine and Fisheries Resources Farallon de Medinilla, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Honolulu, HI: 2005.

[63] U.S. Government. NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). Coral reef ecosystem and habitat surveys in the Mariana Archipelago: Preliminary findings and key figures for the islands of Guam, Aguijan, Tinian, Saipan, and Pagan. Prepared by NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center for U. S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC Pacific). Honolulu, HI: 2008.

A-81 [64] U.S. Government. NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27. Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Silver Spring, MD: 2011.

[65] U. S. Government. Seismic hazard assessment for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1015. Reston, Virginia: 2012.

[66] Van Treech, P. and Schumacher, H. Mass Diving Tourism-a New Dimension Calls for New Management Approaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin #37, 8-12 (1998) 499- 504.

[67] Veron, JEN. Corals of the World, Vol. 1, 2 & 3. Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2000.

[68] Wild C., et al. Influence of Coral Mucus on Nutrient Fluxes in Carbonate Sands. Mar Ecol Prog Ser #287 (2005) 87-98.

[69] Worm B., et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science #314 (2006) 787-790.

[70] Zgliczynski, B. et al. Pacific-Wide Status of the Rare/Endangered Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum). Proc. 11th Int. Coral Reef Symposium. (2008) (Abstract).

A-82

APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANTS IN THE MARINE ASSESSMENT

A-1 This page is intentionally left blank.

A-2 PARTICIPANTS IN THE 6-12 AUGUST 2012 MARINE ASSESSMENT

Name Organization Stephen H. Smith, Marine Ecologist NAVFAC SDS LT Brent Wadsworth OIC EOD DET MARI EODCS Robert Fisher EOD DET MARI EODC Modesto Hernandez EOD DET MARI EODC Ryan Gilfillan EOD DET MARI EODC Eric Villwok EOD DET MARI Eddy Gerardo CAPT MT Chamorro Jervey Babauta First Mate MT Chamorro Ednaco Bernardo Chief Engineer MT Chamorro Ibit Eulogio Asst. Engineer MT Chamorro Albert Mian AB-Unlimited MT Chamorro Felix Alaganty AB-Unlimited MT Chamorro Tolentino Enrico Cook MT Chamorro

A-3 This page is intentionally left blank.

A-4

APPENDIX B

CANDIDATE CORALS PROPOSED FOR LISTING WHICH ARE OR MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO

B-1 This page is intentionally left blank.

B-2 CANDIDATE CORALS PROPOSED FOR LISTING WHICH ARE OR MAY BE PRESENT WITHIN THE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO

Based on NOAA Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27 September 2011 By the NOAA Biological Review Team. Taxonomic sequence is per Veron (2000).

Note 1: Of the 52 species listed in this table 11 have taxonomic issues and the presence of 16 species is disputed.

Note 2: This reflects NOAA’s letter to constituents dated 30 November 2012, and Federal Register Notice of 7 December 2012 which eliminated 16 species from further consideration and categorized the remainder as Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). Those species which were dropped from consideration are denoted with an (X), but have been retained in the table because they reportedly may be re-introduced. Forty (40) are still being considered for listing.

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE (BRT) MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER PAGE REF VERON RANK in MARIANAS ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 Y or N Y or N (D) or LIST (N) NOT FAMILY-Acroporidae Genus-Montipora Species- 1 NOAA More likely 58% Y N N lobulata T than not pg. 314 Veron Vol 1:95 Species- 2 NOAA More likely Y N N caliculata T than not 57% pg. 305 Veron Vol 1:128-9 Species- 3 NOAA More likely 66% N Y-1 D-1 patula/verrilli T than not pg 318 Veron Vol. 1: 106-107 Genus-Anacropora Species- 4 NOAA More likely 57% N N D-2 puertogalerae T than not pg. 269 Veron Vol 1:170-1 Species- 5 NOAA More likely 59% N N D-3 spinosa E than not pg. 273 Veron Vol 1:173 Genus- Acropora Species- 6 NOAA Less likely 49% Y N N aculeus T than not pg. 179 Veron Vol 1:356-7 Species- 7 NOAA Less likely 49% Y N N acuminate T than not pg. 183 Veron Vol 1:230 Species- 8 NOAA Less likely 48% Y N N aspera T than not pg. 188 Veron Vol 1:342-3

B-3 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE (BRT) MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER PAGE REF VERON RANK in ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 MARIANAS Y or N (D) or LIST Y or N (N) NOT FAMILY- Acroporidae Genus- Acropora Species- 9 NOAA More likely 57% Y N N globiceps T than not pg. 200 Veron Vol 1:317 Species- 10 NOAA More likely Y N N listeri T than not pg. 212 58% Veron Vol 1:334 Species- 11 NOAA More likely 58% Y N N microclados T than not pg. 220 Veron Vol 1:374 Species- 12 NOAA More likely 52% Y Y-2 N palmerae T than not pg. 224 Veron Vol 1:211 Species- 13 NOAA More likely 53% Y N D-4 paniculata T than not pg. 228 Veron Vol 1:378 Species- 14 NOAA More likely Y N N polystoma T than not pg. 236 53% Veron Vol 1:335 Species- 15 NOAA More likely 58% Y N N striata T than not pg. 252 Veron Vol 1:272,275 Species- 16 NOAA More likely N N D-5 tenella T than not pg. 256 57% Veron Vol 1:285 Species- 17 NOAA More likely 52% Y N N vaughani T than not pg. 260 Veron Vol 1:268-9 Species- 18 NOAA More likely 54% Y N N verweyi T than not pg. 265 Veron Vol 1:386-7

B-4 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER (BRT) RANK in MARIANAS ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 PAGE REF VERON Y or N Y or N (D) or LIST (N) NOT FAMILY- Acroporidae Genus- Isopora Species- 19 NOAA More likely 62% N Y-3 D-6 cuneata T than not pg. 287 NOT IN VERON FAMILY- Pocilloporidae Genus- Pocillopora Species- 20 NOAA More likely 51% Y Y-4 N danae T than not pg. 160 Veron Vol 2:25 Species- 21 Y-5 elegans NOAA Less likely (E Pacific) E than not pg. 167 57% Y N elegans Veron Vol 2:34 (Indo-Pacific) T Genus - Seriatopora Species- 22 NOAA More likely 55% Y Y-6 N aculeata T than not pg. 171 Veron Vol 2:52 FAMILY- Euphyllidae Genus- Euphyllia Species- 23 NOAA More likely 62% Y N N cristata T than not pg. 428 Veron Vol 2:69 Species- 24 NOAA More likely 63% Y N N paraancora than not pg. 432 T Veron Vol 2:74 Genus- Physogyra Species- 25 NOAA More likely 51% N N D-7 lichtensteini than not pg. 440 T Veron Vol 2:92

B-5 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE (BRT) MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER PAGE REF VERON RANK in MARIANAS ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 Y or N Y or N (D) or LIST (N) NOT FAMILY- Oculinidae Genus- Galaxea Species- 26 NOAA Less likely than 45% N N D-8 astreata X not pg. 388 Veron Vol 2:110-11 FAMILY- Siderastreidae Genus- Psammocora Species- 27 NOAA Less likely than 41% Y Y-7 N stellata X not pg. 352 Veron Vol 2:148 FAMILY- Agariciidae Genus- Pavona Species- 28 NOAA Less likely than 48% Y N N bipartite X not pg. 368 Veron Vol 2:197 Species- 29 NOAA Less likely than 47% Y N N cactus X not pg. 372 Veron Vol 2:180-1 Species- 30 NOAA Less likely than 47% Y N N decussata X not pg. 376 Veron Vol 2:195-5 Species- 31 NOAA More likely than 53% Y N N diffluens T not pg. 380 Veron Vol 2:188-9 Species- 32 NOAA Less likely than 47% Y N N venosa X not pg. 384 Veron Vol 2:190-1

B-6 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE (BRT) MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER PAGE REF VERON RANK in MARIANAS ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 Y or N Y or N (D) or LIST (N) NOT FAMILY- Agariciidae Genus- Leptoseris

Species- 33 NOAA Less likely than 39% Y N N incrustans X not pg. 356 Veron Vol 2:218 Genus- Pachyseris Species- 34 NOAA More likely than 57% N N D-9 rugosa T not pg. 364 Veron Vol 2:226-7 FAMILY- Pectiniidae Genus- Pectinia Species- 35 NOAA Less likely than 48% N N D-10 alcicornis T not pg. 392 Veron Vol 2:356-7 FAMILY- Dendrophylliidae Genus- Turbinaria Species- 36 NOAA Less likely than 37% N N D-11 mesenterina X not pg. 444 Veron Vol 2:394-5 Species- 37 NOAA Less likely than 37% Y N N reniformis X not pg. 452 Veron Vol 2:396-7 Species- 38 NOAA Less likely than 46% Y N N stellulata X not pg. 456 Veron Vol 2:400-1

B-7 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE (BRT) MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER PAGE REF VERON RANK in MARIANAS ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 Y or N Y or N (D) or LIST (N) NOT FAMILY-Mussidae Genus- Acanthastrea Species- 39 NOAA More likely/ 50% N N D-12 brevis T less likely split pg. 396 Veron Vol 3:17 Species- 40 NOAA Less likely 50% N N D-13 ishigakiensis T than not pg. 404 Veron Vol 3: Species- 41 NOAA Less likely 48% N N D-14 regularis T than not pg. 408 Veron Vol 3:16 FAMILY-Faviidae Genus- Barabattoia Species- 42 NOAA More likely laddi T than not pg. 412 52% Y N N Veron Vol 3:132

Genus- Cyphastrea Species- 43 NOAA Less likely Y N N agassizi X than not pg. 420 47% Veron Vol 3:248 FAMILY-Poritidae Genus- Porites Species- 44 NOAA More likely 51% Y Y-8 N horizontalata T than not pg. 334 Veron Vol 3:316-7 Species- 45 NOAA As likely 50% N Y-9 D-15 napopora T as not pg. 338 Veron Vol 3:318

B-8 CANDIDATE CORALS TABLE (cont’d)

FAMILY NO. STATUS & PAGE MEAN CONFIRM. TAXONOMIC PRESENCE PER (BRT) RANK in ISSUES DISPUTED 2011 PAGE REF VERON MARIANAS Y or N (D) or LIST Y or N (N) NOT FAMILY-Poritidae Genus- Porites Species- 46 NOAA Less likely 50% N Y-10 D-16 nigrescens T than not pg. 342 Veron Vol 3:334-5 Genus- Alveopora

Species- 47 NOAA More likely 57% Y N N allingi T than not pg. 322 Veron Vol 3:384 Species- 48 NOAA More likely 57% Y N N fenestrata T than not pg. 326 Veron Vol 3:386 Species- 49 NOAA More likely 56% Y N N verrilliana T than not pg. 330 Veron Vol 3:387 FAMILY-Milleporidae Genus- Millepora Species- 50 NOAA More likely 63% Y N N faveolata E than not. pg. 141 Veron Vol 3:400 Species- 51 NOAA More likely 63% Y Y-11 N tuberosa T than not. pg. 146 Veron Vol 3:400 FAMILY-Helioporidae Genus- Heliopora Species- 52 NOAA Less likely 37% Y N N coerulea X than not pg. 152 Veron 3:404-5

B-9 This page is intentionally left blank.

B-10