2005 Spring-Summer Remembrance Insert

Dwayne Minton War in the Pacific National Historical Park

The Forgotten Casualty

War and Guam’s Environment

Arizona Memorial Museum Association Press

As an ecologist at a National Park that commemorates the bravery and sacrifice of those who fought in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, I am often asked about the effects of war on the environment. I find that I can seldom give a concise, accurate answer to this question, because adequate scientific data is lacking. Data on the environmental effects of war are usually anecdotal, grossly unreliable, and often incomplete. This is particularly true for wars prior to the 1960s.

How serious is environmental damage resulting from wartime activities?

Again, with scant scientific data, it appears that the longterm impacts are often minor. In general, most natural habitats appear to recover from the damage caused by war. But is this also true for island ecosystems such as Guam?

Island ecosystems are “fragile” when compared to continen- Insular ecosystems are among the most “fragile” in the world.

Species on islands tend to have low dispersion rates, small tal counterparts. Most have geographic distributions, and reduced abilities to compete with alien evolved with relatively little invasive plants and animals. outside influence and cover only a small geographic area. Conflicts that engulf an entire island, as WWII did on Guam, engulf the entire ecosystem, heightening the potential for long-term catastrophic damage. The effect of WWII on Pacific islands was probably more pronounced than on larger continental areas, but how severe was it? How much lasting damage was done to Guam as a result of WWII? By land and by sea The fight for Guam occurred over both water and land. To be complete, any discussion of the war-related environmental impacts must consider both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Nearshore ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs and sea grass beds, are inherently different from terrestrial island ecosystems. These differences have profound effects on the resiliency of these ecosystems to withstand, and eventually recover from, environmental damage.

Because many coral reef species have planktonic larvae, this ecosystem has a higher “connectivity” with coral reefs on other islands. Larvae can disperse from one island to another and recolonize damaged areas. In contrast, dispersal of terrestrial plants and animals between islands occurs at a lower rate, making repopulating islands a difficult and slow process. This reduced ability of many terrestrial organisms to disperse over large oceanic 1

distances increases the chances of war causing irreparable damage to terrestrial island ecosystems.

The reduced ability of terrestrial species to disperse between islands also creates another significant difference between insular terrestrial and marine ecosystems. A lower rate of dispersal causes increased genetic isolation, leading, with time, to higher rates of speciation and endemism.

Islands have higher numbers of endemics – species that occur on a single island or archipelago and nowhere else in the world – than comparable areas on continents. While endemism occurs on coral reefs, the rate is often much lower than that observed in the adjacent terrestrial ecosystems.

Direct environmental damage resulting from conflict is expected to be higher on land than in the ocean. Other than the initial amphibious assault, much of the fighting to liberate Guam occurred on land: in the hills, jungles and savannah. In contrast, any environmental damage to the island’s marine ecosystem was intense and focused, but of a relatively short duration when compared to that which occurred on land. This does not account for possible indirect, war-related impacts on the marine environment, such as sediment runoff or the introduction of invasive species, both of which can be extremely destructive.

How does it damage? Let me count the ways Environmental damage from wartime activities can be grouped into three types: Intentional direct destruction refers to instances where the object of the destruction is the natural environment. Prior to the 1960s, actions whose primary purpose was to harm the natural environment appear to be relatively rare. During the Vietnam Conflict, the widespread use of defoliants ushered in a philosophical change in how wars could be fought: war was declared on the environment as much as the enemy.

Incidental destruction is damage to the environment that occurs collaterally during combat. This is the most common form of environmental damage that people associate with war. While not trivial (assuming conventional warfare), this damage seldom has long lasting impacts to an ecosystem, primarily because of the short duration and small spatial extent of the impact. However, on small islands, conflict can potentially encompass the entire ecosystem, increasing the possibility of significant long-term damage.

Indirect destruction is damage resulting from non-combat activities associated with or resulting from war. While probably the most difficult to quantify, this category of war-related damage may be the most serious, particularly on islands.

When nature is the victim While intentional direct damage to the environment has always been a part of human warfare, its widespread practice is predominately a product 2

of “modern” warfare. Intentional damage to the environment in WWII was probably rare and occurred on a small scale.

In the Mariana Islands, the intentional removal of forests and brush was probably done, but little data exists describing the nature or extent of this activity. Dense vegetation provided cover for enemy soldiers, and Americans certainly employed fire as a means of removing vegetation so that enemy positions could be sighted.

Japanese soldiers made extensive use of natural caves, fortifying them to house soldiers, supplies, and equipment. Instead of trying to remove enemy soldiers, American forces routinely cleared or sealed caves using fire, explosives, and bulldozers. Species such as bats, birds, and many insects are reliant on caves for shelter and/or food. War related damage Instead of risking soldier’s lives to remove cave occupants, to caves is believed to have American forces often sealed caves with explosives and bulldozers. been a contributing factor The long-term damage caused by these war-related activities is in the decline and unknown. (Date unknown; Nat Arch 127-N-87296 eventual extinction of the sheath-tailed bat (Embollonura semicaudata) from Guam. Although no documented evidence of negative impacts on Guam’s cave plants and animals exists, these species are sensitive to environmental change, making it likely that negative impacts did occur as a result of combat related activities.

Bombs and tanks and foxholes, oh my!

Incidental damage from combat activities is probably the most obvious form of environmental damage that occurred during WWII and is also the type most readily envisioned by people when considering wartime impacts on the environment.

Many of Guam’s plants and animal were injured or killed during the 13-day naval bombardment prior to the allied assault on July 21, 1944. National Archive photos from the Guam campaign show beaches littered with damaged trees, large bomb craters peppering the uplands, and once forested hillside covered with leafless tree trunks. Prior to the amphibious landing, navy demolition teams cleared nearly 650 reef obstacles from the invasion beaches and blew a 200 foot hole in the reef at Agat for unloading on the coral reef. While not documented, the explosives used for these 3

activities certainly caused significant collateral damage to the reefs and associated animal life; underwater explosions are particular deadly to coral and fish.

During the amphibious assault, landing crafts disgorged troops at the reef edge.

Soldiers slogged through waist deep water, past Japanese reef obstacles and bomb craters to the beaches.

Many bomb craters on the reef flat were deep enough to plunge soldiers into water over their heads. On Guam, this would require a bomb crater at least three to five feet deep! Amphibious Japanese forces deployed boat obstacles on the island’s reef flats crafts drove across reef flats to impede the American amphibious assault. Prior to landing, US carrying men and supplies, Navy divers used explosives to clear over 650 obstacles from the leaving tire tracks visible in invasion beaches. (Date: July 21, 1944; Nat Arch 80-G-394-658) aerial photographs.

Destroyed equipment such as tanks, DUKWs and landing craft, would have leaked oil and other contaminants, but no documentation or other data are available on the quantities or environmental impacts.

On land, combat activities destroyed vegetation. Grenades, mines and explosives shells directly killed plants and wildlife and created craters, which facilitated soil erosion. Vehicles such as tanks crushed trees, shrubs and other vegetation, compacted soils, and caused erosion. Foxholes and defensive trenches removed vegetation. The environmental impact of the wartime use of chemicals, such as fire accelerates from flame throwers, phosphorous, diesel, and oil have never been investigated and are effectively unknown. Many of these chemicals have well-documented, adverse affects on the environment and associated wildlife.

Supply side damage Indirect damage from military action is extremely difficult to document, but may have far-reaching, long-term negative impacts, particularly on islands. The effects of this type of damage may not be noticeable until decades later, making it difficult to trace the origin back to the conflict.

On Guam, some cases of indirect damage can be identified, and their longterm affects have been documented.

The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) was inadvertently introduced by the military via cargo shipments to support American forces. Its popula4

Photo: Isaac Chellman tions grew rapidly in the absence of predators and with the abundance of food. A nocturnal predator proficient at climbing trees, the brown tree snake found easy prey among the Guam’s native birds, bats, and lizards. In the 60 years since its introduction, the brown tree snake has played a significant role in the extinction of nearly a dozen bird species, including the Guam flycatcher (Myiagra freycineti; extinct), The brown tree snake, native to Papua, New Guinea and the Islands, has contributed to the decline and extinction of bridled white eye (Zosterops Solomon Guam’s native birds, reptiles , and bats. conspicillatus; presumed extinct), and rufous fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons; extinct) as well as several native lizards and two of Guam’s three native bat species. We can only speculate about the long-term ecological consequences of these extinctions.

Without these species, important ecological processes (e.g. pollination of native plants) may have been impaired, and may potentially go undetected until it is too late. Much like a soldier who has lost his arms, an ecosystem that has lost key species is incapable of carrying out the basics functions required for its survival.

Following WWII, the military disposed of ammunition by dumping it in the ocean. Within War in the Pacific NHP, thousands of Japanese and American ordnance, estimated at 64 In less than a year after the liberation of Guam, American forces had tons, are scattered across constructed Camp Asan on a section of filled reef. Material obtained from a road cut made for what is now Marine Corps Drive was used the reef near Asan Point. to fill the reef along Asan Beach and make fast land for the military The long-term environmen- facility. In the above photo, all of the white land, approximately 100 tal impacts of these cannon acres, is new land formed from the road cut fill. The original shoreshells, large caliber machine line ran near the position of the road in the photograph. The filled land is now part of War in the Pacific NHP. (Date: June 16, 1945; gun rounds, smaller Nat Arch 80-G-346117)

5

handgun ammunition, and phosphorous grenades are unknown and have never been examined.

WWII era dumps were often built near the ocean and lacked the environmental standards required in modern landfills. As such, dumps on Guam may be responsible for toxic chemicals such as PCBs that were recently discovered in coastal waters adjacent to an old military landfill and resulted in the closure of some of Guam’s coastline to fishing.

To support troops, the US military bulldozed new roads, constructed support facilities, dredged harbors, and widened and lengthened airstrips. A significant acreage of War in the Pacific NHP was formed from fill material placed on the coral reef. All of these support activities have had environmental impacts, but how severe and how long-lasting is difficult to quantify.

In peace, the war escalates War produces many casualties and victims. From the soldiers who fight to the civilians caught in the crossfire, from the homes and schools and churches to the economy and livelihood of people, from the moral fabric of mankind to the biological fabric of the world around us. The engines of war have great potential for damage, especially in this modern era of high-tech militaries and powerful weaponry.

As a result of scale, the effect of war on island ecosystems is certainly more pronounced than on continental ones. Whereas combat on the European and the Asian continents probably had limited long-term environmental impacts, war-related damage on fragile island ecosystems such as Guam certainly had more profound and long lasting effects. Even so, many people find it astonishing that the most damaging impacts to the natural environment do not occur during war, but during peace.

Undeniably, WWII changed the face of Guam and its people, but peacetime activities have destroyed more forests, grasslands and coral reefs than any actions committed by American and Japanese forces. For every foxhole or bomb crater, there have been acres of critical forest removed to make room for hotels and homes, nudging Guam’s beautiful native birds toward extinction. For every brown tree snake introduced by the military, untold numbers of plants and animals have been intentionally brought to Guam to landscape island gardens, fill fish ponds, or provide game to hunt.

Peacetime road building, pollution and runoff have killed more miles of Guam reef than bombs or landing crafts or military bulldozers. Fires set by local people to aid hunting have destroy native limestone forests; unmanaged hunting for food has help two native bat species toward extinction; and fisheries have been exploited to a point from which they may not recover. It could be argued that war on the environment abates when war among men begins.

6

Wide, shallow fringing reefs surrounding Guam necessitated that men and equipment, dropped at the reef edge, walk or drive across regions of live coral and sea grass. Tracks from DUKYs, tanks, trucks, and other military vehicles are still apparent in this aerial photograph taken over 8 months after D-day. (Date: March 25, 1945; Nat Arch 80-G-394658

ArizoNA MeMoriAl MuseuM AssoCiATioN Press PeArl HArbor, HAWAii Š2005