Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

FONSI – i 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Unincorporated U.S. Territory, Central Pacific Ocean 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge). The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years. The CCP and 

EA describe the Service’s preferred alternative for managing the Refuge and its effects on the 

human environment. 

Decision 

Following comprehensive review and analysis, the Service selected Alternative B in the draft EA 

for implementation because it is the alternative that best meets the following criteria: 

 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 Achieves the purposes of the Refuge. 

 Will be able to achieve the vision and goals for the Refuge. 

 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and plant and animal populations 

at the Refuge. 

 Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process. 

 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge. 

 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management. 

 Can be implemented within the projected fiscal and logistical management constraints 

associated with the Refuge’s remote location. 

As described in detail in the CCP and EA, implementing the selected alternative will have no 

significant impacts on any of the natural or cultural resources identified in the CCP and EA. 

Public Review

The planning process incorporated a variety of public involvement techniques in developing and 

reviewing the CCP. This included three planning updates, meetings with partners, and public 

review and comment on the planning documents. The details of the Service’s public 

involvement program are described in the CCP. 

Conclusions 

Based on review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have 

determined that implementing Alternative B as the CCP for management of Baker Island 

National Wildlife Refuge is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality 

of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2) (C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the Service is not required to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are on file at the Pacific 

Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Room 5-211, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 96850 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning and Visitor 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

i 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................1-1 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................1-1 

National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................................1-1 

National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific .....................................................................................1-4 

Refuge Establishment, Purpose and Boundary............................................................................1-6 

Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans............................................................................1-11 

Refuge Vision Statement ...........................................................................................................1-12 

Refuge Goals..............................................................................................................................1-13 

CHAPTER 2: PLANNING PROCESS, PURPOSE AND NEED, AND ISSUES 

Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................2-1 

Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................2-1 

Planning Issues and Opportunities............................................................................................... 2-2 

CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Overview......................................................................................................................................3-1 

Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ...............................................................................3-4 

CHAPTER 4: REFUGE AND RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 

 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .................................................................................................... 4-1 

Climate.........................................................................................................................................4-1 

Global Climate Change................................................................................................................4-3 

Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................4-7 

Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................4-9 

Air and Water Quality..................................................................................................................4-9 

Environmental Contaminants.......................................................................................................4-9 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats ........................................................................................... 4-10 

Terrestrial Wildlife.....................................................................................................................4-11 

Marine Habitats, Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................ 4-12 

Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 4-17 

Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................4-17 

Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................................4-17 

Archaeology and Paleontology.................................................................................................. 4-18 

Recent Cultural History .............................................................................................................4-19 

Socio-economics........................................................................................................................4-21 

 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

Appendix B. Species Lists 

Appendix C. References 

Appendix D. Planning Team Members 

Appendix E. Quarantine Protocol 

Appendix F. Wilderness Review 

Appendix G. Statement of Compliance 

Appendix H. Plan Implementation and Costs 

Appendix I. Consultation and Coordination 

Appendix J. Responses to Comments 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific................................................ 1-5

Figure 1.2 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary... 1-8 

 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-1 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 

 

Introduction 

This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 

(Baker). The CCP guides management of refuge operations, site visitation, and habitat 

restoration for the 15-year life of the plan. Guidance within the CCP is in the form of goals, 

objectives, strategies (Chapter 3), and wilderness study findings (Appendix F). The CCP was 

revised as appropriate based upon public comments. The refuge manager of the Pacific Remote 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Remotes Complex) in Honolulu, Hawaii, is 

responsible for implementing the CCP. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Baker is managed by the Service, within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Service is the 

primary Federal entity responsible for conserving and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other 

Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust resource 

responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain anadromous fish, 

certain marine mammals, coral reef ecosystems, wetlands, and other special aquatic habitats. 

The Service also has similar trust responsibilities for the lands and waters it administers to 

support the conservation and enhancement of all fish and wildlife and their associated habitats. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

President Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island, Florida as the first national wildlife 

refuge in 1903. Since that time, the number of refuges has expanded to include 548, totaling 

approximately100 million acres. These refuges, found in every state and several U.S. Territories, 

are administered collectively as a national system of lands with the specific mandate of 

managing for “wildlife first.” This System is the largest collection of lands specifically managed 

for fish and wildlife conservation in the Nation and perhaps the world. The “wildlife first” 

mandate of the System means the needs of wildlife and their habitats take priority on refuges, in 

contrast to other public lands that are managed for multiple uses. The following is a description 

of some of the most relevant acts and policies that guide the management of the System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

The NWRS Administration Act defines a unifying mission for all refuges, including a process 

for determining compatible uses on refuges, and requiring that each refuge be managed 

according to a CCP. The NWRS Administration Act expressly states that wildlife conservation 

is the priority of System lands and that the Secretary shall ensure that the biological integrity, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-2 Chapter 1 - Introduction

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must be 

managed to fulfill the specific purposes for which the refuge was established and the System 

mission. The first priority of each refuge is to conserve, manage, and if needed, restore fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats according to its purpose. The Service has statutory authority 

under the NWRS Administration Act to regulate activities that occur on water bodies “within” a 

refuge. The NWRS Administration Act requires a CCP be completed for each refuge and that 

the public has an opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is 

Service policy that each CCP is developed in an open public process. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Purposes (601 FW1) 

In July 2006, the Service issued a policy (601 FW 1) which included the NWRS mission 

statement and NWRS goals, and described how refuge purposes are determined. 

 

The NWRS Administration Act established the following statutory mission for the System: 

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans.” 

The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals 

(601 FW 1, July 2006)....” 

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that are strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges. 

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

Lastly, the NWRS Administration Act describes refuge purposes, and how these guiding 

principals for the refuge are located and documented. 

Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW1) 

This policy (603 FW 1), published in July 2006, provides a national framework for determining 

appropriate refuge uses. Serving as a “prescreening” for proposed uses of a national wildlife 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-3 

refuge prior to a compatibility determination (see below); this policy requires—for most uses—a 

written finding of appropriateness by the refuge manager based on 11 criteria. Findings of 

appropriateness require concurrence by the State for refuges located within state boundaries. 

These criteria include: 

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and responsible behavior. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife populations or habitat goals or 

objectives in a plan approved after 1997. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Compatibility (603 FW2) 

Lands within the System are different from other, multiple-use public lands in that, with few 

exceptions, they are closed to all public access and use unless specifically and legally opened 

(603 FW 2). No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A 

compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, would not 

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Service or the 

purpose of the refuge. The NWRS Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. When compatible, these six uses become priority uses of the System. As 

priority public uses, they receive special consideration over other general public uses in refuge 

planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (601 FW3) 

The NWRS Administration Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” This policy (601 FW 3) is an additional directive for refuge 

managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and System mission. It provides for the 

consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat 

resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate 

management direction for refuges, refuge managers would use sound professional judgment to 

determine their refuges’ contribution to maintenance and, where possible, restoration of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) at multiple landscape scales. 

Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, 

refuge functions within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including 

consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-4 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Wilderness (602 FW 3) 

Service planning policy (602 FW 3) requires the conduct of a wilderness review in association 

with the development of a refuge CCP. The wilderness review process has three phases: 

inventory, study, and recommendation. After first identifying lands and waters that meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness during the inventory phase, the resulting wilderness study areas 

are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation from the Service to the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. A more complete discussion of wilderness inventory, study, and recommendation is 

included in Appendix F. 

General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (605 FW1) 

This set of policies (605 FW 1-7), published in July 2006, defines the System’s wildlifedependent recreation policy, provides guidelines used to manage wildlife-dependent recreation 

on refuge lands and identifies visitor service standards. 

National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific 

Nineteen individual NWRs are scattered across the central and western Pacific Ocean, with 

several refuges located on the main Hawaiian Islands and others found from Guam to American 

Samoa (Figure 1.1). The Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex, which provides 

administrative guidance and oversight for these 19 refuges, is located in Honolulu, Hawaii. This 

Complex also co-manages the newly established Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument, along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State of 

Hawaii. 

Within this administrative structure is a subset of seven refuges known as the Remotes Complex. 

The Remotes Complex straddles the Equator near the center of the Pacific Ocean. They are 

farther from human population centers than any other U.S. area and represent one of the last 

frontiers and havens for fish and wildlife in the World. These remote refuges are the most 

widespread collection of coral reef and seabird/shorebird protected areas on the planet under a 

single country’s jurisdiction. Only one of these seven refuges, Palmyra Atoll NWR, has onisland dedicated staff members. Remotes Complex staff, located within the complex office in 

Honolulu, manage all the remaining refuges, including Baker. Staff, funding, and logistical 

support are often shared among these remote refuges to help defray operational costs. 

The Baker CCP identifies several management strategies that are dependent upon activities and 

staff support from the Remotes Complex office, ship transportation support from other Federal 

agencies, or the establishment of partnerships with other organizations. Because of the great 

distances involved in traveling to these remote refuges, most management activities, including 

the simple act of visiting a refuge, are sometimes planned to occur concurrently during the same 

voyage. For this reason, cost estimates for management activities at Baker are pro-rated amongst 

the seven Remotes Complex refuges. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-5 

Figure 1.1 Map of National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-6 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary 

Refuge Establishment 

Baker Island is an unincorporated territory under the sovereignty of the United States. The 

Secretary of the Interior has broad authority over the territories of the United States by virtue of 

the Act of March 1, 1873, (43 U.S.C. 1458) which transferred general authority “...to perform all 

duties in relation to the Territories of the United States...” from the Secretary of State to the 

Secretary of the Interior. In addition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 

7368 on May 13, 1936, also placing control and jurisdiction of Baker Island with the Secretary of 

the Interior. Further, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, the Secretary 

of the Interior is authorized under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 to re-delegate to any 

officer or agency within the Department of the Interior any of the functions legally under his 

jurisdiction. 

Under the authority of Reorganization Plan No. 3, the Secretary of the Interior, on June 27, 1974, 

designated Baker Island and its territorial sea extending to the 3 nautical mile (nmi) limit as a 

unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be “administered under the general regulations 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System published in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations”(39 

FR 27930). Section 25.21 of these regulations state that “...all areas included in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public access until and unless we open the area for a use or 

uses in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) and this 

subchapter C.” Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge remains closed to public access. 

Refuge Purpose 

Refuge purposes are often times are based upon land acquisition documents and authorities. 

These statements give indications for the biological reason or justification for the acquisition or 

land transfer. Purposes listed in acquisition authorities, or legislative acts, are often general in 

scope. For Baker, this general purpose is: 

“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources...” (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)), and “...for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 

(16 U.S.C. 742f (b) (1)) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

Acquisition documents often contain more specific purpose statements. The specific purpose 

statement for establishment of Baker identified in the biological ascertainment report at the time 

of transfer to the Service is (USFWS 1973): 

“...the restoration and preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. 

Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to reestablish themselves on 

Baker so eventually they would eventually reach the great numbers which were present there 

prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-7 

Refuge Boundary 

Baker is located in the central equatorial Pacific Ocean (Figure 1.2). The boundary for Baker 

includes: 

“...all of Baker island...together with its territorial sea extending outward to the three-mile 

limit.” (39 F R 27930). 

The emergent land area for Baker encompasses 531 acres and submerged lands and waters 

within the 3-mile limit encompass 31,378 acres, for a total of 31,909 acres. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-8 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Figure 1.2 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-11 

Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans 

Regional and ecosystem conservation plans and initiatives are also important to evaluate and 

incorporate into developing each CCP. These plans typically address issues or concerns that are 

site specific or of regional concern, and address needs more current than when the refuge was 

established. 

Remote Islands Ecosystem Plan: Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuges 

The ecosystem plan for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis identifies Baker as “...a model of both the 

sensitivity of insular ecosystems and mechanisms by which they can recover following 

disturbance” (USFWS 1998b). The plan further describes the refuge as being important to 

nesting seabirds due to the fact that other nearby islands have introduced mammals or human 

colonists present, thereby precluding survival of some vulnerable seabird species. 

Coral Reef Initiative in the Pacific: Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island 

National Wildlife Refuges 

 

The Coral Reef Initiative for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis restates the wildlife and ecological 

values identified in the ecosystem plan (USFWS 1998a). This document identifies three 

important components of the three ecosystems: “They provide a breeding platform for pelagic 

birds using large areas of ocean surface, offer a migratory stopover for long distance migrating 

shorebirds, and furnish reef habitat for shallow water organisms.” 

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) 

Although theoretically within the range for hawksbill turtle, little is known about their biology, 

foraging and nesting behavior, threats, and distribution surrounding Baker Island (NMFS and 

USFWS 1998a). Both the NOAA – National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service 

share responsibility at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific 

marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Celonia mydas) 

Few green turtles are known to forage in the waters surrounding Baker Island and nesting is not 

known to occur. However, data from the area are limited and use of Baker may be greater than 

currently documented (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). Both NMFS and the Service share 

responsibility at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific marine 

turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-12 Chapter 1 - Introduction

U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan 

This regional shorebird plan identifies Baker as being within the Central Pacific Islands 

Subregion (Engilis and Naughton 2004). No natural wetlands are known from this subregion; 

however, not only the beaches on uninhabited islands are important for shorebirds, but the entire 

island. Population and habitat goals for this subregion state that determining population size and 

trends for bristle-thighed curlews and other shorebirds, and their habitats is a management 

priority. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

This nationwide shorebird plan identifies the U.S. Pacific islands being of “...critical importance 

for two species of Holartic breeders, bristle-thighed curlew and Pacific golden-plover.” (Brown 

et al. 2000). Further, this plan notes that these islands provide wintering habitat essential to the 

maintenance of these species as well as several other migratory shorebird species. 

Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region 

This plan provides an overarching review, discussion, and identification of conservation 

priorities for seabirds in the U.S Pacific islands; ranks seabirds for conservation priority; and 

includes specific species accounts including their conservation needs (USFWS 2005). 

Central Pacific World Heritage Project 

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) organized and 

convened meetings in Honolulu in June 2003, and Kiritimati Atoll in October 2004, to seek input 

for a proposed multi-national World Heritage project now referred to as the Central Pacific 

World Heritage Project (CPWHP) (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2003; 2004). Additional 

meetings and evaluations in the U.S. and Republic of Kiribati resulted in a total of 29 atolls, 

islands, and reefs belonging to four nations (United States, Cook Islands, Republic of Kiribati, 

and French Polynesia) being proposed for the multi-site, multi-jurisdictional CPWHP. To date, 

the Service has not acted on this proposal, but intends to do so in the future. However, the 

Republic of Kiribati is drafting a World Heritage Nomination dossier for all eight Phoenix 

Islands under its jurisdiction to be submitted to UNESCO in early 2009. These islands are 

Baker’s and Howland’s closest neighbors. 

Regional and ecosystem conservation plans and initiatives are also important to evaluate and 

incorporate into developing each CCP. These plans typically address issues or concerns that are 

site specific or of regional concern, and address needs more current than when the refuge was 

established. 

Refuge Vision Statement 

The refuge vision statement is a broad general statement that describes what the refuge staff 

perceives as Baker’s fundamental attributes and contributions to a healthy world environment. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-13 

This statement will guide management activities for the lifespan of this plan, as well into the near 

future. The vision statement for Baker is as follows. 

 

Baker is one of the only places in the world where the terrestrial and marine tropical island 

ecosystems have been restored, conserved, and protected. Although signs of past human 

activities are still visible on the landscape, the island now offers the opportunity to serve as a 

living laboratory for measuring past human impacts and the ability of nature to recover. 

Natural, physical, and ecological processes unfold with limited human interference and 

support a diverse community of native marine organisms including seabirds, marine 

mammals, turtles, fish, plants, corals, and other invertebrates. Nesting and foraging seabirds 

dominate the landscape and seascape while sheer isolation and solitude help us see our 

place in the natural world. 

 

Refuge Goals 

Goal statements are succinct statements of a desired future condition of refuge resources. Goals 

comprise the whole of a refuge’s effort in pursuit of its vision and lay the foundation from which 

all refuge activities arise. The goals for Baker are as follows, and will again be presented along 

with objectives and strategies in Chapter 3. 

1. Conserve, restore, manage, and protect native terrestrial habitats that are representative of 

remote tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit of seabirds. 

2. Conserve, manage, and protect native marine communities that are representative of 

remote tropical Pacific islands. 

3. Contribute to the recovery, protection, and management efforts for all native species with 

special consideration for seabirds, migratory shorebirds, federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, and species of management concern. 

4. Restore the wilderness character of Baker’s terrestrial community, and protect, maintain, 

enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of Baker’s marine community. 

5. Preserve Baker’s biological, cultural and historic resources. 

6. Inform and educate the public to increase their understanding of remote Pacific island 

NWRs wilderness values, cultural and historical resources, and their ecosystems, with 

special emphasis on seabirds. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-14 Chapter 1 - Introduction
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Planning, Purpose and Need, and Issues 2-1 

Chapter 2: PLANNING, PURPOSE AND NEED, AND ISSUES 

 

Planning Process 

The CCP development process follows applicable policies contained within the Service’s Fish 

and Wildlife Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, November 1996; Part 601 FW1, Part 603 FW1, and Part 

605 FW1, June 2006), and the Wilderness Act of 1964 with respect to wilderness study and 

review. This CCP was completed in association with an EA and is intended to meet the dual 

requirements of compliance with the NWRS Administration Act and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). Both the NWRS Administration Act and NEPA require the Service to 

actively seek public involvement in the preparation and adoption of environmental and 

conservation documents and policies. Furthermore, NEPA also requires the Service to consider 

a reasonable range of alternatives including its Preferred Alternative and the “No Action” 

alternative; the latter defined as continuation of current management practices. 

Purpose and Need 

Overall, all refuges must comply with the System mission, goals, and policies, as described in or 

promulgated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRS 

Administration Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 amended the NWRS Administration Act. According to the 

NWRS Administration Act, a CCP is required to identify and describe refuge purpose(s), 

habitats and wildlife, archaeological and cultural values, administrative and visitor facilities, 

management challenges and their solutions, and opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation. The recreational activities referenced in the NWRS Administration Act as receiving 

special consideration during planning efforts include hunting, recreational fishing, wildlife 

observation, interpretation, environmental education, and photography. 

The purpose of this CCP is to develop a vision, goals, and objectives for Baker, which in turn 

provide guidance to identify and implement management activities, or strategies, during the next 

15 years. Specifically, the CCP: 

• sets a long term vision; 

• establishes wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives; 

• establishes goals and objectives for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and 

educational uses; 

• identifies strategies for habitat enhancement and restoration projects; 

• describes the highest monitoring and research priorities; and 

• describes and evaluates wilderness values. 

Baker and its management and administrative activities are managed as part of the NWRS or 

System within a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines. The refuge is guided by the 

mission and goals of the NWRS, the purpose of the refuge as described in its acquisition 

authority, Service policy, Federal laws and executive orders, and international treaties. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-2 Chapter 2 – Planning, Purpose and Needs, and Issues 

Supplemental guidance documents (e.g., resource plans) are also included in making 

management decisions but cannot replace or be in conflict with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established or the mission of the System 

Planning Issues and Opportunities 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions with key contacts, 

workshop participants, core team members, other refuge staff, and through the public scoping 

process. The following section summarizes issues, concerns, and opportunities from all public 

input received throughout the planning efforts. Six issues were identified and are described 

below. 

Issue 1: Operational Limitations 

Baker is located approximately 1,690 nmi from the management staff located in Honolulu, 

Hawaii. On average, it takes 6-7 days to reach Baker by ship, the only method of visiting the 

island. The key issues and concerns affecting planning and management implementation are: 

• distance from refuge headquarters; 

• lack of affordable and reliable transportation; 

• lack of infrastructure to support field operations; 

• extreme environmental conditions; and 

• safety concerns and logistical capacity to land people and equipment on island from 

small boats. 

Issue 2: Biological and Ecological Resources 

Biological and ecological information sufficient for management or conservation purposes is 

lacking. Due to the infrequency and limited staff time spent on Baker, biological and ecological 

information is not sufficient to allow for a detailed assessment of resources. The collection of 

baseline and long-term monitoring information should be a primary concern and the focus of 

management objectives. 

Issue 3: External Forces 

The threat of the introduction of invasive species from unauthorized visits, marine debris 

washing ashore and onto coral reefs, and vessel groundings are beyond current management 

control. Distance, lack of funds and staff, and the inability to have a more consistent presence on 

this refuge opens the opportunity for invasive species introductions, limits the ability to remove 

marine debris, and delays in the response to vessel groundings. 

While it is known that past human use of the island has led to contaminants and debris being left 

on the island and in the surrounding surf, the extent and impact of the contamination and debris 

are largely unknown. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2 – Planning, Purpose and Need, and Issues 2-3 

Global climate change (see Chapter 4) may also affect refuge resources, but is beyond control of 

refuge management staff. It is anticipated that changes in the chemical composition of the 

atmosphere and oceans; surface temperatures of air, land, and sea; intensity and frequency of 

rainfall and storm waves; and changes in sea level would have impacts on refuge resources. 

However, the extent and nature of these impacts is being studied and the subject of considerable 

academic debate. 

Issue 4: Public Use Resources 

The key issues related to public use are: 

• adverse ecological impacts (invasive species introductions, pollution, fuel spills, trash 

disposal, harassment of wildlife, damage to sensitive habitats such as coral reefs); 

• whether any on-site public use should be allowed; 

• to what extent the use should occur; and 

• how the use should be managed. 

Baker Island Refuge has never been formally opened to public access and use. Administratively, 

public access to Baker is managed through use of a refuge-issued Special Use Permits (SUP). 

Several recreational user groups such as amateur radio operators, bird watchers, history 

enthusiasts, destination tourists, and commercial cruise vessels have expressed interest in visiting 

various remote Pacific island refuges. However, before a SUP could be issued, a request for 

public access would need to be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility. 

Issue 5: Education and Outreach

In general, Pacific island refuges are poorly recognized by the public and our partner agencies. 

There are few entrance signs, no boundary signs, and little published information in popular 

literature. Refuge boundaries are rarely portrayed on nautical charts and other maps. 

The remote location and isolation of Baker and other Pacific island refuges make it difficult to 

conduct on-site visits for educational or interpretative purposes. Thus, most educational and 

interpretative opportunities are necessarily delivered remotely through various media. 

In addition, general interest by the public and requests to visit remote Pacific island refuges by a 

growing recreational yachting community has increased recently. This interest requires the 

public to be better informed regarding sensitive refuge habitats, species, and regulations. 

Issue 6: Communication and Cooperation 

 

Baker’s remoteness compels a growing list of partners and cooperators to be kept informed of 

and included in planning and management activities at Baker. Activities that staff and partner 

agencies/organizations share include: 

• expedition planning; 

• collaborative research projects; and 

• protection of trust resources. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-4 Chapter 2 – Planning, Purpose and Needs, and Issues 

Most access for refuge staff to Baker has only been possible through the cooperation and 

participation with partner agencies such as NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Many research 

interests are shared between Service and NOAA scientists, and collaborative research projects 

have been conducted in the past. Additionally, NOAA and the Service share trust resource 

responsibilities for marine turtles. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-1 

Chapter 3: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

 

Overview 

The Service reviewed and considered a variety of resource, logistic, social, and economic aspects 

important for managing the refuge when developing this long-term management plan. As is 

appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource conditions were fundamental in designing the 

CCP. Marine and terrestrial resources are equally important to the management of Baker, and 

are described more fully in Chapter 4. However, the logistics of reaching the island and 

associated coral reefs is the primary constraint on increasing or modifying the level of 

management and monitoring activity that has or currently occurs. To more fully understand this 

constraint, a description of the logistical requirements and refuge management activities follows. 

Marine vessels capable of traveling the open ocean for extended periods are the only opportunity 

for transportation to Baker. In the recent years, NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and private 

charter vessels have all provided transportation. A typical voyage originating from Honolulu, 

Hawaii will take approximately 6 to 7 days to arrive at Baker, possibly with intermediate stops at 

Palmyra Atoll or Johnston Atoll NWRs to economize on fuel and personnel costs. Once on-site, 

and if wind and wave conditions warrant the launch of a landing vessel (typically a small 

outboard type inflatable boat), the marine vessel will anchor or remain stationary during the 

deployment of the field camp, only venturing away from the island to complete marine surveys. 

The field camp itself generally consists of two individuals, typically biologists to carry out 

biological surveys and other duties, and camping gear consisting of tents, sleeping equipment, 

food, water, and needed survey equipment. Cooking gear is rarely deployed since staff is only 

on-island for 1 to 2 days with most of that time being engaged in work activities. 

 

While on-island, the biologists document all bird species present, count individuals, determine if 

any and the extent of nesting, casually observe vegetation and record species presence or 

absence, or the presence of any invasive species, inspect boundary signs, inventory for the 

presence of invasive species, visit cultural resources, monitor and investigate contaminated sites, 

and collect and destroy of bird entrapments caused by rusting drums and other debris. The only 

active management that occurs during these site visits is: the collection and on-island stockpile of 

marine debris that washes ashore and poses a threat to seabirds and other wildlife that use Baker; 

the use of solar powered electronic calling devices to encourage additional seabird species to 

nest; and the development of funding proposals for island transportation and contamination 

monitoring and remediation. Any evidence of illegal activity such as unauthorized access is also 

documented. Photographs record general habitat conditions; however, further habitat assessment 

does not occur. Although no specific activities occur with respect to wilderness values, the 

simple fact that a 1 to 2 day field camp consisting of temporary lodging arrangements and 

minimal activity is consistent with maintaining the wilderness values of the area. 

During the period that the biologists are on Baker, marine scientists from NOAA, the Service, 

and other partner organizations such as the University of Hawaii conduct surveys and monitoring 

activities of the surrounding marine environment. Some monitoring activities occur on-board the 

vessel, while others require the use of SCUBA equipment. All of the marine scientists, however, 

are based on the vessel awaiting the conclusion of terrestrial surveys or accomplishing marine 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-2 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

surveys and thus do not come ashore. Marine scientists typically collect information on currents, 

weather, temperature, chemical composition of the water, and the abundance and distribution of 

coral and fish species. Specific marine-based surveys known as Rapid Ecological Assessments 

(REA) are conducted and collect ecological data such as fish species, abundance, and predator 

prey relationships. Data are also collected from permanently marked coral transects which 

document coral species, age class, and percent coral cover. These data are collected over a 2-day 

period (six 1-hour dives). Following the voyage, data from marine scientists are provided to the 

Service and includes a full range of oceanographic, bathymetric, and marine biological 

information. 

Specific details of the management program are categorized below: 

• Baseline Monitoring of Wildlife Populations and Habitats. Staff visits to Baker result in 

inventory and monitoring efforts, documenting species presence or absence, abundance, 

habitat condition, presence of invasive species and various other physical variables such 

as temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. 

• Voyage Preparation. The logistics of providing adequate field camp supplies such as 

water, food, first aid, and communications occurs for each voyage. 

• Use of extraneous unnatural lighting. Limiting and shading the lighting on vessels, 

camp, and nighttime operations minimizes the threat of collision and disorientation of 

wildlife that can be caused by light hazards.

• Quarantine protocols and use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Visitors to Baker 

are required to wear new and frozen clothing and other quarantine precautions as outlined 

in quarantine protocols (Appendix E). The hand pulling of weeds occurs as time 

becomes available. Selective hand spray application of herbicides or pesticides, where 

appropriate, may occur. 

• Scientific Information Exchange. Refuge staff currently attends various professional 

meetings and conferences related to Pacific island and marine resources. Additionally, a 

minimal amount of staff time is devoted to the development of peer reviewed journal 

articles and contributing to NOAA and Service-sponsored Web sites. 

• Preservation of Wilderness Values. Since its establishment, Baker has been managed to 

preserve its wilderness values and characteristics even though it has never been proposed 

for wilderness designation. These values are intrinsic at this remote, uninhabited island 

and coral reef ecosystem. Management activities do not impinge on these values.

• Public Access. Since establishment, Baker has never been formally opened to public 

access and use. Access and public use remains closed. All individual opportunities for 

compatible use such as specific research projects are administered using individual SUPs. 

• Interpretation, Education, and Outreach. Current opportunities for off-site education 

exist at the Maritime Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. A hands-on exhibit representing a 

Pacific island refuge is maintained to educate school-aged students about seabirds, 

invasive species, marine debris, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). 

Interpretative displays are also used periodically at conventions and professional 

meetings. 

• Protection and Preservation of Cultural Resources. Cultural resources remain intact and 

in situ. Field camps are situated to avoid impacts to cultural resource sites. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-3 

Archaeological reconnaissance to avoid impacts to cultural resources is required prior to 

management activity that would potentially disturb surface or subsurface resources. 

• Waste Disposal at Sea. Disposal of waste in refuge waters is prohibited. 

• Waste Disposal on Island. All waste from food products, equipment, and containers that 

is brought onto the island is removed during demobilization. Depending upon the 

duration of the site visit, human excrement will be either bagged, stored in a chemical 

toilet, or decomposed using portable biodegradable toilets, all of which are subsequently 

removed during field camp demobilization. 

• Refuge Boundary. There are no proposed changes to the refuge boundary. 

• Baseline Contaminant Monitoring. Refuge staff conduct baseline observations of known 

contaminated sites and record changes in condition since last site visit. 

• Cultural Resources Inventory. Presence and condition of cultural resources on Baker is 

re-evaluated. 

• Wilderness Study Area. A recommendation for Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

designation is postponed until a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) and 

wilderness proposal are developed for all other remote Pacific island national wildlife 

refuges (NWRs) as part of their CCP processes. 

• Marine ecosystem monitoring. Funding requests are required for additional exploration 

of deep slope resources by a ship equipped with a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) or 

manned submersible to operate at depths between 150 -3,000 feet. 

• Seabird Nesting Restoration. Electronic calling devices are deployed and used as seabird 

nesting attraction stimuli designed to encourage nesting by Phoenix petrels (Pterodroma 

alba) and Polynesian storm petrels (Nesofregetta fuliginosa). These electronic call 

devices consist of solar powered speakers broadcasting calls of both species in suitable 

areas of the island. Both of these small ground-nesting Procellariforms are severely 

depleted or extirpated throughout much of their range. The absence of cats and rats at 

Baker Island makes it an ideal site within the species’ original range to restore a breeding 

population of each of these petrel species.

• Contaminant Investigation Proposal. Refuge staff work cooperatively with Regional 

Office staff to develop funding and operational proposals to quantify contaminant 

concerns on Baker in preparation for remediation activities. 

Once field operations are complete, or the weather becomes increasingly inclement, the field 

camp is demobilized and all equipment and personnel are transported back to the research vessel. 

Typically, the other two equatorial refuges (Howland and Jarvis) are also visited in this same 

manner. Travel time between Howland and Baker is 5 hours, and Baker and Jarvis is 4-5 days. 

Once the three surveys are completed, or at least attempted, the voyage continues with 

approximately 6 to 7 days to travel back to Honolulu, possibly with intermediate stops at 

Palmyra Atoll or Johnston Island NWRs, or continuing on for 4 days to Rose Atoll NWR and 

American Samoa where voyage scientists and biologists can be exchanged and then fly back to 

Honolulu. In total, it is expected that in order to visit Baker, Howland, and Jarvis, for 1 to 2 days 

per refuge, a biologist or marine scientist needs to devote 20 to 26 days total travel. Trip reports 

are completed, distributed, and filed once field staff return to the Honolulu office. 

The only difference between the management condition prior to the completion of the CCP, and 

the actions described in this CCP is an increase in the frequency of staff visits from once every 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-4 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

two years to once every year. In order to meet the increase in the number of site visits, refuge 

staff in Honolulu is administratively burdened to seek additional funding sources and develop 

partnerships for additional visits. This may take the form of producing internal project proposals 

(RONS), or seeking funding support through grants or partnerships with other agencies, research 

institutions, and non-government organizations. Overall, wildlife and habitat management 

activities remain consistent. The only additional terrestrial management activity is promoting 

nesting use by seabird species with the use of solar powered electronic calling devices. 

Polynesian storm-petrels calls would be placed near the coral slab habitat on the north beach 

crest. Increased monitoring in the marine environment depends upon partnership opportunities 

developed with NOAA, the University of Hawaii, or other partners. At a minimum, marine 

scientists would resurvey REAs and other transects. Transportation to and from the island relies 

upon NOAA or other partners. Public use and access remains closed. 

 

The ability of the Service to meet the mission of the System, “...to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.”; and the refuge purpose of “...the restoration and 

preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Special consideration must be 

given to the protection of nesting seabird populations.” is limited. A one to two day visit to the 

island once every year does not provide the opportunity for refuge staff to complete anything 

other than basic biological surveys of species presence or absence. Restoration, preservation, or 

protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, or nesting seabirds is not possible. However, 

lack of projected budget and staffing preclude management staff from increasing management 

activity beyond what is described in this CCP. If, during the lifetime of this plan, budget and 

staffing become available to pursue an increased level of management activity then the CCP will 

be reevaluated. 

Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify 

and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and 

the Refuge System Mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision 

broadly reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory 

requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support 

of the vision, followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps 

toward achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to 

accomplish objectives. 

 

The goals for Baker over the next 15 years under the CCP are presented on the following pages. 

Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. The goal order does not imply 

any priority in this CCP. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed 

in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. Following 

the goals, objectives, and strategies is a brief rationale intended to provide further background 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-5 

information pertaining to importance of an objective relative to legal mandates for managing 

units of the System including refuge purpose, trust resource responsibilities (federally listed 

threatened and endangered species and migratory birds), and maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Goal 1: Conserve, restore, manage, and protect native terrestrial habitats that 

are representative of remote tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit 

of seabirds. 

Objective 1a: Conserve, manage, and protect habitat for nesting seabirds. 

Upon CCP approval and throughout the life of the CCP, conserve, manage, and protect a 

mosaic of approximately 531 acres of terrestrial habitat consisting of 31 acres of beach and 

beach strand, 300 acres as short grass and forbs, and 200 acres as bare ground on Baker Island 

as nesting habitat for 11 seabird species. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Conduct and record incidental observations of invasive species. 

Adhere to strict quarantine protocols for all island visitors (see Appendix E). 

Monitor contaminated areas. Remove entrapment hazards due to marine and other human 

debris not considered to be historically important. 

Rationale: 

The 11 nesting seabird species on Baker use all island habitats (see Chapter 3.9.1 and 

Appendix B). Masked and brown boobies prefer to nest on bare, open ground. Gray-backed, 

sooty, and white tern; and brown and blue-grey noddy also nest on the surface, but are tolerant 

of vegetated areas. Lesser frigatebirds, typically known as a shrub nesting species, are found 

exclusively on the ground at Baker. Red-tailed tropicbirds prefer shaded areas and can be 

found nesting on the surface, under coral slabs, or in shrubs. Red-footed booby and great 

frigatebird are the only two exclusive shrub nesting species. However, due to the few shrubs 

on Baker, red-footed boobies have been seen to nest on the ground. 

The Seabird Conservation Plan – Pacific Region (USFWS 2005) recognizes remote Pacific 

islands as providing important and varied breeding habitat, specifically Baker as being 

important for ground nesting species. Additionally, the plan recognizes that near-shore waters 

provide areas of upwelling currents with important food resources for seabirds. 

Maintaining the island free of mammalian predators, invasive insects, and invasive plants is 

critical for seabird survival (USFWS 2005). Strict quarantine protocols have been previously 

established for all island visitors in order to eliminate the threat of introducing invasive plants, 

insects, and animals (see Appendix E). 

Marine and other human generated debris poses an entrapment and entanglement threat for 

multiple wildlife species. Destruction of rusting drums and stockpiling debris can reduce the 

overall area impacted, thereby reducing the threat. 

 

Objective 1b: Increase baseline information on terrestrial habitat. 

Within 15 years of the CCP approval, conduct monitoring to determine vegetation species 

presence/absence and distribution on Baker Island. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-6 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Document presence/absence of island vegetation. 

Coordinate with Regional Office GIS staff to assess and/or develop remote sensing capability 

to map and monitor island habitats. 

Rationale: 

In general, insufficient time has been spent on Baker to adequately quantify the habitat, and 

how this habitat relates to seabird biology. Collection of baseline biological information is 

essential to adequately understand and manage the refuge. Although it is known that the 11 

nesting seabird species use all habitats on Baker, this information has only been obtained from 

the short duration, infrequent visits (1 to 2 days every 2 years) to the island. There has been no 

quantitative assessment of breeding species habitat associations. The distribution and 

delineation of habitats itself has been estimated, but never been quantified. Remotely 

collected data may provide an option for data collection in the absence of being capable of 

visiting Baker. 

Objective 1c: Survey and monitor refuge to document contamination. 

Within 10 years of the CCP approval, monitor approximately 100 acres of known 

contamination and survey remainder of island to determine if contamination level is above the 

EPA threshold value for designation on the NPL under CERCLA. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Document presence and extent of known contamination. 

Coordinate with the responsible parties such as the Coast Guard to conduct the Site 

Investigation. 

If the responsible parties are not willing to conduct the Site Investigation, obtain Service 

funding through the Refuge Cleanup Fund. 

Coordinate with regional office contaminants staff to develop funding/operational package to 

conduct monitoring activity. 

Coordinate and consult with EPA in design and conduct of follow-up Site Investigation. 

Rationale: 

In general, insufficient time has been spent on Baker to adequately quantify the extent of 

contamination on Baker. A Site Investigation is used by EPA to determine if areas of the 

island or surrounding waters are unacceptably contaminated. If so, the responsible parties for 

the contamination, i.e., Navy, Army, and the Coast Guard will have the responsibility to clean 

up the site. To date, the Site Investigation conducted by Foster Wheeler in 1998 was 

inconclusive and unacceptable to EPA and the Service. The Service now has the responsibility 

to determine if Baker meets CERCLA criteria. Further and follow up monitoring is required 

by the Service before NPL determination can be made. 

Objective 1d: Remediate contaminated areas of Baker 

Within 15 years of the CCP approval, begin remediation activities on all contaminated areas of 

Baker. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Cooperate and coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard or Army to remediate contaminated areas 

of Baker. 

Institute a long-term monitoring program after remediation 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-7 

If required, develop a Service funding request for cleanup through the Refuge Cleanup Fund. 

Rationale: 

A Site Investigation is used by EPA to determine if areas of the island or waters are 

unacceptably contaminated. If so, the responsible parties for the contamination, (i.e., the 

Navy, Army, and the Coast Guard) have the responsibility to clean up the site. To date, the 

Site Investigation conducted by Foster Wheeler in 1998 was inconclusive and unacceptable to 

EPA and the Service to determine if Baker meets NPL criteria. If these criteria are met, then it 

will increase the priority for remediation by the responsible parties. For the Navy and Army, 

responsibility for Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) has been delegated through the 

Defense Environmental Restoration Act (DERA) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE). Unfortunately, Baker can not meet the criteria used by FUDS to become a priority 

site. Therefore, the ACOE through FUDS will not be able to remediate contaminated lands or 

waters at Baker. Remediation will only be possible through the Coast Guard environmental 

program or if funding becomes available through the Service’s Refuge Cleanup Funds. It will 

be incumbent upon Service staff to work cooperatively with the responsible parties or their 

delegates and the EPA to coordinate and complete remediation activities. 

Goal 2: Conserve, manage, and protect native marine communities that are 

representative of remote tropical Pacific islands. 

Objective 2a: Conserve, manage, and protect marine habitat. 

Upon CCP approval, conserve, manage, and protect approximately 31,378 acres of submerged 

lands consisting of an estimated 3,000 acres coral reef and 28,378 acres of deep water/pelagic 

habitat on Baker. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Continue and expand partnership with NOAA and other research institutions to manage coral 

reef ecosystems. 

Rationale: 

The conservation and protection of the Nation’s coral reefs is becoming increasingly important 

for agencies with responsibility to manage and conserve those (Executive Orders 13089 and 

13158). Because the refuge boundary for Baker extends to 3 nmi from the island shoreline, all 

coral reefs are contained within the refuge boundary. Threats to the coral reef system include 

invasive species such as crown-of-thorns starfish and marine debris (e.g., abandoned fishing 

gear, sunken landing craft) that collects on corals, smothering or breaking them. The 

responsibility for protecting, managing, and conserving coral reef ecosystems is shared with 

NOAA. The Service and NOAA often participate in joint management activities throughout 

the Pacific; however, no active management activities have occurred at Baker. 

 

Objective 2b: Increase baseline information on marine community. 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, monitor: coral species density, diversity, and size and 

spatial distribution; fish species presence/absence and habitat associations; turtle species 

presence/absence; marine mammal species presence/absence; and oceanographic conditions in 

relation to climate change effects. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Conduct and record incidental observations of corals, fish, turtles, marine mammals, and their 

habitats. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-8 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

Accompany NOAA or other scientific partners on marine surveys. 

Conduct REA and resurvey permanent transect sites to document coral, fish and turtle density, 

diversity, distribution, and habitat associations. 

Develop proposals and conduct deep slope marine surveys by ROV or manned submersible to 

document presence/absence, abundance and distribution of deep slope coral and fish species. 

Rationale: 

The status of marine resources in much of the Refuge is still largely unknown. Unless 

weather conditions preclude the work marine surveys are conducted throughout the entire time 

that the marine transport vessel is at Baker. Additionally, since most site visits to Baker are 

aboard NOAA research vessels, the purpose of these voyages is to conduct marine surveys and 

studies. Consequently, a full compliment of up to 20 marine researchers and 40 support staff 

contribute to conducting marine surveys across all alternatives. As a result, marine surveys are 

more comprehensive than terrestrial surveys on Baker. 

REAs and permanent transect resurveys constitute baseline monitoring of the marine 

ecosystem, and are one component of all alternative strategies. 

Additional surveys (e.g., marine mammals, deep slope), as described beginning with 

Alternative B can be achieved as components of cooperative efforts with other agencies or 

research organizations. As an example, little is known of marine mammal use surrounding 

Baker, although it is known that some species are found in the vicinity. 

The Marine Mammal Commission has encouraged the Service to generate partnerships with 

NOAA to help document baseline information. Developing additional partnerships with 

NOAA or other organizations may also assist in meeting terrestrial objectives by providing the 

opportunity for additional trips to Baker. 

Goal 3. Contribute to the recovery, protection, and management efforts for 

all native species with special consideration for seabirds, migratory 

shorebirds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and species of 

management concern. 

Objective 3a: Develop baseline migratory bird and other species information. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, conduct monitoring to determine: seabird species 

presence/absence, relative abundance, breeding chronology, distribution, and habitat use; 

presence/absence of shorebirds; presence/absence and distribution of sea turtles; and 

presence/absence of terrestrial invertebrates on Baker Island. The desired conditions by which 

this will be met is understanding of the complete annual chronology for 5 of 11 nesting seabird 

species; population trend data over the 10-year period for all 11 nesting seabird species; and 

the presence/absence and distribution of shorebirds, turtles and other terrestrial invertebrates. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Record incidental observations of all species presence/absence, relative abundance, and 

distribution. 

Rationale: 

The Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005) repeatedly recognizes the importance of the 

U.S. Pacific Islands in providing predator-free seabird nesting and roosting environments. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-9 

Their protected status, in concert with nearby marine forage resources contribute to their 

importance. The Seabird Conservation Plan further identifies population monitoring 

inventories as insufficient to accurately detect or monitor populations, suggesting instead that a 

rigorous collection of population data is needed. 

In addition to Baker being recognized as important habitat for seabirds, the U.S. Pacific 

Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004) recommends 

determining baseline information for bristle-thighed curlews, and other species, as the goal of 

the Central Pacific Islands Subregion. 

The endangered species recovery plans for both species of turtles indicate that little is known 

about their biology in the central Pacific. Data on other terrestrial wildlife species found on 

Baker Island are lacking. 

 

Objective 3b: Restore breeding populations for 2 seabird species. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, establish up to 5 nesting pairs each of Phoenix petrel 

(Pterodroma alba) and Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa) during a minimum of 

3 consecutive years on Baker Island. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Implement and maintain electronic calling devices to promote nesting. 

Rationale: 

The Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005) recognizes the Polynesian storm-petrel may 

flourish on Baker, as well as Jarvis and Howland, due to the removal of mammalian predators 

from the islands. The Phoenix petrel is known from the Phoenix Islands, but does not 

currently inhabit Baker, though it is thought that they did historically. A recommendation of 

the Plan is expand efforts to assess habitat suitability and restore populations through 

translocation to predator-free U.S. islands such as Baker. While the physical translocation of 

species to Baker is not being suggested, electronic calling devices are designed and have been 

successful in attracting and establishing nesting seabird colonies to other islands. 

 

Objective 3c: Develop baseline data and understand turtle use of Baker. 

Upon CCP approval, monitor hawksbill and green turtles to document any nesting sites, all 

adjacent coral reef and nearshore water foraging sites, and overall population density and 

distributions.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Record incidental observations of nearshore turtle use. 

Develop partnership with NOAA for study of turtles at Baker. 

Rationale: 

There is currently little information related to use of Baker resources by sea turtles, though it is 

known that they do use refuge habitats. Turtles have been photographed in the water during 

joint Service/NOAA expeditions since 2000. Data collected over the life of this plan would 

help to establish a baseline understanding of sea turtle populations in the central Pacific. 

 

Objective 3d: Expand baseline information on marine community. 

Upon CCP approval, monitor globally-depleted marine species populations such as giant 

clams (Tridacna sp.), bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometapon muricatum), Napoleon wrasses 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-10 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

(Cheilinus undulatus), large groupers (e.g., Cephalopholis sp., Epinephelus sp., Variola sp.), 

sharks (e.g., Carcharhinus sp., Triaenodon sp., Negaprion sp., Galeocerdo sp.), and corals 

(Anthozoa, Hydrozoa) to document presence/absence, relative abundance, distribution, and 

size/age structure on Baker. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Conduct marine surveys such as REA and permanent monitoring transect resurveys 

Solicit partnership for survey of deep slope habitat. 

Rationale: 

Many marine species of commercial importance have been globally depleted. Protected areas 

such as Baker still provide refugia. However, illegal fishing activity has been noted 

surrounding several Remotes refuges. Baker, as well as other remote island refuges provide 

the opportunity to study and protect the marine ecosystem. 

 

Objective 3e: Develop baseline scientific information on marine mammal use of Baker. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, increase scientific understanding of marine mammal 

presence and use of Baker marine waters. The desired conditions by which this will be met 

will be to document all marine mammal use of nearshore waters. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Incidental observations of marine mammals 

Solicit partnership for study of marine mammals at Baker. 

Rationale: 

NOAA, Service, Oceanic Institute, University of Hawaii, and Bishop Museum marine 

biologists have collected data on marine species of concern since 2000. Only anecdotal 

information exists on marine mammal use of the waters surrounding Baker Island. Studies 

elsewhere in the Pacific, however, indicate that waters surrounding small islands may support 

distinct local populations of marine mammals. It is also important to understand the threats 

human activity may pose to this important resource (Marine Mammal Commission. pers. 

comm.). 

Goal 4. Restore the wilderness character of Baker’s terrestrial community, 

and protect, maintain, enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of 

Baker’s marine communities. 

Objective 4a: Protect, enhance, and maintain wilderness values. 

Upon CCP approval, continue to preserve and enhance the wilderness values (e.g., size, 

naturalness, solitude, supplemental values) of Baker. Achievement of this objective will be 

evaluated by assessing loss, degradation, or improvement of values that qualified or eliminated 

it for potential designation (see Appendix F). 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Use minimum tools necessary to manage refuge resources. 

Continue to manage Baker as wilderness. 

Monitor values of naturalness and solitude. 

Rationale: 

Baker has been and is managed as a wild, natural area due to its remote location and limited 

human presence, even though the terrestrial portion of the refuge suffers from historic human 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3 – Management Direction 3-11 

impacts. Human generated debris, some containing contamination, remains from past 

occupations. Additionally, debris such as discarded fishing nets continuously washes ashore. 

This debris impinges upon the wilderness value of naturalness. A cultural resource review is 

required prior to removal of any human debris, which may be considered a cultural resource. 

Marine areas of Baker have been identified as meeting the criteria for a Wilderness Study Area 

(Appendix F). Completion of the wilderness review process and as appropriate development 

of a LEIS will be pursued for all Pacific remote island refuges once their CCPs have been 

completed. In the interim, the area identified as a suitable WSA would continue to be 

managed as wilderness. All management activities would be conducted in such a manner as 

not to detract from the wilderness values identified in the Wilderness Inventory. 

Goal 5: Preserve Baker’s biological, cultural and historic resources. 

Objective 5a: Protect cultural resources. 

Upon CCP approval, continue to protect existing cultural resources. The desired conditions by 

which this will be met will be to document any change in condition of the Baker day beacon, 

or other recognized cultural/historical resource. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Record incidental observations of condition of cultural resources. 

Rationale: 

Restricting human use of Baker would maintain cultural resources by limiting the opportunity 

for invasive species establishment, and reducing the opportunity for unauthorized collection or 

disturbance. In order to keep cultural resource sites protected, the locations and descriptions of 

fragile cultural resources would not be made available to the public. 

 

Objective 5b: Enhance Law Enforcement Capabilities 

Upon CCP approval, seek to improve partnerships with the NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement to increase enforcement capacity. The desired conditions by which this will be 

met will be to formalize interagency agreements and develop remote surveillance techniques to 

document unauthorized access to the refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Establish joint enforcement operational protocols with NOAA Office of Law enforcement. 

Evaluate the effectiveness of deploying acoustical devices to detect ship traffic in the vicinity 

of the refuge. 

Rationale: 

Rationale: Enhancing law enforcement capability to detect and prosecute unauthorized access 

would preserve biological and cultural resources by limiting the opportunity for invasive 

species establishment and deterring unauthorized collection or disturbance. 

Objective 5c: Enhance Knowledge of cultural resources. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, undertake appropriate surveys to identify important cultural 

and historical resources. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Coordinate with Regional Office cultural resource staff to develop funding package to conduct 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-12 Chapter 3 – Management Direction 

monitoring activity. 

Rationale: 

In order to keep cultural resource sites protected, the locations and descriptions of fragile 

cultural resources would not be made available to the public. Any maintenance activity and 

establishment of new seasonal or annual field camps would require approval from appropriate 

archeological resource professional (e.g., Service Regional Archeologist). 

Goal 6: Inform and educate the public to increase their understanding of 

remote Pacific island NWRs wilderness values, cultural and historical 

resources, and their ecosystems, with special emphasis on seabirds. 

Objective 6a: Provide off-site education and interpretation opportunities. 

Within 3 years of CCP approval, develop an off-site educational opportunity for the public to 

learn about Pacific Island refuge wilderness values, cultural and historical resources, tropical 

island ecosystems, seabirds, and coral reefs. The desired conditions by which this will be met 

will be through publications, educational programs, displays, or other media. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Develop, with External Affairs office, Honolulu, an interpretative brochure for all remote 

Pacific island refuges. 

Rationale: 

While it is important for the public to understand and appreciate the resource values associated 

with remote island refuges, it is logistically difficult to do this on-site at Baker and still protect 

the island’s wildlife, habitats, wilderness values, cultural and historical resources, and visitor’s 

safety. For these reasons, interpretative or educational opportunities for the public to learn and 

appreciate the values of remote Pacific island refuges and resources will be provided primarily 

as off-site programs and interpretative brochures. 

Objective 6b: Increase understanding of impacts of global climate change. 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, increase scientific understanding of the impacts of global 

climate change on tropical island ecosystems, specifically as these impacts relate to seabird 

nesting and foraging sites. The desired conditions by which this will be met will be the 

development of one research project. 

Strategy Applied to Achieve Objective 

Coordinate with NOAA to evaluate changes in sea surface temperatures and sea level in the 

vicinity of Baker over the next 15 years in relation to seabird nesting success. 

Rationale: 

It is increasingly important to understand the impacts that global climate change might have on 

central Pacific Ocean islands and the wildlife resources they support such as seabird nesting 

habitat and coral reefs. In order to determine if management activities are necessary to offset 

the impacts of global climate change at Baker, refuge staff needs a baseline from which to 

measure future change. 

 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-1 

Chapter 4. REFUGE AND RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 

 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

Baker Island NWR (Baker), located 12 nmi north of the Equator at approximately latitude 0o13’ 

N and longitude 176o31’ W is a northwest outlier island of the Phoenix Island Archipelago. It is 

included in the central Pacific subregion of the Polynesian Region of the Pacific Basin. This 

subregion, the largest of four in the Polynesian Region, is the most remote part of the tropical 

Pacific and includes only low-lying reef islands, atolls, and submerged reefs. Vegetation 

patterns are determined by the highly variable but normally low rainfall levels found along the 

Equator in the central Pacific. In turn, the arid weather and ocean circulation patterns impose 

limits on floating seed plant dispersal strategies. Baker falls in the central Pacific dry zone with 

rainfall less than 40 inches per year, and thus “cannot support any forest or closed woody 

vegetation” (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998). The nearest landmasses are Howland Island 

32 nautical miles (nmi) to the north, and McKean Island 350 nmi to the southeast. Both islands 

are also in the Phoenix Islands. The eight Phoenix Islands under the jurisdiction of the Republic 

of Kiribati (including McKean) are the next closest neighbors to Baker, up to 480 nmi to the 

southeast. The next closest landmasses outside the Phoenix Islands are the Gilbert Islands with 

Beru Island closest to Baker at 420 nmi to the southwest. Tarawa Atoll, the capitol of the 

Republic of Kiribati, is 600 nmi to the west in the central Gilbert Island Archipelago. 

Climate 

General climate and related oceanographic conditions in the central Equatorial Pacific 

The climate associated with Baker can be generalized as being arid, warm, and tropical with 

moderate breezes and light to moderate rainfall. Although differences in climate exist among the 

islands, climate-monitoring stations are not readily available in the equatorial Pacific. 

Consequently, current site-specific data are lacking for most central Pacific locations, or have 

only been collected for a short period of time. In order to describe the weather conditions on 

Baker Island, weather-monitoring data are taken from historic on-site weather data, or from the 

closest weather monitoring station. 

There are several climatic factors that influence weather on Baker: trade winds, rainfall, and 

oceanic currents. Trade winds are surface winds that typically dominate airflow in tropical 

regions and predominate from the east at Baker between 13 to16 miles per hour (mph). 

Atmospheric pressure gradients range from high pressure areas located near latitude 30o N. and 

latitude 30o S., to the low pressure band located near latitude 5o N., driving both the northeast 

and southeast trade winds. This area of low pressure located just north of the Equator is referred 

to as the ‘doldrums’ or the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and lacks these prevailing 

trade winds because the northeast and southeast tradewinds collide or converge and rise upward. 

Solar heating also allows the moist air mass of the ITCZ to rise, thus cooling the air mass and 

producing a band of heavy precipitation several degrees to either side of the ITCZ (Wallace and 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-2 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Hobbs 1977). Baker normally lies south of the ITCZ. Changes in these typical patterns occur 

seasonally along a north-south axis and during periodic events known as the El Niño Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO) along an east-west axis. During an ENSO event, the ITCZ shifts east toward 

unusually warmer waters. This shift typically leads to lighter wind speeds and variability in 

rainfall depending upon geographic location in the central Pacific region (USFWS 2001, 

USFWS 1998a, Vitousek et al. 1980). 

 

Prevailing ocean currents surrounding Baker also influence weather patterns on the island by 

moderating the surrounding surface air temperatures. These currents, except the Equatorial 

Undercurrent (EUC), and North Equatorial Countercurrent (NECC), also roughly mimic the 

direction of the trade winds. The eastward-flowing NECC is a relatively narrow surface current 

that seasonally meanders between latitude 5o and 10o N, flows counter to the major westwardflowing currents of the northern and southern hemispheres, and is situated just below the ITCZ 

(USFWS 2001). In a sense, the NECC is a return flow of surface seawater running down-slope 

back towards the eastern Pacific because of the lack of trade winds that would otherwise drag 

surface waters in the opposite direction. Baker lies south of the NECC and is rarely directly 

influenced by the current. 

The westward-flowing current lying north of the NECC is known as the North Equatorial 

Current (NEC) and is not known to influence current and weather patterns near Baker. Just 

south of the NECC is the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current (SEC). Baker is most 

always within the flow regime of the SEC. 

Baker also lies in the path of the subsurface easterly flowing Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC) also 

referred to as the Cromwell Current. As the EUC strikes the submerged western slopes of Baker 

Island, nutrient rich waters are deflected upward, enriching the primary productivity of the 

surface waters surrounding Baker. These upwelling waters from the EUC are slightly cooler 

than adjacent sea surface waters and may moderate the effects of localized and periodic sea 

surface warming events. 

Baker climate and related oceanographic conditions 

Baker’s location on the Equator puts it squarely within the arid southeast trade wind belt except 

during an ENSO and other periodic fronts or storms when rainfall may be higher and winds more 

variable. Baker is also in an area with high probability of mesoscale eddy formation and intraannual variation due to north-south movement of the ITCZ and inter-annual variation due to 

variation in strength of the ENSO (Longhurst and Pauly 1987). 

 

There are very little weather data available from Baker. Weather observations were made during 

the military occupation of Baker and Howland Islands from 1935-1945 (USAEC 1963). 

However, these military records could not be located. A single reconnaissance trip to Howland 

and Baker Islands by the Logistics Planning Group of Holmes & Narver Inc, for the Atomic 

Energy Commission in October 1963, recorded seawater temperatures between 86oF and 87oF 

(USAEC 1963). Air temperatures during that time period ranged from 80oF to 94oF with an 

average of 85oF. Wind speeds during this visit averaged 13 mph with a range of 6 to 23 mph. In 

winter, the average daily range of air temperature is reported as 78oF to 88oF, and during summer 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-3 

the average daily range is 78oF to 90oF (NOAA 1991). Kanton Atoll (formerly Canton Island) is 

located in the Phoenix Islands at 02o46’ South latitude and 171o43’ West longitude, and is the 

nearest (370 nmi) historic weather station to Baker (NOAA 1991, USFWS 1998a). Weather data 

at Kanton support the conclusions of arid conditions in the northern Phoenix Islands. The 

Kanton Atoll weather station reported total annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches annually 

(NOAA 1991) with precipitation consistent throughout the year. The trade winds, low rainfall, 

high equatorial sunshine and high evapo-transpiration levels all combine to produce a relatively 

arid climate at Baker, except during some anomalous storm and wind conditions. 

Global Climate Change 

A continuously growing body of unequivocal scientific evidence has emerged supporting the 

anthropogenic nature of current global climate change. During the 20th century, the global 

environment experienced variations in average worldwide temperatures, sea levels, and chemical 

concentrations. Global air temperatures on the earth’s surface have increased by 1.3°F since the 

mid 19th century (IPCC. 2007a). Eleven of 12 years from 1995 to 2006 are the warmest on 

record since 1850 (IPCC 2007b). Global water temperatures have increased by 0.31o F on 

average in the upper 300 m during the past 60 years since 1948 and changes in ocean heat 

content have penetrated as deep as 3000 meters (Levitus et al. 2005). Subsequently, sea levels 

rose approximately 1.7 mm (0.07 in) ± 0.5 mm/yr during the 20th century (IPCC. 2007a); this 

rate rose dramatically to 3.1 mm (0.122 in) ± 0.7mm/yr since 1993 (IPCC 2007b). While the 

concept of climate change is widely accepted, the extent and impact of future changes as well as 

the exact source (natural or human induced) remains a debate (OPIC 2000). Emerging 

consensus contends that increasing quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, 

especially carbon dioxide (CO2), are beginning to affect climate and may be the dominant force 

driving recent warming trends. The amount of GHGs globally has grown due to human activities 

since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (IPCC 2007b). 

Carbon dioxide has increased by about 80% in the same time period. The atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 and methane in 2005 were 379 ppm3 and 1774 ppb, respectively. These 

amounts greatly exceed concentrations recorded in the global environment over the last 650,000 

years (IPCC, 2007a). Other emissions and GHGs from human activity have enhanced the heat 

trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere, causing warmer temperatures. Although the 

increase in carbon dioxide is largely attributed to fossil fuel use, land use changes have also 

increased the amount of cleared land surfaces, thereby reflecting more solar radiation (IPCC 

2001, IPCC 2007a, IPCC, 2007b). 

Global forecasting models offer a variety of predictions based on different emission scenarios. 

OPIC (2000) suggests that a further increase in GHG emissions could double atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 by 2060 and subsequently increase temperatures by as much as 2 to 6.5°F 

over the next century. Recent model experiments by the IPCC (2007a) show that if GHGs and 

other emissions remain at 2000 levels, a further global average temperature warming of about 

0.18°F per decade is expected. Sea-level rise is expected to accelerate by two to five times the 

current rates due to both ocean thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps. 

Consequently, patterns of precipitation and evaporation may be altered. These changes may lead 

to more severe weather, shifts in ocean circulation (currents, upwelling), as well as adverse 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-4 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

impacts to economies and human health (OPIC 2000, IPCC 2001, Buddemeier et al. 2004, IPCC 

2007a). Hansen, et al. (2008) propose that current models may underestimate the slower 

feedback processes such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas 

release from soils and that these factors may come into play in this century. These changes will 

have a significant effect on the national wildlife refuges in the tropical Pacific. The changing 

global environment and the implications this may have for ecological and geological processes in 

the Central Tropical Pacific are important considerations for future management of trust 

resources there. The four areas of impact linked to global climate change that may have the 

greatest potential effect on Baker Island NWR and its wildlife are sea level rise, weather and 

ocean circulation changes, ecological disruptions and coral bleaching due to increased ocean 

temperature, and oceanic chemical composition change. 

Vitousek (1994) reported, “Changes in both climate and biological diversity are known with less 

certainty than are changes in C02 concentrations, global biogeochemistry or land use.” Because 

temperature is more variable both spatially and temporally than C02 concentration, it is difficult 

to separate human-caused vs. natural background variation. However, it is certain that increasing 

concentrations of C02 and other greenhouse gasses will cause increasing climate change 

(Vitousek, 1994). 

The equatorial locale for Baker places it near the path of anomalous water current and surface 

wind conditions during ENSO events, but the paucity of weather and oceanographic data at 

Baker renders it difficult to assess the impacts and trends of global climate change at the island. 

The upward deflection of cool subsurface waters into shallow water by the upwelling effects of 

the EUC further complicates an assessment of climate change effects, because this phenomenon 

has been rarely reported outside of the three equatorial refuges (Howland, Baker, Jarvis). 

The insular nature of both the terrestrial and coral reef habitats of Baker will result in the same 

high vulnerability of resident organisms that is seen in range restricted or mountaintop species 

elsewhere (Parmesan, 2006). 

Sea Level Rise 

 

While global temperature is projected to rise by 3.6 to 9oF and sea level to rise by more than 31.5 

inches during the next two centuries, sea levels have fluctuated by an order of 328 feet over the 

past 18,000 years as natural background variation and thawing out from the last ice age 

(Michener et al. 1997). Contributions to sea level rise by climate change are ice-sheet melting, 

alpine glacier melting and thermal expansion of the sea. Sea levels have risen by 4-8 inches 

during the past century (Michener et al. 1997). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC 2001) predicted a sea level rise of 3.5 inches to 34.6 inches by the year 2100 unless 

greenhouse gas emissions were reduced substantially. They also suggested that continuing 

greenhouse gas emissions could trigger polar ice-cap melting after 2100 accompanied by sea 

level rise greater than 16 feet. More recent modeling indicates that melting could occur faster 

than the IPCC predicted (Overpeck, et al. 2006). 

Evidence also suggests that the world’s oceans are regionally divisible with regard to historic 

fluctuations in sea level. Localized variations in subsidence and emergence of the sea floor and 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-5 

plate-tectonics activity prevent extrapolations in sea level fluctuations and trends between 

different regions. While researchers in IPCC (2007a) state that water levels in the equatorial 

Pacific are rising at a rate of 1.2 to 2 mm per year, it may not be possible to discuss uniform 

changes in sea level on a global scale, or the magnitude of greenhouse gas-forced changes as 

these changes may vary regionally (Michener et al. 1997). As an example, tide gauge records on 

the Atlantic coast indicate a sea level rise of .06 to .16 in/year over the past century, whereas, 

they have indicated a .35 to .39 in/year increase along the Gulf coast of the United States 

(Michener et al. 1997). 

Increases in sea level and associated increases in storm surges and storm intensity will affect 

Baker Island. Shoreline erosion and salt water intrusion into subsurface freshwater aquifers have 

been noted throughout the Pacific (Shea et al. 2001). Due to the deep marine slopes directly 

adjacent to Baker Island, increases in sea level could significantly erode shorelines and overall 

island surface area since opportunities for accretion of lands do not exist. Loss of breeding 

habitat for seabirds, wintering grounds for migratory shorebirds, and habitat for native plants, 

and land crabs are predicted at current rates of sea level rise. 

Ocean Temperature Increases 

Most climate projections suggest that more intense wind speeds and precipitation amounts will 

accompany more frequent tropical typhoon/cyclones and increased tropical-sea surface 

temperatures in the next 50 years (Walther et al. 2002, IPCC, 2007). The third IPCC (2001) has 

concluded, with “moderate confidence” that the intensity of tropical cyclones is likely to increase 

by 10 to 20 percent in the Pacific region when atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double preindustrial levels (IPCC 2001). One model projects a doubling of the frequency of 4 inches per 

day rainfall events and a 15-18 percent increase in rainfall intensity over large areas of the 

Pacific (IPCC 2001). The IPCCl (2007) states that it is “more likely than not” that the rise in 

intense tropical cyclones is due to anthropogenic activity. 

Above normal mean sea surface temperatures have been shown to cause bleaching and mortality 

in corals both in nature and in the laboratory with bleaching generally occurring in shallower 

waters (Floros et al. 2004). Coral bleaching, the expulsion of symbiotic zooxanthellae from 

coral polyps and subsequent loss of photosynthetic pigments is the result of both natural and 

anthropogenic stresses. Although corals may pale in response to seasonal increases in sea 

surface temperature, there has been a higher frequency of large scale bleaching events since the 

1980s (Nicholls et al. 2007). The most severe global bleaching event ever recorded occurred in 

1997-98 when over 50 countries showed signs of bleaching (Grimsditch and Salm 2005). Many 

species of coral currently exist in the upper limits of their specific temperature range; thus, an 

increase in average sea surface temperatures (even by 1.8 or 3.6oF) over a sustained period has 

been shown to cause mass bleaching, especially in shallow waters habitats (Grimsditch and Salm 

2005). Other variables have also been implicated in bleaching and mortality events, including, 

extended periods of high temperatures, low wind velocity, clear skies, calm seas, low rainfall, 

high rainfall, salinity changes, high turbidity or acute pollution. Floros et al. (2004) goes on to 

note that, “The causes of coral bleaching are debatable, but widely thought to be the result of a 

variety of stresses, both natural and human-induced, that cause the degeneration and the loss of 

the colored zooxanthellae from the coral tissues.” 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-6 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Bleaching episodes in equatorial islands appear to be linked to the ENSO. Widespread bleaching 

events occurred during the El Niños of 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98 (Buddemeier et al. 2004). 

During the warm phase of ENSO, or El Niño, sea-surface temperatures are usually warm, trade 

winds weak, and sea level decreases in the western Pacific (IPCC 2001, Buddemeier et al. 2004). 

These combined factors result in a dramatic increase in coral bleaching (Buddemeier et al. 2004). 

While El Niño events have increased in intensity and frequency over the past decades, some 

longer-term records have not found a direct link to global warming (Cobb et al. 2003) and do not 

predict significant changes in El Niño; however, they do suggest an evolution toward more “El 

Niño-like” patterns (Buddemeier et al. 2004). Most climate projections reveal that this trend is 

likely to increase rapidly in the next 50 years (Walther et al. 2002). 

If coral reef ecosystems do not acclimate to projected thermal stresses, more frequent bleaching 

events and widespread mortality will occur. The ability of coral reef ecosystems to withstand 

these impacts will depend on the extent of degradation from other anthropogenic pressures and 

the frequency of future bleaching events (Nicholls et al. 2007). 

Field observation of corals at Baker, Howland, and Jarvis during five separate expeditions from 

2000-2006 indicate that corals may be recovering from a bleaching event that took place during 

the previous few years (1997-1998). Corals continued to increase in cover and sizes, based upon 

observations during all subsequent (post 2000) visits, including those at permanent transect sites 

(Maragos 2008; Maragos et al. 2008a & 2008b, Miller et al. 2008). Although coral bleaching 

was predicted to occur at Jarvis in 2003 based upon NOAA satellite based temperature and wind 

data, no evidence of bleaching was reported there during the early 2004 and 2006 visits 

(Maragos 2000-2006, unpublished data). One possible explanation is that the cool upwelling 

waters of the EUC are buffering the effects of the otherwise warmer seawater temperatures at the 

island. 

Tudhope (2000) sampled 6 cores obtained from 2 large, 3-4 meter Porites coral heads at Jarvis in 

1999 to track sea surface temperature and coral growth rates over several or more decades using 

stable oxygen isotope as a measure of Sea Surface Temperature. He found a good correlation 

between this measure and the NINO3.4 Index, which is one of the most widely used and reliable 

indicators of the status of ENSO. The results of their work at Jarvis and at four other tropical 

sites in the Line and Cook Islands contributed to demonstrating linkages between the tropics and 

the North Pacific over hundreds of years (D’arrigo et al 2005). Hawaii Undersea Research 

Laboratory (HURL) submersible dives at Jarvis in July 2005 revealed many deep-water corals, 

and samples of some were taken for climate change and paleo-climate analyses. The results of 

these analyses are not yet available. 

Oceanic Acidification and Atmospheric Chemistry 

Glacial and interglacial periods in the Earth’s history, as measured from deep Antarctic ice cores, 

reveal cyclical fluctuations in the concentration of global CO2. However, recent increases fall 

outside the range of peak prehistoric CO2 levels. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at 

their highest levels in more than 160,000 years, with humans emitting 25 billion tons of CO2

annually (Buddemeier et al. 2004). The rate of increase is also five to ten times more rapid than 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-7 

any of the sustained changes in the ice-core record (Vitousek 1994). The higher the 

concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the greater the amount of CO2 dissolved in the surface 

ocean. When CO2 dissolves in seawater it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), a weak acid that 

releases additional hydrogen ions and increases the acidity of the ocean. In order to buffer this 

acidity, the hydrogen ions react with carbonate (CO3

2-) ions and convert them to bicarbonate ions 

(HCO3

-

). However, this buffering ability has diminished due to the rapid rising CO2

concentrations and the global seawater pH has decreased by 0.1 units since 1750, with regional 

variations (Royal Society 2005, IPCC 2007). Models predict that over the 21st century average 

surface ocean pH will continue to fall between 0.14 and 0.35 units (IPCC 2007a). 

Increased atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification affect marine organisms. As the 

concentration of carbonic acid and bicarbonate ions rises, the concentration of carbonate ions 

decreases. Many corals and marine organisms use calcium (Ca2+) and carbonate ions from 

seawater to secrete CaCO3 skeletons (Buddemeier et al. 2004, IPCC 2007). Change in carbon 

dioxide levels will increase the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in seawater, thus reducing the 

over-saturation of aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate that is the major building block for 

coral reefs (Vitousek, 1994). On a transect in the Pacific Ocean that ran very near Jarvis, Feeley 

et al. (2004) show that the aragonite saturation horizon is shallow and is shoaling compared to 

the pre-industrial aragonite saturation horizon. This reduces the width of the zone in which 

marine organisms have optimum aragonite concentrations for shell-building. The result of this is 

uncertain but is thought to reduce the rate at which corals can deposit calcium carbonate, thus 

reducing the rate at which coral reefs will be able to keep up with any increases in sea level. A 

lowered calcification rate means calcifying organisms (corals) may grow skeletons at a slower 

rate, lower density, and/or decreasing strength. Thus, changes in global seawater chemistry 

reduce the ability of corals to successfully compete for space and increase susceptibility to 

breakage (Grimsditch and Salm 2005). In addition to changes in the carbonate system, changes 

in ocean chemistry may affect the availability of nutrients and toxins to marine organisms. 

It should also be noted that chemical composition changes in the atmosphere may also affect 

terrestrial ecosystems. For instance, the quantity of nitrogen available to organisms affects 

species composition and productivity. Increase in nitrogen can alter species composition by 

favoring those plant species that respond to nitrogen increases (Vitousek, 1994). Increased 

carbon dioxide can also affect photosynthetic rates in plants, change levels and characteristics of 

secondary compounds in plant tissues, change plant species composition, lower nutrient levels, 

and lower weight gain by herbivores. 

Geology and Soils 

Baker is a low-lying, nearly level island surrounded by a narrow shallow fringing reef and with a 

broader submerged reef terrace off the east side of the island. The submarine slopes descend 

steeply to great depths beyond the fringing reefs. Surface deposits on the island consist of 

calcareous sands and coral rock. The small central depression of the island is likely the result of 

the combined effects of guano mining more than a century ago. The island was likely formed as 

a result of submarine volcanic activity and changes in the earth’s crust caused by continental 

tectonic plate movement, including emergence of a high volcanic island, its later subsidence, reef 

accretion, and its gradual northwesterly drift way from the East Pacific Rise over the past 50-80 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-8 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

million years. Although scientists since Darwin (1842) have been pondering seamount, island, 

and atoll formation in the Pacific since the mid-1800s, the specifics of how Baker Island was 

formed have not been specifically investigated although this was reviewed (Joyce Miller in 

Maragos et al. 2008a). The specifics likely follow the general sequence first postulated by 

Darwin. 

 

The dominant theory of atoll formation states that islands form in deep tropical oceans as a result 

of underwater volcanoes that grow to the surface to form high volcanic islands, giving coral 

polyps a foundation to grow upon and form reefs fringing the island. In time, the volcano 

becomes dormant, and its mass pushes down on the earth’s crust causing it and its island to 

subside and shrink in size, while its fringing reefs continue to grow upward and maintain 

proximity to the sea surface. Coral reefs, originally fringing the edges of a large island, become 

a barrier reef around larger islands outlining the contour of the original coastline, with a lagoon 

occupying the space vacated by the shrinking island. Eventually, further subsidence causes the 

island to disappear completely from the lagoon leaving behind an atoll. However, for small 

islands such as Baker, lagoons may not have formed at latter stages, and continued subsidence 

has left only a small low reef island in its wake. Based upon deep drilling through the atolls in 

the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 1950s, it is believed that these processes encompassed 

more than 50-70 million years and up to several thousand feet of reef growth equal to the degree 

of subsidence over that time span. In addition, it is hypothesized that changes in sea level 

associated with the end of the last ice age and the deposition of highly permeable coralline 

limestone (calcium carbonate) derived from the remains of marine organisms likely contributed 

to the carbonate platform that characterizes the contemporary geologic structure of Baker Island. 

The western (leeward) shoreline of the island is sandy, while all other sides are covered with 

coral rubble. There is no pronounced beach crest or central basin (dried up lagoon) typically 

found on some larger low-lying reef islands. A small borrow pit with an interior island is located 

near the eastern shore. Soils of low-lying atolls in the Pacific frequently consist of 

accumulations organic matter, guano, pumice or other transported material on top of a calcareous 

sand or limestone substratum (Morrison 1990). The soil of Baker Island is composed of coral 

fragments and light brown coral sand with a low percentage of organic matter. 

Hutchinson (1950) concluded that phosphates accumulate preferentially on islands, such as 

Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands, that are situated in climatic dry belts used by large 

populations of seabirds. Deposits of phosphate-rich soils have formed over time from guano 

deposited on the island by fish-eating seabirds. Mild acids formed from the decomposition of 

organic matter carry the guano downward in the soil to limestone soil layers were acids are 

neutralized and calcium phosphate accumulated from the chemical changes. In addition, when 

guano-beds are exposed to rain their soluble constituents are removed and the insoluble matter is 

left behind. The soluble phosphates washed out of the guano may also become fixed to the coral 

sand and limestone by the process described above. The calcium phosphate rocks and soil occur 

among the sedimentary strata and were the principal sources of phosphate rock targeted for 

commercial fertilizer and military use during the guano mining period between 1861 and 1891 

(see Chapter 3.15). Even after the guano mining era, the soil profile still contained heavy guano 

deposits (Christophersen 1927). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-9 

Hydrology 

No information is available on the subsurface hydrology of Baker Island. However, its small 

size and prevailing arid rainfall conditions would not likely result in the formation of a drinkable 

groundwater lens. During staff visits to Baker, potable water is carried in containers to the island 

for short visits, and could be produced on-site via reverse osmosis technology for prolonged 

visits, just as it is now produced for permanent field stations at other remote Pacific island 

NWRs. 

Air and Water Quality 

Due to the lack of human presence, oceanic and air quality are expected to be good and lacking 

in pollutants. Vapors from abandoned spilled fuel storage drums left behind during the World 

War II era are likely to be confined to the immediate vicinity of the drums and have probably all 

volatized. However, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants may have 

entered the groundwater or nearshore environment. The acoustic environment at Baker is 

completely natural without any anthropogenic noise except during periodic visits. On the island, 

dominant natural sounds include the wind, calls of seabird and shorebirds, and seawater lapping 

on the shoreline with wave action crashing further offshore on the outer reef margin. 

Underwater the dominant sounds are wave action and surge striking the reef slopes and the 

sounds of thousands of feeding and moving invertebrates and fish. 

 

Environmental Contaminants 

Debris from past human occupation is scattered throughout the island and in offshore waters. 

Most of this debris is left from the U.S. military and Coast Guard occupation of the island from 

1942-46. The most noticeable remnant remaining from the military is the 150-foot wide, 5,400- 

foot long airstrip. At the northeast section, apparently the main camp area, are the remains of 

several buildings and heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet in height 

remain standing in the camp. Several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers 

are scattered around the island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of 

metal, fuel, and water drums are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of 

the island. The Navy reported the loss of 11 landing craft in the surf during World War II 

(WWII). 

Thousands of fuel storage drums, cylinders of pressurized gases, piles of old batteries, cans of 

waste materials, paints, kerosene, oils, grease, and unidentified substances were left behind by 

the U.S. military and Coast Guard after occupation during the WWII era. In 1987, the ACOE, 

sponsored by funds from the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, organized an 

expedition to Howland and Baker to dispose of the fuel by burning it on-site while in the drums 

(ACOE 1987). However, ACOE efforts did not completely consume the fuel, and the burning 

left toxic residues in many of the drums and surrounding soils (Lee Ann Woodward, pers. comm. 

with Helene Takemoto). Another large source of contamination is rusting steel and iron from 

various machine parts and drums. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-10 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Baker is slowly being evaluated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA ID 

HI6143690075) for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) as directed by the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 

U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.). The evaluation is due to the large amounts of fuel, debris, and dumps left 

behind by the military and the Coast Guard when they abandoned the island. While the Service 

is responsible for monitoring and reporting in a timely fashion, the EPA has allowed an extended 

evaluation period due to the remoteness of the site. A brief summary of activities relevant to this 

action follows. 

Beginning in 1978, the Service and Coast Guard visited the island and reported several large 

ditches containing “hundreds” of corroded and leaking 55-gallon drums. Open, upright drums 

were reported to be fatal traps for red-footed boobies that fell in while roosting on the drum rims. 

An estimated 25% of the upright drums were reported to contain bird remains. By 1984, the 

Service filed a “Notification of Hazardous Waste Site” form with EPA. Another joint Service 

and Coast Guard expedition in 1986 identified 2,758 55-gallon drums of diesel fuel, kerosene, 

motor oil, and unidentified liquids, and hundreds of smaller containers of powders, grease, paint, 

and unidentified substances. Most of the drums and other containers had rusted through and 

spilled their contents, however, 640 55-gallon drums were found to be intact with their original 

contents (USCG 1986). 

Again in 1986 Service and ACOE personnel mounted an expedition resulting in burning, in situ, 

approximately one-third of the wastes identified in previous expeditions. No sampling or 

cleanup of the remaining ash was done following the waste/fuel burn (ACOE 1987). 

In 1988, EPA published the “Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket” in the 

Federal Register listing Baker as a potential, uncontrolled, “federal facility” hazardous waste site 

requiring Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site Investigation (SI) reports within 18 months of 

being placed on the docket. The EPA submitted a letter to the Service in 1991 requesting the PA 

and SI reports be completed for Baker. The Service conducted a SI in 1992 to further map and 

characterize trenches and drums identified from previous investigations. Samples were also 

collected to satisfy Service reporting requirements to EPA under the provisions of Section 107 of 

CERCLA. However, no report was filed with EPA. Further investigations by the Service 

contractor, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (Foster Wheeler 1998), were deemed by 

EPA and the Service to be inconclusive. 

Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats 

 Baker Island is vegetated with grasses, herbaceous plants, and shrubs. Only strand species able 

to survive long periods of drought and irregular opportunities to reproduce during the infrequent 

wet years of the ENSO persist there. By 1924 when Christophersen (1927) did the first thorough 

survey of Baker Island’s vegetation, there had already been approximately a century of visits by 

Europeans and guano mining. Despite this traffic and the potential for introductions, 

Christophersen found 16 species, consisting of 8 native species (Digitaria pacifica, Eragrostis

whitneyi, Lepturus repens, Fimbristylus cymosa, Boerhavia sp., Portulaca lutea, Tribulus 

cistoides, and Triumfetta procumbens) and 8 that had probably been accidentally introduced. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-11 

Since then some species have been lost and new wave-carried adventives have resulted in a 

modern day total of only 16 species (see Appendix B). Flint and Woodside found 16 species in 

1993. It is likely that seeds of additional species are regularly washing up on the beach and then 

dying back as conditions become too dry or high surf washes the plant away. Table B-3, 

Appendix B, lists all the plant species of Baker Island, collections or first observations. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Seabirds, shorebirds, lizards, vegetation, insects, crabs, and alien rats, house mice, and cats have 

been observed and studied at Baker Island during the current century. 

Seabirds and Land Mammals 

 

There are no native land mammals at Baker Island. Numerically dominant vertebrates are 

seabirds and migratory shorebirds. Earliest ornithological surveys at Baker Island took place 

long after the introduction of the rat (Rattus norvegicus) so the composition of the avian 

community prior to human contact can only be surmised by looking at other islands in the 

Phoenix Archipelago that did not suffer the invasion of rats. The rats were present in the 1930s 

when the Panala’au colonists arrived but they were exterminated some time after 1937 when the 

colonists introduced cats (Clapp and Sibley 1965). House mice (Mus musculus) were not 

recorded by the Whippoorwill Expedition in 1924 but were mentioned by Rodman in 1935. 

They persist today and their population size fluctuates with rainfall levels. Cats were introduced 

in 1937 or 1938 by colonists to control the rats. Additional cats may have been brought during 

the military occupation. The scientists of the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program 

eradicated most of the cats in 1964 and the last sighting was in 1965. Dogs (Canis lupus 

familiaris) were used to guard the LORAN station, but were removed at the termination of 

operation (USCG 1946). 

The findings of the ornithologist on the Whippoorwill Expedition of 1924 are the only 

ornithological records prior to 1963, when scientists from the Smithsonian Institution visited 

eight times between 1963 and 1965. Table B-4 in Appendix B lists species and estimates of 

numbers for seabird species on all visits since 1973. Munro (1924) found eight species of 

seabirds breeding in 1924. Cats were introduced during 1935-1942 and the numbers and kinds 

of seabirds breeding at Baker decreased to four species by 1963 (Sibley and Clapp 1965). After 

the cats were removed in 1965, the bird populations rebounded, and now 11 species breed there. 

The three most numerous breeding species at Baker are the lesser frigatebird (Fregata ariel),

brown noddy (Anous stolidus), and sooty tern (Onychoprion fuscatus). Table B-4 also indicates 

the breeding seabird species at Baker. 

 

Several species of concern exist or have the potential to exist on Baker. The Phoenix petrel 

(Pterodroma alba) is considered a bird of National Conservation Concern by the Service and is 

listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Vulnerable. The 

Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa) and blue-gray noddy (Procelsterna cerulea) 

are Birds of Conservation Concern at the regional level (USFWS 2005). Both the Phoenix petrel 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-12 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

and the Polynesian storm-petrel probably occurred at Baker Island prior to the introduction of 

rats. 

Shorebirds 

Species occurrence and counts of the nine migratory shorebird species recorded from Baker 

Island are displayed in Table B-4, Appendix B. The four most common migrants wintering at 

Baker are ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva), bristlethighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis), and wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus). Of all 

shorebirds reported from Baker, the ruddy turnstone, bar-tailed godwit, sanderling, bristlethighed curlew and the Pacific golden plover are considered species of High Concern in the 

national conservation priority scheme for shorebirds (Engilis and Naughton 2004). These islands 

provide crucial wintering habitat and may also serve as rest-stops for arctic-breeding shorebirds 

going to winter farther south in the Pacific islands. In addition, the bristle-thighed curlew and 

Pacific golden plover are recognized in the Birds of Conservation Concern, BCR 68 (USFWS 

2002). These islands provide crucial wintering habitat and may serve as rest-stops for arcticbreeding shorebirds wintering farther south in the Pacific islands. 

Reptiles 

Only two species of terrestrial reptiles have been reported from Baker Island, the snake-eyed 

skink (Cryptoblepharus poecilopleurus) and the mourning gecko (Leipidodactylus lugubris). 

The skink was first reported by Hague in 1862, and the gecko by Bryan in 1935 (cited in Clapp 

and Sibley 1965). Both species were seen by Flint and Woodside (1993). The green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been observed 

foraging offshore at Baker. 

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

 

Baker Island is home to a large number of the land crab Coenobita perlata. Their large biomass 

plays a dominant role in terrestrial food webs on the island where they consume a wide variety of 

organic matter of all types. Other terrestrial arthropods and mollusks are very poorly known. 

The entomologist Edward L. Caum visited Baker Island in 1924 and a number of other 

naturalists collected insects on subsequent trips but there are no published accounts or lists. 

Recent observations and collections during visits by Service biologists include house flies, small 

ants, moths and millers, butterflies, spiders, and an earthworm. 

Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

Previous surveys 

Five sets of recent surveys from 2000-2006 have been accomplished in cooperation with the 

NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and their research vessels (Townsend 

Cromwell, Oscar Elton Sette, and Hi‛ialakai), primarily through the sponsorship of the Center’s 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-13 

Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED). General results of these surveys have been published 

in NOAA sponsored State of the Reefs Reports (Turgeon et al. 2002, Brainard et al. 2005, and 

Miller et al. 2008). Additionally two other reports on Baker and the remaining U.S. Phoenix and 

Line Islands were published in the first of a series of books on the coral reefs of the world 

(Maragos et al. 2008a, b). The field surveys since 2000, are of several types including 

oceanographic data collection, towed diver surveys, rapid ecological assessments (REA) at 

stationary sites, and collections of marine animals and plants for identification and description in 

the lab. The Service, with assistance from CRED established three permanently marked 

transects to document trends in corals and some macro-invertebrates over time since 2000. 

Despite these intense efforts, several important habitats at Baker have not been adequately 

surveyed, especially below depths of 65 feet. The NOAA collected high resolution bathymetry 

of Baker from Multi-BeamTM surveys in 2006 and published the maps (Miller et al. 2008; Miller 

in Maragos et al. 2008a), and substantial oceanographic data have been collected since 2000 

(Gove in Maragos et al. 2008a; R. Brainard, pers. comm.). Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) 

have been launched to collect video- and camera-based data at depths greater than 65 feet. 

Before 1998, Baker had not been surveyed for corals. Specimens of corals were collected at 

Baker by Service biologist John Schmerfeld in 1998 and 28 species were identified (Schmerfeld 

and Maragos, unpubl.). NOAA and the Service sponsored field studies at Baker in 2000, 2001, 

2002, 2004, 2006, and early 2008. Studies through 2002 focused on the collection of 

biodiversity information and the relative abundance of each coral species at the REA sites. 

During 2004 and 2006 coral surveys shifted to population censuses following the methodology 

described in Maragos and coworkers (2004). Maragos accomplished the censuses at eight sites 

in 2006 and the incidence of coral diseases were assessed at the same sites by Greta Aeby in 

2004 and Bernardo Vargas in 2006. Coral population data has also been assessed at three 

permanently marked transect sites from 2000-2006. In 2006, a deeper (90 feet.) area off the 

historic western anchorage was examined for metallic debris, including anchors and chains that 

appear to be degrading corals and facilitating the spread of an invasive corallimorph, Rhodactis 

howesii at depth and further upslope. 

Submergent Habitats 

Baker’s shallow marine benthic habitats consist of fringing reef crests, shallow back reefs, steep 

fore reefs, spurs-and-grooves, and small reef terraces. The last two habitats are restricted to the 

windward (east side) of the island. In addition, a shallow short channel was blasted through the 

narrow fringing reef during the pre-World War II era to facilitate small boat access between the 

shoreline and ocean. Pelagic habitats occur further offshore beyond the influence of upwelling 

and nearshore oceanographic processes. Nearshore habitats include distinct nutrient-rich 

upwelling zones off the west side of the island and oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) waters off the 

windward reefs. The PIFSC is researching the differences between these zones (Gove et al. 

2006; Gove in Maragos et al. 2008. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-14 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Reef Life 

The dominant reef life studied during the post-1997 expeditions includes benthic algae (Peter 

Vroom, Kim Paige pers. comm.) corals and anemones (John Schmerfeld, Jim Maragos, Greta 

Aeby and Jean Kenyon pers. comm.), other reef invertebrates (Scott Godwin, Dwayne Minton, 

and Robin Newbold pers. comm.), and reef fishes (Ed DeMartini, Bruce Mundy, Brian 

Zgliczynski, Brian Green, Richard Wass, Alan Friedlander, Stephanie Holzwarth, and others 

pers. comm.). Additionally extensive collections of reef fishes were accomplished by Fowler 

(1927), anon. (1950), Helfrich (1962), Wass (1966), Smithsonian Institution Pacific Ocean 

Biological Survey (SIPOBS), and others cited in Mundy et al (2002). At the time of this CCP, 

only data from coral (Table 3.1) and fish surveys (Appendix B) were available for review and 

compilation. The algae and non-coral invertebrate analyses are not complete enough to provide 

compilations. 

Corals 

A total of 91 species and 37 genera of corals and anemones have now been reported from Baker 

since surveys and collections through 2006, including 32 genera and 82 species of stony corals 

(Appendix B, Table B-1). One site off the eastern reef terrace demonstrated high coral cover of 

about 80% with the dominant staghorn coral Acropora monopolizing all substrates. An invasive 

anemone, tentatively identified as Aptasia sp. was abundant at most survey sites in 2004, but had 

totally disappeared by the time of the 2006 surveys. However, the invasive red corallimorph, 

Rhodactis howesii, is now increasing in abundance and expanding its distribution on the reefs at 

Baker. It appears to be stimulated by dissolved iron from metallic debris. 

 

Coral population data at Baker in 2006 reveal characteristics similar to those reported for 

Howland in 2006. Coral frequencies (number of corals per square meter) at Baker in 2006 were 

substantially higher compared to 2004 frequencies at the same three sites in 2004. The largest 

corals at the same three Baker sites were comparable to 2004 levels, but there was nearly an 

order of magnitude increase in the numbers of corals for the four smallest size classes and total 

numbers of corals. The mean percent coral cover also increased at the three sites from 2004 

levels averaging 49.8% to 2006 levels averaging 52.9% although the trends were not consistent 

at the individual site level (Maragos in Miller et al. 2008). 

 

The staghorn and table corals of Acropora were common at all research sites, and other corals 

seemed healthy except at the western anchorage. The bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea 

quadricolor) was observed for the first time in 2006, and the stone snake coral (Herpolitha spp.) 

was also observed at three REA sites for the first time. 

The red invasive corallimorph showed dramatic increases off the west and south coast at 

historical boat landing and anchorage locations. Corroding iron from anchors and chains may be 

stimulating the growth of this species as observed at Palmyra Atoll adjacent to a shipwreck in 

2005-2006, and also observed at the Howland landing site in 2006. The historic western 

anchorage site appears to be degraded, at both transect depths of 30 and 100 feet. It is the only 

site at either Howland or Baker that appeared “sick.” Wave action appeared to have fractured 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-15 

some corals, and Rhodactis is asserting its dominance, especially at depth. Non-coral substrates 

are dark and covered by cyanobacteria, also likely stimulated by dissolved iron from the 

numerous anchors and chains observed at all depths. Sediment samples were collected at the site 

for toxicological analyses, and photoquadrat data show a steady decline in corals over a 6-year 

period. 

Nearshore Fish 

There are approximately 247 species of reef fish known from Baker reefs (Mundy et al. 2002; 

Table B-2, Appendix B). This compares with 324 species from nearby Howland Island. 

Moreover, 10 families of fish reported at Howland Island have not been reported from Baker 

Island, and 6 minor families from Baker have not been reported from Howland Island. Of 

interest is the presence of several species of goby and scorpion fish families at Howland Island 

and the lack of these families at Baker Island. Possible explanations for these differences may be 

that sampling and survey intensities may be insufficient and different between the two islands, or 

that geographic isolation may result in differential recruitment rates between the two islands. As 

noted earlier, not all habitats at Howland have been surveyed to the same degree as those at 

Baker. 

Reef fish populations at Baker appeared healthy and diverse with little indication of unauthorized 

harvest. However, Maragos, during 2000 surveys noted that there were many small sharks and 

no larger sharks at both Howland and Baker. In contrast, there were numerous small and some 

large sharks at both locales by 2004 and 2006. Because “shark finning” (the catching of sharks 

only to remove their fins for sale) is a growing concern in the Pacific and other oceans, it is 

possible that the pre-2000 harvest of sharks at Baker resulted in the absence of larger adult 

sharks in 2000 (Maragos et al. 2008b). Larger sharks and additional recruitment by 2004, and 

lack of subsequent shark fin harvest in the area may explain the more normal size distribution in 

sharks observed in 2004 and 2006. 

The fact that the disparities for the coral genera did not track in the same direction as for the fish 

families (more coral genera at Baker vs. more fish families at Howland), reinforces the 

hypothesis of geographic isolation may lead to biodiversity heterogeneity based on chance and 

differential recruitment success. Geographic isolation would require both corals and reef fish to 

rely more on local recruitment vis-à-vis external recruitment. The latter would likely play a 

much larger role where reefs and islands are larger and closer together and result in similar 

biodiversity characteristics. 

Marine Mammals 

On most visits to Baker Island, a group of approximately 40 bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) appears as the ship approaches the island. Formal quantitative surveys of marine 

mammal distribution and abundance have not been undertaken at the refuge. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-16 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Pelagic Wildlife 

Oceanic pelagic fish including skipjack, yellowfin tuna, and blue marlin prefer warm surface 

layers, where the water is well mixed by surface winds and is relatively uniform in temperature 

and salinity. Other pelagic species, such as albacore, bigeye tuna, striped marlin, and swordfish, 

prefer cooler, more temperate waters, often meaning higher latitudes or greater depths. In fact, 

the largest proportion of the tuna catch in the Pacific Ocean originates from the warm pool, even 

though paradoxically this is a region of low primary productivity. Tuna movement to upwelling 

zones at the fringe of the warm pool may be key in resolving this apparent discrepancy between 

algal and tuna production. Preferred water temperature often varies with the size and maturity of 

pelagic fish, and adults usually have a wider temperature tolerance than subadults. Thus, during 

spawning, adults of many pelagic species usually move to warmer waters, the preferred habitat 

of their larval and juvenile stages. 

Large-scale oceanographic events (such as El Niño) change the characteristics of water 

temperature and productivity across the Pacific, and these events have a significant effect on the 

habitat range and movements of pelagic species. Tuna are commonly most concentrated near 

islands and seamounts that create divergences and convergences, which concentrate forage 

species, and also near upwelling zones along ocean current boundaries and along gradients in 

temperature, oxygen, and salinity. Swordfish and numerous other pelagic species tend to 

concentrate along food-rich temperature fronts between cold upwelled water and warmer oceanic 

water masses (NMFS 2001). These frontal zones also function as migratory pathways across the 

Pacific for loggerhead turtles (Polovina et al. 2000). Loggerhead turtles are opportunistic 

omnivores that feed on floating prey such as the pelagic cnidarian, Vellela vellela (“by the wind 

sailor”) and the pelagic gastropod Janthina spp., both of which are likely to be concentrated by 

the weak downwelling associated with frontal zones (Polovina et al. 2000). 

The estimated hundreds of thousands of seabirds breeding at national wildlife refuges in the 

Central Pacific Ocean are primarily pelagic feeders that obtain the fish and squid they consume 

by associating with schools of large predatory fish such as tuna and billfish (Fefer et al. 1984, Au 

and Pitman 1986). These fish―yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus 

pelamis), mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), rainbow runner 

(Elagatis bipinnulatus), broadbilled swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and blue marlin (Makaira 

indica)―are apex predators of a food web existing primarily in the epipelagic zone. While both 

the predatory fish and the birds are capable of foraging throughout their pelagic ranges (which 

encompass the tropical Pacific Ocean), the birds are most successful at feeding their young when 

they can find schools of predatory fish within easy commuting range of the breeding colonies 

(Ashmole 1963, Feare 1976, Flint 1991). Recently fledged birds, inexperienced in this complex 

and demanding style of foraging, rely on abundant and local food resources to survive while they 

learn to locate and capture prey. Some evidence from tagging studies done by Itano and Holland 

(2000) suggests both yellowfin and bigeye tuna aggregate around island reef ledges, seamounts, 

and fish aggregating devices and are caught at a higher rate here than in open water areas. 

Yellowfin tuna in Hawai‘i exhibit a summer island-related inshore-spawning run (Itano 2001). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-17 

Ashmole and Ashmole (1967) and Boehlert (1993) suggest that the circulation cells and wake 

eddies found downstream of oceanic islands may concentrate plankton and therefore enhance 

productivity near islands. Higher productivity, in turn, results in greater abundance of baitfish, 

thus allowing higher tuna populations locally. Johannes (1981) describes the daily migrations of 

skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna to and from the waters near islands and banks. The presence of 

natural densities of these tunas within the foraging radius of seabird colonies enhances the ability 

of birds to provide adequate food for their offspring (Ashmole and Ashmole 1967; Au and 

Pitman 1986, Diamond 1978, Fefer et al. 1984.). Wake eddies also concentrate the larvae of 

many reef fishes and other reef organisms and serve to keep them close to reefs, enhancing 

survivorship of larvae and recruitment of juveniles and adults back to the reefs. For at least three 

of the seabird species breeding in the NWHI (brown noddies, white terns, and brown boobies), 

large proportions (33 to 56 percent) of their diets originate from the surrounding coral reef 

ecosystem, in other areas where their diet has been studied (Ashmole and Ashmole 1967; 

Harrison et al. 1983; King 1970; Diamond 1978). 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act documented to use Baker include the threatened 

green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 

although little information is available on sea turtle populations at Baker. However, both species 

have been observed and photographed foraging in the shallow water near the island. 

Invasive Species 

Human activities at Baker Island have resulted in various non-native species being introduced 

including the house cat, the Norway rat, house mouse, various ant and cockroach species, and 

plants such as coconut palm, tropical almond, ilima, Portulaca oleracea, and milo. The cats 

were introduced in 1937 and finally eliminated in 1965. The rats were documented as early as 

1854 and in many accounts were described as extremely abundant but they disappeared 

sometime after 1937 and before 1963 (Clapp and Sibley, 1965), probably due to a combination 

of predation by the cats and the efforts of the settlers at the time. 

Wilderness Resources 

Portions of Baker remain in a wilderness state in terms of its biota, seascape, and landscape. 

However, the collection of abandoned fuel drums, excavations and pits left behind from the 

guano mining era, the airfield constructed during WWII, and remains from a Coast Guard Long 

Range Navigation (LORAN) station degrade the wilderness values of the terrestrial portion of 

Baker. The wilderness values of the marine portion of Baker are influenced by the small section 

of the reef blasted for a boat passage during the guano-mining era, the potential for 11 loaded 

LCMs (Marine Landing Craft) lost by the military while landing on the island in the 1940s to be 

present in the nearshore waters, and abandoned anchors and chain near the western shoreline. 

However, the collective contribution of these detractions to the marine portion of Baker is minor 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-18 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

compared to the otherwise overwhelming wilderness character of the surrounding reefs. 

Additional wilderness information and evaluation are covered in greater detail in Appendix F. 

Archaeology and Paleontology 

Polynesians visited Baker Island prior to its discovery by European navigators (Hague 1862). 

However, Emory (1925) reported that no traces of Polynesian remains were found on Baker. 

Baker has many visible signs and debris of human occupation. Most of the remaining debris is 

left from the military and Coast Guard occupation of the island from 1942-46. However, there 

are many remnants of earlier inhabitants. There is a burial ground on the southern portion of the 

western edge that dates from the guano mining days. A second cemetery, probably dating from 

WWII, is located on the western ridge north of the lighthouse. The most noticeable remnant 

remaining from the military is the airstrip 150 feet wide and 5,400 feet long. At the northeast 

section, apparently the main camp area, there are the remains of several buildings and pieces of 

heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet in height remain standing in the 

camp. Several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers are scattered around the 

island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of metal, fuel, and water drums 

are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of the island. 

An archaeological reconnaissance survey performed on September 18-20, 1987, and consisting 

of only surface reconnaissance and limited subsurface testing performed as part of an ACOE 

Defense Environmental Restoration project to inventory and burn fuel in abandoned WWII fuel 

drums on Baker and Howland Islands (ACOE 1987). The archaeological reconnaissance was 

conducted prior to the drum collection and burning to avoid possible damage to cultural 

resources (Shun 1987). This archaeological reconnaissance at Baker in 1987 (Shun 1987) 

resulted in the identification of 20 surface sites, all less than 200 years old. These include a 

lighthouse, the remains of the Meyerton settlement, a guano miner’s stone structure, a cemetery, 

mounds, trenches, and runway matting. 

Environmental conditions on Baker are inhospitable to lengthy human occupation. The lack of a 

constant supply of fresh water is the primary limiting factor for habitation by humans. It is 

conceivable that early prehistoric people could have used Baker Island as a stopping, resting, or 

gathering place during their voyages across the Pacific Ocean, including capture of nesting sea 

turtles kept alive for extended food supply during long ocean voyages. However, it is doubtful 

that voyagers would have willingly settled on this island. Landings in any vessel would have 

been difficult, although access gained by small canoe is possible. Due to its remoteness and lack 

of a sustainable freshwater supply, it is likely that Baker played a minimal role, if any, in the 

colonizing efforts of prehistoric people across the Pacific. 

No records were found of paleontological surveys, although paleontological resources could 

exist in the form of fossilized coral or algae and other invertebrates. The chances of prehistoric 

indigenous terrestrial mammals inhabiting Baker are non-existent due to the geological forces 

that formed the island, and its remoteness and dry climate. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-19 

Recent Cultural History 

The occupation and use of Baker after post-European contact, approximately AD 1800, can be 

divided into five distinctive time periods or eras based upon alternating periods of occupation, 

use, and abandonment. The eras are categorized as whaling, guano mining, colonizing, military, 

and post military. 

Whaling Era: circa AD 1800-1870 

Baker has also borne the names New Nantucket and Phoebe. The island was frequently visited 

by whaling vessels that used the island as a mail drop-off and provisioning station. While the 

first sighting of the island is unknown, the first name recorded for the island was New Nantucket. 

This name was given by either Captain Elisha Folger, of Nantucket, who visited the island in the 

whaler Equator in 1818, or by Captain Obed Starbuck on the ship Loper in 1825. Finally, in 

1832, Michael Baker of New Bedford, Massachusetts gave the name ‘Baker’ to the island. 

Guano Mining Era: 1850-1891 

On February 5, 1857, Alfred G. Benson and Charles H. Judd on board the Hawaiian schooner 

Liholiho officially claimed the island under the “Guano Act” of 1856 for the American Guano 

Company (Bryan 1974). Guano mining on Baker Island was delayed because the ships sent to 

investigate the guano resources would not land at the island due to severe surf conditions (Clapp 

and Sibley 1965). While mining on Baker commenced in 1858 by the American Guano 

Company, formal recognition of their rights to the island did not occur until 1861 due to a 

mining rights dispute with the United States Guano Company. Mining on Baker Island peaked 

in the 1860s and 1870s. An estimated 200,000 to 240,000 tons of guano was removed from the 

island (Clapp and Sibley 1965). Evidence of this era of exploitation still remains as a large basin 

from mining excavation and mounds of low-grade guano mark the island landscape. 

After 17 years of guano mining, Baker Island appears to have been uninhabited. Visits or very 

brief stopovers no doubt occurred during the interim. The Whippoorwill Expedition sponsored 

by Bishop Museum paid one such visit in September 1924. This scientific team spent only 1 day 

on Baker Island. 

Colonizing Era: 1935-1942 

The establishment of trans-Pacific air routes; territorial ownership disputes over several islands 

in the Pacific between the United States and the United Kingdom in the early 1900s, and the 

threat of a second world war led to colonizing efforts by the United States on several Pacific 

islands including Baker Island. Colonizing efforts began in March 1935. Several military 

personnel and graduates of Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii established a colony on Baker Island 

(Brown et al. 2002) termed the Hui Panalā’au (Bryan 1974; Kikiloi and Tengan 2002). After 

initial establishment, the colonists were comprised of Kamehameha graduates and were supplied 

with enough food, water and other necessities to sustain them “for a period of from six weeks to 

several months” (Bryan 1974). Water and bulk food were supplied from Hawaii. During this 

colonizing era, at least 26 trips were made to Baker Island by various Coast Guard cutters.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-20 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

The colonists erected Meyerton as their place of permanent settlement, with structures for water, 

food storage, radio equipment, and walls around the main settlement being constructed. 

Attempts to grow trees, flowers, and vegetables were made, but the conditions were unfavorable 

for cultivated crops. During this era, a beacon was constructed from the stone slabs of the guano 

mining houses (Bryan 1974). 

 

Military Era: 1942-1944 

The colony on Baker Island continued undisturbed except for routine Coast Guard visits until 

December 10, 1941. A Japanese submarine surfaced offshore and fired about 30 rounds into the 

colonists’ installations. A second round of 15 shells was fired later in the day. The shelling 

destroyed all the buildings except the rain shed and beacon. On December 28, a Japanese plane 

bombed and machine-gunned the island. The colonists were not injured by these raids and were 

removed by the destroyer Helm on January 31, 1942. 

On July 30, 1943, engineer troops of the 7th Army Air Force (AAF) were landed on Baker with 

equipment and supplies to construct an airstrip to defend the central Pacific islands. In the 

landing of materials for construction of the base, 11 out of 23 LCMs were damaged or lost in the 

surf (Morison 1951). The main portion of the base was constructed by October 1943, including 

the runway, 5,750 feet long and 150 feet wide, covered in a metal Marston mat and a 50-foot 

wide taxi-way made of rolled coral. Approximately 2,000-3,000 men were stationed on Baker 

Island during peak operations. The base participated in the Tarawa-Makin operation from 

November through December of 1943, providing extensive use of the airfield by B-24s. Military 

operations ceased thereafter and the island was evacuated in March 1944 (Bryan 1974). 

On February 5, 1944, the Coast Guard authorized the construction of the Phoenix LORAN 

station on Baker Island. Construction began in June 1944, and required 12,000 cubic yards of 

coral to level off the selected area. Seven Quonset huts left by the AAF were placed on cribbed 

sleds and hauled about a mile to the station location on the north shore. Sufficient fuel was 

delivered to the site for the operation of a water distillation unit for over a year. This was one of 

the first LORAN stations where sentry dogs were used (USCG 1946). Due to high winds, 

treacherous surf, and torrential rains, landing materials at Baker took 2 weeks. Equipment was 

aided ashore by lines attached from the LCM to a tractor on shore that would haul the boat onto 

the beach (Willoughby 1980). The Coast Guard administered the island and LORAN station 

until it was abandoned in May 1946 (Clapp and Sibley 1965). 

Post War Era: 1944 to present 

No attempt was made to re-colonize Baker Island after the departure of the Coast Guard, 

although the Department of the Interior thought of doing so. In 1948, the United States decided 

that the claim to Baker Island could be effectively maintained by annual Coast Guard visits. 

Most visits to Baker Island usually occurred in the first four months of the year with the ships’ 

crews completing repairs to the day beacon and taking photographs to establish their presence on 

the island (Shun 1987).
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 4-21 

In March 1963, and for the following 2 years, Smithsonian Institution employees made a number 

of visits to Baker Island as part of the SIPOBS (Sibley et al. 1965). During this period of 

investigation by the Smithsonian, a reconnaissance team of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC) visited the island. This group arrived on Baker Island on October 18, 1963, conducted 

their survey for the following 3 days and departed. In addition, a survey by AEC was made of 

topographical, geological, and oceanographic features of the island (USAEC 1963). 

 

In recent years, sporadic visits have occurred in the form of Coast Guard and NOAA patrols and 

scientific expeditions. The island and its territorial seas were transferred to the Service in 1974 

from the Office of Insular Affairs. This area is now managed as a unit of the System. Refuge 

staff members continue to participate in scientific expeditions, typically aboard NOAA vessels 

and occurring, on average, once every 2 years since 2000. 

Socio-economics 

Historical Developments 

Since whaling days, Baker Island has been used for a variety of commercial enterprises. During 

the whaling era, it appears that Baker Island served as a port-in-a-storm and possible gathering 

site for provisions which included harvesting seabirds, sea turtles, and their eggs. Fishing for 

tuna and other species may have occurred as well. The guano-mining era provided the world 

with a nutrient-rich fertilizer. Baker and other central Pacific islands were exploited for their 

deep guano deposits. 

After the guano mining period, Baker Island was retained by the U.S. Government to aid in 

transportation and commerce during the mid-1930s. A colony was established on Baker Island 

to assert U.S. possession by placing four to five men on Baker Island from 1935 to 1942 (Bryan 

1974, Brown et al. 2002). Baker Island was used as an U.S. Army airfield from 1943-44. The 

Coast Guard constructed and staffed a LORAN station from 1944-46. After 1946, there was no 

further military use of the island, but Coast Guard vessels performed annual patrols to protect 

U.S. economic interests in the central Pacific. 

In modern times, a proposal to use the island for military/atomic testing was developed in 1963 

(USAEC 1963), but the proposal did not materialize for Baker, it was implemented on Johnston 

Island instead. In 1974, Baker Island and its territorial sea was transferred to the Service as a 

unit of the System to preserve and restore ecosystem values, focusing on nesting seabird 

populations 

During the past decade, the government of Kiribati requested permission to allow their fishing 

fleets within Baker Island’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Department of the 

Interior relayed their concerns about this request to the appropriate offices of the Bureau of East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Department of State. As a result, the Department of State 

informed the Government of Kiribati that the U.S. Government would decline that request. 

There are no current economic uses of Baker, and the island remains unpopulated. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-22 Chapter 4 – Refuge and Resource Description 

Land Use 

Baker has been uninhabited since the World War II era and will remain so except for occupation 

during periodic field camps. As such, the future “land use” for Baker will likely include 

designation of a preferred field camp site that will not conflict with important wildlife functions, 

habitat restoration, cultural sites, or wilderness values or be in a contaminated area. Site 

planning will also identify corridors for small boat access, footpaths for regular island patrols, 

study sites, areas designated for solar power and potable water production generation, waste and 

trash disposal areas, work areas, and other needs. 

Public Access 

Baker is closed to public access. There has never been, nor are there plans to formally open the 

refuge to recreational activities by publishing public notice in the Federal Register. However, 

limited public access of Baker has been authorized in the past. Refuge access is managed 

through the issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP) when the activity is deemed compatible and 

appropriate with the purposes of refuge establishment. 

 

Commercial Fishing 

There has been essentially no recorded Hawaii-based longline fishing activity within the 

Howland and Baker Islands U.S. EEZs (0-200 nmi) from 1991-2007 (Hamm and Dowdell, 

2008). There has also been no commercial purse seine fishing between 0-12 nmi around 

Howland and Baker Islands from 1998 to 2007 (NMFS SWFSC 2008). Over the years, foreign 

commercial fishing vessels may have targeted uninhabited Baker for unauthorized and illegal 

fishing because of the lack of on-site surveillance and enforcement capacity. The economic 

pressure to pursue this option would likely increase in the future as commercial fishing stocks in 

Asia and the Pacific become more heavily fished and depleted. Baker is habitat to many 

commercially valuable fishery species including sharks, lobsters, groupers, giant clams, tuna, 

wahoo, swordfish, deepwater snappers, bumphead parrotfish, humphead wrasses, various 

aquarium fish, pearl oysters, sea cucumbers, and other species. The no-take mandate and 

establishment of the refuge predated the applicability of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1996 as amended (16 USC 1361 et seq.) to Baker. The 

deep slope area outside the refuge is likely too small to support commercial bottomfish harvest 

especially in light of the long commuting distances between Baker and the home ports of the 

fishing vessels. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDICES 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-1 

Appendix A 

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

ACHP. President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

Alien species. Non-native species intentionally or accidentally introduced into refuge habitats. 

Atoll. A tropical reef formation, with a shallow water lagoon, surrounding perimeter reef, and 

reef islet(s). 

Baker. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

CCP. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

CCP/EA. A document that combines a Comprehensive Conservation Plan and an 

Environmental Assessment. 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. A comprehensive directory of all Federal regulations. 

CITES. Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager 

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

CPWHP. Central Pacific World Heritage Project. 

CRED. The Coral Reef Ecosystem Division of NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center. 

DLNR. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

DMA. Defense Mapping Agency.

EEZ. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

EIS. Environmental Impact Statement. NEPA documentation that assesses the impacts of major 

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Environmental Assessment. A concise public National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

document that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action and action alternatives, and 

provides sufficient analysis of impacts and evidence to determine whether an environmental 

impact statement or finding of no significant impact needs to be prepared (40 CFR 1508.9). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-2 Appendix B – Species Lists 

ENSO. El Niño Southern Oscillation; a periodic ocean warming anomaly in the tropics. 

EUC. Equatorial Undercurrent; a subsurface ocean current flowing east at the Equator. 

Federal Register (FR). Official bulletin publicizing notices of Federal actions. 

FMPS. Fishery Management Plans for commercial fisheries in Federal waters. 

FONSI. Finding of No Significant Impact; a federal agency notice and preliminary decision that 

its proposed action would not require preparation of an EIS. 

GIS. Geographic information system; a database integrating tabular and geographic data. 

GPS. Global Positioning System; satellite-based for accurate geographic/site positioning. 

Howland. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Hydrophone. Underwater microphone or listening device. 

Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Insular Area. The current generic term used to refer to a United States possession, territory, 

Territory, freely associated state, or commonwealth under United States sovereignty. 

Invasive Species. Either an alien or native species that spreads, or achieves dominance quickly, 

resulting in undesirable effects on native species and their habitats 

ITCZ. Inter-tropical Convergence Zone; approximately along 5o N Latitude where the northeast 

and southeast trade winds collide, rise, and create a zone of heavy rainfall and low winds; also 

known as the doldrums. 

IUCN. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 

Jarvis. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

LEIS. Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. See EIS. 

MBTA. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Mesoscale Eddy. A circular flow of water near an island or reef, roughly 10 to 100 nm in 

diameter caused by the wake of currents passing a reef or island. 

μ L. Micro liter, or one-millionth of a liter. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-3 

NEC. North Equatorial Current, west-flowing oceanic surface current between 5-30oN Latitude 

driven by the northeast trade winds. 

NECC. North Equatorial Countercurrent; east-flowing oceanic surface current under the ITCZ. 

NEPA. National Environmental Policy Act; establishes procedures requiring all Federal 

agencies to assess the environmental consequences of their actions. 

NMI. Nautical mile; the equivalent of 1.15 statute (land) mile, 6,000 ft., or one minute of 

Longitude at the Equator. 

NMFS. The National Marine Fisheries Service of NOAA. 

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NPS. National Park Service. 

NWR. National Wildlife Refuge. 

NWRS. National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Oligotrophic. Waters having low levels of the mineral nutrients required by green plants. At 

Howland, this refers to the transparent zone of nutrient-poor shallow tropical waters, bounded by 

a thermocline serving as a barrier against exchange with deeper nutrient-rich waters. 

Phenology. The study of periodic biological phenomena, such as breeding, flowering, and 

migrations, especially as related to climate. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the refuge purpose(s), vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Proposed Action. Preferred Alternative among several evaluated to comply with NEPA. 

Quadrat. A rigid frame used by ecologists to facilitate unit area estimates of the size and 

density of surface-dwelling plants and animals; Photo-quadrat. A photograph of the area inside 

the quadrat to allow office data analysis after field staff visits. 

PIFSC. NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. 

REA. Rapid ecological assessments. 

Reef Island. Low tropical islet resting on a coral reef and consisting of reef rock and sand. 

RONS. Refuge Operating Needs System; Service program for NWR operating funds. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-4 Appendix B – Species Lists 

ROV. Remotely operated vehicle; mobile un-manned device for collecting deep-sea data. 

SAMMS. Service Asset Maintenance Management System; Service program to provide funds 

to maintain refuge property. 

SEC. South Equatorial Current; westward-flowing ocean current driven by the southeast trade 

winds between Latitudes 5o N and 30o S. 

Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior. 

Service. Used alone in this report, it refers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

SIPOBS. Smithsonian Institution Pacific Ocean Biological Survey. 

SUP. Special Use Permit; written Service approval and conditions for conducting an activity on 

a refuge. 

System. Used alone in this report, it refers to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Thermocline. In oceans, it is a depth zone of rapid density and temperature change serving as a 

barrier between mixing of shallow warmer surface and deeper subsurface waters. 

Transect. A linear scientific field survey sampling design or area to facilitate repeatability, 

standard units of measurement, and future site relocation and resurvey. 

UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

USCG. United States Coast Guard. 

U.S. Possession. Equivalent to U.S. territory. It is no longer current colloquial usage. 

U.S. Territory. An incorporated United States insular area, of which only two currently exists 

in the Pacific Ocean (Guam American Samoa), in which the United States Congress has applied 

the full body of the United States Constitution. 

U.S. territory. A United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined 

that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply.

WESPAC. Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council. 

WSA. Wilderness Study Area. 

World Heritage Property. A protected and inscribed natural and/or cultural site with 

“outstanding universal value” and meeting one or more of the eligibility criteria of the 

International Convention on World Heritage. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-1 

Appendix B 

Species Lists 

Table B-1: FAMILIES, genera, common names, and number of species/genus for corals and 

other cnidarians reported from Baker Island NWR 1998-2006. After Maragos (2000-2003, 2004, 

2006), and Maragos & Schmerfeld (1998). 

 

Scientific Name Common Name Number of Species 

MILLEPORIDAE 

 Millepora fire coral 1 

POCILLOPORIDAE 

 Pocillopora antler coral and cauliflower corals 3 

ACROPORIDAE 

 Acropora table and staghorn corals 23 

 Astreopora crater coral 1 

 Montipora rice and plate corals 10 

PORITIDAE

 Porites annae lobe corals 5 

AGARICIIDAE 

 Gardineroseris honeycomb coral 1 

 Leptoseris deep encrusting coral 1 

 Pachyseris combed plate coral 1 

 Pavona star and corrugated corals 4 

FUNGIIDAE 

 Cycloseris small mushroom coral 1 

 Fungia mushroom coral 4 

 Halomitra giant basket coral 1 

 Herpolitha stone snake coral 1 

 Sandalolitha oval mushroom coral 1 

MUSSIDAE 

 Acanthastrea spiny encrusting coral 1 

 Lobophyllia spiny lobe coral 1 

 Symphyllia spiny brain coral 1 

MERULINIDAE 

 Hydnophora pedestal coral 1 

FAVIIDAE 

 Cyphastrea sp. small walled brain coral 1 

 Diploastrea star brain coral 1 

 Echinopora encrusting brain coral 1 

 Favia circular brain corals 3 

 Favites honeycomb brain coral 2 

 Leptastrea bewickensis incrusting brain coral 2 

 Montastrea large walled brain corals 2 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-2 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name Number of Species 

 Platygyra true brain corals 2 

DENDROPHYLLIIDAE 

 Cladopsammia slender yellow tube coral 1 

 Tubastraea common tube coral 1 

 Turbinaria cabbage coral 1 

 Rhizopsammia rhizome tube corals 1 

DISCOSOMATIDAE 

 Rhodactis false corals 1 

SIDERASTREIDAE 

 Coscinaraea sandpaper corals 2 

 Psammocora granulated corals 4 

ACTINARIA 

 Aptasia stalked anemone 1 

 Entacmaea bubble-tip anemone 1 

 Heteractis Anemone 1 

ZOANTHIDEA 

 Palythoa tuberculosa rubber coral 1 

Table B-2: Fish species and genera collected from or observed at Baker Island from 1927-2002. 

Collected or compiled by Mundy et al. (2002). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

CARCHARHINIDAE Requiem Sharks 

 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Bleeker 1856) grey reef shark 

 Carcharhinus melanopterus 

 (Quoy &Gaimard 1824) 

 reef black-tip shark 

HEMIGALEIDAE Weasel Sharks, White-tip Reef Sharks 

 Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell 1837) white-tip reef shark 

SPHYRNIDAE Hammerhead Sharks 

 Sphyrna mokarran (Rüppell 1837) great hammerhead shark 

 Sphyrna sp. unidentified Sphyrna species 

DASYATIDAE Sand Rays 

 Taeniura meyeni (Müller & Henle 1841) giant sand ray 

MYLIOBATIDAE Eagle Rays 

 Manta sp. unidentified Manta species 

MURAENIDAE Moray Eels 

 Echidna nebulosa (Ahl 1789) snowflake moray 

 Gymnomuraena zebra 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder 1797) 

 zebra moray 

 Gymnothorax breedini 

 (McCosker & Randall 1977) 

 Breeden’s moray 

 Gymnothorax flavimarginatus (Rüppell 1830) yellow-margined moray 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-3 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Gymnothorax rueppelliae (McClelland 1844) yellow-headed moray 

 Gymnothorax sp. unidentified Gymnothorax species. 

 Uropterygius marmoratus marbled snake moray 

 Uropterygius micropterus tide pool snake moray 

 Uropterygius sp. unidentified Uropterygius species 

MUGILIDAE Mullets 

 Chaenomugil leuciscus acute-jawed mullet 

 Crenimugil crenilabrus fringelip mullet 

 Valamugil engeli Engel’s mullet 

HOLOCENTRIDAE Squirrelfishes and Soldierfishes 

 Myripristis berndti 

 (Jordan & Evermann 1903) 

 bigscale soldierfish 

 Neoniphon opercularis blackfin squirrelfish 

 Sargocentron caudimaculatum 

 (Rüppell 1838) 

 tailspot squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum punctatissimum speckled squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum tiere 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829) 

 blue-lined squirrelfish 

 Pseudanthias cooperi red-bar fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pascalus fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pleurotaenia fairy basslet 

CARACANTHIDAE Orbicular Velvetfishes 

 Caracanthus maculates (Gray 1831) spotted coral croucher 

SERRANIDAE Sea Basses, Fairy Basslets & Groupers 

 Aethaloperca rogaa redmouth grouper 

 Cephalopholis argus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 peacock grouper 

 Cephalopholis miniatatus (Forsskål 1775) coral grouper 

 Cephalopholis urodeta 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 flagtail grouper 

 Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskål 1775) black-tipped grouper 

 Epinephelus hexagonatus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 hexagon grouper 

 Epinephelus howlandi (Günther 1873) Howland Island grouper 

 Epinephelus macrospilos (Bleeker 1855) black-spotted grouper 

 Epinephelus melanostigmus 

 (Schultz in Schultz et al. 1953) 

 blackspot honeycomb grouper 

 Epinephelus merra (Bloch 1793) honeycomb grouper 

 Epinephelus spilotoceps 

 (Schultz in Schultz et al. 1953) 

 four-saddle grouper 

 Gracila albomarginata 

 (Fowler & Bean 1930) 

 white-margined grouper 

 Luzonichthys whitleyi (Smith 1955) Whitley’s slender basslet 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-4 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum 

 (Randall & Lubbock 1981) 

 Bartlett’s fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum var. “red spot” 

 (Randall & Lubbock 1981) 

 Bartlett’s “red spot” basslet 

 Pseudanthias cooperi red-bar fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias olivaceus 

 (Randall & McCosker 1982) 

 fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pascalus fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pleurotaenia fairy basslet 

 Pseudantias sp. unidentified Pseudantias sp. 

 Variola louti (Forsskål 1775) lyretail grouper 

BELONIDAE Needlefishes 

 Platybelone argulus platyura keeled needlefish 

 Tylosurus crocodilus 

 (Peron & Lesueur in Lesueur 1821) 

 crocodile needlefish 

EXOCOETIDAE Flying Fish 

 Exocoetidae sp. unidentified flyingfish species 

HEMIRAMPHIDAE Halfbeaks 

 Hemiramphidae sp. unidentified halfbeak species 

APOGONIDAE Cardinalfishes 

 Apogon angustatus 

 (Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe 1911) 

 broad-striped cardinalfish 

 Apogon apogonides (Bleeker 1856) cardinalfish 

 Apogon taeniophorus (Regan 1908) cardinalfish 

ECHENEIDAE Remoras 

 Remora remora remora 

CARANGIDAE Jacks and Trevallys 

 Carangoides ferdau (Forsskål 1775) bar jack 

 Carangoides orthogrammus 

 (Jordan & Gilbert 1882) 

 yellow-spotted trevally 

 Caranx ignobilis (Forsskål 1775) giant trevally 

 Caranx lugubris (Poey 1860) black jack 

 Carnax melampygus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1833) 

 bluefin trevally 

 Caranx sexfasciatus (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) bigeye trevally 

 Elegatis bipinnulata (Quoy & Gaimar 1825) rainbow runner 

 Trachinotus baillonii pompano 

LUTJANIDAE Snappers 

 Aphareus furca (Lacepède 1801) blue small-tooth jobfish 

 Aphareus rutilans jobfish 

 Aprion virescens jobfish, uku 

 Lutjanus bohar (Forsskål 1775) twinspot snapper, redspot snapper 

 Lutjanus fulvus flametail snapper 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-5 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 Lutjanus gibbus (Forsskål 1775) humpback snapper 

 Lutjanus monostigma 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1828) 

 one-spot snapper 

 Macolor niger black snapper 

 Pristipomoides filamentosus snapper 

CAESIONIDAE Fusiliers 

 Caesio teres (Seale 1906) yellow-back fusilier 

 Pterocaesio tile bluestreak fusilier 

LETHRINIDAE Emperors 

 Gnathodentex aureolineatus (Lacepède 1802) yellowspot emperor 

 Monotaxis grandoculis (Forsskål 1775) bigeye emperor 

 Lethrinus sp. unidentified emperor species 

MULLIDAE Goatfishes 

 Mulloides mimicus (Randall & Guézé 1980) mimic goatfish 

 Mulloides vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish 

 Parupeneus bifasciatus (Lacepède 1801) two-barred goatfish 

 Parupeneus multifasciatus multibarred goatfish 

PEMPHERIDAE Sweepers 

 Pempheris oualensis 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 bronze sweeper 

KYPHOSIDAE Rudderfishes & Sea Chubs 

 Kyphosus cinerascens (Forsskål 1775) highfin rudderfish, snubnose rudderfish 

 Kyphosus vaigiensis (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) lowfin rudderfish, brassy chub 

 Sectator ocyurus rudderfish 

CHAETODONTIDAE Butterflyfishes 

 Chaetodon auriga (Forsskål 1775) threadfin butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon citrinellus speckled butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon lineolatus (Cuvier (ex Quoy & 

 Gaimard) in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 lined butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon lunula (Lacépède 1802) racoon butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon meyeri (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Meyer’s butterflyfish 

 Chaedodon ornatissimus (Cuvier (ex 

 Solander) in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 ornate butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon quadrimaculatus (Gray 1831) fourspot butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon reticulates reticulated butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon semeion dotted butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon trifascialis chevroned butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon unimaculatus (Bloch 1787) teardrop butterflyfish 

 Forcipiger flavissimus (Jordan & McGregor 

 in Jordan & Evermann 1898) 

 long-nosed butterflyfish 

POMACANTHIDAE Angelfishes 

 Apolemichthys griffisi Griffith’s angelfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-6 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 (Carlson & Taylor 1981) 

 Apolemichthys xanthopunctatus 

 (Burgess 1973) 

 golden-spotted angelfish 

 Centropyge bicolor Bicolor angelfish 

 Centropyge flavissima 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 lemon-peel angelfish 

 Centropyge loricula (Günther 1874) flame angelfish 

 Centropyge vrolikii pearlscale angelfish 

 Pygoplites diacanthus regal angelfish 

POMACENTRIDAE Damselfishes 

 Abudefduf sordidus (Forsskål 1775) black-spot sergeant 

 Abudefduf vaigiensis sergeant 

 Abudefduf species unidentified sergeant species 

 Amblyglyphidodan aureus golden damsel 

 Amphiprion chrysopterus orange-fin Anemonefish 

 Chromis acares (Randall & Swerdloff 1973) midget chromis 

 Chromis caudalis blue axil chromis 

 Chromis margaritifer (Fowler 1946) bicolor chromis 

 Chromis xanthura (Bleeker 1854) black chromis 

 Chrysiptera brownriggi Brownrugg’s damoiselle 

 Chrysiptera glauca 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830) 

 gray demoiselle 

 Dascyllus auripinnis yellow-fin dascyllus 

 Lepidozygus tapeinosoma (Bleeker 1856) fusilier damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon phoenixensis

 (Schultz 1943) Phoenix Islands damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon dickii (Liénard 1839) Dick’s damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon imparipennis 

 (Vaillant & Sauvage 1875) 

 bright-eye damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus 

 (Fowler & Ball 1924) 

 Johnston Island damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus jewel damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon leucozonus white-band damsel 

 Stegastes albifasciolatus white-bar gregory 

 Stegastes aureus (Fowler 1927) golden gregory 

 Stegastes fasciolatus (Ogilby 1889) Pacific gregory 

 Stegastes nigricans (Lacepède 1802) dusky farmfish 

 Stegastes sp. or Pomacentrus sp. unidentified damselfish species 

KUHLIIDAE Flagtails 

 Kuhlia sandvicensis (Steindachner 1876) Hawaiian flagtail 

CIRRHITIDAE Hawkfishes 

 Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus (Bleeker 1855) pixy hawkfish 

 Cirrhitops hubbardi Hubbard’s hawkfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-7 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Neocirrhites armatus (Castelnau 1873) flame hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites arcatus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829) 

 arc-eye hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites forsteri 

 (Schneider in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 freckled hawkfish, blackside hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites hemistictus (Günther 1874) whitespot hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites xanthus (Randall 1963) yellow hawkfish 

 SPHYRAENIDAE Barracudas 

 Sphyraena sp. unidentified Sphyraena species 

 Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum, 1792) great barracuda 

LABRIDAE Wrasses 

 Anampses caeruleopunctatus (Rüppell 1829) blue-spotted wrasse 

 Anampses meleagrides (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840) 

 yellowtail wrasse 

 Bodianus axillaries (Bennett 1832) axilspot hogfish 

 Bodianus prognathus (Lobel 1981) hogfish 

 Cheilinus oxycephalus snooty wrasse 

 Cheilinus trilobatus (Lacepède 1801) tripletail wrasse 

 Cheilinus undulatus (Rüppell 1835) humphead wrasse, Napoleonfish, 

 Napoleon wrasse 

 Coris aygula (Lacepède 1801) clown coris 

 Coris centralis (Randall 1999) coris 

 Coris gaimard (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) yellowtail coris 

 Dioroctacanthus xanthurus wandering cleaner wrasse 

 Gomphosus varius (Lacepède 1801) bird wrasse 

 Halichoeres ornatissinus (Garrett 1863) ornate wrasse fish 

 Hemigymnus fasciatus (Bloch 1792) barred thicklip wrasse 

 Labrichthys unilineatus tubelip wrasse 

 Labroides bicolor (Fowler & Bean 1928) bicolor cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides dimidiatus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1839) 

 bluestreak cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides rubrolabiatus (Randall, 1958) cleaner wrasse 

 Labropsis xanthonota (Randall, 1981) wedge-tailed wrasse 

 Macropharyngodon meleagris (Valenciennes 

 in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839) 

 leopard wrasse 

 Novaculichtyhs taeniourus dragon wrasse, rockmover wrasse 

 Oxycheilinus unifasciatus (Streets 1877) wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus hexataenia (Bleeker 1857) sixline wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus octotaenia (Jenkins 1901) eightline wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia (Schultz in 

 Schultz et al. 1960) 

 fourline wrasse 

 Pseudocoris heteroptera (Bleeker 1857) wrasse 

 Pseudodax mollucanus (Valenciennes in wrasse 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-8 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840) 

 Stethojulis bandanensis (Bleeker 1851) redshoulder wrasse 

 Thalassoma amblycephalum (Bleeker 1856) twotone wrasse 

 Thalassoma Hardwicke sixbar wrasse 

 Thalassoma lutescens (Lay & Bennett (ex 

 Solander) 1839) 

 sunset wrasse 

 Thalassoma purpureum (Forsskål 1775) surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma quinquevittatum 

 (Lay & Bennett 1839) 

 fivestripe surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma trilobatum (Lacepède 1801) Christmas wrasse 

SCARIDAE Parrotfishes 

 Calatomus carolinus (Valenciennes 1840) bucktooth parrotfish, stareye parrotfish 

 Chlorurus frontalis (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes 1840) 

 tan-faced parrotfish 

 Chlorurus microrhinus (Bleeker 1854) parrotfish 

 Scarus niger black parrotfish 

 Scarus frenatus (Lacepède 1802) vermiculate parrotfish 

 Scarus oviceps (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1840) 

 dark-capped parrotfish 

 Scarus rubroviolaceus (Bleeker 1847) red and violet parrotfish, redlip parrotfish 

 Scarus tricolor (Bleeker 1847) tricolor parrotfish 

BLENNIIDAE Blennies 

 Blenniella gibbifrons 

 (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) 

 blenny 

 Cirripectes quagga (Fowler & Ball 1924) squiggly blenny 

 Cirripectes sp. unidentified Cirripectes species 

 Cirripectes variolosus (Valenciennes in

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1836) 

 red-speckled blenny 

 Istiblennius edentulous (Schneider in Bloch & 

 Schneider 1801) 

 rippled rockskipper 

 Meiacanthus atrodorsalis poison-fang blenny 

 Plagiotremus laudandus poison-fang blenny mimic 

 Plagiotremus rhynorhynchus (Bleeker 1852) blue-striped blenny 

 Plagiotremus tapeinosoma (Bleeker 1857) piano blenny, scale-eating blenny 

 Rhabdoblennius snowi Snow’s rockskipper 

PTERELEOTRIDAE Dartfishes, Hovergobies, & Wormfishes 

 Ptereleotris zebra zebra dartfish 

ACANTHURIDAE Surgeonfishes & Unicornfishes 

 Acanthurus achilles (Shaw 1803) Achilles tang 

 Acanthurus blochii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1835) 

 ringtail surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus guttatus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 spotted surgeonfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-9 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Acanthurus lineatus (Linnaeus 1758) blue-banded surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus maculiceps White-freckled surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus mata (Cuvier 1829) elongate surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigricans (Linnaeus 1758) whitecheek surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigricauda 

 (Duncker & Mohr 1929) 

 epaulette surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigrofuscus (Forsskål 1775) brown surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigroris (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes 1835) 

 blue-lined surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus olivaceus 

 (Bloch & Schneider (ex Forster) 1801) 

 orangeband surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus pyroferus chocolate surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus rackliffei 

 (A. achilles x A. nigricans)(Schultz 1943) 

 hybrid surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus thompsoni (Fowler 1923) Thompson’s surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus triostegus (Linnaeus 1758) convict tang 

 Acanthurus xanthopterus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1835) 

 yellow-finned surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus 

 (Randall & Clements 2001) 

 surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus flavicaudis (Fowler 1938) surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis (Randall 1955) chevron tang, black surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus marginatus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1835) 

 blue-spotted bristletooth 

 Ctenochaetus striatus 

 (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) 

 striped bristletooth 

 Naso caesius unicornfish 

 Naso hexacanthus (Bleeker 1855) 

 black-tongue unicornfish, sleek 

 unicornfish 

 Naso lituratus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 liturate surgeonfish 

 Naso unicornis bluespine unicornfish 

 Naso vlamingii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1835) 

 bignose unicornfish 

Paracanthurus hepatus Palette surgeonfish, Hepatus tang 

 Zebrasoma rostratum (Günther 1873) tang 

 Zebrasoma scopas (Cuvier 1829) brown tang 

 Zebrasoma veliferum sailfin tang 

EPHIPPIDAE Batfishes 

 Platax orbicularis circular spadefish, batfish 

ZANCLIDAE Moorish Idol 

 Zanclus cornutus (Linnaeus 1758) moorish idol 

SCOMBRIDAE Tunas 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-10 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Euthynnus affinis (Cantor 1849) kawakawa, bonito 

 Gymnosarda unicolor (Rüppell 1836) dogtooth tuna 

 Scomber japonicus Japanese mackerel, saba 

BALISTIDAE Triggerfishes 

 Balistapus undulatus (Park 1797) orangestriped triggerfish 

 Balistoides viridescens 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 mustache triggerfish, titan triggerfish 

 Melichtys niger (Bloch 1786) black triggerfish 

 Melichtys vidua 

 (Richardson (ex Solander) 1845) 

 pinktail triggerfish 

 Odonus niger (Rüppell 1836) redtooth triggerfish 

 Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus 

 (Rüppell1829) 

 yellowmargin triggerfish 

 Rhinecanthus rectangulus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 wedge picassofish, humunukunukuapua‘a 

 Sufflamen bursa (Bloch & Schneider 1801) scythe triggerfish, boomerang triggerfish 

 Sufflamen chrysopterus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 halfmoon triggerfish 

 Sufflamen frenatus bridle triggerfish 

 Xanthichthys caeruleolineatus 

 (Randall et al. 1978) 

 bluelined triggerfish 

MONACANTHIDAE Filefishes & Leatherjackets 

 Aluterus scriptus (Osbeck 1765) scribbled filefish 

 Amanses scopas (Cuvier 1829) broom filefish 

 Cantherhines dumerilii (Hollard 1854) barred filefish 

 Cantherhines pardalis (Rüppell 1837) wire-net filefish 

 Pervagor janthinosoma blackbar filefish 

OSTRACIIDAE Trunkfishes 

 Ostracion meleagris meleagris 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder 1796) 

 spotted trunkfish 

TETRAODONTIDAE Puffers 

 Arothron meleagris 

 (Lacepède (ex Commerson) 1798) 

 guineafowl puffer 

 Arothron nigropunctatus blackspotted puffer 

 Canthigaster amboinensis (Bleeker 1865) Ambon sharpnose puffer 

 Canthigaster solandri 

 (Richardson (ex Solander) 1845) 

 spotted sharpnose puffer 

DIODONTIDAE Porcupinefishes 

 Diodon hystrix (Linnaeus 1758) porcupinefish 

 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-11 

Table B-3: Vegetation of Baker Island NWR. Compiled from unpublished Service trip reports 

and literature 

Scientific Name Common Name, 

(Hawaiian Name) 

Source* Observed by** 

Cocos nucifera coconut, niu I h 

Cordia subcordata cordia, kou N a,c,d,e 

Terminalia catappa tropical almond I b 

Ipomoea macrantha W a,b 

Ipomoea pes-caprae beach morning glory W d,e 

Fimbristylis cymosa mauu akiaki N a,e 

Euphorbia hirta asthra weed A a,b,d,e 

Phyllanthus amarus A a,d,e 

Sophora tomentosa yellow neclacepod W e 

Scaevola taccada naupaka W f 

Cassytha filiformia N i 

Barringtonia asiatica Fish poison tree W i 

Sida fallax ‘ilima A a,b,d,e 

Thespesia populnea milo I b 

Abutilon indicum abutilon I a,e 

Boerhavia sp. alena N a,b,c,d,e 

Cenchrus echinatus sandbur A e 

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass A e 

Digitaria pacifica Pacific crabgrass N d,e 

Lepturus repens Pacific island thintail N a,b,c,d,e 

Eragrostis tenela love grass 

Eragrostis whitneyi love grass N a 

Setaria verticillata hooked bristle grass A e 

Portulaca lutea portulaca, ‘ihi N a,,b,d,e 

Portulaca oleracea portulaca, ‘ihi A a,,b,d,e 

Suriana maritime Bay cedar W f 

Triumfetta procumbens N a,b,e 

Vitex negundo Five leaved chaste tree I e 

Tribulus cistoides puncturevine, nohu N a,b,c,d,e 

*Source: N = native, I = introduced, A = accidentally introduced, W = wave carried 

** Collectors and Observers: 

a -Christophersen 1927 e - Long 1964 i - Forsell & Bauer 1988 

b - Bryan 1942 f - Rauzon & Woodside 1998 j - Flint & Woodside 1993 

c - Sibley 1963 g - Depkin & Newton 1995 

d - Marshall 1963 h - Rodman 1935 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-12 Appendix B – Species Lists 

Table B-4: Birds of Baker Island NWR. Numbers are counts of adult birds only and 

compiled from unpublished Service trip reports. Note: No bird species found on Baker are listed 

under to the Endangered Species Act. 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Highest 

count 

since 1973 

Birds of 

Conservation Concern 

Statusb

National 

Shorebird 

Prioritization 

Categorya

Regional 

Seabird 

Conservation 

Categoryc

Phaethon 

rubricauda 

red-tailed 

tropicbird* 

72 Moderate 

Sula 

dactylatra

masked 

booby* 

3,134 Moderate 

Sula 

leucogaster 

brown 

booby* 

375 Moderate 

Sula sula red-footed 

booby* 

714 Currently not at 

Risk 

Fregata 

minor 

great 

frigatebird* 

900 Moderate 

Fregata ariel lesser 

frigatebird* 

16,200 BCC 68 High Concern 

Onychoprion 

lunatus 

gray-backed 

tern* 

2,000 Moderate 

Onychoprion 

fuscatus 

sooty tern* 1,600,000 Moderate 

Anous 

stolidus 

brown 

noddy* 

3,600 Currently not at 

Risk 

Procelsterna 

cerulea 

blue-grey 

noddy* 

26 BCC 68 High Concern 

Gygis 

Alba 

white tern* 38 Moderate 

Pluvianlis 

dominica 

Pacific 

goldenplover 

512 BCC 68 High Concern 

Tringa incana Wandering 

tattler 

70 Moderate 

Concern 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B – Species Lists B-13 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Highest 

count 

since 

1973 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Statusb

National 

Shorebird 

Prioritization 

Categorya

Regional 

Seabird 

Conservation 

Categoryc

Numenius 

tahitiensis 

bristlethighed 

curlew 

26 BCC 68 High Concern 

Arenaria 

interpres 

ruddy 

turnstone 

391 High Concern 

Limosa 

lapponica 

bar-tailed 

godwit 

2 High Concern 

Calidris 

acuminata 

sharp-tailed 

sandpiper 

6 Not Listed 

Calidris 

melanotos 

pectoral 

sandpiper 

2 Low Concern 

Calidris alba sanderling 4 High Concern 

Charadrius 

semipalmatus 

Semipalmated 

Plover 

2 Low Concern 

Larus 

atricilla 

Laughing 

Gull 

1 

*indicates documented breeding species on Baker. 

a

Species prioritization categories according to United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

(Brown et al. 2000). 

b

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) status according to Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 

(USFWS 2002). 

c

Conservation classification according to Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (Englis and 

Naughton 2004) 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C – References C-1 

Appendix C 

References 

Ashmole, N.P. 1963. The biology of the Wide-awake or Sooty Tern (Sterna fuscata) on 

Ascension Island. Ibis 103b: 297-364. 

Ashmole, N.P. and M.J Ashmole. 1967. Comparative Feeding Ecology of Sea Birds of a 

Tropical Oceanic Island. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin 24. 

Au, D.K. and R.L. Pitman. 1986. Seabird Interactions with Dolphins and Tuna in the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific The Condor 88 (3): 304-317. 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Endangered Species Research 2: 21-30. 

Boehlert, G., editor. 1993. Fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S. associated Pacific Islands. 

Marine Fisheries Review 55:1-138. 

Boehlert, G. 1993. Fisheries and marine resources of Hawaii and the U.S.-associated Pacific 

Islands: an introduction. Marine Fisheries Review 55: 3-7. 

Brainard, R., J. Maragos, R. Schroeder, J. Kenyon, P. Vroom, S. Godwin, R. Hoeke, G. Aeby, R. 

Moffit, M. Lammers, S. Holzwarth, and S. Kolinski. 2005. Pacific remote Island Areas In: The 

State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States. 

NOAA Tech Memo. NOS NCCOS 11: 340-370. 

Brown, D, N.M.K.Y. Kahanu, S.K. Kikiloi, T.K. Tengan and J. Zisk. 2002. Hui Panalā‛au. 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, published pamphlet, 16 pp. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington eds. 2000. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Browne, A.C. 1940. Proc. Hawaiian Ent. Soc. 10(3):369. 

Bryan, E.H., Jr. 1942. American Polynesia and the Hawaiian Chain. 1-253. Honolulu. 

Bryan, E.H., Jr. 1974. Panala’au Memoirs. Pacific Scientific Information Center. Bernice P. 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. 

Buddemeier, R.W., J.A. Kleypas, and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Coral reefs and global climate 

change: Potential contributions of climate change to stresses on coral reef ecosystems. Pew 

Centre for Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-2 Appendix C – References 

Carter T.R., E.L. La Rovere, R.N. Jones, R. Leemans, L.O. Mearns, N. Nakicenovic, A.B. 

Pittock, S.M. Semenov, and J. Skea. 2001. Developing and Applying Scenarios. In IPCC 2001: 

Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. CUP, Cambridge, UK. 

Christophersen, E. 1927. Vegetation of Pacific Equatorial Islands. Bernice P. Bishop Museum 

Bulletin 44: No. 2. 79 p. 

Citta, John and Michelle H. Reynolds. 2006. Draft Seabird Monitoring Assessment for Hawaii 

and the Pacific Islands. Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs USFWS. USGS-BRD 183 pp. 

Clapp, R.B. and F.C. Sibley. 1965. Biological Survey of Baker Island, March 1963 – May 

1965. Unpublished Report. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C. 

Cobb K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards. 2003. El Niño/Southern Oscillation and 

tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature 424: 271-276. 

D’Arrigo, R., E. Cook, R. Wilson, A. Tudhope, C. Deser, G. Wiles, R. Villalba, J. Cole, and B. 

Linsley. 2005. Tropical–North Pacific Climate Linkages over the Past Four Centuries. Journal 

of Climate 18:5253-5265. 

Darwin, C. 1842. The structure and distribution of coral reefs. Smith Elder, London. 214 pp., 2 

pls. 

Depkin, C. and C. Newton. 1995. Howland Island Trip Report 22-25 March 1995. 

Administrative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Diamond, A.W. 1978. Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds. American 

Naturalist 112:215-223. 

Ehleringer, J.R., T.E. Cerling, and M.D. Dearing. 2002. Atmospheric CO2 as a global change 

driver influencing plant-animal interactions. Integrated and Comparative Biology 42:424–430. 

Emory, K. P., 1939. Archaeology of the Phoenix Islands. Hawaii Academy of Science 

Proceedings. Special Publication 34. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Engilis, Jr., A. and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 

Feare, C.J. 1976. The breeding of the Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata in the Seychelles and the 

effects of experimental removal of its eggs. Journal of Zoology, London 179: 317–360. 

Feeley, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry, and F.J. Millero. 2004. 

Impact of anthropogenic Co2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305:362-366. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C – References C-3 

Fefer, S.I., C.S. Harrison, M.B. Naughton, and R.J. Shallenberger. 1984. Synopsis of results of 

recent seabird research conducted in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Proc. Res. Inv. NWHI 

UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 

Fish, M.R., I.M. Côté, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the 

impact of sea level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology 19: 482–

491. 

Flint, E. 1991. Time and energy limits to the foraging radius of sooty terns Sterna fuscata. Ibis. 

133: 43-46. 

Flint, E. and D. Woodside. 1993. Howland and Baker Islands Trip Report, 19 January to 15 

February, 1993. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Flint, E. and C. Eggleston. 2004. Draft Equatorial Refuges Trip Report. January 8-31, 2004. 

Administrative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Floros, C.D., M.J. Samways, and B. Armstrong. 2004. Taxonomic patterns of bleaching within 

a South African coral assemblage. Biodiversity and Conservation. 13: 1175-1194. Fowler. 1927. 

Fosberg, F.R. and D.R. Stoddart. 1994. Flora of the Phoenix Islands, Central Pacific. Atoll 

Research Bulletin No. 393. 

Foster Wheeler. 1998. CERCLA Site Inspection. Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Central Pacific Ocean. Final Report. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Lakewood, 

CO. UFSWS Contract No. 14-48-0010-93-004. Task Order 98-Y006 

Gove J.M., Merrifield M.A., and R. Brainard. 2006. Temporal variability of current 

driven upwelling at Jarvis Island. J. Geophys. Res. 111(C12): C12011 

Grimsditch, G.D. and R.V. Salm. 2005. Coral reef resilience and resistance to 

bleaching. The World Conservation Union. Gland, CH. 

Hague, J.D. 1862. On phosphatic guano islands of the Pacific. Am. Jour. Sci., Ser. II, 84:224-

243. 

Hamm, D. and F. Dowdell. 2008. Summary of the Hawaii-based Longline Logbook Data for 

Catches in the EEZs of Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands. National Marine Fisheries Service - 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. PIFSC Internal Report IR-08-008. 4 pp. 

Hansen, James, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, 

D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos. 2008. Submitted. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should 

Humanity Aim? Science. 

Harrison, C.S., T.S. Hida, M.P. Seki. 1983. Hawaiian Seabird Feeding Ecology. Wildlife 

Monographs 85:1-71. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-4 Appendix C – References 

Hutchinson, G.E. 1950. The Biochemistry of Vertebrate Excretion. Bull. Amer. 

Museum Nat. Hist. 96. 554 p. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Ed. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The 

Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 881 pp. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Working group II to the third 

assessment report, climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge 

University Press, UK. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007a. Climate Change 2007 The 

physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the 

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental 

panel on climate change. [Solomon, S., D., Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. 

Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller eds.].Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New 

York, NY. 996 pp. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007b. Working group II to the third 

assessment report, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge 

University Press, UK. 

Itano, D.G. and K.N. Holland. 2000. Movement and vulnerability of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) 

and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in relation to FADs and natural aggregation points. 

Aquat. Living Resour. 13: 213−223. 

Itano, D.G. 2001. The Reproductive biology of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in 

Hawaiian waters and the Western Tropical Pacific Ocean: Project summary. SOEST Publication 

00-01, JIMAR Contribution 00-328, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, 69 pp. 

Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in the Palau District of 

Micronesia. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Kayanne, H., T. Ishii, E. Matsumoto, and N. Yonekura. 1993. Late Holocene sea-level change 

on Rota and Guam, Mariana Islands, and its constraint on geophysical predictions. Quaternary 

Research 40:189-200. 

Kikiloi, S.K., and T.K. Tengan. 2002. Hui Panalā‘au. (pamphlet). Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 

Honolulu, HI. 15 p. 

King, W.B. 1970. The trade wind zone oceanography pilot study. Part VII: observations of 

seabirds March 1964 to June 1965. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. Spec. Sci. Rep. - Fish. 586. 136pp. 

Kirkpatrick R.D. and M.J. Rauzon. 1986. Foods of Feral Cats Felis catus on Jarvis and 

Howland Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. Biotropica 18 (1): 72-75. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C – References C-5 

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer. 2005. Warming of the world ocean, 1955-2003. 

Geophysical Research Letters 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592. 

Longhurst, A.R. and D. Pauly. 1987. Ecology of Tropical Oceans. Academic Press, San 

Diego. 407 pp. 

Maude, H.E. 1961. Post-Spanish discoveries in the central Pacific. Jour. Pol. Soc. 70(1):67-111. 

Maragos, J.E. 2008. Coral response to anthropogenic and natural stresses at 7 Pacific Remote 

Island National Wildlife Refuges from 1999-2007: Vignettes from selected permanent 

monitoring transects. State of the coral reefs of the United States and the Freely Associated 

States: 2008. J. Waddell, ed. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS, Silver Spring, MD, 

in press. 

Maragos, J.E. and P.L. Jokiel. 1978. Reef Corals of Canton Atoll: I. Zoogeography. In: Naval 

Undersea Center Technical Publication 395:55-70, and Atoll Research Bulletin 221:55-70 (Sept 

1978). 

Maragos, J., J. Miller, J. Gove, E. DeMartini, A.M. Friedlander, S. Godwin, C. Musburger, M. 

Timmers, R. Tsuda, P. Vroom, E. Flint, E. Lundblad, J. Weiss, P. Avotte, E. Sala, S. Sandin, S. 

McTee, T. Wass, D. Siciliano, R. Brainard, D. Obura, S. Ferguson, and B. Mundy. 2008a. U.S. 

coral reefs in the Line and Phoenix Islands, Central Pacific Ocean: History, Geology, 

Oceanography, and Biology. In: Riegl, B. and Dodge, R.E. (eds) Coral Reefs of the USA. Coral 

Reefs of the World, Volume 1, Springer-Verlag, pp 595-641. 

Maragos, J., A.M. Friedlander, S. Godwin, C. Musburger, R. Tsuda, E. Flint, O. Pantos, P. 

Ayotte, E. Sala, S. Sandin, S. McTee, D. Siciliano, and D. Obura. 2008b. U.S. coral reefs in the 

Line and Phoenix Islands, Central Pacific Ocean: Status, Threats and Significance. In: Riegl, B. 

and Dodge, R.E. (eds) Coral Reefs of the USA. Coral Reefs of the World, Volume 1, Springer–

Verlag, pp 643-654. 

Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.M. Brinson, and L.R. Gardner. 1997. Climate 

change, hurricanes and tropical storms and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological 

Applications. 7:770-801. 

Miller, J., J. Maragos, R. Brainard, J. Asher, B. Vargas-Angel, J. Kenyon, R. Schroeder, B. 

Richards, M. Nadon, P. Vroom, A. Hall, E. Keenan, M. Timmers, J. Gove, E. Smith, J. Weiss, E. 

Lundblad, S. Ferguson, F. Lichowski and J. Rooney. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems 

of the Pacific Remote Island Areas. In: State of the coral reefs of the United States and the Freely 

Associated States: J. Waddell, ed. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS, Silver Spring, 

MD. pp 353-386.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and F.R. Fosberg. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Island Pacific. 

Springer-Verlag, New York (Book in collection of H. Freifeld, 3-122 Federal Building). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-6 Appendix C – References 

Morison, S.E. 1951. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Volume 

Seven. Aleutians, Gilberts and Marshalls. June 1942-April 1944. First Illinois paperback, 2002. 

374 pp. 

Morrison, R.J. 1990. Pacific Atoll Soils: Chemistry, Mineralogy and Classification. Atoll 

Research Bulletin. No. 339: 25p. 

Mundy, B., R. Wass, E. DeMartini, B. Greene, B. Zgliczynski, and R. Schroeder. 2002. Inshore 

fishes of Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef. 

Unpublished ms. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI. 80 pp. 

Munro, G.C. 1924. (unpublished) Report of the ornithologist on the USS Whippoorwill 

expedition trip “B” to Howland and Baker Islands. Sept. 15 to Oct. 7, 1924, (Extracted Aug. 4, 

1965, by Roger Clapp). 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 

1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricate). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 

1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service - Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 2008. Number of 

Purse Seine Vessels, Number of Sets and Total Catch (metric tons) for the Pacific Remote 

Insular Areas Divided into 4 Bands Around Each Island. South Pacific Tuna Treaty Program. 6 

pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991. Climates of the World. 

Historical Climatology Series 6-4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. p. 26. 

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. 

Ragoonaden, and C.D. Woodroffe. 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Climate change 

2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Pages 315-356 in Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. 

Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (editors). Contribution of working group II to 

the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation). 2000. Climate change: assessing our actions. 

Agency of the United States Government. Washington, DC. 

Overpeck, J.T., B.L. Otto-Bliesner, G.H. Miller, D.R. Muhs, R.B. Alley, and J.T. Kiehl. 2006. 

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise. Science 

311:1747-1750. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C – References C-7 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annu. 

Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:637-69. 

Paulay, G. and Y. Benayahu. 1999. Patterns and consequences of coral bleaching in Micronesia 

(Majuro and Guam) in 1992-1994. Micronesica 32: 109-124. 

Porter , V., T. Leberer, M. Gawel, J. Gutierrez, D. Burdick, V. Torres, and E. Lujan. 2005. The 

state of coral reef ecosystems of Guam. Pages.442- 487 in The state of coral reef ecosystems of 

the United States and Pacific freely associated states: 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). 

Prasad, U.K. and H.I. Manner. 1994. Climate change and sea level rise issues in Guam. Report 

on a preliminary mission. Apia, Western Samoa: South Pacific Regional Environmental 

Programme. SPREP Reports and Studies Series No. 82. 

Rauzon, M.J. 1990. Expedition Report: Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge. Administrative 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

 

Rauzon, M.J. and D.H. Woodside. 1998. Howland Island Trip Report26 4-9 March 1998. 

Administrative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Rodman, J. 1935. Unpublished Diary kept on Baker Island in files of Hui Panala’au in Bishop 

Museum, Honolulu, HI. Cited in Sibley and Clapp, 1965. 

Royal Society. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon 

dioxide. The Royal Society, London, UK. 

Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology. 75:1861-

1876. 

Shea, E.L, G. Dolcemascolo, C.L. Anderson, A. Barnston, C.P. Guard, M.P. Hamnett, S.T. 

Kubota, N. Lewis, J. Loschnigg, and G. Meehl. 2001. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The 

potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Published Report. East-West Center, 

Honolulu, HI. 100 pp. 

Shun, Kanalei. 1987. Archaeological Reconnaissance Site Survey and Limited Subsurface of 

Baker and Howland Islands Final Report: Prepared for US Army Engineer District, Honolulu 

Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, HI. 

Sibley, F.C., R.B. Clapp, and C.R. Long. 1965. Biological Survey of Howland Island, March 

1963-May 1965. Unpublished Report of Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program, Division of 

Birds Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

Skaggs, J.M. 1994. The Great Guano Rush. Entrepreneurs and American Overseas Expansion. 

St. Martin’s Griffin, New York, NY. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-8 Appendix C – References 

Smith, S.V and R.M. Buddemeier. 1992. Global Change and Coral Reef Ecosystems. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23:89-118. 

Starbuck, A. 1878. History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to the year 

1876. In Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1875-1876. Washington, 

Government Printing Office. Pp. 1-779. 

Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of 

American whaleships. Zoolologica 19:3-50. 

Turgeon, D.D., R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D. 

Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. Mato, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z. Hillis-Starr, 

R.S. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E. Maragos, A. Friedlander, 

C.L. Hunter, R.S. Brainard, R. Craig, R.H. Richmond, G. Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, R. 

Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. 

Tafileichig, and N.V. Velde. 2002. The state of coral reefs in the United States and Pacific 

Freely Associated States: 2002. NOAA/NOS/NCCOS. Silver Spring, MD. 265 p.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage 

Centre. 2003. Central Pacific World Heritage Project International Workshop Report, 2-6 June 

2003, Honolulu, HI. 44pp. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage 

Centre. 2004. Central Pacific World Heritage Project, National Workshop Report, 5-11 October 

2004, Kiritimati Island, the Republic of Kiribati. 11pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1987. Defense Environmental Restoration Program for 

Formerly Used Sites, Inventory Project Report, Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker 

Island Military Reservation) Baker Island, USA. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC). 1963. Reconnaissance Survey Report. Howland, 

Baker & Canton Islands. October, 1963. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations 

Office. Prepared by: Holmes & Narver Inc. Logistics Planning Group, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1986. Memorandum to the USFWS Baker and Howland Island 

Surveys, April 1986. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis 

Island National Wildlife Refuges, Biological Ascertainment Reports. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1975. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis 

Island National Wildlife Refuges, Narrative Report, FY 1975, Kailua, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Refuge Manual, Wash., D.C. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C – References C-9 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. Coral Reef Initiative in the Pacific: Howland 

Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges. Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b. Remote islands ecosystem plan: Howland 

Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges, Honolulu, HI. 16 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Special Conditions & Rules for Moving Between Islands and Atolls and 

Packing for Field Camps, Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Palmyra 

Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Arlington, 

VA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific 

Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, 

Portland, OR. 

Vitousek, M.J., B. Kilonsky, and W.G. Leslie. 1980. Meteorological Observations in the Line 

Islands, 1972-1980, Honolulu, HI. 74 pp. 

Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology. 75:1861-

1876. 

Wallace, J.M. and P.V. Hobbs. 1977. Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey. 

Academic Press. 467 pp. 

Walther G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesank, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, O. 

Hoegh-Guldberg I, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. 

Nature 416: 389–395. 

Willoughby, M.F. 1980. The U.S. Coast Guard in World War II. Arno Press. New York, NY. 

347 pp. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-10 Appendix C – References 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D – Planning Team Members D-1 

Appendix D 

Planning Team Members 

The following individuals were instrumental in the development of this CCP. 

Name Position Degree(s) 

Years of 

Exp. 

Charles Pelizza* Planning Team Leader BA, Enviro. Science 

MS, Biology 

26 

Don Palawski* Refuge Manager BS, Fisheries Biology 

MS, Entomology 

31 

Bob Dieli* Outdoor Recreation Planner BS, Environmental 

Education 

29 

Barbara Maxfield External Affairs Chief BA, Business 

Admin/Marketing 

27 

Barry Stieglitz Project Leader BS, Forestry and Wildlife 

MPA, Public Admin. 

18 

Michael Molina* Environmental Review Coor. BS, Biology 

MS, Marine Biology 

30 

Beth Flint* Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 

BS, Wildlife Biology 

PhD, Biology 

21 

LeeAnn Woodward* Contaminant Biologist BS, Biology 

MS, Ecology 

PhD, Ecology 

30 

Jim Maragos* Coral Reef Biologist BA, Zoology, 

PhD, Oceanography 

38 

* indicates planning team member 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-2 Appendix D – Planning Team Members 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E – Quarantine Protocol E-1 

Appendix E 

Quarantine Protocol 

The following protocol was developed to maintain consistency in quarantine procedures for all 

NWRs in the Pacific. Thus, these provisions apply to all of the remote island national wildlife 

refuges. Some refuges, including Baker, may have additional restrictions and requirements.

Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Special Conditions and Rules for 

Moving Between Islands and Atolls and 

Packing for Field Camps 

The islands and atolls of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex are 

special places providing habitat for many rare, endemic plants and animals. Many of these 

species are formally listed as federally Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. Endemic plants and insects, and the predators they support, are especially 

vulnerable to the introduction of competing or consuming, non-native species. Such 

introductions may cause the extinction of island endemics, or even the destruction of entire 

island ecological communities. Notable local examples include: the introduction of rabbits to 

Laysan Island in 1902 which caused the extinction of numerous plant and insect species and 3 

endemic landbird species; the introduction of rats to many Pacific Islands causing the elimination 

of many burrowing seabird colonies; the introduction of the annual grass, sandbur, to Laysan 

Island where it has out competed native bunch grass and eliminated nesting habitat for the 

Endangered Laysan finch; and the introduction and proliferation of numerous ant species 

throughout the Pacific Islands to the widespread detriment of endemic plant and insect species 

(refuge files). 

Several of the islands within the Refuge Complex are especially pristine, and, as a result, are 

diverse in terms of rare and special declining native plants and animals. Nihoa Island has 13 

potential candidate Endangered insect species, numerous Endangered plants, and 2 Endangered 

birds. Necker Island has Endangered plants and 7 endemic insects that are candidates for the 

Endangered Species List. Laysan Island has endangered plants, five potential candidate 

endangered insect species and the Endangered Laysan finch and Laysan duck. Other islands in 

the Refuge Complex such as Lisianski, Howland, Baker, and Jarvis and islets in Atolls such as 

Rose, Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals are inhabited by a variety of endemic 

and/or endangered species and require special protection from invasive species. 

Other Pacific Island such as Kure and the “high islands” (Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Kauai, etc.) as 

well as, certain islands within Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals 

have native plants and/or animals that are at high risk from introduction to the relatively pristine 

islands discussed above. Of special concerns are introductions of non-native snakes, rats, ants 

and a variety of other insect and plant species. Invasive plants of highest concern are Verbesina 

encelioides, Cenchrus echinatus, and Setaria verticillata.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-2 Appendix E – Quarantine Protocol 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the management and protection of the fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats associated with islands of the Pacific Remote Islands NWR 

Complex. No one is permitted to access any of the Refuge's islands without the express written 

permission of the Refuge Manager in the form of a Special Use Permit. Because of the above 

concerns, the following restrictions on the movement of personnel and materials to the islands of 

the Refuge Complex exist. Note: Kure Island and Midway Atoll are not part of this Refuge 

Complex. 

With the exception of Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals, the following rules apply: 

Clothing and Soft Gear: 

• Any personnel landing boats at any island should have clean clothes and shoes, meaning 

that they are free of dirt and seeds. 

• Any personnel going ashore at any island and moving inshore from the immediate area in 

which waves are breaking at the time of landing must have new footwear, new or islandspecific clothes and new or island-specific soft gear that have been frozen (<4 C) for at 

least 48 hours. 

• At the discretion of the local USFWS representative, personnel from a NOAA ship or any 

other vessel servicing the Refuge may be allowed on shore to visit predesignated areas 

for guided tours. All stipulations for clean and frozen clothes apply. 

• Otherwise, any personnel entering any vegetated area, regardless of how sparse the 

vegetation, must have new footwear, new clothes and new soft gear all frozen for at least 

48 hours. 

Definitions: 

• “new" means off the shelf and never used anywhere but the island in question. 

• "clothing" is all apparel , shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

• "soft gear" is all gear such as daypacks, fanny packs, camera bags, camera/binocular 

straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or 

any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds or insects. 

Clothing or gear coming off Kure and Midway should never be moved to any of the other refuge 

islands. 

During transit, clothing and gear coming off Kure and Midway must be carefully sequestered to 

avoid contamination of gear bound for other remote islands. Special care must be taken to avoid 

contaminating gear storage areas and quarters aboard transporting vessels with seeds or insects 

from these islands. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E – Quarantine Protocol E-3 

General Rules: 

• Regardless of origin or destination, inspect and clean all equipment, supplies, 

immediately prior to any trip to the Refuge. Carefully clean all clothing, footwear and 

soft gear following use to minimize risk of cross contamination of materials between 

islands. 

 

• Pack supplies in plastic buckets with fitted lids or other sealable metal or plastic 

containers so they can be thoroughly cleaned inside and out. Cardboard is not 

permitted on islands. Cardboard boxes disintegrate in a short time and harbor seeds, 

animals, etc., which cannot be easily found or removed. Wood is not permitted unless 

sealed on all surfaces. 

Wooden boxes can also harbor insects and seeds and, therefore, are only allowed if well 

constructed (tight fitting seams are required). All wood must be treated, and inside and 

outside surfaces must be painted or varnished to provide a smooth, cleanable finish that 

seals all holes. 

• Freeze or tarp and fumigate then seal all equipment (clothes, books, tents) immediately 

prior to departure. Food and cooking items need not be fumigated but should be cleaned 

and frozen, if freezable. Cameras, binoculars, radios, and other electronic equipment 

must be thoroughly cleaned, including internal inspection whenever possible, but they do 

not need to be frozen or fumigated. Such equipment can only be packed in wooden 

crates if treated as in #2 above. Any containers must contain new, clean packing 

materials and be frozen or fumigated. 

• At present, Tern Island is the singular exception to the above rule having less stringent 

rules due to the large number of previously established invasive species. Careful 

inspection of all materials and containers is still required. However, it is acceptable to 

use wooden and cardboard containers for transporting supplies to Tem Island. In 

addition, there is no requirement for freezing or fumigating items disembarked at Tem. 

Although requirements for Tem Island are more lax, the Refuge is still concerned about 

the possibilities of new introductions. 

Additional Special Conditions for Restricted Access to Nihoa Island: 

Nihoa is one of the most pristine locations in the Refuge Complex. It is also inhabited by the 

highest number of federally listed endangered species. It is a small rugged island with many 

inaccessible areas. Introduction of any invasive species could have immediate, disastrous effects 

to natural resources. It would be almost impossible to mount any kind of control or eradication 

program on this island should an invasive species become established. Because of these reasons, 

access to Nihoa is strictly limited and rules governing entry are more stringent. 

• Access to Nihoa by permittees would only be allowed under the direct supervision of a 

Refuge representative. The person, who shall be appointed by the Refuge Manager, 

would work with permittees to assure careful adherence with all rules for inspection, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-4 Appendix E – Quarantine Protocol 

handling, and preparation of equipment. The Refuge Representative would have the 

authority to control and limit access to various parts of the island to protect animals, 

plants (especially endangered species), and archaeological sites. The Refuge 

Representative would have the authority to revoke access to the island or order an 

immediate departure from the island if conditions for working on the island are not fully 

met or are violated in some way. 

• All field equipment made out of fabric material or wood must be new and never 

previously used in the Northwestern or main Hawaiian Islands. Equipment previously 

purchased or made for use on Nihoa that has been carefully sealed and stored while away 

from Nihoa, and not used elsewhere, may also be brought onto the island. Rules for 

freezing and/or fumigating are as described for other sites in the Refuge (see above). 

• Clothing and personal effects must be cleaned and thoroughly inspected. All footwear 

(shoes, slippers, socks, etc.) must be new, unused, or previously only used on Nihoa and 

carefully sealed and stored while off of the island. 

Rules Regarding Food: 

Fresh foods that are typically transported to island field camps (potatoes, onions, cabbage, 

apples, oranges, etc.) are not likely to become established and flourish on the Refuge Complex 

and are allowed. However, other food items such as tomatoes could easily become established. 

Soil can contain many seeds, eggs, larvae, etc., and cannot be transported to or among islands. 

Other food species such as alfalfa, mustard and cress, commonly used for sprouted greens, could 

potentially become established and cannot be brought to the islands. Other species such as mung 

beans, soybeans, and radishes would not likely survive on the islands and can be used for fresh 

greens. A list of fresh foods and seeds that are prohibited is provided below. Permittees should 

contact the Refuge Manager for more information or for questions about items not included on 

this list. 

Strictly Prohibited: 

Tomatoes (any variety), ray sunflower seeds, alfalfa seeds, mustard seeds. 

Bulk dried fruits are allowed but should be frozen solid for at least one day to kill any insects. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-1 

Appendix F 

Wilderness Review 

 I. General Information on Wilderness Reviews 

Wilderness review is the process used to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to the United States Congress for designation 

as wilderness. Planning policy for the System (602 FW 3) mandates conducting wilderness 

reviews every 15 years through the Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process. 

The wilderness review process has three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. After 

first identifying lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, the resulting 

wilderness study areas (WSA) are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Areas recommended for 

designation are managed to maintain wilderness character in accordance with management goals, 

objectives, and strategies outlined in the Final CCP until Congress makes a decision or the CCP 

is amended to modify or remove the wilderness proposal. A brief discussion of wilderness 

inventory, study, and recommendation follows. 

Wilderness Inventory

The wilderness inventory consists of identifying areas that minimally meet the requirements for 

of wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). Wilderness is defined 

as an area which: 

• Has at least 5 thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to 

wilderness character through appropriate management at the time of review, or be a 

roadless island; 

• Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; and 

• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value. These features and values, though desirable, are not 

necessary for an area to qualify as a wilderness. 

Wilderness Study

During the study phase, lands and waters qualifying for wilderness as a result of the inventory 

are studied to analyze values (ecological, recreational, cultural, spiritual), resources (e.g.,

wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (habitat management, public use) within the 

area. The findings of the study help determine whether to recommend the area for designation as 

wilderness. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-2 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

Wilderness Recommendation

Once a wilderness study determines that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the 

NWPS, a wilderness study report that presents the results of the wilderness review, accompanied 

by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), is prepared. The wilderness study 

report and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of 

Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to Congress for approval. 

The following sections summarize the inventory and study phases of the wilderness review for 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). 

II. Wilderness Inventory 

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at the planning area to identify WSAs. These WSAs 

are roadless areas within refuge boundaries, including submerged lands and their associated 

water column, that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness identified in Sect. 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act. A WSA must meet the minimum size criteria (or be a roadless island), appear 

natural, and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Other 

supplemental values are evaluated, but not required. In order to identify WSAs, Baker was 

divided into two inventory units based upon the differences between the terrestrial and marine 

ecological resources. Inventory Unit A is the 531-acre roadless island known as Baker Island, 

and Inventory Unit B is composed of the 31,378 combined acres of coral reefs, submergent lands 

and their associated water column lying within 3 nautical miles (nmi) from the shoreline at the 

mean high water mark of Baker Island. The inventory of roadless areas, submerged lands, and 

associated water column of Baker and application of the wilderness criteria is described in the 

following sections and summarized in Table F-1. 

Evaluation of Size Criteria for Roadless Areas, Roadless Islands, and Submergent Lands and 

Associated Water Column

Identification of roadless areas, roadless islands, and submerged lands and associated water 

column, required gathering land status maps, land use and road inventory data, satellite imagery, 

aerial photographs, and personal observations of areas within refuge boundaries. “Roadless” 

refers to the absence of improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of 

motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use. Wilderness inventory units currently 

owned by the Service in fee title were evaluated. These units include Baker Island and the 

submergent lands and waters lying within 3 nmi of shore. 

 

Inventory units meet the size criteria for a WSA if any one of the following standards applies. 

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in 

making this acreage determination. 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-3 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau 

of Land Management. 

There are no roads on Baker Island, and the submerged lands and associated water column meet 

the minimum acreage criteria, thus both inventory units within the refuge boundary meet one or 

more of the size criteria for wilderness study areas. The physical features of these units are 

described in detail in the Draft Baker CCP/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA), Chapter 3. 

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria

A WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines 

wilderness as an area that “...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural 

to the average visitor rather than “pristine.” The presence of ecologically accurate, historic 

landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some man-made features and human 

impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Human-caused 

hazards, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical 

impacts of refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in the evaluation of the 

naturalness criteria. An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis 

of “sights and sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. The 

cumulative effects of these factors were considered in the evaluation of naturalness for each 

wilderness inventory unit. 

In the wilderness inventory, specific man-made features and other human impacts need to be 

identified that affect the overall apparent naturalness of the tract. Based upon the Preferred 

Alternative contained in the Draft Baker CCP/EA, the following factors were primary 

considerations in evaluating the naturalness of the inventory units: 

Man-made Features: 

• abandoned metal airstrip; 

• day beacon (aid to navigation); 

• derelict airplanes (World War II (WWII) vintage); 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• marine debris, including 11 marine landing crafts (LCMs); 

• abandoned rock building foundations; 

• abandoned military machinery; 

• five wooden poles (long range navigation (LORAN) and communications); 

• trenches filled with rusting remains of hundreds of barrels; 

• contamination from burning thousands of gallons of fuel and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs); 

• electrical debris contaminated with PCBs; 

• batteries, paint, other unidentified contaminants; 

• unidentified large human-made mounds; 

• abandoned military village; 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-4 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

• airplane revetments; 

• un-located ammunition dump; 

• two graveyards; 

• cuts in berm to channel and runway approach; 

• mining activity including small ponded area. 

Management Activities: 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• field camp; 

• generators; 

• contaminant remediation activities; 

• invasive species control; 

• collect and stockpile marine debris; 

• migratory bird surveys; 

• marine surveys (including SCUBA); and 

• boat transportation. 

A 4 x 8 foot boundary sign announcing the name and ownership of the island is maintained on 

Baker. The sign is informational in nature, identifying the sanctuary status the island enjoys. 

The primary management intrusion to the naturalness of Baker is during the deployment and 

demobilization of field camps. Transportation from Honolulu, Hawaii across 1,690 nmi of open 

ocean to Baker is only safely and reliably possible with motorized ocean-going marine vessels. 

Once the marine transport vessel arrives at Baker, small boats with outboard motors are deployed 

to transport two biologists and their field camp gear to the island. Once on the island, biologists 

set up tents, sleeping gear, food, and other supplies. Walking surveys occur across the island to 

document bird species presence, potentially hand pull or hand spray invasive plant species, 

inventory cultural sites, and monitor contaminated areas. Marine surveys also occur. They are 

based from the marine vessel primarily using SCUBA. Field camps are planned to last for 2 

days and typically occur once every two years. Occasional field camps with 5-8 individuals 

staying for up to 2 weeks have occurred in the past. During these extended field camps, dieselpowered generators have been used to operate communication equipment. All other mechanical 

equipment such as air compressors for SCUBA equipment remains on the marine transport 

vessel. Upon demobilization of the field camp, all equipment and debris are removed. An 

indirect human impact to the naturalness of Baker is the presence of marine debris that washes 

onto coral reefs and beaches. Attempts to remove and stockpile this debris for eventual removal 

occur during field camps. Otherwise, Baker is an isolated, uninhabited island in the middle of 

the Pacific Ocean for the vast majority of time. 

The terrestrial tract does not meet the naturalness criteria. Considerable evidence of human 

activities and abuse of the island exists. The metal airstrip is plainly evident, as are derelict 

vehicles, airplanes, and buildings. Fuel and other liquid filled drums are in various stages of 

decay, most having released their contents and thereby contaminating the associated soils. At 

present, these man-made features act collectively for the terrestrial portion of Baker not meet the 

naturalness criteria. If at some point in the future funding becomes available to clean up the 

contamination and debris, the terrestrial portion would need to be reevaluated for the naturalness 

criteria. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-5 

The submerged tract meets the naturalness criteria. There is a small channel cut in the coral reef 

to aid navigation, and there are scattered sections of chain and anchor, but these do not detract 

from Baker’s submerged lands meeting the naturalness criteria. Being over 60 years old, new 

coral growth along the channel has made it indistinguishable from adjoining coral reef areas. 

Although the U.S. Navy documented the loss of 11 LCMs in the nearshore waters, their presence 

has yet to be confirmed. Taken collectively, these impacts to naturalness in the marine 

environment are a minor component of the overall marine area. 

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

In addition to meeting the size and naturalness criteria, a WSA must provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. The area does not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and does not need to 

have outstanding opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public 

use and access to qualify under these criteria. Congress has designated a number of wilderness 

areas in the NWPS that are closed to public access to protect ecological resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other 

visitors in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed 

outdoor recreation activities that do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. 

These primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, 

self reliance, and adventure. 

These two opportunity “elements” are not well defined by the Wilderness Act but in most cases 

can be expected to occur together. However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be 

present in an area offering only limited primitive recreation potential. Conversely, an area may 

be so attractive for recreation use that experiencing solitude is not an option. 

 

The following factors and their cumulative effects were the primary considerations in evaluating 

the availability of outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation at 

Baker: 

• island size, vegetation, and terrain; 

• distance to habitation, whether mainland or an inhabited island; 

• presence of day beacon or aid to navigation and associated structures; and 

• view shed within and from refuge boundary. 

Solitude is the overwhelming force that visitors experience on Baker. The island is separated by 

over 1,690 nautical miles from Hawaii, and approximately 1110 nmi from Kiritimati Island 

Atoll, the nearest inhabited island. Expanses of open ocean with no other landform are visible 

from every angle. The island itself, with the exception of a few historical features, is a mixture 

of short grass and shrubs, bare ground, and shoreline beaches and cobble. In the past, field 

camps have been temporary, with only 2 individuals spending 2 days every 2 years. However, 

the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Baker CCP/EA proposes to visit the refuge every year with 

the same number of individuals for the same duration. Underwater, coral reefs are pristine and 

the open-water depths are devoid of human presence. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-6 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

Since establishment, Baker has been and will remain closed to general public access in order to 

protect the valuable seabird and marine resource values. Thus, there are no outdoor recreational 

opportunities. 

Both Baker inventory units meet the solitude criteria, but do not meet the primitive unconfined 

recreation criteria. 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” Baker Island and its surrounding 

coral reefs and deep water areas compose a complete and functioning ecosystem. Isolated, 

predator-free islands are valuable and often required for successful seabird nesting. Nearshore 

waters, coral reefs, and associated currents combine and provide food resources for foraging 

seabirds and coral reef communities. The position and underwater gradient of Baker in deep 

ocean currents allows these currents to reach the surface, thereby increasing rates of productivity 

for plants, corals and vertebrate species. These rich ecological resources in a relatively pristine 

and unaltered environment provide unique opportunities for scientific study and environmental 

education. There are no known archaeological resources on Baker. Historically, Baker Island 

was important to early colonization efforts during the guano mining and WWII eras. Historical 

artifacts such as the day beacon, building ruins, and guano mining excavations are present but 

eroded and are distinguishable from the natural environment. One landmark, the Baker day 

beacon, contrasts vividly with the overall expansive vistas of open ocean and island habitats. 

These values are not required for wilderness but their presence compliments the requirements for 

wilderness designation. Please see Chapter 3 of the Draft CCP/EA for a more complete 

description of these supplemental values. 

Inventory Findings and Wilderness Study Areas

Only the marine Inventory Unit B meets the minimum criteria for consideration as WSA (Figure 

F-1), and is identified as: 

• WSA-A: Coral reefs, submergent lands, and associated water column of the Baker Island 

WSA. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-7 

Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-8 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary 

Inventory Unit A: 

Baker Island (531 acres) 

Inventory Unit B: 

Submerged lands and waters 

to 3 nmi (31,378 acres) 

Required Components 

(1) Has at least 5000 acres of land 

or is of sufficient size to make 

practicable its preservation and use 

in an unconfined condition, or is a 

roadless island. 

Yes. Is a 531-acre 

roadless island. 

Yes. Approximately 31,378 

acres contained within the 

territorial sea from mean high 

tide to 3 nmi. 

(2) Generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable. 

No. The imprint of 

man’s work is 

substantially noticeable. 

Yes. Coral reefs and other 

underwater features untouched 

by humans. 

(3a) Has outstanding opportunities 

for solitude. 

Yes. Uninhabited island 

1,690 nmi from Hawaii. 

Yes. Isolation from habitation 

both on surface and below. 

(3b) Has outstanding opportunities 

for a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation. 

No. Refuge is closed to 

all recreational activities. 

No. Refuge is closed to all 

recreational activities. 

Other Components 

(4) Contains ecological, geological, 

or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical 

value. 

Baker day beacon, guano 

mining, colonization 

ruins, WWII military 

ruins, and nesting 

seabirds. 

Nearly pristine coral reefs and 

associated marine fish, 

mammals, and turtles abound. 

Summary 

Parcel qualifies as a wilderness 

study area (meets criteria 1, 2 & 3a 

or 3b). 

No Yes 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-9 

III. Wilderness Study 

The WSA identified in the Wilderness Inventory was further evaluated to determine suitability 

for designation, management, and preservation as wilderness. Considerations in this evaluation 

included: 

• quality of wilderness values; and, 

• capability for management of refuge as wilderness (or manageability) and minimum 

requirements/tools analysis. 

This information provides a basis to compare the impacts of a range of management alternatives 

and determine the most appropriate management direction for each WSA. 

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

The following information considers the quality of the WSAs’ mandatory and supplemental 

wilderness characteristics. 

Size

WSA-A meets the minimum size criteria, being a 31,378-acre marine ecosystem. 

Naturalness

WSA-A generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human uses and activities substantially unnoticeable. Except for the boat channel and 

potential presence of LCMs mentioned in the Wilderness Inventory, all submerged features were 

entirely created by the natural processes of volcanism; wind erosion; wave erosion; water 

erosion; geological subsidence; and reef growth and consolidation from coral, coralline algae, 

and giant clam calcification during the past 50 to 80 million years. Except the boat channel, no 

substantial features were constructed or modified by humans in the marine environment during 

the island’s entire geological history. The impacts of past human presence (boat channel) are 

barely apparent. See Chapter 3 of the Draft Baker CCP/EA for a more detailed description of 

natural and cultural features. Management activities will temporarily disturb the naturalness of 

the area. Temporary field camps on adjacent Baker Island and marine research activities in the 

WSA will require boat access as the only safe, practical and reliable means of transportation. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation

WSA-A offers outstanding opportunity for solitude. Solitude overwhelms the human spirit at 

Baker. The only noise on the island is from pounding surf, winds, buzzing insects, and the calls 

of birds. Underwater, all that is heard is one’s own breath, the surf, and the sound of fish feeding 

on coral. The blue of the sky and sea and the brightness of the stark landscape saturate the visual 

character; and birds, winds, and surf saturate the acoustic character of the refuge. It is hard to 

image a more remote, isolated, and truly more wilderness experience in the entire equatorial 

Pacific than when standing on the island or diving on adjacent reefs. 

There are no permanent improvements of any kind to accommodate visitors to Baker. The 

capacity to reach Baker without substantial investment, preplanning, and permission is 

considerable and further restricts the capability of individuals from reaching the island and 

intruding on the opportunity for solitude. The nearest humans live 330 nmi to the southeast 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-10 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

where less than 100 Kiribati people inhabit Kanton Atoll where there is an airfield and dock. 

There are no other inhabitants elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands. These logistical constraints 

contribute to the maintenance of solitude. 

Supplemental Values

WSA-A offers outstanding ecological values with features of scientific, educational, scenic 

interest, and historical value. Nearly pristine coral reefs, reef fish, giant clams, beaches, native 

terrestrial vegetation, unexplored deep slopes, localized upwelling currents, migratory 

shorebirds, and large populations and variety of seabirds are among the strong ecological values. 

The lack of current human impact provides a rare opportunity to study unaltered marine 

ecosystems, and the impact that global climate change may have on these systems. The sheer 

vastness of the ocean landscape, punctuated by a small dot of land, and the multitude of bird and 

marine life attracted to it, provide a sense of awe and spectacular beauty to the landscape. 

Evaluation of Manageability and Minimum Requirements/Tools Analysis 

Originally administered by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Territorial Affairs, the 

Secretary, on June 27, 1974, designated Baker Island and its territorial sea extending to the 3 nmi 

limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930). The Service administers all units of the System 

pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. The 

acquisition authority for establishing the refuge is found in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 

U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). It states the general purpose for establishing the refuge is “...for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...”, and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services” (16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)). The specific purpose for establishing Baker 

is (USFWS 1973), “...the restoration and preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial and 

marine. Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to reestablish on Baker so 

eventually they would eventually reach the great numbers which were present there prior to 

human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” 

There are no valid existing private rights, including mineral rights, associated with this WSA. 

Several management activities are required for the Service to meet responsibilities for managing 

Baker Island and its associated marine waters as a national wildlife refuge as specified in 

relevant legislation and policies. A complete description of management activities can be found 

in Chapter 2 of the Draft Baker CCP/EA. The following is a brief description of management 

activities as they relate to minimum requirement determinations of activities occurring within 

designated wilderness. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 lists several generally prohibited uses including no 

temporary roads, no use of motor vehicles, no motorized equipment or motorboats, no aircraft 

landings, no other forms of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation. However, 

Section 4(c) also states an exception to these general prohibitions: “...as necessary to meet 

minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...” 

Examples of actions that may satisfy this exception include recreational developments such as 

trails, bridges, and signs. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F – Wilderness Review F-11 

WSA-A on Baker can be managed to preserve its wilderness character in perpetuity, recognizing 

that using a “minimum requirements” approach would be required for all activities. Existing 

refuge management activities within the WSA is consistent with management direction in the 

Wilderness Act and current Service wilderness stewardship policy in the Refuge Manual (6 RM 

8). These management activities include: motorized marine vessel transportation to and from 

Baker; small motorboat operations used in deployment and demobilization of field camp 

operations; survey and monitoring of marine habitat including the use of SCUBA equipment; 

and control of invasive species. None of the current or expected refuge management activities 

would permanently diminish the wilderness character of WSA-A. Additionally, there are no 

plans to construct permanent facilities or structures to accommodate these uses or activities. 

Located in the central Pacific Ocean, transportation to Baker can only occur with the use of 

ocean-going marine vessels. The only practical and safe mode of vessel propulsion is gas or 

diesel powered engine. While it is possible to use sail power to navigate to the island, the 

reliability of mechanical engines provides a margin of safety to escape extreme weather hazards, 

or proceed on course and on time in the absence of wind. For the same reasons of safety and 

practicality, small motorized vessels are used to transport equipment and personnel from the 

transport vessel to the island to establish field camps and conduct biological survey and 

monitoring activities. Rough surf, shallow coral reefs, and strong winds preclude the use of nonmotorized craft to safely navigate these hazards. 

Monitoring of the marine ecosystem occurs from scientists based aboard the marine 

transportation vessel. Small motorboats often provide safe transportation to specific research 

sites near Baker. SCUBA equipment is often used to complete marine surveys and is the only 

safe and practical method of conducting underwater marine surveys. 

In summary, safety, practicality, and effectiveness require the occasional use of management 

programs and associated tools (some of which are generally prohibited by the Wilderness Act) to 

pursue achievement of refuge purposes, goals and objectives. Current and proposed refuge 

management would be consistent with wilderness designation and management of both WSAs. 

Although occasionally diminished, none of the resource values identified above would be 

permanently impacted because of wilderness designation and the management described herein. 

IV. Development of Alternatives 

 

After evaluating the quality of wilderness values, manageability, minimum management 

requirements, the following alternatives were developed and analyzed for wilderness 

designation. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under this alternative, no WSAs would be recommended as suitable for wilderness 

designation. The refuge lands and waters would be managed as they have been in the past 

to accomplish refuge purposes in accordance with legal and policy guidance for the 

System. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-12 Appendix F – Wilderness Review 

Alternative B 

WSA-A, which includes the submerged lands and associated water column would be 

immediately recommended for inclusion in the NWPS. Selection of this alternative would 

require the completion of an Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)

WSA-A, which includes the submerged lands and associated water column of Baker would 

be recommended for inclusion in the NWPS. The wilderness study area would be 

managed to ensure that its wilderness character was not adversely impacted. However, the 

recommendation to include this area in the NWPS would be postponed until such time that 

CCPs and their associated wilderness inventories and studies for remote Pacific Island 

NWRs were completed. At such a time, a wilderness study report and associated LEIS that 

encompasses remote Pacific island refuges would be prepared. Alternative D is identified 

here as the Preferred Alternative for the Wilderness Review of Baker, and is a component 

of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Baker CCP/EA. 

 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study

Federal agencies are required by National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to 

rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly 

discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 

CFR 1502.14). It was determined that there was no benefit in analyzing partial wilderness 

alternatives. There are no feasible or practical boundary adjustments that would improve 

the manageability of this WSA. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G – Statement of Compliance G-1 

Appendix G 

 Statement of Compliance 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

for Implementation of the 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Baker Island NWR. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The CCP planning 

process has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act 

implementing procedures, Department of Interior (Interior) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) procedures, and is performed in coordination with the affected public. Procedures used 

to reach this decision meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations in 40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508. These procedures include: the development of a range of alternatives for 

the Baker CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and public involvement 

throughout the planning process. 

The CCP management objectives and alternatives have been integrated into an environmental 

assessment (EA) document and process, including the release of a Draft CCP/EA for a 30-day 

public comment period. Public notices of availability of the Draft CCP/EA include a Federal 

Register notice, news releases to local media outlets, the Service’s refuge planning website, and 

planning updates. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA and planning updates were distributed to an 

extensive mailing list. In addition, the Service met with staff from the Hawaii Department of 

Land and Natural Resources and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). Revisions in the Final CCP are based on public comments received from the Draft 

CCP/EA. Comment letters and Service response to comments can be found as an Appendix in 

the final CCP. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S. C.470 et seq.). This act requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 

State or Territorial Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Park Service (NPS) for any 

proposed actions that may affect cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. Consultation has occurred with the ACHP and NPS for their input. Consultation with a 

State Historic Preservation Officer is not required for this proposal because Baker Island NWR 

lies outside any state jurisdiction. No Territorial Historic Preservation Officer is assigned to 

Baker Island NWR. Rather territories/possessions lie in the jurisdiction of the ACHP. 

The management of archaeological and cultural resources of Baker Island NWR complies with 

the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historic properties 

listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places have been identified on 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-2 Appendix G – Statement of Compliance 

Baker Island NWR. No historic properties are known to be affected by the proposed action 

based on the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as an undertaking defined in 36 CFR 800.9 and 

Service Manual 614 FW 2. Determining whether a particular action has a potential to affect 

cultural resources is an ongoing process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project plans 

are developed. Should historic properties be identified in the future, the Service will comply 

with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to 

affect any these properties. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Secretarial Order 3127, and Section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (10 U.S.C. 2701-2706, 2810-2811). Contamination 

resulting from military occupation is required to be mitigated as a Formerly Used Defense Site 

(FUDS). Any FUDS is part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), 

administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE is responsible for the 

identification, investigation, research and development, and cleanup of contamination from 

hazardous substances, and pollutants and contaminants; correction of environmental damage 

such as detection and disposal of unexploded ordnance; and demolition and removal of unsafe 

buildings and structures at former Department of Defense sites. In 1986, the ACOE maintain 

they have completed their responsibilities under DERP. 

 

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 

As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206 American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the 

refuge manager determined that there are no tribal governments associated with Baker Island 

NWR. Thus, there was no coordination with any American Indian tribe. 

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

other affected Federal agencies has been completed through personal contact by Service 

planners, refuge managers, and supervisors. In addition, the refuge manager determined there 

are no local, state or tribal governments associated with Baker Island NWR. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in 

the United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental 

effects were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703-712). Baker Island NWR is an important 

site for migratory shorebirds and nesting seabirds. Protecting nesting seabird habitat is the major 

purpose of the refuge, and is consistent with the provisions of MBTA. All of the proposed 

alternatives would be consistent with the refuge purpose and the MBTA in protecting of these 

birds, although the proposed action would afford more benefits. This planning effort is being 

coordinated with other offices of the Service and Interior that have responsibilities pertaining to 

the MBTA. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G – Statement of Compliance G-3 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

This Order directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A provision of the Order directs Federal agencies to consider the 

impacts of their activities, especially in reference to birds on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s list 

of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). It also directs agencies to incorporate conservation 

recommendations and objectives found within the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

and bird conservation plans developed by Partners in Flight (PIF) into agency planning. Species 

selected as focal conservation targets in the CCP were identified from multiple sources including 

pertinent BCC lists, applicable Flyway Management Plans, and regional seabird and shorebird 

conservation plans. The effects of all alternatives on focal conservation targets were assessed 

during this planning process. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). The ESA provides for the conservation 

of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for the determination and listing of 

endangered and threatened species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 of the ESA 

requires refuge managers to perform consultation before initiating projects that affect or may 

affect endangered species. 

Baker Island NWR provides feeding and potential nesting habitat for two listed species of 

endangered sea turtle: the endangered hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata and the 

threatened green turtle Chelonia mydas. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. Seq.), the Service, as a component of this CCP/EA, 

evaluated potential impacts to the two listed turtle species. It was determined that undertaking 

any action as part of any alternative in this CCP will have no affect on either of the two turtle 

species. Therefore, formal consultation with NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service is not 

required and will not be initiated. 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act requires the Service to develop and implement a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each refuge. These conservation plans identify and describe a refuge 

purpose; refuge vision and goals; fish, wildlife, and plant populations and related habitats; 

archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; issues that may affect populations and habitats 

of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and improve biological diversity of the 

refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). The Wilderness Act requires the 

Service to evaluate the suitability of Baker for wilderness designation (Appendix F) and has 

found that the marine wilderness inventory unit met wilderness study area criteria. 

Recommendation for portions of Baker to be included in the Wilderness Preservation System is 

deferred until such time that other remote Pacific island refuges are evaluated for wilderness 

designation and a combined proposal as part of a larger comprehensive Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-4 Appendix G – Statement of Compliance 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882).

This act provides the guidance for sustainable management of commercial fisheries in Federal 

waters by NOAA in consultation with Regional Fisheries Management Councils that develop 

fisheries management plans (FMPS) subject to NOAA approval, monitoring and implementation. 

The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WESPAC) and NOAA have 

implemented and approved several FMPS that apply to U.S. insular Pacific waters. The FMPS 

were all implemented after Baker Island NWR was established in 1974 and include plans for: 1) 

pelagic fish; 2) bottom fish including some reef species; 3) crustaceans including lobsters; 4) 

precious corals and; 5) coral reef ecosystem species. Commercial activities, including 

commercial fishing, are prohibited in surrounding marine water and benthic habitat out to the 3 

nmi limit because Baker Island is established as a National Wildlife Refuge that is closed to 

public uses. Moreover, the Service retains jurisdiction and management for any fisheries within 

the Refuge. Available information indicates commercial fishing under the auspices of any of the 

FMPS is not and cannot be pursued within the 3 nmi boundary of the refuge. In addition, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management and Conservation Act jurisdiction is subject to other 

applicable laws and does not apply in Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge because this area is 

closed to public access and commercial fishing under the existing National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act (16 U.S.C.668dd -6688ee). 

Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection (June 11, 1998). The purpose of this 

Executive order is “...to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and 

economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment....” It directs all 

Federal agencies to identify actions that may affect U.S. coral reefs; utilize their programs and 

authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and assure their actions would not 

degrade those ecosystems. Federal agencies whose actions affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems are 

further directed to implement measures needed to research, monitor, manage, and restore 

affected ecosystems, including, but not limited to, measures reducing impacts from pollution, 

sedimentation, and fishing. This Executive Order also initially established the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force, co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, through the 

Administrator of NOAA. The Task Force has oversight responsibility for implementation of 

policy and Federal agency responsibilities found in this order, and support activities under the 

U.S. Coral Reef Initiative. In addition, this order directs the Task Force to work cooperatively 

with State, territory, commonwealth, and local government partners to map, monitor, conserve, 

mitigate, and restore coral reef ecosystems. 

The Proposed Action and other alternatives are fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the 

Executive order. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA would be provided to the Directorate of the Coral 

Reef Task Force for coordination. 

Coral Reef Conservation Act and Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas (16 

U.S.C. 6401-6409)(May 26, 2000). These statutes collectively direct Federal agencies to 

coordinate among themselves and State and Territorial governments via the Coral Reef Task 

Force to protect and enhance coral reefs and avoid actions that degrade reefs, promote marine 

protected area development and reef restoration, and provide conservation grants and cooperative 

agreements (including States and institutions) to conduct research and development of existing 

and candidate marine protected areas located on coral reefs. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-6 Appendix G – Statement of Compliance 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H – Plan Implementation and Costs H-1 

Appendix H 

 

Plan Implementation and Costs 

Introduction 

Following public review and comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA), public 

notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) decision, and Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) approval, refuge staff would begin to implement the CCP. This 

appendix describes the various partnerships, management plans, staffing and projects required to 

implement the plan over the next 15 years. 

Staffing 

The proportion of current staffing and proposed staffing within the Pacific Remote Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex dedicated to Baker are shown in the following tables. 

The proposed staffing indicates a 0.16 full-time-equivalent increase over current levels. This 

represents the difference in staffing needs from visiting Baker biannually to annually. 

Current Staffing for Baker Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Resource Contaminant 

Specialist 

PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

Proposed Staffing for Baker Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Resource Contaminant Specialist PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-2 Appendix H – Plan Implementation and Costs 

Funding 

The following table describes the estimated annual cost to implement the CCP. 

Field Camp Budget for Baker Cost 

Staff $34,000 (0.3 FTE per year) 

Supplies $7,000 

Remote Sensing equipment N/A 

Remote Sensing operations N/A 

Deep sea exploration $25,000 per submersible vessel dive 

Seabird recolonization initiative $10,000 

Vessel Charter N/A 

Vessel Purchase (one time cost) N/A 

Vessel operation N/A 

Adjusted annual personnel and operating costs $76,000/yr 

Projects 

The table below contains projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Brief project 

descriptions and their associated costs are provided. Funding of these projects would assist 

refuge staff in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP for Baker Island NWR. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H – Plan Implementation and Costs H-3 

Projects: RONS and SAMMS List 

 

Project 

No. 

Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands)

Station

Rank 

97003 Inventory and Monitor Terrestrial Resources: Provide 

a wildlife biologist to inventory and monitor terrestrial 

plants, invertebrates and nesting seabirds. Remote Pacific 

islands provide the only secure habitat for nesting 

seabirds, sea turtles and marine life within thousands of 

square miles of ocean. 

325.25 9 

00001 Eliminate Exotic Rodent Species on Remote Pacific 

Islands: Provide biological technicians and 

transportation expenses to restore habitat for pelagic 

seabirds and terrestrial plant and animal species on 

Howland, Baker and Jarvis NWRs. 

194.0 10 

980002 Eliminate Exotic Rodent Species on Remote Pacific 

Islands: Provide Wildlife Refuge Specialist to supervise 

biological technicians and transportation expenses to 

restore habitat for pelagic seabirds and terrestrial plant 

and animal species on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis NWRs. 

174.75 10 

98002 Develop Interpretative Program, Remote Island 

NWRs: Develop a brochure for Baker, Howland and 

Jarvis Island NWRs and host 3 special outreach events 

every year in Hawaii. 

77.875 999 

00006 Staff and Maintain a New Vessel to Accomplish Basic 

Refuge Operations: This vessel will provide basic 

logistical support for 16 islands and remote field stations 

on 9 different national wildlife refuges across the Pacific 

Ocean. The vessel will be similar in size and capability to 

the M/V Tiglax at the Alaska Maritime NWR 

204.8 3 

00018 Inventory and Monitor Coral Reef Resources: Remote 

refuges contain some of the most valuable and spectacular 

marine and coralline resources in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Baker Island NWR is so remote that 

basic knowledge of marine resources is lacking. There is 

a need to perform biennial monitoring of the marine 

resources at this refuge.

137.0 4 

98004 Install Remote Surveillance System: Acquire camera 

equipment and service contract with a satellite 

communications provider to detect incursion by 

unauthorized visitors, such as poachers and commercial 

fishing vessels to assist the Coast Guard and Refuge Law 

Enforcement Officers in investigating illegal activities 

within the Refuge. 

241.2 14 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-4 Appendix H – Plan Implementation and Costs 

Project 

No. 

Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands)

Station

Rank 

90100411 Replace Broken, Rotten, and Vandalized Signs: 

Replace degraded entrance signs to deter trespass and 

prevent introduction of invasive species. 

190.0 6 

02121744 Rehabilitate Historic Day Beacon: This beacon not 

only has historic significance, it is also used as a 

landmark by mariners. The beacon requires structural 

repairs and painting. 

355.0 999 

00018 Establish Refuge Contaminants Abatement and 

Remediation Program Environmental Toxicologist 

183.75 2 

Partnerships

Partnerships are a critical component of implementation of the Baker Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Baker) CCP. Refuge staff would strengthen existing partnerships with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Hawaii 

Undersea Research Laboratory to implement enhanced law enforcement coverage at this remote 

location and facilitate inventory and monitoring of marine resources. In addition, the refuge staff 

would seek to enhance its volunteer program. Volunteers are critically important in providing 

the logistical support in the Honolulu office and field support required to effectively manage and 

operate year-round field camps at remote locations. 

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is one of several plans necessary for refuge management. The CCP provides guidance 

in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several refuge program areas but may lack 

some of the specifics need for implementation. Given the abbreviated and qualitative once-ayear management activities identified in the preferred alternative, step-down plans would not be 

developed for individual program areas after CCP completion. The Draft Seabird Monitoring 

Assessment for Hawaii and the Pacific islands (Citta and Reynolds 2006), U.S. Pacific Islands 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004), Seabird Conservation Plan 

for the Pacific Region (USFWS 2005), and U.S. Coral Reef Task Force planning efforts would 

be applied to refuge operations described in the preferred alternative. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I – Consultation and Coordination I-1 

Appendix I 

 

Consultation and Coordination 

This section describes consultation and coordination efforts with the public, interested groups, 

and other agencies through the draft CCP/EA phase. Public involvement was sought throughout 

the planning process using meetings, newsletters, and other communication tools. All comments 

and responses to comments from the draft CCP may be found in Appendix K. 

Planning Updates

The first Planning Update was mailed to 249 private individuals; nongovernmental 

organizations; local, state, Federal and international governments; and members of the media 

throughout the Pacific on October 12, 2005. The comment period identified in the Planning 

Update closed on November 14, 2005. This update announced the intent of the Service to 

produce a CCP for Baker Island, and invited comments on issues and concerns and interest in 

attending public meetings. A total of five responses were received. 

A second planning update was mailed on May 17, 2006. This update announced the 

development of a list of alternatives and solicited comments on the draft alternatives. This 

update was mailed to 253 private individuals; non-governmental organizations; local, state, 

Federal and international governments; and members of the media throughout the Pacific. 

A third Planning Update was mailed with the Draft Baker Island Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment in September 2007. This Planning Update and the draft 

CCP/EA was distributed to about 190 individuals and organizations, and posted on Region 1’s 

website. Nine review comments were received during the 45-day comment period. 

Agency and Interest Group Consultation/Coordination

Members of the planning team met with NOAA staff and the Hawaii Department of Land and 

Natural Resources (DLNR) on May 31, 2005. Refuge staff also met with members of The 

Nature Conservancy on June 2, 2005. Both NOAA and DLNR informally indicated that they 

were interested in the process, wished to be kept informed of planning progress and would 

review the draft plan when it became available. 

A second meeting between State, NOAA, and Service staff was held on May 19, 2006 to discuss 

issues of mutual interest, which included their potential involvement in the Service’s CCP 

process. A follow-up formal request was sent to the agencies on June 7, 2006. 

Baker Island is uninhabited and an unincorporated U.S. territory far removed and beyond the 

jurisdiction of any State, insular area, or foreign nation. Other parties involved in 

correspondence related to this document included multiple nongovernmental organizations, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; National Park Service; U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. 

Department of Defense; President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; National 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I – Consultation and Coordination 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council; Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources; Hawaii Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs; Governor of Hawaii; the Honorary Consulate-General of the Republic of 

Kiribati; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

Federal Register Notices

The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP for these refuges was published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 2005. Public involvement was sought throughout the planning process using 

meetings, newsletters, and other communication tools. 

The Notice of Availability of the Draft Baker Island Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2007. 

 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J – Response to Comments J-1 

Appendix J

Response to Comments 

 

The Refuge received four letters and five emails in response to the Draft CCP/EA. Comments 

are summarized below by topic. The comment is either quoted directly or paraphrased based 

upon the comment received. 

1. Wildlife Management 

Comment: We encourage the Service to maintain its “wildlife first” philosophy and to prescribe 

the best and most thorough protection for plants and animals. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: By implementing the preferred alternative Baker Island NWR will continue 

to be managed as a wild, natural area. This management regime will contribute to the recovery, 

protection, and management efforts for all native species with special consideration for seabirds, 

migratory shorebirds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and coral reef species. 

Comment: We recommend that an effort to inventory, monitor, protect and enhance habitat for 

refuge species is outlined in the CCP. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: The CCP contains specific objectives and strategies to inventory, monitor, 

protect, and enhance native terrestrial habitats and marine communities that are representative of 

remote tropical Pacific Islands. 

Comment: It is not clear what the scientific basis is for the statement linking seabird health to 

pelagic fisheries in the equatorial waters surrounding the three islands. NMFS requests the FWS 

to provide NMFS and the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council more 

information, including scientific support for that statement. (National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Service Response: Information and scientific citations have been added to the plan to document 

the linkage between pelagic fish activity and its importance to seabird foraging activity. 

Comment: The CCP should include a method to inventory the impact of human activities on 

species populations. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: Refuge management will be limited to monitoring terrestrial and marine 

plants and animals and removal of non-native species. The Refuges will also remain closed to 

public use to protect the extensive seabird nesting colonies, reduce the threat of introduction of 

invasive species, and conserve the pristine coral reef ecosystems. So the low level of human 

activities will have non-detectable impacts species populations. 

Comment: The Final CCPs should include monitoring and enforcement provisions. (Marine 

Conservation Biology Institute) 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-2 Appendix J – Response to Comments 

Service Response: We agree. Goal 5 of the CCP has been expanded to include biological 

resource preservation. An objective and associated strategy has been added to encompass 

enforcement provisions to accomplish the preservation goal. 

Comment: I highly recommend consultation with NMFS and our partners before any proposal 

for fisheries enforcement activities. (National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Service Response: We agree with this recommendation and look forward to continuing the 

existing collaborative relationship that exists among our respective agency’s law enforcement 

personnel. 

Comment: We request that the Service analyze and disclose all wildlife and fisheries 

management and conservation plans in the CCP. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans important for developing the 

CCP are summarized in Section 1.4.5 of the plan. 

Comment: The CCP and preferred alternative B do not meet the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. (Center for Biological Diversity) 

Service Response: We respectfully disagree. The goals and their respective strategies and 

activities in the CCP are designed to manage for “wildlife first” at Baker Island NWR and 

contributes to the System’s national network of lands and waters administered for “the 

conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

Comment: Alternative D should be the preferred alternative. (Marine Conservation Biology 

Institute) 

Service Response: While alternative D may be preferable from a conservation standpoint, it is 

not practical either logistically or financially to implement this management regime within the 

15-year lifespan of this plan.

Comment: Hopefully more funds could make options 3 or 4 possible but at the very least option 

2 is good. (K. Stender) 

Service Response: We will use an adaptive management approach over the life of this plan. If 

additional funds unexpectedly become available, strategies and activities identified in 

alternatives C and D could be implemented. 

Comment: I support Alternative B with the addition that management responsibilities should 

extend from the shoreline seaward to 100 fathoms to cover all coral associated with each island. 

These three islands should be no-take marine protected areas. (B. Carmen) 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J – Response to Comments J-3 

Service Response: We appreciate your support and the CCP does implement a no-take marine 

protected area management regime. In addition, the seaward boundary of the refuge is beyond 

the 100 fathom depth contour around the island. Therefore, all of the coral reefs at Baker Island 

are fully protected in accordance with the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended. 

Comment: The Final CCPs should include a more specific provision for reevaluation. (Marine 

Conservation Biology Institute) 

Service Response: The Department of the Interior and the Service support the use of adaptive 

management to address uncertainty associated with implementing conservation activities. The 

“learning by doing” inherent in implementing activities in this CCP is central to re-evaluating the 

effectiveness of these activities and determining the need for management interventions to 

achieve the six goals identified in this plan. 

2. Wilderness Review 

Comment: We request that the Service analyze the wilderness resources in the CCP. (The 

Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: The Service completed a Wilderness Review for Baker Island NWR and it is 

found in Appendix F of the CCP. 

Comment: The CCP must also address management of both potential and designated 

wilderness lands in the CCP. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: The wilderness study area for Baker Island NWR identified in the CCP will 

be managed to ensure its wilderness character is not adversely impacted by implementing the 

management activities in the CCP. 

Comment: The CCP should examine and outline a plan for off-road vehicle use. (The 

Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: Off-road vehicle use has not been determined to be a compatible use on the 

refuge and is currently prohibited. 

Comment: NMFS recommends that any wilderness-related management action requiring 

consideration and collaboration between our two agencies by fully described at the earliest 

opportunity. 

Service Response: The Service will notify NMFS at such time that we decide to move forward 

in preparing a wilderness study report and associated Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for Baker Island NWR. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-4 Appendix J – Response to Comments 

3. Climate Change

Comment: The Service should take a proactive approach and identify specific climate change 

concerns and formulate appropriate management strategies. (The Wilderness Society) 

Service Response: We have included an objective in the CCP to increase understanding of 

impacts of global climate change by working with other agencies or institutions to conduct 

baseline global climate change investigations at this refuge. 

Comment: The impacts of climate change were not adequately considered in the CCP. (Center 

for Biological Diversity) 

Service Response: New information that recently emerged on this issue has been added to the CCP.

Comment: Looks like the refuges would be an ideal but remote location to study climate 

change on reefs as a control. (K. Stender) 

Service Response: We agree. 

3. Contaminants 

Comment: The importance of removing contaminants from Baker Island NWR was not 

adequately considered in the CCP. 

Service Response: An assessment of the environmental consequences associated with 

contamination at Baker Island NWR is presented in Section 4.4.1. 

4. Commercial Fishing and Jurisdictional Issues 

Comment: The treatment of commercial fishing and jurisdictional issues in these draft CCPs is 

incomplete. Each CCP should explain the processes and coordination necessary to achieve any 

management regime applicable to federal fisheries. (National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Service Response: The “Refuge Establishment” section of the CCP has been revised to clearly 

indicate that the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

requires that the Service maintain sole and exclusive management authority over all national 

wildlife refuge areas. At Baker Island NWR, the refuge includes the island and the surrounding 

waters out to the 3-nautical mile boundary depicted in Figure 1.2. The CCP clearly indicates that 

the Refuge will remain closed to all public uses, including commercial fishing. The information 

in Appendix G pertaining to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management and Conservation Act 

has been revised to clearly identify the NMFS jurisdiction to regulate commercial fishing outside 

of the Refuge boundary and the requirement that this Act must conform to other applicable laws, 

including the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. 

Comment: NMFS would like a more detailed description of FWS activities to assist the 

Department of State in negotiating a U.S. position on managing commercial fishing in the U.S. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J – Response to Comments J-5 

Exclusive Economic Zones adjacent to the Pacific Remote Insular Areas. (National Marine 

Fisheries Service) 

Service Response: We have clarified language and provided more detail in the document that it 

was the Department of the Interior who notified the Department of State about a request from the 

Republic of Kiribati to conduct commercial fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

surrounding Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island. 

Comment: We have no record of a personal communication between Kitty Simonds and Jim 

Maragos regarding informal consultation that WESPAC continues to honor Service jurisdiction 

and authorities within the 3nmi offshore boundary of the refuge. Please provide that to us for our 

records. (Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council) 

Service Response: Dr. Maragos continues to maintain such a discussion took place with Ms. 

Kitty Simonds although a “record of personal communication” was not prepared or filed. We 

removed this reference from the document and clarified the legal basis for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s jurisdiction to mange the 3-nautical-mile territorial seas surrounding Baker Island in 

conjunction with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. 

Comment: The Council’s Coral Reef Fisheries Management Plan needs to be included in your 

list of FMPs so as to provide complete information to readers and decision-makers. (Western 

Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council) 

Service Response: In Appendix G, we have included the plan for coral reef species in the list of 

commercial fisheries plans developed in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Comment: The statement that “commercial fishing under the auspices of any of the FMPs is not 

being pursued outside the 3 nmi boundary of the refuge” is erroneous and needs to be corrected. 

Service Response: This was a typographical error. The statement has been revised to read that 

“Available information indicates commercial fishing under the auspices of any of the FMPS is 

not and cannot be pursued within the 3 nmi boundary of the refuge.” 

Written Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA 

Comment Signatory Organization 

Letter William L. Robinson National Marine Fisheries Service 

Letter Shaye Wolf Center for Biological Diversity 

Letter Keiko Bonk Marine Conservation Biology Institute 

Letter Maribeth Oakes The Wilderness Society 

Email Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

Email Brent Carmen 

Email pandora2@earthlink.net

Email Keoki Stender 

Email b.s achau