Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Prepared by: 

Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Box 50167 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 

(800) 792-9550 

August 2007 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i

Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and 

Environmental Assessment 

Unincorporated U.S. Territory, Central Pacific Ocean 

Type of Action: Administrative 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Responsible Official: Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director 

For Further Information: Donald Palawski, Refuge Manager 

 Pacific and Remote Islands NWR Complex 

 Box 50167 

 Honolulu, HI 96850 

 (808) 792-9550 

Abstract: Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge (Jarvis) is located in an extremely remote area 

of the equatorial Central Pacific Ocean. This remote location creates extreme planning and 

management bottlenecks in terms of ship transportation availability to access Jarvis and the 

operational support needed to carry out comprehensive conservation. Four conservation plan

alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are described, 

compared, and assessed for Jarvis. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The selection of Alternative A would adopt and continue 

current refuge management practices conducted during short staff visits (i.e. 1 to 2 days) at 

approximately 2-year intervals. Management activities described in Alternatives B, C, and D 

progressively increase the scale and scope of management activities described in the No Action 

Alternative. Alternatives C and D describe desired improvements over current management that 

enhances protection of wildlife through increased surveillance, enforcement, monitoring, 

restoration, and other measures. While Alternatives C and D outline conservation measures that 

would be desirable from a comprehensive conservation perspective, it is beyond the current 

logistical realm of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and financially unachievable 

during the lifespan of this plan (15 years). Therefore, Alternative B is the preferred alternative 

and describes improvements over current management that could be implemented until such time 

that management activities described in Alternatives C or D can be implemented. The four 

alternatives are summarized below: 

Alternative A – No Action – This alternative assumes continuation of current management 

programs and is considered the base from which to compare the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative -This alternative describes a modest increase in the 

frequency of staff visits to Jarvis but does not alter the scale or scope of the management 

activities. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

ii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents

Alternative C – This alternative provides increased frequency and duration of staff visits to 

Jarvis, and moderately increases scale and scope of management activities conducted during staff 

visits.

Alternative D – This alternative describes substantial increases to the scale, scope, and duration 

of management activities conducted during staff visits. 

Public access to Jarvis will remain closed under all CCP alternatives. Specific requests to access 

Jarvis will regulated on a case-by-case basis through issuance of Special Use Permits. There are 

no proposed changes to the refuge boundary under any of the alternatives. The selected 

alternative would be used to guide refuge management throughout the life of the CCP (15–year 

period)
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i

Reader’s Guide 

Consistent with requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would manage 

Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge (Jarvis) in accordance with an approved Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides long-range guidance for refuge management 

through its vision, goals, and objectives. No change in refuge size, boundaries, or public access 

and use is proposed for any alternative. The CCP also provides a basis for a long-term adaptive 

management process including implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating, adjusting and 

revising the CCP accordingly. Additional step-down planning would be required prior to 

implementation of certain programs and projects. 

This document combines a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and an Environmental 

Assessment (CCP/EA). The following summaries are provided to assist readers in locating and 

understanding the various components of this combined document. 

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need for Action includes the regional context; 

establishment of and purposes for Jarvis; vision and goals for future management; major 

planning issues, concerns and opportunities identified by refuge staff, Federal, State and local 

agencies, and the general public; and policy for, guidance for, purpose of, and need for a CCP. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies describes four management alternatives 

including the Preferred Alternative. Each alternative represents a potential comprehensive 

conservation plan for the refuge. Alternative A (No Action) describes the current management 

of the refuge. Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed Draft CCP for Jarvis. 

Alternatives C and D describe progressively more intensive management activities if 

substantially greater financial resources were available for future implementation. This chapter 

identifies the objectives and strategies the refuge will use to meet overall goals. It also compares 

all alternatives and identifies those eliminated from detailed consideration. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes the existing physical and biological environment, 

public use, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions. This chapter represents the current 

baseline conditions for the comparisons and 15-year projections made in Chapters 2 and 4. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences assesses and projects, over the 15-year period, the 

affect of each alternative on the resources, programs and conditions outlined in Chapter 3 as they 

relate to Jarvis. Most impacts would have a positive effect on refuge fish and wildlife 

populations and their habitats. Mitigation and other measures are evaluated for all other 

avoidable consequences. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others provides details on public 

involvement and interagency coordination during the planning process. 

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms contains a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and 

terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader.

Appendix B: Species Lists of Corals, Fish, Vegetation and Birds lists wildlife observed in the 

refuge. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

ii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents

Appendix C: List of Cited References provides complete bibliographic references for the 

citations in this document. 

Appendix D: Quarantine Protocol for Jarvis Island describes mandatory precautions for 

visitors to protect island and marine habitats from inadvertent introduction of alien and invasive 

species and hazardous materials. 

Appendix E: Plan Implementation and Costs includes the Refuge Operations Needs Summary 

(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS), which briefly 

describes projects and costs associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

Appendix F: Wilderness Review for Jarvis Island NWR is required as part of this CCP. This 

appendix lists the criteria used in conducting the wilderness review. Jarvis appears to meet all 

the criterion for wilderness designation as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Appendix G: Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes the executive orders and 

legislative acts that apply to this CCP.
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need for Action....................................................... 1-1 

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

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan .........................................1-1 

1.2.1 Proposed Action......................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2.2 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................1-1 

1.3 Description of Planning Process ........................................................................................1-2 

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance ................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................ 1-2 

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................... 1-3 

1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific .................................................................... 1-5 

Figure 1.1 .............................................................................................................................1-7 

1.4.4 Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary.......................................................... 1-8 

Figure 1.2 .............................................................................................................................1-9 

1.4.5 Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans........................................................... 1-10 

1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities.................................................................. 1-11 

1.6 Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................. 1-13 

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

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies.............................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Development of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Similarities among Alternatives......................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D).............................................................. 2-2 

2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D).................................................. 2-4 

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives............................................................................ 2-4 

2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) .................................................... 2-4 

2.3.2 Alternative B - (Preferred Alternative).......................................................................2-6 

2.3.3 Alternative C...............................................................................................................2-6 

2.3.4 Alternative D...............................................................................................................2-8 

2.3.5 Summary.....................................................................................................................2-9 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................................... 2-9 

Table 2.1 ............................................................................................................................2-11 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements .............................................. 2-16 

Table 2.2 ............................................................................................................................2-17 

2.6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale....................................................... 2-17 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ......................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Climate..............................................................................................................................3-1 

3.3 Global Climate Change.....................................................................................................3-3 

3.4 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................3-5 

3.5 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................3-7 

3.6 Air and Water Quality.......................................................................................................3-7 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants............................................................................................ 3-7 

3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats ..................................................................................3-8 

3.9 Terrestrial Wildlife............................................................................................................3-8 

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals..................................................................................... 3-8 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

ii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents

3.9.2 Shorebirds ..................................................................................................................3-9 

3.9.3 Reptiles ......................................................................................................................3-9 

3.9.4 Invertebrates (crabs and insects)................................................................................3-9 

3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife.............................................................................. 3-10 

3.10.1 Previous surveys .................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.10.2 Submergent Habitats.............................................................................................. 3-10 

3.10.3 Reef Life ................................................................................................................3-11 

3.10.4 Corals .....................................................................................................................3-11 

Figure 3.1 ...........................................................................................................................3-12 

Figure 3.2 ...........................................................................................................................3-13 

Figure 3.3 ...........................................................................................................................3-13 

3.10.5 Nearshore Fish .......................................................................................................3-13 

3.10.6 Marine Mammals................................................................................................... 3-14 

3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 3-14 

3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................3-15 

3.12 Invasive Species............................................................................................................3-15 

3.13 Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................... 3-15 

3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology.....................................................................................3-15 

3.15 Recent Cultural History ................................................................................................ 3-16 

3.16 Socio-economics........................................................................................................ 3-17 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.............................................................................. 4-1 

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................4-1 

4.2 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................4-2 

4.3 Air and Water Quality........................................................................................................4-2 

4.3.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................4-2 

4.3.2 Water Quality and Ocean Environment...................................................................... 4-3 

4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................4-3 

4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife ......................................................................... 4-3 

4.4.2 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife............................................................................ 4-5 

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................4-6 

4.5 Wilderness Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-6 

4.6 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................4-7 

4.7 Economic Effects...............................................................................................................4-7 

4.8 Environmental Justice........................................................................................................4-7 

4.9 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-8 

Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives......................................................4-9 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others....................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Consultation and Coordination with Others ...................................................................... 5-1 

Appendix A................................................................................................................................ A-1 

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .......................................................................................... A-1 

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ B-1 

Species Lists of Corals, Fish, Vegetation and Birds............................................................... B-1 

Table B-1 ............................................................................................................................ B-1 

Table B-2 ............................................................................................................................ B-2 

Table B-3 .......................................................................................................................... B-13 

Table B-4 .......................................................................................................................... B-14 

Appendix C................................................................................................................................ C-1 

List of Cited References.......................................................................................................... C-1 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents iii

Appendix D................................................................................................................................ D-1 

Quarantine Protocol for Jarvis Island NWR ........................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E .................................................................................................................................E-1 

Plan Implementation and Costs ...............................................................................................E-1

Appendix F .................................................................................................................................F-1 

Wilderness Review for Jarvis Island NWR .............................................................................F-1 

Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................F-7 

Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary..........................................................................F-8 

Appendix G G-1 

Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Jarvis Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............................................................................ G-1 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific............................................................... 1-7 

Figure 1.2 Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary..... 1-9 

List of Tables 

Table 2.1 Summary of CCP Actions by Alternatives........................................................... 2-11 

Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Cost Comparison of Various Field Camp Configurations...... 2-17 

Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives......................................................... 4-9 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

iv Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents

. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need for Action 

1.1 Introduction 

This document is a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and draft Environmental Assessment 

(CCP/EA) for Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge (Jarvis). Once finalized, the CCP would 

guide management of refuge operations, site visitation, and habitat restoration for the 15-year life 

of the plan. Guidance within the CCP would be in the form of goals, objectives, strategies 

(Chapter 1.7 and 2.6), and wilderness study findings (Appendix F). The CCP will be 

accompanied by an appropriate NEPA document. The final CCP will be revised as appropriate 

based upon public comments. The proposed action can be one of the alternatives in this draft 

CCP/EA, a combination of the identified alternatives, or a new alternative derived from 

substantive public comment. This draft CCP/EA evaluates and compares four alternatives 

containing programs for habitat management and restoration, ecological monitoring and 

research, and environmental education. It also identifies the effects of restoration and visitor use 

on key physical, biological, social, and cultural resources. The refuge manager of the Pacific 

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

responsible for implementing the approved CCP. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.2.1 Proposed Action 

The Service proposes to adopt and implement a CCP for Jarvis. This draft CCP/EA evaluates and 

compares four alternatives and their effects on key physical, biological, social, and cultural 

resources. The Service has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative because it 

achieves refuge purposes, vision, goals, and objectives; contributes to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System) mission; addresses issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

The alternative ultimately selected and described in the final CCP will be determined, in part, by 

the comments received on the draft CCP/EA. The proposed action in the final CCP may or may 

not modify the proposed action presented in this draft CCP/EA. 

1.2.2 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

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 Jarvis, 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. 

1.3 Description of 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 Draft CCP/EA 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. 

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance 

Jarvis 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. 

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. Following is a discussion of concepts and 

guidance for the System covered in the NWRS Administration Act, Service policies, and 

relevant supplemental guidance documents. 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jarvis 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-3 

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. 

1.4.2 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 545, totaling 

approximately100 million acres. These refuges, found in every United 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, 

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.” 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-4 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

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 is 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 

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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-5 

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. 

 

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. 

1.4.3 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 office, 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-6 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

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 Jarvis. Staff, funding, and logistical 

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

The preferred alternative for the Jarvis 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 Jarvis are pro-rated amongst the seven Remotes Complex refuges in the analysis of 

the alternatives. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-7 

Figure 1.1 Map of National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-8 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.4.4 Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary 

Refuge Establishment

Prior to refuge establishment, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7368 on 

May 13, 1936, placing control and jurisdiction of Jarvis Island with the Secretary of the Interior. 

Originally administered by the Office of Territorial Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary), on June 27, 1974, designated Jarvis Island and its territorial sea extending to the 3 

nautical mile (nmi) limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930). 

 

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 Jarvis, 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 Jarvis identified in the biological ascertainment report at the time 

of transfer to the Service is (USFWS 1973): 

“...the preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial as well as marine. Special 

emphasis to be given to the large seabird nesting colonies.” 

Refuge Boundary

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

includes: 

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

limit.” (39 Federal Register 27930). 

The emergent land area for Jarvis encompasses 1,273 acres and submerged lands and waters 

within the three-mile limit encompass 36,214 acres for a total of 37,487 acres. 

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-9 

Figure 1.2 Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-10 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

1.4.5 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 Refuge 

The ecosystem plan for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis identifies Jarvis as “...an important site for 

the study of long term global climate change and periodic phenomena such as El Niño Southern 

Oscillation” (USFWS 1998b). The plan further describes the fringing reef as a healthy coral 

community resulting from its remoteness and lack of anthropogenic effects, and having 14 

species of breeding seabirds and the only protected seabird island in the northern Line Islands. 

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 imbricate) 

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

foraging and nesting behavior, threats, and distribution surrounding Jarvis Island. Both the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Marine Fishery 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 (NMFS and USFWS 1998). 

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

Few green turtles are known to forage in the waters surrounding Jarvis Island and nesting was 

recorded in low densities along the west coast of Jarvis in the 1930’s. However, data from the 

area is limited and use of Jarvis may be greater than currently documented. Both the 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 (NMFS and USFWS 1998). 

U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan 

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

Subregion. No natural wetlands are known from this subregion; however, beaches on 

uninhabited islands are important for shorebirds. 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 (Engilis and Naughton 2004). 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11 

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.” 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 (Brown et al. 2000). 

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. 

1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns 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 

Jarvis is located approximately 1,263 nmi from the management staff located in Honolulu, 

Hawaii. On average, it takes 8 days to reach Jarvis 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 Jarvis, biological and ecological 

information is not of sufficient frequency to allow for a detailed assessment of resources. The 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-12 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

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

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

Global climate change (see Chapter 3.3) 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, if any, is unclear 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, sewage 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. 

Jarvis has never been formally opened to public access and use. Administratively, public access 

to Jarvis 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, only amateur radio operators have pursued and 

obtained a SUP after an initial inquiry. 

 

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 Jarvis 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-13 

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 

 

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

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

agencies/organizations share include: 

• expedition planning; 

• collaborative research projects; and 

• jurisdictions of trust resources. 

Most access for refuge staff to Jarvis 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. 

1.6 Refuge Vision Statement 

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

perceives as Jarvis’s fundamental attributes and contributions to a healthy world environment. 

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

future. The draft vision statement for Jarvis is as follows. 

 

Jarvis is one of the last places in the world where the terrestrial and marine tropical 

island ecosystems are still intact and relatively free of human impact, offering the 

opportunity to serve as a living laboratory for measuring current and future human 

impacts to island, coral reef, and deep marine habitats. 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. 

1.7 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 Jarvis are as follows, and will again be presented along 

with objectives and strategies in Chapter 2.6. 

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

tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit of seabirds. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-14 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

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. Protect, maintain, enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of Jarvis’s terrestrial 

and marine communities. 

5. Jarvis’s cultural and historic resources are preserved. 

6. An informed, interested, and educated public appreciates remote Pacific Island NWRs 

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

emphasis on seabirds. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives 

This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives, including a no-action alternative 

that describes the current condition and three action alternatives that describe various proposed 

changes to current management programs. A preferred alternative is identified; however, the 

preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final documents depending upon 

comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. Similarities and 

differences among the alternatives are presented, as are detailed descriptions of each alternative. 

Summary tables comparing all alternatives are also included. Goals, objectives, strategies, and 

the rationale for these are presented following the description of alternatives.

2.1.1 Development of Alternatives 

Comments received on the preliminary set of alternatives and throughout the public scoping 

process ultimately resulted in the four draft management alternatives presented in this draft 

CCP/EA. These include a “no action” alternative (as required under NEPA) and three “action” 

alternatives, each of which describes strategies for managing Jarvis over the 15-year life time of 

the plan that might ultimately improve future conditions at the refuge. Each alternative describes 

a combination of wildlife and habitat management strategies designed to achieve the refuge goals 

and objectives. These alternatives provide different ways to address and respond to major issues, 

management concerns, and opportunities identified during the planning process. All of the major 

issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative. 

The four alternatives are summarized below: 

• Alternative A - No Action. This alternative assumes no change from current 

management programs and is considered the baseline from which to compare the other 

alternatives. Specifically, the refuge would remain closed to public access, with 

compatible activities being allowed and administered through the refuge’s Special Use 

Permit process. Wildlife and habitat management activities such as monitoring seabird 

populations, documenting the presence of invasive plant species, stockpiling marine and 

other debris, and using solar powered electronic radio calls to attract nesting seabirds 

would be restricted to the 1 to 2 day period that occur once every 2 years. Transportation 

to and from Jarvis would be provided by NOAA or other partners, at the discretion and 

capability of the partner. 

• Alternative B – Preferred Alternative. This alternative describes an increase in the 

frequency of staff visits from once every two years to once every year. Overall, wildlife 

and habitat management activities would be identical as those described in the No Action 

alternative. The use of solar powered electronic radio calls used to encourage seabird 

nesting activity would be continued. Increased monitoring in the marine environment 

would be dependent upon partnership opportunities developed with NOAA, University of 

Hawaii, or other partners. Transportation to and from the island would rely upon NOAA, 

or other partners providing arrangements similar to those provided in the No Action 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternative. Public use and access would remain closed and be administered as described 

in the No Action alternative. 

• Alternative C. This alternative describes an increase in the frequency and duration of 

staff visits, and increases the scale and scope of management activities conducted during 

those visits. Concurrently staffed seasonal field camps (approximately 4 months 

duration) would be established on Jarvis and two other nearby refuges. Increased 

monitoring of seabird populations would create greater understanding of migration and 

nesting chronologies of various seabird species. Seasonal field camps would allow 

adequate time to control invasive species, and provide basic maintenance of cultural and 

historical resources. Removal of marine debris from the island to protect seabirds and 

turtles from entanglement would also occur. Transportation to and from seasonal field 

camps would be provided by contract vessel. Public use and access would remain closed 

and be administered as described in the No Action alternative. 

• Alternative D. Management activities under this alternative are similar to those 

described in Alternative C. However, a greater level of detail and understanding of 

Jarvis’s wildlife resources would be possible. The primary differences between these two 

alternatives is that a single field camp would be established on only 1 mid-Pacific island 

refuge in a given year. Field camps would be rotated annually between these island 

refuges, and transportation would be provided by a FWS-owned vessel. Public use and 

access would remain closed and be administered as described in the No Action 

alternative. 

These four alternatives are described in more detail below starting with the similarities among 

the alternatives, followed by a detailed description of each alternative, and finally a summary 

that defines the rationale for selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

2.2 Similarities among Alternatives 

Although the alternatives differ in several ways, there are similarities (i.e. shared features or 

management components) among them as well. Following is a description of the features 

common to all the alternatives (A-D); and features common to all action alternatives (B-D). 

2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D) 

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length 

and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

• Baseline Monitoring of Wildlife Populations and Habitats. At a minimum, staff visits to 

Jarvis requires baseline monitoring efforts to document species presence or absence, 

abundance, habitat condition, presence of invasive species and various other physical 

variables such as temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. This basic biophysical monitoring 

would be constant throughout the alternatives. However, some alternatives would build 

upon this minimum level of visitation and monitoring. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 

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

water, food, first aid, and communications would also remain constant. However, some 

alternatives would require an additional volume or frequency of subsistence supplies to 

support greater numbers or staff-days on the refuge. 

• Use of extraneous unnatural lighting. Nighttime operations of the support vessel and the 

use of light sources by staff in the camp would be carried out in order to minimize 

collision and disorientation of wildlife that can be caused by light hazards. This would 

include minimizing lighting on the vessel and in camp, shading windows, and limiting 

use of hand-held lights.

• Use of stringent quarantine protocols and when invasive species are discovered, use of 

IPM to eradicate or control them. Visitors to Jarvis would be required to wear new and 

frozen clothing and other soft gear as outlined in quarantine protocols (Appendix D). 

Other quarantine precautions include prohibiting fresh fruits or vegetables, cardboard 

boxes, and disinfecting surfaces of tools and other hard surfaces. Time permitting; the 

hand pulling of weeds would occur. The selective hand spray application of herbicides or 

pesticides, where appropriate, may also occur. 

• Scientific Information Exchange. Refuge staff currently attend 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. These activities 

would remain constant, although there may be opportunities to increase this involvement 

with some alternatives.

• Preservation of Wilderness Values. Since its establishment, Jarvis 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 across all alternatives would not 

impinge on these values.

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

access and use. Access and public use remains closed across all alternatives. All 

individual opportunities for compatible use such as specific research projects would 

continue to be 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 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 across all alternatives. Field camps would be situated to avoid impacts to cultural 

resource sites. Archaeological reconnaissance and possible testing to avoid impacts to 

cultural resources would be 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 under all 

alternatives. 

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

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

duration of the site visit, human excrement will be either bagged, stored in a chemical 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-4 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

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

be removed during field camp demobilization. 

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

alternative. 

• Seabird Nesting Restoration. All alternatives include the deployment of electronic calls 

as seabird nesting attraction devices designed to attract 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 mammal-free status of Jarvis 

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

population of each species. 

2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D) 

These features are common to Alternatives B, C, and D but would not be implemented as part of 

the No-Action Alternative. 

• Cultural Resources Inventory. Jarvis would be re-evaluated for the presence and 

condition of cultural resources. Visits that are more frequent would provide the 

opportunity for on-site review and documentation of cultural resources. However, the 

duration of the site visit across the alternatives would determine the level of review.

• Wilderness Study Area. A recommendation for Wilderness Study Area designation 

would apply to all action alternatives. However, wilderness recommendation would be 

postponed until an LEIS and wilderness proposal are developed for all other remote 

Pacific Island NWRs as part of their CCP processes. 

• Marine ecosystem monitoring. Funding will be sought for additional exploration of deep 

slope resources. Use of a University of Hawaii ship equipped with a remotely operated 

vehicle (ROV) to operate at depths between 150 to 3,300 feet may be possible across all 

action alternatives. 

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives 

A narrative description outlining each alternative follows. Additionally, Table 2.1 contrasts how 

various themes/issues identified in this CCP are addressed by the alternatives. Table 2.2 

compares the cost estimates for each alternative. 

2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) 

This alternative assumes no change from present management programs and is considered the 

base from which to compare the action alternatives (Table 2-1). The Service’s Remotes 

Complex office would continue to maintain jurisdiction and management of Jarvis Island and the 

associated coral reefs and marine habitats out to three nmi as a NWR. Site visits to Jarvis would 

occur approximately once every 2 years as they have for the past 6 years. Staff visits would be 

arranged through the cooperation of partner agencies such as NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, and 

other organizations providing berths for refuge staff. During these staff visits, two refuge staff 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 

would spend approximately 1 to 2 days on the island conducting baseline scientific data 

collection, inspecting boundary signs, inventorying for the presence of invasive species, visiting 

cultural resources, and collecting and stockpiling marine debris. The brief and infrequent visits 

in this alternative preclude any habitat management other than stockpiling entrapment hazards 

that may wash ashore or remain because of human habitation during the guano mining and 

military eras. 

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

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

charter vessels have all provided transportation. Typically, Baker, Howland, and Johnston Island 

NWR (Johnston) are visited as part of the first leg of a comprehensive biennial NOAA scientific 

ship expedition to all central Pacific Ocean insular properties. For this first leg, the ship arrives 

at Johnston after 3 days of travel from Honolulu. Four days of research time are spent at 

Johnston before departing for Howland. After 7 days of travel, the ship arrives at Howland and 

spends the next 4 days at both Howland and nearby Baker conducting research before departing 

for American Samoa. Jarvis is typically completed on the second leg of the expedition. 

Biologists are not allowed to go ashore if surf conditions are too rough near Howland, Baker, or 

Jarvis. Consequently, only marine surveys would be conducted. Based upon prior attempts, 

there is a 50% chance that biologists will make it onto Howland, Baker, or Jarvis. After 5 

additional days of travel, the ship arrives at Pago Pago, American Samoa, allowing a change-out 

of crew and scientists for the second leg of the expedition, continuing from American Samoa to 

Rose Atoll NWR, Jarvis, Palmyra Atoll NWR, and Kingman Reef NWR. An equal amount of 

time, about 25 days, is spent for the second leg of the expedition to conduct research and return 

to Honolulu 

Once on- site on Jarvis, 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 are only on-island for 1 to 2 days with most of that time being engaged in work 

activities. 

While on-island, the biologists will 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. Cultural sites will be visited with 

observations made about condition and deterioration. 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 utilize Jarvis. Any evidence of 

illegal activity such as unauthorized access will also be documented. Photographs will record 

general habitat conditions; however, further habitat assessments would 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-6 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

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

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

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

while others require the use of SCUBA equipment and divers. All of the marine scientists, 

however, are based on the vessel awaiting the conclusion of terrestrial 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 ecological data such as fish species, abundance, and predator prey relationships is collected. 

Data is 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 is provided to the Service that includes a full range of 

oceanographic, bathymetric, and marine biological data. 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. A NOAA cruise report for the first leg 

is completed before the ship arrives at Pago Pago. Service trip reports are completed, 

distributed, and filed once field staff returns to the Honolulu office. 

2.3.2 Alternative B - (Preferred Alternative) 

Management under Alternative B would increase the frequency of staff visits to Jarvis and would 

not alter the current management regime. Habitat assessments and wildlife monitoring data 

would continue to be collected as described in the No Action Alternative. The travel to, 

establishment of, and conduct of field camps would also remain the same. The primary 

difference between Alternative A and Alternative B is the frequency of visitation from once 

every two years to once every year respectively. Thus, at the end of the 15-year lifespan of the 

plan, it is anticipated that there will have been 15 visits to Jarvis. In order to meet the increase in 

the number of site visits, refuge staff in Honolulu would be 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. The 

scale and scope of marine surveys would also be maintained. At a minimum, marine scientists 

would resurvey REAs and other transects described in Alternative A. 

2.3.3 Alternative C 

Management activity on Jarvis would increase under this alternative. Seasonal field camps 

lasting approximately 4 months would be established concurrently on Jarvis and two other 

remote Pacific Ocean refuges (Howland and Baker). Subsequent years would find the seasonal 

field camps deployed during alternating 4 month periods. Thus, the field camp would return to 

Jarvis once every year during a different 4 month period. At the end of three years, it is expected 

that field camp staff would have spent twelve months on the island and have been present on the 

island during each month of the year. Due to the relatively short duration of each field camp, it 

would be possible to deploy and demobilize without any re-supply trips. Thus, a contract vessel 

for two charter periods (deployment and demobilization) would be required. Yearly funding to 

charter a research vessel would be required to implement this alternative. Aside from 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 

deployment and demobilization, no small vessels would be required during field camp 

operations. 

Access provided by a charter vessel would substantially increase Service presence and ability to 

monitor, survey, restore, and otherwise manage refuge resources. Seabird species nesting at 

latitudes near the equator are extremely asynchronous and vary between years in their schedule 

of breeding. Longer periods of residency at Jarvis would foster a better understanding of 

breeding chronology of seabirds. Longer visits would enable the staff to map vegetation and 

detect rare species of all taxa that may be missed on shorter trips. Surveys of shorebirds and 

terrestrial invertebrates would also be conducted. By concurrently operating field camps on 

these three refuges it would be possible to compare, wildlife use between the refuges, but it 

would not be able to provide a complete assessment of annual use on any one individual refuge. 

Nearshore surveys of the marine environment, not requiring SCUBA could be increased, but due 

to safety concerns, most marine surveys would only occur during the period when the transport 

vessel was near the island during deployment and demobilization. 

Terrestrial and marine invasive plant and invertebrate species have the capacity to alter plant and 

animal communities, specifically posing a threat to seabird nesting habitat and coral reefs. Staff 

being present on the island each year would provide the opportunity to complete comprehensive 

surveys for both native and exotic species. The extended duration of site visits will allow for the 

early detection of any exotic or invasive species, and provide for the rapid response and control 

before any invasive species has the ability to negatively affect refuge resources. Invasive species 

control would be in the form of hand-pulling plants and algae, hand spray applications of 

herbicide or insecticide or physical removal of invertebrates such as crown-of-thorns starfish. It 

should be noted again, however, that concerns for ocean safety during extended field camps 

without nearby vessel support will severely limit marine surveys and activities. 

Marine debris poses an entanglement threat to seabirds and turtles. The extended field camp 

operations proposed in Alternative C would provide refuge staff the opportunity to not only 

collect and stockpile marine debris such as discarded fishing nets and plastic waste, but prepare 

the debris for off-site removal during demobilization activities. 

Additional time on the island would allow field camp staff to conduct visual surveys for sea 

turtle use of nearshore waters. Turtles are often found basking on shorelines, or foraging in 

shallow nearshore waters where they find plant growth to graze. Habitat use and behaviors of 

turtles found in the area would be documented in this alternative. While surveys could be 

conducted to document turtle use in the nearshore waters, the availability of a contract vessel 

only during deployment and demobilization would limit the ability to search for other sites of 

turtle or marine mammal use outside of nearshore waters. 

Remotely operated cameras, hydrophones, listening devices, and satellite linkages may also be 

used to collect data and imagery primarily on seabird use, breeding chronology, habitat selection, 

seabird productivity, and other ecological attributes. These biotic and abiotic characteristics 

could be monitored during periods when field camps are not present on the island. These data 

would also be used for law enforcement purposes to detect trespass and for monitoring condition 

of vegetation, presence or absence of all avian species using the refuge, monitoring of 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-8 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

invertebrate (land crab) population indices, and to detect invasive species. However, the level of 

implementation and the use of this technology would be dependent upon available funding.

A limited amount of time would be available for the maintenance of existing cultural and 

historical resources. For instance, it would be reasonable to assume that minor masonry repair or 

repainting of the Jarvis Light day beacon could be accomplished during one of the 3-year 

periods. Cultural resource surveys would need to be completed prior to any cultural resource 

restoration and maintenance, or the establishment of the field camp. 

Additional research opportunities would present themselves with a 4 month field camp. The 

primary increase would be in documenting the effects of a changing global environment. While 

it is certain that our climate is changing, it is uncertain how this change will affect mid-Pacific 

Ocean islands and their wildlife resources. Changes in sea level, current patterns, temperature, 

nutrients, and storm intensities could all have impacts on these areas, or the distribution of 

seabird food resources. Without the opportunity to monitor these parameters, it will be 

impossible to discuss their impacts, and ultimately to make any changes to management 

activities to minimize the impacts. 

A regularly chartered vessel would also provide the opportunity to provide a law enforcement 

presence, better understand the equatorial Pacific Island ecosystems, and increase opportunities 

for cooperation with partner institutions, organizations and agencies. A chartered vessel would 

allow refuge staff be more time efficient and independent of schedules and availability of other 

agencies and organizations for access to Jarvis and other refuges. 

2.3.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes to establish a year-round field camp on Jarvis, with provisions to rotate 

the camp to Howland, Baker, Johnston Island NWR and Rose Atoll NWR in subsequent and 

alternating years. The purchase of a Service vessel for field camp safety and support, and to 

increase the ability to monitor and manage refuge resources of all remote Pacific Island refuges 

is an integral component of this alternative. Interim staff change and re-supply trips for a 12 

month field camp would occur a minimum of three times per year. A Service-owned vessel 

could also be stationed and available on-site to complete additional surveys, especially of the 

marine system. 

All wildlife populations, particularly seabirds, could be monitored in greater detail. Annual 

nesting chronology, seabird recruitment by species, nest site selection, and other biological and 

ecological parameters could be documented. Any invasive species that are detected could be 

controlled and eradicated in the same manner as described in Alternative C. A rotation among 

Pacific Island refuges, also including Johnston Island, and Rose Atoll NWRs, would allow each 

island to host an annual field camp once every 5 years. Coordination with other agencies 

sponsoring vessel access and affording berths for Service personnel would continue under this 

alternative, including possible re-supply and staff change-outs. In addition, the Service would 

also be able to provide access to Jarvis and other refuges for visiting researchers, archeologists, 

and cultural resource specialists. The use and benefit of remotely operated cameras, 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 

hydrophones, listening devices, and satellite linkages are identical to those described in 

Alternative C. 

Surveys and monitoring efforts under this alternative would provide the greatest understanding 

and most biologically effective management of refuge resources. Research and documentation 

beyond basic qualitative surveys and monitoring would be encouraged and enhanced, with the 

opportunity for Jarvis and other Pacific Island refuges to serve as baseline sites for monitoring 

global climate change and locations where seabird foraging ecology as it relates to changing 

oceanographic conditions near the equator could be investigated. 

2.3.5 Summary 

The ability of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to contribute to meeting 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.” is limited. Likewise, the No Action and the Preferred Action provide a minimal 

benefit to meeting the refuge purpose of, “...the preservation of the complete ecosystem, 

terrestrial as well as marine. Special emphasis to be given to large seabird nesting seabird 

colonies.” A 1 to 2 day visit to the island once every 2 years or once every year respectively 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 with the No Action or Preferred 

Alternative. 

Alternative C and Alternative D both contribute to meeting the refuge purpose and System 

mission by providing the opportunity to actively work toward restoration of nesting seabird 

populations, potentially controlling invasive species (early detection, rapid response), removing 

marine debris harmful to individual animals, and contributing to our general understanding of the 

implications and impacts of global climate change on seabird populations. 

However, lack of projected budget and staffing preclude management staff from looking for 

increased management activity beyond Alternative B. It is for this reason that Alternative B has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. If, during the lifetime of this plan, budget and staffing 

become available to pursue Alternative C or D, then the CCP will be reevaluated with the 

potential selection of a new Preferred Alternative. Until that time, the Service is proposing 

Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative. 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

The concept of placing Jarvis in custodial status, or in other words doing less than the No Action 

alternative was considered but eliminated from further study. At present, refuge staff visits 

Jarvis once every two years, thereby managing the refuge just above a custodial or bare 

minimum level. Reducing the frequency of current staff visitation would not be sufficient to 

meet the purposes for which the refuge was established, or the obligations of several laws such 

as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, or the Administration Act. Custodial 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-10 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

status for Jarvis – not visiting or preparing to visit - would reduce or eliminate any management 

activity to meet these obligations. In addition, the current limited visitation to the island ensures 

U.S. sovereignty. Eliminating visitation by placing the refuge in custodial status may jeopardize 

the U.S. claim of territorial ownership. Thus, custodial status as an alternative was not further 

evaluated. 

Two Wilderness Study Areas were evaluated and determined to meet the minimum criteria for 

wilderness recommendation. Recommendation for wilderness designation as a component of 

any alternative was not considered at this time, but will be included in a LEIS at the completion 

of the CCP process for all other remote Pacific island refuges. 

 

No other alternatives or components of alternatives were considered beyond those mentioned 

above. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies Table 2.1 Summary of CCP Actions, by Alternative Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Access to Refuge 

Voyage Preparation and Administration 

Logistic planning required for 1 to 2 day visit and a 20-26 day voyage. Funding required for passenger aboard partner vessel, one trip every 2 years. 

Logistic planning required for 1 to 2 day visit and a 20-26 day voyage. Funding required for passenger aboard partner or charter vessel, one trip every year. 

Logistic planning required for 4 month long field camp. Funding required for two contract vessel trips per year, but is costshared with other NWRs. 

LoyeaFunannopeshaNW

Method/Cost of Voyage Transportation 

Transportation provided aboard partner vessels. No transportation cost to FWS incurred. Least expensive of all alternatives. 

Transportation provided aboard partner vessels with additional effort to charter and partner. No cost on partner vessel. Charter vessel would incur cost of one charter per year. Least expensive of all action alternatives. 

Transportation provided aboard partner vessels on irregular basis. Chartered vessel required on regular basis would incur cost of two charters per year, prorated among 3 refuges. Most expensive of all alternatives. 

TraaboSerreqannprorefthaalte

Frequency of Site Visit One- to 2- day visit 

every 2 years. 

One- to 2-day visit every year. 

Annually host a 4-month per year field camp. 

A camyea
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-12 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Field Camp Duration and Staff Required 

One- to 2- persons overnight for 1 to 2 days. 

One- to 2-persons overnight for 1 to 2 days. 

Two- to 3- person seasonal field camp established concurrently on Howland and two other nearby refuge islands. 

Twrouestand witisla

Quarantine Procedures Standard, strict visitation 

and importation restrictions are in place across all alternatives to control threat for invasive species. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Seabirds, Other Wildlife, and Habitats 

Seabird Monitoring Basic monitoring of 

seabird species, abundance, and nesting status occurs every other year with a 1- to 2- day monitoring period. 

Basic monitoring of seabird species, abundance, and nesting status occurs once every year with a 1- to 2- day monitoring period. 

Fundamental monitoring of nesting chronology, seasonality as well as species presence and abundance occurs once every 8 months with up to a 4 months duration monitoring period. 

Funof seaspeabuevemomo
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Seabird Nesting Restoration 

Seabird nest attraction devices (electronic bird calls) currently onisland, but inoperative. Maintenance of equipment occurs every other year. Monitoring for seabird response occurs once every other year with a 1- to 2-day monitoring period. 

Seabird nest attraction devices (electronic bird calls) placed on-island. Maintenance of equipment occurs annually. Monitoring for seabird response occurs once every year with a 1- to 2-day monitoring period. 

Use of remote cameras, in addition to electronic calls increases monitoring activity. Maintenance of equipment occurs annually. Monitoring for seabird response occurs once every 8- months during a 4-month monitoring period. Remote cameras allow continuous monitoring. 

Usin acalmoMaequannfor occyeamoRecon

Other Wildlife and Habitat Monitoring 

Each visit will document species presence or absence of species, presence of invasive species, and abiotic variables (temperature, wind speed, etc...). 

Each visit will document species presence or absence of species, presence of invasive species, and abiotic variables (temperature, wind speed, etc...). 

Each visit will document species presence or absence, abundance, habitat condition, presence and distribution of invasive species, and abiotic variables (temperature, wind speed, etc...). 

Easpeabshabpreof abi(temspe

Vegetation Mapping None. None. Mapping of vegetation 

will occur seasonally during field camps, but will only be capable of documenting seasonal growth patterns. 

Mawilcampatnot 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-14 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Habitat Management Activities 

No habitat management activities occur other than collection and stockpile of marine and other debris. 

No habitat management activities occur other than collection and stockpile of marine and other debris. 

Control of invasive species occurs as occurrences are detected. 

Cospeocc

Wilderness 

Wilderness Resource Management 

Refuge activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Management activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Management activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Mawilwilval

Wilderness Study Area No current WSA. WSA identified. 

Wilderness recommendation delayed until all Pacific Island CCPs are complete. 

WSA identified. Wilderness recommendation delayed until all Pacific Island CCPs are complete. 

WSWirecuntCC

Marine Monitoring 

Marine Exploration No current activity. Deep slope monitoring 

by ROV proposed, but dependent upon funding. 

Deep slope monitoring by ROV proposed, but dependent upon funding. 

Deby dep

Marine Monitoring Marine ecosystem 

monitored. REA and established surveys completed once every two years. 

Marine ecosystem monitored. REA and established surveys completed once every year. No new surveys. 

Marine ecosystem monitored. REA and established surveys completed twice per year. No new surveys proposed. 

Mamoestcomyeasite
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resource Cultural resources 

preserved. 

Cultural resources preserved. On-site cultural resource survey if funding allows. 

Cultural resources preserved. On-site cultural resource survey required prior to establishment of seasonal field camp. 

Cupreculreqestlon

Recreational, Educational and Research Use 

Recreational, Educational, and Research Use 

Public access would remain closed. Proposed uses by researchers and other visitors managed by issuance of Special Use Permits on a caseby-case basis. Opportunities for environmental education exist off-site. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-16 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements 

The costs associated with implementing each Alternative are shown in Table 2-3. For 

Alternative A (No Action), the costs incurred by the Service are associated with staff working on 

the island for 1 to 2 days once every two years and relies on the ability of refuge staff to be 

transported on a NOAA research or partner vessel to Jarvis. The costs associated with 

Alternative B include staff working on the island for 1 to 2 days and relies on the ability of 

refuge staff to be transported on a NOAA research vessel or another vessel provided through 

other partnerships or grant funding to facilitate yearly staff visits. Alternative C includes costs 

for two vessel charters per year to deploy and demobilize a seasonal field camp (4-month 

deployment of 2 personnel) to survey, restore and otherwise manage refuge resources. The 

adjusted annual personnel and operating costs for Alternative C reflect the pro rated amount for 

the Jarvis portion of establishing concurrent field camps on Howland, Baker and Jarvis. 

Alternative D includes the cost of acquiring and maintaining a vessel to facilitate the 

establishment of a year-round field camp that would be deployed once every five years in a 

rotational schedule that would include deployments at Howland, Baker, and Jarvis as well as 

Johnston Atoll and Rose Atoll, in the other years. The vessel purchase and operational costs in 

Alternative D represents costs that are distributed among all remote island refuges that would 

utilize this vessel to accomplish management activities throughout these Central Pacific Ocean 

locations. The adjusted annual cost for Alternative D reflects the pro-rated amount it would cost 

to implement the alternative at Jarvis. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17 

Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Cost Comparison of Various Field Camp Configurations. 

Field Camp Budget 

for Jarvis 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Staff $17,000 (0.3 

FTE every 2 

years) 

$34,000 (0.3 

FTE per year) 

$66,000 (0.66 

FTE per year) 

$200,000 (2 FTE 

once every 5 

years) 

Supplies $5,000 $7,000 $100,000 $200,000 

Remote Sensing 

equipment 

N/A N/A $100,000 N/A 

Remote Sensing 

operations 

N/A N/A $20,000 $20,000 

Deep sea exploration N/A $25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

$25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

$25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

Seabird recolonization 

initiative 

N/A $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Vessel Charter N/A N/A $12,000/day 

for 50 days = 

$600,000 per 

year 

N/A 

Vessel Purchase (one 

time cost) 

N/A N/A N/A $ 8 million 

Vessel operation N/A N/A N/A $200,000 once 

every 5 years 

Adjusted annual 

personnel and 

operating costs 

$22,000/yr $76,000/yr $256,000/yr $210,000/yr 

2.6 Refuge 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. 

In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a 

variety of management goals, objectives and implementation strategies. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-18 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

The goals for Jarvis over the next fifteen 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 information pertaining to importance of an objective relative to legal mandates for 

managing units of the NWRS including refuge purpose, trust resource responsibilities (federally 

listed Threatened and Endangered species and migratory birds), and maintaining/restoring 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Readers, please note the following: 

The objective statement as written is the objective statement that applies to the Service’s 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2. If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is 

used to indicate that this objective is not addressed in that alternative. Below each objective 

statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the objectives. Check 

marks alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. If a column for a 

particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it means that strategy 

will not be used in that alternative. 

 

Goal 1: Conserve, 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 1,273 acres of terrestrial habitat consisting of 73 acres of beach 

and beach strand, 500 acres as short grass and forbs, 200 acres as scrub shrub, and 500 

acres as bare ground on Jarvis Island as nesting habitat for 11 seabird species. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Conduct and record incidental observations 

of invasive species. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Control and where possible, eradicate 

invasive species (e.g., crabgrass) using IPM 

tools including hand pulling and selective 

application of pesticides. 

 ✓ ✓

Eradicate mammalian pests (e.g., mice) using 

IPM tools as needed to protect nesting 

seabirds. 

 ✓ ✓
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19 

Adhere to strict quarantine protocols for all 

island visitors (see Appendix D). 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Collect and stockpile marine and other 

human debris not considered to be 

historically important. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove stockpiled marine and other debris. ✓ ✓ 

Rationale: 

The 11 nesting seabird species on Jarvis utilize all island habitats (see Chapter 3.9.1 and 

Appendix B). Masked and brown boobies prefer to nest on bare open ground. Graybacked, 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 Jarvis. 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. 

The Seabird Conservation Plan (2005) recognizes remote Pacific islands as providing 

important and varied breeding habitat, specifically Jarvis 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 D). 

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

wildlife species. Stockpiling debris can reduce the overall area impacted, thereby 

reducing the entanglement 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 Jarvis Island. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Document presence/absence island 

vegetation. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct inventory of plant species 

distribution, including use of GPS and 

vegetation transects. 

 ✓ ✓
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-20 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 Jarvis to adequately quantify habitat on 

Jarvis, 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 Jarvis, 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 Jarvis. 

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 36,214 acres of 

submerged lands consisting of an estimated 3,000 acres coral reef and 33,214 acres of 

deep water/pelagic habitat on Jarvis. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Use IPM tools to control and where possible, 

eradicate invasive marine species (e.g. 

crown-of-thorns starfish). 

 ✓ 

Collect, remove, and stockpile marine debris 

from shallow coral reefs. 

✓

Continue and expand partnership with 

NOAA 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 Jarvis 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) 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 Jarvis. 

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21 

Objective 2b: Increase baseline information on marine community. 

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

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

presence/absence; and marine mammal species presence/absence. 

Alternatives Alt A AltB2 Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Conduct and record incidental observations 

of corals, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, 

and their habitats. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Accompany NOAA or other scientific 

partners on marine surveys. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct REA (Rapid Ecological 

Assessments) on all existing survey routes to 

document coral, fish and turtle density, 

diversity, distribution, and habitat 

associations. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Develop proposals and conduct deep slope 

marine surveys by ROV (remotely operated 

vessel) to document presence/absence of 

deep slope coral and fish species . 

✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct comprehensive survey for invasive 

species. 

✓

Increase level of REA and other marine 

habitat surveys by 20%. 

 ✓ 

Conduct specific surveys for marine mammal 

presence/absence. ✓

Rationale: 

Responsibility for managing marine resources is shared with NOAA, and has led to many 

cooperative studies. Unlike the logistic constraints of completing terrestrial surveys, 

marine surveys are conducted throughout the entire time that the marine transport vessel 

is at Jarvis. Additionally, since most site visits to Jarvis 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 Jarvis. 

REAs constitute baseline monitoring of the marine ecosystem, and are one component of 

all alternative strategies. Further expansion of REA’s could be accomplished only as a 

component of Alternative D. 

Additional surveys (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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-22 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

surrounding Jarvis, 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 Jarvis. 

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 (in rank order) 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 Jarvis 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. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Record incidental observations of all species 

presence/absence, relative abundance, and 

distribution. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct seabird monitoring activities for 

breeding chronology, and habitat use. 

 ✓ ✓

Coordinate with Migratory Bird Office and 

Office of Refuge Biology, Region 1 Regional 

Office to develop specific monitoring needs 

and data collection protocols. 

 ✓ ✓ 

Rationale: 

The Seabird Conservation Plan (2005) repeatedly recognizes the importance of the U.S. 

Pacific Islands in providing predator-free seabird nesting and roosting environments. 

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

importance. The Seabird Plan further identifies population monitoring inventories are 

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

collection of population data is needed. 

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

Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004) lists determining baseline 

information for bristle-thighed curlews, and other species, as the goal of the Central 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-23 

Pacific Islands Subregion. The endangered species recovery plans for both species of sea 

turtles indicate that little is known about their biology in the central Pacific. Data on 

other terrestrial wildlife species found on Jarvis Island is 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 three consecutive years on Jarvis Island. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Implement and maintain electronic calling 

devices to promote nesting 

✓ ✓ ✓

Coordinate with RO and develop capabilities 

for remote surveillance equipment 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

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

of the Seabird Conservation Plan (2005) is expand efforts to assess habitat suitability and 

restore populations through translocation to predator-free U.S. islands such as Jarvis. 

While the physical translocation of species to Jarvis is not being suggested, electronic 

calling devises are designed, and have been successful, in attracting and establishing 

nesting seabird colonies to other islands. 

 

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

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

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

density and distributions.

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Record incidental observations of nearshore 

turtle use. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Develop and conduct survey of nearshore 

turtle use. 

 ✓ ✓

Develop and conduct survey of other marine 

areas for turtle use. 

 ✓

Develop partnership with NOAA for study of 

turtles at Jarvis. 

✓ ✓ ✓
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-24 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

Rationale: 

There is currently little information related to use of Jarvis resources by sea turtles, 

though it is known that they do use refuge habitats. Sea 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 populations of globally depleted marine species such as 

giant clams (Tridacna sp.), bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometapon muricatum), Napoleon 

wrasses (Cheilinus undulatus), large groupers (Cephalopholis sp., Epinephelus spp.,

Variola spp., etc.), sharks (Carcharhinus spp., Triaenodon spp., Negaprion spp., 

Galeocerdo spp., etc.), and corals (Anthozoa, Hydrozoa) to document their 

presence/absence and relative abundance on Jarvis. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Conduct marine surveys such as REA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Solicit partnership for survey of deep slope 

habitat 

✓ ✓ ✓

Expand marine surveys (REA) efforts to 

other reef areas surrounding the island 

 ✓

Rationale: 

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

areas such as Jarvis still provide sanctuary areas. However, illegal fishing activity has 

been noted surrounding several Remotes refuges. Jarvis, 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 Jarvis. 

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

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

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

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Incidental observations of marine mammal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Solicit partnership for study of marine 

mammals at Jarvis 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

biologists have collected data on marine species of concern since 2000. Only anecdotal 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25 

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

However, studies elsewhere in the Pacific 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: Protect, maintain, enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of 

Jarvis’s terrestrial and marine communities.

Objective 4a: Protect and maintain wilderness values. 

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

solitude, supplemental values) of Jarvis. Achievement of this objective will be evaluated 

by assessing loss or degradation of values that qualified it for potential designation (see 

Appendix F). 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Use minimum tools necessary to manage 

refuge resources 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Continue to manage Jarvis as wilderness ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Monitor values of naturalness and solitude. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove debris remaining from military or 

other past human use, not considered cultural 

resources. 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

Jarvis has been and is currently managed as a wild, natural area due to its remote 

location, historic lack of human impact, and limited human presence. Areas of Jarvis 

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 

Legislative EIS will be pursued for all Pacific Remote Island Refuges once their CCP’s 

have been completed. 

Some human generated debris remains from past occupations. Additionally, debris such 

as discarded fishing nets continuously washes ashore. This debris impinges upon 

wilderness values. A cultural resource review is required prior to removal of any human 

debris, identified as a component of Alternatives C and D, which may be considered a 

cultural resource. 

In the interim, all areas identified as suitable WSAs 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-26 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goal 5: Jarvis’s cultural and historic resources are preserved. 

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 

Jarvis Light day beacon, or other recognized cultural/historical resource. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Record incidental observations of condition 

of cultural resources 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

Rationale: Restricting human use of Jarvis 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 Knowledge of cultural resources. 

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

cultural and historical resources. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

 ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Conduct cultural resource survey of island 

and marine habitat 

 ✓ ✓

Conduct basic maintenance of cultural 

resources (paint, clean surfaces of avian 

excrement) 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

Restricting human use of Jarvis 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. Any maintenance activity, and establishment of seasonal or annual field 

camps would require approval from appropriate archeological resource professional 

(Service’s Regional Archeologist). 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-27 

Goal 6: An informed, interested, and educated public appreciates 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 three 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. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Develop, with External Affairs office, 

Honolulu, an interpretative brochure for all 

remote Pacific Island refuges. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Work with External Affairs office, Honolulu 

to develop outreach/interpretation strategy. 

 ✓ ✓

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 Jarvis 

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. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

 ✓ ✓

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Develop partnership with agency or 

institution to conduct baseline global climate 

change investigations 

 ✓ ✓

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 provide such as 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-28 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

seabird nesting habitat. In order to determine if management activities are necessary to 

offset the impacts of global climate change at Jarvis, refuge staff needs a baseline from 

which to measure future change. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

Jarvis Island, located at approximately lat. 0o23’ N. and long. 160o01’ W is the sixth island and 

considered to be a western outlier of the 11 Line Islands that stretch from 6oN latitude to 11oS 

latitude. The Line Islands trend from north to south between longitudes 162o and 150oW. 

Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge anchors the northern end of the archipelago and Flint 

Island anchors the southern end, about 390 nmi north of Tahiti in French Polynesia. 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. Jarvis 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 landmass is Kiritimati 

(Christmas) Island, 184 nmi to the north. Three of the Line Islands are possessions of the United 

States (U.S.), all being administered as units of the NWRS. Jarvis, and Kingman Reef are both 

unincorporated U.S. territories, while Palmyra Atoll is the only U.S. possession considered an 

incorporated U.S. Territory, meaning that it enjoys all the legal privileges provided by the U.S. 

Constitution. The remaining eight Line Islands are under the jurisdiction of the Republic of 

Kiribati; their capital is Tarawa, located in the Gilbert Islands 1,621 nmi to the West. 

3.2 Climate 

General climate and related oceanographic conditions in the central Equatorial Pacific

The climate associated with Jarvis Island 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 is lacking for most central Pacific locations, or has only 

been collected for a short period of time. Vitousek, et al. (1980), recorded meteorological 

observations at Jarvis Island from 1974 to 1980 and these data will serve as the basis for this 

summary. 

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

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

regions and predominate from the East at Jarvis between 13 to16 miles per hour. Atmospheric 

pressure gradients range from high pressure areas located near lat. 30o N. and lat. 30o S., to the 

low pressure band located near lat. 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 they 

converge and rise upward. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-2 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

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 

Hobbs 1977). Jarvis’s position near the Equator places it outside this band of heavy 

precipitation. Changes in these typical patterns occur seasonally and during periodic events 

known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During an ENSO event, the ITCZ shifts 

south and east toward unusually warmer waters. At other equatorial islands, this shift typically 

leads to lighter wind speeds and more rainfall (USFWS 2001, USFWS 1998a) but Jarvis did not 

have an increase the in rainfall during the ENSO events of 1974 to 1976 that Kiritimati and 

Tabuaeran (Fanning) Islands experienced (Vitousek et al. 1980). 

Prevailing ocean currents surrounding Jarvis Island 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 5o and 10o North latitude, flows counter to the major 

westward-flowing 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. Jarvis lays 400 nm south of the most 

southerly approach 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 Jarvis. Just south 

of the NECC is the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current (SEC). Jarvis is most always 

within the flow regime of the SEC. 

Jarvis Island 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 Jarvis Island, nutrient rich waters are deflected upward, enriching the primary 

productivity of the surface waters surrounding Jarvis. 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. Variations in the upwelling that cause it to be strongest 

during boreal spring are caused by variations in wind levels over various time scales (Gove et al., 

2006). 

Jarvis Island climate data

The nearest currently operating weather station to Jarvis is the Kiritimati weather station, located 

at lat. 1o 52’ N., long. 157o20’ W., or roughly 184 nmi north of Jarvis (USFWS 1998a). This 

station reports average total monthly rainfall of approximately 3 inches ranging from 0 to 20 

inches per month with precipitation consistent throughout the year (NOAA 1991) except for 

increases during ENSO events. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-3 

3.3 Global Climate Change 

Background

Recent decades have brought increased awareness of the changing global environment and the 

implications this may have on ecological processes. Global warming, sea level rise, and change 

in chemical concentrations in the world’s oceans reflect this change. These changes are being 

brought about by three factors: increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gasses in 

the atmosphere commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect; alterations in the 

biogeochemistry of the global nitrogen cycle; and ongoing land use and land cover change with 

change in land use being considered the single most important component of global change 

affecting ecological systems (Vitousek, 1994). While there is considerable debate regarding the 

cause and the ultimate impact these changes will have on earth’s environment, there are several 

areas of impact that have been well documented. The three areas of impact linked to global 

climate change, which may have the greatest potential effect on Jarvis, and other central Pacific 

islands are coral bleaching, sea level rise 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 Jarvis 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 

Jarvis 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). 

Coral Bleaching

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). 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. Smith and 

Buddemeier (1992) state: “Reef damage from anthropogenic environmental degradation (nutrient 

runoff, siltation, overexploitation) is widespread, represents a much greater threat than climate 

change in the near future, and can reinforce the negative effects of climate change”. 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.” 

Field observation of corals at Jarvis during five separate expeditions from 2000-2006 indicate 

that corals appear to be recovering from a bleaching event that took place during the previous 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-4 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

few years (1997-1998). Corals continued to recover based upon observations during all 

subsequent (post 2000) visits. 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 (Rob Dunbar et 

al. 2005). The results of these analyses are not yet available. 

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 

plate-tectonics activity prevent extrapolations in sea level fluctuations and trends between 

different regions. Thus, 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 may also affect low-lying equatorial islands and atolls. 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 Jarvis Island, 

increases in sea level could significantly erode shorelines and overall island surface area since 

opportunities for accretion of lands do not exist. Data related to sea level near Jarvis Island was 

not found in the literature reviewed for this plan. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-5 

Oceanic Chemical Concentration Change

Glacial and interglacial periods during Earth’s history, cycle repeatedly with low and high 

concentrations of carbon dioxide (as measured from deep Antarctic ice cores). However, recent 

increases fall outside the range of peak prehistoric carbon dioxide levels. The rate of increase is 

also 5 to 10 times more rapid than any of the sustained changes in the ice-core record (Vitousek, 

1994). Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to 355 μL/L since 1800, a level of 

increase otherwise never reported during the past 160,000 years. Data suggest this increase is 

linked to fossil fuel combustion and not deforestation (Vitousek, 1994). 

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). 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. 

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 impact photosynthetic rates in plants, change plant species composition, 

lower nutrient levels, and lower weight gain by herbivores. 

Summary

Coral bleaching has not been documented at Jarvis but likely occurred in the late 1990s. The 

buffering effects of the EUC may contribute to corals being less susceptible to bleaching events. 

Sea level rise is well documented throughout the world’s oceans, but local data are lacking. 

Thus, the magnitude of changes in sea level and the impact this may have on Jarvis Island 

ecosystems is currently speculative. The localized impact of changes in atmospheric and oceanic 

chemical concentrations is also unknown. While many of the impacts of global climate change 

currently cannot be documented at Jarvis Island, the opportunity exists for Jarvis, and other 

equatorial Pacific island refuges to contribute information to improve global predictions and 

provide a central Pacific baseline to document changes primarily not affected by human impacts 

such as land use and pollution. 

3.4 Geology and Soils 

Jarvis Island is a low-lying, nearly level island with a slightly depressed central area surrounded 

by a narrow shallow fringing reef. 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 

central depression is probably the remnants of an ancient lagoon and the result of the combined 

effects of guano mining more than a century ago and wave action depositing sand rocks and 

boulders around the island’s fringe to an elevation of 10-23 feet above sea level (Keating, 1992). 

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 away from the East 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-6 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Pacific Rise over the past 50-80 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 Jarvis Island was formed have not been specifically investigated, although they 

would 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 Jarvis, 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 occurred well 

before the beginning of the last ice age (approximately 115,000 years ago) and encompassed 

more than 50- 60 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 Jarvis Island. 

The entire western or leeward beach of the island is sandy and low, while the eastern side, 

constantly pounded by waves generated by the trade winds, is higher, more abrupt, and covered 

with coral rubble and sandstone slabs. There is no pronounced beach crest or central basin (dried 

up lagoon) typically found on some larger low-lying reef islands. Soils of low-lying atolls in the 

Pacific frequently consist of accumulated organic matter, guano, pumice or other transported 

material on top of a calcareous sand or limestone substratum (Morrison 1990). The soil of Jarvis 

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 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). 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-7 

3.5 Hydrology 

No information is available on the subsurface hydrology of Jarvis 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 Jarvis, 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. 

3.6 Air and Water Quality 

Due to the lack of human presence, oceanic and air quality are expected to be good and lacking 

in pollutants. The acoustic environment at Jarvis 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. 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants 

The most recent human activity at Jarvis Island that resulted in possible environmental 

contamination occurred between 1974 and 1980. The NORPAX Line Islands Monitoring 

Experiment included an automated weather station at Jarvis that consisted of a various 

meteorological and oceanographic sensors, a small hut housing the electronics box, a 100 watt 

FSK radio transmitter, radio and sensor towers, wind generators, solar panels, primary and 

secondary batteries, and power control circuits. Power for the station was stored in 18-volt leadacid batteries and radio transmission powered by 12 volt batteries (Vitousek et al., 1980). At 

least some of these batteries and some of the other metallic objects were left behind on Jarvis at 

the end of this research. 

Other periods of human occupation at Jarvis include an 18 month occupation of Jarvis from 1 

July 1957 to 31 Dec 1958 by a party of oceanographers from Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography during the International Geophysical Year. They left a house in 1958, which is 

no longer standing. Panala’au colonists occupied the island from 1935 to 1942 and as many as 

80 guano miners at any given time worked there from 1858 to 1879. The guano mining process 

itself does not result in harmful tailings so only substances that may have been left by the miners 

or subsequently by the colonists might qualify as environmental contamination on the refuge. 

The east end of Jarvis was shelled by a Japanese submarine in 1942. A large storm from the 

north in 1958 washed away practically all evidence of the guano miners and the Panala’au 

colonists from the Millersville landing area. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-8 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats 

Jarvis 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 here. By 1924 when Christophersen (1927) did the first thorough 

survey of Jarvis Island’s vegetation, there had already been approximately a century of visits by 

Europeans and guano miners. Despite this traffic and the potential for introductions, 

Christophersen found a very depauperate flora consisting of 6 native species (Lepturus repens, 

Eragrostis whitneyi, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Boerhavia tetrandra., Portulaca lutea, Tribulus 

cistoides, Other plants currently surviving such as Abutifolium indicum, and Sida fallax were 

most likely accidentally introduced by the guano miners. Still other plants were purposefully 

introduced through the years, perhaps even repeatedly, but do not persist. (see Appendix B). On 

a short visit in 2004, only 7 species of plants were located (Rauzon and Wegmann 2004). 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 Jarvis Island, and the most recent information about current presence or 

absence.

The structure of the plant community is grassland and low herbaceous cover. The Sida and 

Abutilon in the interior serve as important nesting and roosting habitat for the red-footed booby 

and cover for wintering bristle-thighed curlews. Great frigatebirds and white terns also prefer to 

nest above the ground on the few shrubs available, but all the other species nest directly on the 

ground. Shrubs and rock piles also provide shade and daytime cover for the numerous land 

hermit crabs, Coenobita perlatus that inhabit Jarvis Island. 

3.9 Terrestrial Wildlife 

Seabirds, shorebirds, lizards, vegetation, insects, crabs, and invasive rats and feral cats were 

observed and studied at Jarvis Island during the current century. The Service subsequently 

eradicated cats from the island that enabled several nesting seabird species to re-colonize the 

island. 

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals 

There are no native land mammals at Jarvis Island. Numerically dominant vertebrates are 

seabirds and migratory shorebirds. Earliest ornithological surveys at Jarvis Island took place 

long after the introduction of the Polynesian rat, Rattus exulans, so the composition of the avian 

community prior to human contact can only be surmised by looking at other islands in the 

Phoenix and Line Archipelago that did not suffer the invasion of rats. The findings of the 

ornithologist on the Whippoorwill Expedition of 1924 have never been published. The only 

ornithological records prior to 1963, when scientists from the Smithsonian Institution visited 

eight times between 1963 and 1965, are those of Harold Kirby (1925) who visited in 1924 and 

mentions only 6 species of the large Pelecaniforms breeding. Table B-4 in Appendix B lists 

species and estimates of numbers for seabird species on all visits since 1973. Jarvis Island falls 

into Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 68 along with all the other island territories of the U.S. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-9 

Cats were introduced to Jarvis sometime during period between 1935 – 1942. The scientists of 

the POBSP found nine species of seabirds breeding at Jarvis in 1963 (Clapp, R.B, 1967). Cats 

were finally removed in 1990 (Rauzon, M. J., 1990) and since then there has been a remarkable 

recovery of almost the entire seabird community. Most spectacular has been the rapid 

resurgence of blue noddies. There were none found breeding untill 1982 when one nest was 

located. By 2004 Rauzon and Wegmann (2004) observed 650 birds making Jarvis now one of 

the largest blue noddy colonies in the world. The recovery of this species as well as the recolonization of 3 shearwater species at Jarvis coincides with the continuing destruction of the 

formerly enormous seabird colony at Kiritimati as more and more citizens of Kiribati are settled 

there. Jarvis has consequently become the largest seabird colony in the Central Pacific. The 

three most numerous breeding species at Jarvis are the sooty tern (Onychoprion fuscatus), brown 

noddy (Anous stolidus), and masked booby, (Sula dactylatra). 

Several species of concern exist or have the potential to exist on Jarvis. The Phoenix petrel 

(Pterodroma alba) is considered a bird of National Conservation Concern by the Service and is 

listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable. The Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa) and 

blue noddy (Procelsterna cerulean) are Birds of Conservation Concern at the regional level 

(USFWS 2005). Both the Phoenix petrel and the Polynesian storm-petrel probably occurred at 

Jarvis Island prior to the introduction of rats. 

3.9.2 Shorebirds 

Species occurrence and counts of the four migratory shorebird species recorded from Jarvis 

Island are displayed in Table B-4, Appendix B. The most common migrants wintering at Jarvis 

are the Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva) and bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis). 

All four shorebird species are considered species of High Concern in the national conservation 

priority scheme for shorebirds (Engilis and Naughton 2004). All of the species are also labeled 

as high concern in the Birds of Conservation Concern in BCR 68 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2002). These islands provide crucial wintering habitat and may serve as rest-stops for 

arctic-breeding shorebirds wintering farther south in the Pacific Islands. 

3.9.3 Reptiles 

Only one species of terrestrial reptile has been reported from Jarvis Island, a gecko, most likely 

the mourning gecko (Lepidodactylus lugubris). This species was documented in the stomach of 

a cat at Jarvis (Kirkpatrick and Rauzon, 1986) and may have served as alternate prey for cats 

when they were present on Jarvis Island. 

3.9.4 Invertebrates (crabs and insects) 

 

Jarvis Island is home to a large number of the land crab, Coenobita perlatus. 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. Recent observations, but not collections, during visits by Service biologists include 

house flies, small ants, moths and millers, butterflies, and spiders. Kirkpatrick and Rauzon 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-10 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

(1986) compared food habits of feral cats at Howland and Jarvis Islands and while there were 

crickets, cockroaches and Tenebrionid beetles in the stomach of Jarvis cats (n=73), no insect 

remains were found in a smaller sample (n=5) of Howland Island cats. 

3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

3.10.1 Previous surveys 

Before regular marine assessment and monitoring efforts began in 2000, marine scientists visited 

Jarvis to collect fish, corals, and perhaps other reef life, but there were no systematic surveys of 

the reefs accomplished or reported in the literature. Five sets of recent surveys through early 

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 Coral Reef Ecosystem Division 

(CRED)(R. Brainard, per. comm.). The 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 2000-2002. In 

addition, The University of Hawaii/NOAA sponsored HURL program accomplished several 

deep submersible dives at Jarvis in July 2005 to depths of 3,000 feet, and reported large 

populations of fish and deep corals off the west side of the island where the EUC impinges on 

the submarine slopes of the island 

Despite these intense efforts, several important habitats at Jarvis have not been adequately 

surveyed. Windward (north and east facing) reefs were inaccessible during most visits because of 

tradewind generated waves close to the reef and onshore winds that would push the dive skiffs 

too close to the reefs. Moreover, due to safety concerns, dives have generally been limited to 

depths of 60 feet and one hour duration. Because of these limitations, some important habitats 

are still poorly sampled and deep slope habitats (164 to 3,000 feet) within the refuge remain 

mostly unexplored, except for the 2005 HURL dives and 2006 acquisition of high resolution 

bathymetry of Jarvis Island NWR from Multi-BeamTM surveys (S. Ferguson, per. comm.) and 

substantial oceanographic data (R. Brainard, per. comm.). 

3.10.2 Submergent Habitats 

Jarvis Island’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, shallow short channels may have been blasted 

through the narrow fringing reef during the pre-World War II era to facilitate small boat access 

between the shoreline and ocean off the south and west sides of the island. The deep slope 

habitats below depths of 60 feet have not been surveyed by divers, although remotely operated 

vehicles (ROVs) have been launched to collect video and camera based data. Pelagic habitats 

occur further offshore beyond the influence of upwelling and nearshore oceanographic processes. 

Nearshore habitats include distinct upwelling zones off the west side of the island and 

oligotrophic waters off the windward reefs. The PIFSC has conducted oceanographic research 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-11 

off the island to contrast the difference between nutrient rich upwelling zones and the ambient 

nutrient poor ocean conditions outside areas of upwelling currents. 

3.10.3 Reef Life 

 

The dominant reef life that has been studied during post 1997 expeditions include, benthic algae 

(Peter Vroom, Kim Paige, per. comm.) corals and anemones (John Schmerfeld, Jim Maragos, 

Bernardo Vargas, and Jean Kenyon, per. comm.), other reef invertebrates (Scott Godwin, 

Dwayne Minton, and Robin Newbold, per. comm.), and reef fishes (Mundy et al 2002., Ed 

DeMartini, Bruce Mundy, Brian Zgliczynski, Brian Green, Richard Wass, Alan Friedlander, 

Stephanie Holzwarth, and others, per. comm.). At the time of this CCP, only data from coral, 

algae, and pre-2003 fish surveys were available for review and compilation, and the algae and 

non-coral invertebrate analyses are not complete enough to provide compilations. 

The giant clam (Tridacna maxima) is abundant Jarvis Island and is listed under the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Also found on 

Jarvis, the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulates) is also listed under CITES and designated as 

Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 

3.10.4 Corals 

Coral diversity at Jarvis Island

Five coral surveys completed at Jarvis from 2000-2006 have documented 50 species and 20 

genera of coral, all but 2 of which are stony coral species (see Appendix B, Table B-1). Calm sea 

conditions allowed the March 2006 REA team to survey several sites off the north and east sides, 

providing more complete coverage than has been accomplished during any prior visit to Jarvis. 

Nine 2006 transect surveys accounted for 14 of the 22 genera reported from Jarvis, although 5 

genera (Montipora, Pocillopora, Pavona, Distichopora, and Millepora) accounted for more than 

95% of the corals (Figure 3.1). No new genera and species of corals were reported during the 

2006 visit. The normally dominant coral genera of Acropora and Porites were low in numbers 

although many of the Porites colonies were large. The coral fauna at Jarvis is unusual in being 

low in diversity compared to that of the neighboring Line Islands surveyed during the past 

several decades. Jarvis’s geographic isolation, lack of protected lagoon habitats and small size 

compared to the other islands may be responsible for this anomaly. Mean generic richness was 

low at all REA sites ranging from 5 to 9 genera per 50m2 transect area. The eastern and northern 

(windward) reef sites showed slightly higher generic richness but lower overall abundance. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-12 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Figure 3.1 Percent of Coral Genus Reported During March 2006 Surveys, Jarvis Island NWR. 

(after Maragos 2006). 

Percent of Coral Genus Reported 

During March 2006 Surveys, 

Jarvis Island NWR

Distichopora 

3%

Fungia

 2%

Pavona

 4%

Montipora, 

50%

Other

 5%

Pocillopora 

36%

Coral populations

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 summarize the characteristics of the coral populations at the nine 2006 Jarvis 

sites. A total of 3,237 corals were counted on the transect sites, but there were differences among 

the sites. The frequency of corals (mean number per m2) was lowest at windward sites varying 

from 2 to 4 corals per m2. Coral frequency values were highest on the south and west sides of the 

island with frequencies there ranging from 8 to 13 corals per m2. These sites along with a 

northwest corner site also supported the largest coral colonies and the same sites and showed 

higher mean diameter levels for corals. Jarvis is exposed to large northwest swells due to its 

more westerly position relative to its northern Line Island neighbors, which may impede coral 

development. The REA sites protected from both these swells and the southeasterly trade winds 

appear to support larger and more numerous corals, although windward coral communities 

appear to be more diverse. 

Changes in coral populations over time 

Data from the 2004 REA surveys were available for 3 sites to offer comparisons to 2006 surveys 

at the same sites. In all cases coral populations were more abundant and diverse in 2006 

compared to 2004. Many more corals and higher frequencies were reported at all sites in 2006. 

For example, 2004 frequency values ranged from 1 to 2.5 corals per m2, but ranged from 2 to 7 

corals per m2 in 2006. Many smaller size classes were more numerous in 2006, although one 

larger size class (41 to 80 cm in diameter) was more abundant at the sites in 2004. Generic 

diversity increased from 3 to 4 genera in 2004 to 5 to 8 genera in 2006. Preliminary results from 

the analysis of permanent quadrat data at site JAR-4P off the south side of Jarvis reveal dramatic 

increases in corals from 2000 to 2006. Overall, corals appear healthy and growing at Jarvis sites 

based upon diversity and population parameters. The corals of Jarvis may be rebounding from a 

global warming and bleaching event of the late 1990s. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-13 

Figure 3.2 Size class distributions of corals at 9 REA sites, Jarvis Island NWR 2006. 

Figure 3.3 Changes in the number of corals per age class between 2000 & 2006 at site 4P, 

Jarvis Island NWR. 

3.10.5 Nearshore Fish 

There are approximately 277 species of reef fish known from Jarvis Island reefs (Mundy et al 

2002; Table B-2). This compares with 247 species from Baker Island and 342 species from 

Howland Island by the same investigators. There were disparities among the fish faunas of each 

of the islands, with some fish families and genera common at one island and other fish families 

and genera at the two other islands. Possible explanations for these differences may be that 

sampling and survey intensities may be insufficient and different between the three islands, or 

that geographic isolation may result in differential recruitment rates between the three islands. 

Fish well represented at Jarvis included sharks, groupers, damselfish, wrasses, blennies, and 

Changes in the number of Corals per Age Class 

between 2000 & 2006 at Site 4P, Jarvis Island NWR

0

50

100

150

200

250

All Corals Montipora Pocillopora

1-5 cm

6-10 cm

11-20 cm

21-40 cm

41-80 cm

81-160 cm

> 160 cm

 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006

Size 

Class 

Size class distribution of corals at 9 REA sites, Jarvis Island NWR 

2006

0

100

300

500

700

900

1-5 cm 6-10 cm 11-20 cm 21-40 cm 41-80 cm 81-160 cm >160 cm

size classes

Number 

of 

Corals

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-14 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

surgeon fishes. Also common were rays, eels, soldierfish, scorpionfish, cardinalfish, snappers, 

goatfish, butterflyfish, angelfish, hawkfish, parrotfish, and triggerfish were common. 

Reef fish populations at Jarvis appeared very abundant, healthy, and diverse with little indication 

of unauthorized harvest (Maragos, per. comm.). The upwelling phenomenon off the west side of 

Jarvis seemed especially strong during the six visits there since 2000 and fish populations may 

be benefiting from nutrient-subsidized productivity from the upwelling currents, resulting in 

large diverse populations of many families of fish. 

The fact that the disparities for the coral genera did not track in the same direction as for the fish 

families (fewer coral genera vs. more fish abundance and variety at Jarvis), reinforces the 

hypothesis that 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. 

3.10.6 Marine Mammals 

Very little information is available on marine mammal populations in the vicinity of Jarvis. 

However, on most visits to Jarvis 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 Jarvis. 

3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife 

 

The estimated millions of seabirds breeding at Jarvis 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). While both predatory fish and seabirds are capable of foraging 

throughout their pelagic ranges (which encompass the entire tropical ocean), seabirds are most 

successful at feeding their young when they can find schools of predatory fish within easy 

commuting range of the breeding colonies. 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. 

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 locally higher tuna populations. Johannes (1981) describes the daily migrations of 

skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna to and from the waters near islands and banks. Protection of 

these tunas near seabird colonies enhances the ability of birds to provide adequate food for their 

offspring. 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 3 seabird species breeding at Jarvis (brown 

noddies, white terns, and brown boobies), high proportions (33–56 percent) of their diet 

originates from the surrounding coral reef ecosystem when compared to other areas where their 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-15 

diet has been studied. (Ashmole and Ashmole 1967; Harrison et al. 1983; King 1970; Diamond 

1978). Large numbers of blue noddies may also be taking advantage of cold productive 

upwelling currents near Jarvis to forage close to the nesting colony (Rauzon and Wegmann, 

2004). 

3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act documented to use Jarvis include the threatened 

green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). 

Very little information is available on sea turtle populations at Jarvis. However, both species 

have been observed and photographed foraging in the shallow water near the island. 

3.12 Invasive Species 

Human activities at Jarvis Island have resulted in various non-native species being introduced 

including the house cat (Felis catus), the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), the House mouse (Mus 

musculus), various ant and cockroach species, and plants such as pandanus (Pandanus sp), 

coconut (Cocos nucifera), ilima (Sida fallax), and Indian mallow (Abutilon indicum). Cats 

introduced in 1937 were eliminated in 1990. The rats were documented as early as 1854 and in 

many accounts were described as extremely abundant. Sometime after 1938, they disappeared 

and have not been recorded since. House mice are abundant during wetter years. Of the plants 

introduced by humans, only Ilima and Indian mallow have persisted. 

3.13 Wilderness Resources 

Jarvis remains in a wilderness state in terms of its biota, seascape, and landscape except the 

Jarvis Light day beacon aid to navigation, some discarded batteries from the International 

Geophysical Year camp, excavations and pits left behind from the guano mining era, and a small 

section of the reef blasted for a boat passage during the guano mining era. Abandoned anchors 

and chain may occur near the western boat passage. However, the collective contribution of 

these detractions is minor compared to the otherwise overwhelming wilderness character of the 

island and surrounding reefs. Additional wilderness information and evaluation are covered in 

greater detail in Appendix F. 

3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology 

Environmental conditions at Jarvis are inhospitable to lengthy human occupation. A 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 Jarvis 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 and the collection of 

seabirds. 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 Jarvis Island’s remoteness and lack of a sustainable freshwater supply, it is 

likely that Jarvis Island played a minimal role, if any, in the colonizing efforts of prehistoric 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-16 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

people across the Pacific. Although evidence exists of Polynesian occupancy in the Phoenix and 

Line Islands, data specific to Jarvis is lacking (Emory. 1939, Brown, et al. 2002). 

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 Jarvis Island are non-existent due to the geological 

forces that formed the island, and its remoteness and dry climate. 

3.15 Recent Cultural History 

The occupation and use of Jarvis Island after post-European contact, approximately AD 1800, 

can be divided into four distinctive time periods or eras based upon alternating periods of 

occupation, use, and abandonment. The eras are categorized as whaling, guano mining, 

colonizing, and post military. 

Whaling era 1800-1850

Use of the island by whaling ship crews is speculative. Lacking an adequate harbor or sheltered 

bay, landings on the island are difficult to this day. However, whaling vessels may have stopped 

at Jarvis Island to acquire birds, eggs, and turtles. 

Jarvis Island was initially discovered and named by Captain Brown for the owner of the vessel 

Eliza Francis when he mapped it in 1821. The island has also been called Bunker, Volunteer, 

Brook, and Brock. Captain Michael Baker of the ship Braganza landed in 1835 and documented 

the rich guano deposits leading to the island later being claimed in 1857 by Alfred Benson and 

Charles Judd for the American Guano Company as authorized by the Guano Act of 1856. 

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 Jarvis Island was started in 1858 and continued 

except for a cessation during the Civil War until little quality guano remained in 1879. At the 

termination of the lease approximately 300,000 tons of guano had been removed making it one 

of the richest deposits in the Central Pacific Ocean (Hutchinson, 1950). Evidence of this era of 

exploitation still remains as large basins from mining excavations and mounds of low-grade 

guano mark the island landscape. 

In 1913 the barkentine Amaranth coming with a cargo of coal from New South Wales and 

heading for San Francisco hit the Southeast side of Jarvis Island. The Captain and crew took to 

their boats and landed the next morning. The vessel broke up. The crew had salvaged 

provisions and water from the Amaranth and managed to reach Samoa in the two boats 3 weeks 

later. The Whippoorwill Expedition sponsored by Bishop Museum paid a scientific visit in 

1924. A memorial cairn and plaque commemorates the grounding and is still present on the 

island. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-17 

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 Jarvis Island. Colonizing efforts began in March 1935. Several military 

personnel and graduates of Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii established a colony on Jarvis Island 

(Brown et al. 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 Jarvis Island by various 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) cutters. During the colonizing era, Jarvis Island was visited 

frequently and was often the scene of busy activity.

Structures for water, food storage, radio equipment, and walls around the main settlement were 

constructed in part using lumber remaining from the wreck of the Amaranth. Attempts to grow 

trees, flowers, and vegetables were made, but the climate was unfavorable for cultivated crops. 

 

Jarvis Island was evacuated at the beginning of World War II and remained unoccupied during 

the remainder of the war. 

Post War Era: 1944 to present

No attempt was made to re-colonize Jarvis Island after the war, although the Department of the 

Interior thought of doing so. In 1948, the U.S. decided that the claim to Jarvis Island could be 

effectively maintained by annual USCG visits. Thus, a USCG vessel apparently first visited the 

island after the war. USCG vessels that visited Howland Island included the Kettle, Basswood, 

Buttonwood, Kukui, the Planetree, Blackhaw and Ironwood. Most visits to Jarvis usually 

occurred in the first 4 months of the year with the ships’ crews completing repairs to the day 

beacon and taking photographs to establish their presence on the island. 

In March 1963, and for the following 2 years, Smithsonian Institution employees made a number 

of visits to Jarvis Island as part of the POBSP (Clapp, 1967) 

 

In recent years, sporadic visits have been made by Refuge Staff aboard USCG and NOAA 

vessels. 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 continue to 

participate in scientific expeditions, typically aboard NOAA vessels and occurring once every 2 

years since 2000. 

 3.16 Socio-economics 

Historical Developments

Since whaling days, Jarvis Island has been used for a variety of commercial enterprises. During 

the whaling era, Jarvis may have served as a gathering site for provisions by harvesting seabirds, 

sea turtles, and their eggs. Fishing for tuna and other species may also have occurred. The 

guano-mining era provided the world with a nutrient-rich fertilizer. Jarvis and other central 

Pacific islands were exploited for their rich guano deposits. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-18 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

After the guano-mining period, Jarvis Island was retained by the U.S. Government, to aid in 

transportation and commerce during the mid-1930s. A colony was established on Jarvis Island 

to assert U.S. possession by placing 4 to 5 men on Jarvis Island from 1935 to 1942 (Bryan 1974, 

Brown et al. 2002 After 1945, USCG vessels performed annual patrols to protect U.S. economic 

interests in the central Pacific. 

In 1974, Jarvis 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 Jarvis Island’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Subsequently, the 

Service working with the U.S. State Department have denied Kiribati’s request. There are no 

current economic uses of Jarvis, and the island remains unpopulated. 

Land Use

Jarvis Island 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 Jarvis Island will 

likely include designation of a preferred field campsite that will not conflict with important 

wildlife functions, habitat restoration, cultural sites, or wilderness values. 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

Howland 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 Howland has been authorized in the past. Refuge access is 

managed through the issuance of a SUP when the activity is deemed compatible and appropriate 

with the purposes of refuge establishment. 

 

Commercial Fishing

Over the years commercial fishing vessels may have targeted uninhabited Jarvis for unauthorized 

and illegal fishing because of the lack of on-site surveillance and enforcement capacity. Jarvis 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 Jarvis. Neither 

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) nor NOAA Fisheries 

advocates commercial fishing within Jarvis, although both share commercial fishery 

management responsibilities for waters outside the refuge boundaries. 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 Jarvis and the home ports of the fishing vessels. 

However, foreign fishing vessels may target Jarvis for illegal commercial fishery harvest, and the 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-19 

economic pressure to pursue this option will likely increase in the future as commercial fishing 

stocks in Asia and the Pacific become more heavily fished and depleted. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-20 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-1 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Introduction 

All alternatives presented in this document describe varying levels of management activity on 

Jarvis. These range from establishing an overnight field camp once every two years and 

conducting basic biological surveys, to establishing a year-round field camp every five years, 

conducting additional biological and ecological surveys, and basic habitat management practices 

such as invasive species control. Other than infrequent field camps, Jarvis is unoccupied 

throughout the year. Permanent infrastructure development is not a component of any 

alternative. Field camps are temporary, mobile, and removed at the end of each field camp 

season. The few potential adverse impacts are generally temporary, localized, and can be fully 

mitigated or avoided. As a result, most of the impacts of all alternatives are beneficial and 

designed to maintain Jarvis in a natural wilderness state driven by natural process, and to restore 

native species and habitats that may have been lost in the past. 

Alternatives primarily differ in their degree of affording staff visitation and surveillance of the 

refuge, which in turn have varying degrees of effectiveness on reducing alien and invasive 

species, unauthorized visitation and harvest, monitoring the status of fish and wildlife, and 

instituting restoration programs such as the reestablishment of extirpated nesting seabird species. 

All four alternatives would generally result in some positive impacts to the refuge. However, 

continuing the existing levels of visitation is not guaranteed and relies on partners being capable 

and willing to provide transportation for Service staff to Jarvis and other remote Pacific Island 

refuges. Should partner support curtail or cease, the present level of visitation would be 

substantially reduced or eliminated along with corresponding increases in adverse effects to 

refuge fish and wildlife. 

The world today is a smaller and more crowded place. In the past Jarvis and several other 

remote Pacific Island refuges could “take care of themselves” without the need for human 

intervention. During many past centuries, they benefited from their marginal/inhospitable living 

conditions, small size, dangerous shore access, and isolation from human population settlements. 

However, this is no longer the case. During the past 2 centuries, all were visited and exploited 

for sea turtles and seabird guano, feathers, and eggs. This century found them modified in 

preparation for global conflict, and more recently disturbed by climate change, invasive species, 

poachers, anglers, adventurers, and other unauthorized visitors. The overriding management 

need for Jarvis, and the other Pacific Island refuges is to provide adequate staff visitation and 

surveillance to mitigate and protect the refuge from these and other forces. 

Alternative A, the No Action alternative describes limited staff visits and management activity 

on Jarvis. Alternatives B, C and D provide strategies to increase management activities and use 

electronic and remote sensing equipment at the refuge to varying degrees. However, a 

substantial increase in internal Service funding (most likely from RONS) to implement either 

Alternative C or D would be required. These two alternatives (C, D) establish a temporary field 

camp lasting up to one year on Jarvis Island, which could result in disturbances to wildlife. 

However, all possible effects can be mitigated through advanced planning and scientific surveys. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-2 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

Except for minor disturbance to possible historic sites that can be avoided or mitigated through 

archaeological and cultural surveys, and minor wildlife disturbance during seasonal field camp 

missions, none of the alternative actions themselves would result in adverse impacts and most all 

of the remaining effects are positive, although more so for Alternatives C or D. The following 

sections evaluate the consequences of implementing Alternatives A – D. Table 4.1 summarizes 

the similarities among and differences between alternatives. 

4.2 Geology and Soils

The geology and soils of Jarvis and surrounding coral reefs likely would not be affected by any 

of the alternatives. Field camps, whether overnight, or year-round would consist of temporary 

shelters (tents) which rest on the surface of the soil, only penetrating where a tent stake has to be 

driven into the soil in order to stabilize the shelter. Archeological and cultural resource surveys, 

required of Alternatives C and D before establishment of field camps will disturb soil surface at 

the location of the survey. Since these surveys will be localized and completed by trained 

archeologist, impacts are thought to be minimal. Subsurface surveys will not be required for 

overnight field camps described in Alternatives A and B. The disturbance to soils from an 

overnight camp is thought to be minimal since soil texture is either coarse, being composed of 

sand, or already compacted and dense, being solidified by the soluble phosphates becoming fixed 

to the coral sand and limestone. Field camps and biological surveys have a risk of soil 

compaction along well traveled trails and at campsites. This risk is greater for Alternatives C 

and D due to the longer length of time that biologists would be present on the island. However, 

this risk is thought to not have a long term or detrimental impact to the soils or geology of Jarvis 

since the soils are either resistant to compaction or already naturally compacted. 

4.3 Air and Water Quality 

4.3.1 Air Quality 

 

None of alternatives (A-D) likely would have any measurable or long-term impact on air quality. 

Air quality over the ocean and on the island is pristine, and none of the alternatives would affect 

the pristine atmospheric character of Jarvis. 

Indirectly, ship traffic to and from Jarvis would generate some noise and exhaust emissions. On 

average across all alternatives during the life of this plan, transport vessels would generally 

operate in nearshore waters approximately 2 days per year. Small boats operating during field 

camp deployment and demobilization would use modern four-stroke outboard engines that emit 

low noise and exhaust levels. Overall effects to air quality would be minimal and temporary. 

Field camps and transport vessels also have the capability to produce unnatural lighting at night, 

which could disturb some light sensitive bird species, such as petrels and boobies, and detract 

from the visual clarity of night skies. These effects will be avoided or minimized by establishing 

night-time operating procedures for ships and field camps that limit the amount of light, and 

require window shades to block interior lights. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-3 

4.3.2 Water Quality and Ocean Environment 

Marine water quality as well as ambient currents, swells, waves, and tidal fluctuations likely 

would not be affected by actions associated with any of the alternatives. No physical 

modification of the shoreline is proposed as part of any alternative. To the contrary, more 

frequent marine debris and shoreline flotsam collections during field camp operations for 

Alternatives C and D would result in modest beneficial effects to coastal and marine 

environments. 

A policy of ‘pack it in, pack it out’ will be standard for all alternatives, thus there will be no 

impact to water quality and the ocean environment. This policy will also apply to human 

excrement. Biodegradable (composting) toilets, sealable chemical toilets, or simply sealable 

containers (double bagged zip-lock bags) used to contain human waste will eliminate any 

potential negative impacts. All trash and waste will be removed during field camp 

demobilization. 

4.4 Biological Resources 

4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife 

General

All alternatives impacts would have benefits to terrestrial and marine wildlife including 

vegetation, insects, crabs, insects, reptiles, seabirds, shorebirds, fish, and corals. However, 

Alternatives C and D would result in comparatively more benefits than Alternatives A and B. 

Alternative B would be similar in scope to Alternative A, but occur more frequently. 

More frequent and thorough staff visits would improve detection rates of, and response to 

invasive plants and animals. All alternatives propose to re-establish breeding populations of two 

rare petrel species. Remote sensing capacity under Alternatives C and D would allow rapid 

detection of unauthorized trespassers and discourage others from visiting Jarvis without proper 

and prior permission from the Service. In turn, these added capabilities would reduce the threat 

of invasive species introductions via the clothing, shoes, supplies, and vessels of possible 

trespassers. 

 

Two of the alternatives (C and D) would increase the human presence on and management of 

Jarvis, especially the terrestrial environment. Wildlife disturbance would increase as staff and 

scientists move about on patrols, conduct research, remove possible invasive species, erect tents 

and other camp facilities, gather and dispose of waste, collect accumulated floating and emergent 

marine debris, and restore some habitats. These activities would be scheduled and located on the 

island where disturbance would be temporary and localized. Even under any possible scenario, 

the degree of detrimental effects would be minor and outweighed by the benefits of having a 

fully functional field camp on the island. 

Habitat

There will be minor and temporary disturbance to terrestrial habitats under all alternatives. All 

field camps, regardless of duration, will create a ‘footprint’, or disturbed area surrounding the 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-4 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

camping and cooking area. Impacts may be trampling of vegetation or covering vegetation with 

tents or tarps. These impacts can be reduced or eliminated by selecting field camp sites with 

limited or no vegetation. Since there will be little to no soil surface disturbance, vegetation will 

fully recover once field camp is demobilized. 

The footprint of the field camp described in Alternative A and B has less chance of impacting 

habitat due to the shorter time period that biologist would be on-site. 

Seabirds

Alternatives A and B would have a temporary (1 to 2 day per year or every other year) 

disturbance to nesting seabirds due to biologists conducting surveys and establishing a field 

camp. These disturbances will be minimized by locating field camps away from nesting 

colonies, and only approaching nesting colonies to collect scientific data such as species 

presence, population numbers, and nesting activity. Alternatives C and D, seasonal and yearlong field camps respectively would have increasingly more potential disturbance simply from 

staff being present on the island. However, these disturbances will be minimized in the same 

manner as for Alternatives A and B. The additional survey components of Alternatives C and D 

of nesting success and nesting chronology will require biologists to enter the seabird breeding 

colony. Precautions such as limited time spent in the colony, and collecting/observing a 

representative sample instead of the entire colony will limit disturbances. Under all alternatives, 

these minor disturbances are temporary in nature and will not affect Jarvis's resources once the 

field camps are demobilized. 

Seabird nest attraction devices, if successful in attracting Phoenix petrel and Polynesian stormpetrel to Jarvis, will provide these populations with an additional nesting location that is free 

from mammalian predators. It is difficult to predict the overall impact that reestablishment of 

nesting by these species on Jarvis will have on their overall population status. However, since 

predator-free islands in the Pacific are rare, predator-free islands such as Howland are becoming 

more important to ground nesting seabird species such as the Phoenix petrel and Polynesian 

storm-petrel. 

Shorebirds

All alternatives will have minimal impact to shorebird resources. Biological surveys and field 

campsites have the potential to displace or disturb shorebird loafing and foraging sites. 

However, the relative impact of human activity and imprint of the field camp to areas that 

shorebirds utilize is minimal. 

Reptiles

Management activities such as biological surveys and campsites described in all the alternatives 

will have minimal impact to reptile resources since the estimated area of the field camp and 

survey routes (approximately 1 acre) is a minor percent (approximately 0.0015%) of the overall 

habitat available to reptiles on the island. While biological surveys and campsites have the 

potential to displace or disturb reptiles, there are ample other areas of suitable habitat. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-5 

Invertebrates

Management activities such as biological surveys and campsites described in all the alternatives 

will have minimal impact to the land invertebrates resources, specifically land hermit crabs, 

since the estimated area of the field camp and survey routes (approximately 1 acre) is a minor 

percent (approximately 0.0015%) of the overall habitat available to land hermit crabs on the 

island. While biological surveys and field camp sites have the potential to displace or disturb 

invertebrates, there are ample other areas of suitable habitat. 

4.4.2 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

General

Marine fish, wildlife, and submergent habitats would not be adversely affected by any of the 

alternatives. The increased on-site visitation proposed for Alternatives B, C, and D would 

discourage poaching and unauthorized harvest of sharks, giant clams, other reef fish, corals and 

other invertebrates, sea turtles, and other species used in the aquarium trade. All alternatives 

would maintain Jarvis as closed to recreational and commercial fishing and harvesting, except 

for those activities authorized by SUP. Greater presence and enhanced monitoring of selected 

marine species during field camp operations would result in better understanding and protection 

of corals and other key marine species. Enhanced marine assessment and monitoring would also 

allow early detection and control of marine invasive species. Therefore, the net result of the 

proposed action would be slightly beneficial for marine fish and wildlife while the other action 

alternatives would have greater benefit. 

Corals

All alternatives have potential to disturb corals during field camp deployment and 

demobilization. Small boat operations will necessarily cross shallow water reef areas to reach 

the shoreline of the island. During periods of calm seas, natural and manmade cuts in the reef 

allow safe passage of small boats. However, the potential exists for strong currents, surf, or wind 

to push boats onto the reef. Boats will not be allowed to land on the island during unsafe 

conditions, thereby limiting the threat of reef damage. Anchorage of transport vessel also poses 

a threat to corals. To the extent possible, transport vessels are requested not to anchor, but 

rather stay stationary during deployment and demobilization. If anchoring is required, anchors 

will be placed in deep water areas devoid of coral cover. Thus, impacts to coral are expected to 

be minimal. 

Marine surveys also have the potential to disturb corals. Inattentive snorkel and SCUBA 

activities have the risk of equipment contacting coral. Alternatives C and D, with their increased 

marine surveys have a greater risk than Alternatives A and B. However, this threat is minimal 

since trained scientists will conduct all marine surveys. 

Fish

All alternatives will have minimal opportunity to impact fish resources. Recreational, 

sustenance, and commercial fishing activity is prohibited on the refuge, and will continue to be 

prohibited across all alternatives. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-6 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals are found in the nearshore waters of Jarvis. Encounters with vessels are only 

possible during transport to island or conduct of marine surveys. While this threat increases for 

Alternatives C and D, this threat is minimal due to the very limited amount of time vessels would 

have the opportunity to disturb marine mammals. Having full-time access to a vessel, as 

described in Alternative D would provide the opportunity to conduct specific surveys for marine 

mammals and would add to the baseline of scientific information on their use of Jarvis. All other 

alternatives utilize vessels strictly for transport and do not appreciably add to our baseline of 

scientific information. 

Marine Turtles

Impacts to marine turtles are reported in the following section, 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered 

Species. 

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The threatened green sea turtle and endangered hawksbill sea turtle will not be impacted by any 

of the proposed alternatives. During the infrequent visits to Jarvis, these species may encounter 

small boats during field camp deployment and demobilization, or larger vessels during arrivals 

and departures. The probability of a sea turtle being struck by a boat during these infrequent 

events, roughly twice per year, is very low. Small boat operations will be limited to minimum 

safe operating speeds to minimize any risk that may exist. There would be no effect to sea 

turtles caused by monitoring activities on the island. Any turtles found to be loafing on exposed 

shoreline are easily avoided. Those seen during marine surveys are equally easy to avoid. 

Alternatives A and B provide limited opportunity to improve our understanding of the turtles 

habitat use. The short length of time of these field camps allow for only casual observations of 

turtles. Longer term field camps described in Alternatives C and D would provide more 

opportunity for observing turtles. Additionally, full time access to a vessel as described in 

Alternative D would increase the opportunity to survey for turtles. Even so, the anticipated 

amount of survey data would not considerably increase our knowledge base of turtle use of 

Jarvis. No specific surveys are planned. Remote sensing and/or the physical presence of the 

field camp would help to discourage any potential illegal take. Unauthorized harvest would 

especially be unlikely during the 1-year-long field camp established every third year at Jarvis 

under Alternative D. None of the actions described in any of these alternatives will have impacts 

to the two listed turtle species. Therefore, formal consultation with NOAA-NMFS, in 

accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is not required and will not be 

initiated. 

4.5 Wilderness Resources 

The wilderness values of Jarvis would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives. No 

permanent structures, roads, or other features would be constructed. The proposed field camp 

under all alternatives would be temporary, dismantled, and removed after each field camp. This 

temporary field camp and the activities associated with its operation would be considered the 

“minimum tool”, as defined in the Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy pursuant to the 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-7 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (66 FR 3708). Alternatives C or D may also improve the wilderness 

character of the island by removing abandoned batteries and other unsightly debris 

4.6 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources at Jarvis may include archaeological and historic sites. The Jarvis Light day 

beacon, Amaranth memorial, guano mining borrow pits, and ruins of colonization era 

occupations are apparent on the surface but many of the archaeological sites may be subsurface 

or in the marine environment and not apparent except to trained archeologists. Deployment of 

field camps has limited potential to impact subsurface archeological or historical resources. 

Alternatives A and B would have the least potential to disturb archeological or cultural resources 

due to the limited staff time on-island and transient nature of the field camps. Prior to 

establishment of field camps for Alternative C or Alternative D, archaeological reconnaissance 

surveys with limited sub-surface testing will be used to identify the precise locations of all sites 

and afford preliminary assessment of their nature, function, and significance of any cultural sites. 

Field campsites would be situated to avoid affecting any identified sites. Consequently all 

alternatives would have minimal long-term effects. Other management activities such as 

biological surveys, invasive species control, or marine debris collection and removal would 

likewise have limited potential to impact cultural resources. In this manner, impacts to cultural 

resources would be very unlikely for Alternatives A and B, and minor and avoidable for 

Alternatives C and D. Under Alternatives C and D, only trained archeologists will complete 

archeological and cultural surveys. Surveys will only be used to document the presence or 

absence of artifacts. 

4.7 Economic Effects 

Jarvis is currently managed with a portion of several Remotes employees staff time. Taken 

collectively under Alternative A, staff time devoted to Jarvis is approximately 1/5 of one 

permanent positions salary in a given year. Alternative B increases this amount to approximately 

1/3 of a permanent positions annual salary. Implementing Alternatives C and D would increase 

the staffing needs by approximately two additional annual permanent salaries. None of the 

positions or portions of positions, beyond the current 1/5 of one salary is funded. It would be 

possible to adjust position duties of existing staff to cover the increase needed to implement 

Alternative B. Additional funding would be required to implement Alternatives C or D. 

4.8 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires all federal agencies to 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. There are no populations, minority, low-income, or otherwise, in the vicinity 

of Jarvis. The nearest inhabited land mass to Jarvis is Kiritimati Island, 184 nmi to the north. 

The nearest inhabited U.S. landmass is Hawaii at 1,263 nmi. Due to the extensive distances 

between human populations and Jarvis, no adverse human health or environmental effects were 

identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-8 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

4.9 Cumulative Effects 

Overall, there are minimal long-term adverse impacts to the terrestrial or marine resources of 

Jarvis. Vegetation trampled during field camp operations will fully recover during subsequent 

seasons when field camps are not present. Precautions will limit disturbance to seabird colonies. 

There will be no permanent facilities or survey markers erected. All trash will be collected and 

removed from the island at the end of all field camp seasons. Aside from the potential 

establishment of nesting seabird species, there will be no physical sign that any of these 

alternatives has been implemented. The only other beneficial affects or impacts will be 

knowledge based through the collection and dissemination of scientific information. Considered 

in their totality, the adverse or beneficial impacts of any alternative to the physical, observable 

resources of Jarvis will not be noticeable and thus insignificant. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternatPhysical Environment Effects Geology and Soils 

Neutral effect. Coarse soils and infrequent site visits preclude effects of trampling or disturbance. 

Neutral effect. Although frequency of site visits increases, the level of visitation still precludes the effects of trampling or disturbance. 

Minor but temporary negative effect due to soil compaction and disturbance along established trails. 

Minor bunegative compactdisturbanestablish

Air and Water Quality 

Minor but temporary negative effect from noise and exhaust emission of transport and local boat traffic. 

Minor but temporary negative effect from noise and exhaust emission of transport and local boat traffic. 

Slight negative effect due to field camp operations and limited use of gaspowered generator. Minor but temporary negative effect from transport and local boat traffic remain constant with other alternatives. 

Slight neto field cand limipowered increaseAlternattemporarfrom tranboat trafconstant alternativ

Environmental Contaminants 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential increases slightly for fuel spills during deployment, operation, and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral eknown econtaminpotential slightly fduring doperationdemobilcamp. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-10 Chapter  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternatEffects to Wildlife and Habitat Terrestrial Habitats 

Neutral to slightly positive effect. Habitat management limited to stockpile marine debris. 

 Neutral to slightly positive effect. Habitat management limited to stockpile marine debris. 

Moderately positive effect. Habitat management includes stockpile and removal of marine debris. 

Moderateffect. Hmanagemstockpile marine d

Invasive Species 

Neutral effect. Invasive species documentation occurs during course of other duties. Potential negative effect exists for invasive species to become established during twoyear staff absence between visits. 

Neutral effect. Invasive species documentation occurs during course of other duties. Potential negative effect reduced for invasive species to become established during one- year staff absence between visits. 

Moderately positive effect. Surveys and control activities of invasive species occur annually during the 4-month field camp. 

Slightly Surveys activities species o

year. Ducamp (12compenslengthenfield cam

Seabirds Neutral effect. Basic 

monitoring of species presence/absence occurs every other year. 

Slightly positive effect. Basic monitoring of species presence/absence occurs every year. Electronic calls have potential positive effect to restore 2 nesting seabird species. 

Moderate positive effect. Expanded monitoring activities increase scientific understanding of seabird biology. Electronic calls have potential positive effect to restore 2 nesting seabird species. 

ModeratExpandeactivities scientific of seabirElectronpotential to restorseabird s

Shorebirds Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

 Neutral change fcondition

Other Wildlife Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral echange fcondition
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternatMarine Habitats Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Neutral to minor positive effect. Potential positive effect of deep water surveys to increase understanding of marine ecosystem. 

Neutral to minor positive effect. Potential positive effect of deep water surveys to increase understanding of marine ecosystem. 

Neutral teffect. Peffect of surveys understaecosyste

Corals Potential slight negative 

effect by grounding during deployment and demobilization of field camps. Standardized surveys conducted. 

Potential slight negative effect by grounding during deployment and demobilization of field camps. Standardized surveys conducted. 

Potential slight negative effect by grounding during deployment and demobilization of field camps. Positive effect of increased surveys to increase understanding of corals, but potential slight negative effect from observer disturbance/damage to corals. 

Potentiaeffect by during ddemobilcamps. increaseincrease corals, bslight nefrom obsdisturbancorals. 

Fish Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral echange fcondition

Marine Mammals 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition 

ModeratFull time allows fosurveys. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition 

Slight positive effect. Increased opportunity to survey. 

ModeratIncreasesurvey. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-12 Chapter  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternatSocial and Other Effects Wilderness Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. Wilderness values exist, but no wilderness designation. 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas identified for both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas identified for both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

Neutral eWildernidentifieterrestriaareas of 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Minor positive effect. Cultural resource survey required prior to field camp establishment. Maintenance of historical structures possible. 

Minor poresource prior to festablishMaintenstructure

SocioEconomic Neutral effect. No change from current condition. Neutral to slight positive effect due to increased 

operational expenditures. 

Moderate positive effect due to increased operational expenditures. 

Moderatdue to inoperation

Environmental Justice 

Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutral e

Cumulative Effects 

Neutral effect. Slight positive effect. 

Scale and scope of most management activities do not change from Alternative A. 

Moderate positive effect. Greater scientific understanding of marine and terrestrial ecosystems is achieved. No longterm changes in habitat occur. 

ModeratGreater sunderstaand terreis achievterm chaoccur. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5 –Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-1 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others 

5.1 Consultation and Coordination with Others 

This section describes consultation and coordination efforts with the public, interested groups, 

and other agencies. 

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. This update announced the intent of the Service to 

produce a CCP for Jarvis, 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. To 

date, no responses have been received. 

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. This second meeting introduced and offered the 

opportunity to be part of the planning process. 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. To date, neither 

DLNR nor NOAA has formally responded. 

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. 

Jarvis 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 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council; Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources; Hawaii Office of 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-2 Chapter 5 –Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Hawaiian Affairs; Governor of Hawaii; the Honorary Consulate-General of the Republic of 

Kiribati; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A 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 habitats of the 

refuge. 

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 document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-2 Appendix A 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

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 tradewinds 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 the reef or island. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A A-3 

μ L. Micro liter, or one-millionth of a liter. 

NEC. North Equatorial Current, west-flowing surface current between 5-30oN Latitude. 

NECC. North Equatorial Countercurrent; east-flowing 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. 

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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-4 Appendix A 

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 

tradewinds 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 in 

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 one currently exists, 

Palmyra Atoll, 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-1 

Appendix B 

 Species Lists of Corals, Fish, Vegetation and Birds 

Table B-1: Coral species and genera reported at Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge during 

surveys in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006. Asterisks (*) identify soft corals (Order 

Alcyonaria), and two asterisks (**) identify Class Hydrozoa stony corals. All others are stony 

corals from the Order Scleractinia. (After Maragos unpublished) 

 

Scientific Name Scientific Name 

CLASS HYDROZOA AGARICIIDAE 

 Stylaster sp.** Pavona maldivensis 

 Distichopora violacea** Leptoseris mycetoseroides 

MILLEPORIDAE Pachyseris sp.

 Millepora platyphylla Pavona explanulata 

POCILLOPORIDAE Pavona minuta 

 Pocillopora eydouxi Pavona varians 

 Pocillopora meandrina Pavona clavus 

 Pocillopora verrucosa FUNGIIDAE 

 Pocillopora brevicornis Fungia scutaria 

 Pocillopora zelli Fungia granulose 

ACROPORIDAE MERULINIDAE 

 Montipora caliculata Hydnophora microconos 

 Montipora tuberculosa FAVIIDAE 

 Montipora aequituberculata Favites pentagona 

 Montipora efflorescens Favites rotumana 

 Montipora informis Goniastrea retiformis 

 Montipora monasteriata Favia matthaii 

 Montipora verrilli Favia stelligera 

 Acropora abrotanoides SIDERASTREIDAE 

 Acropora tutuilensis Psammocora nierstraszi 

 Acropora cytherea Psammocora cf. verrilli 

 Acropora nana Psammocora haimeana 

 Acropora spicifera Cladopsammia sp. 

 Acropora subulata Coscinaraea sp. 

 Acropora verweyi Echinophyllia aspera 

PORITIDAE ORDER ALCYONARIA 

 Porites australiensis Lobophytum sp.*

 Porites lobata Sinularia sp.*

 Porites vaughani 

 Porites solida 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B 

Table B-2: Fish species and genera reported at Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge, after 

unpublished records compiled by Bruce C. Mundy, Richard Wass, Edward DeMartini, Brian 

Greene, Brian Zgliczynski, and Robert E. Schroeder (2002). 

 

Scientific Name Common Name 

CARCHARHINIDAE Requiem Sharks 

 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856) grey reef shark 

 Carcharhinus melanopterus 

 (Quoy &Gaimard, 1824) 

 reef black-tip shark 

 Carcharhinus albimarginatus 

 (Rüppell, 1837) 

 silvertip shark 

HEMIGALEIDAE Weasel Sharks, White-tip Reef Sharks 

 Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell, 1837) white-tip reef shark 

SPHYRNIDAE Hammerhead Sharks 

 Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) scalloped hammerhead shark 

 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 

 Echidna sp. unidentified Echidna species 

 Enchelynassa canina 

 (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) 

 viper moray 

 Enchelycore pardalis 

 (Temminck & Schlegel,1846)

 moray eel 

 Gymnomuraena zebra 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1797) 

 zebra moray 

 Gymnothorax breedini 

 (McCosker & Randall, 1977) 

 Breeden’s moray 

 Gymnothorax javanicus (Bleeker, 1859) giant moray 

 Gymnothorax flavimarginatus (Rüppell, 1830) yellow-margined moray 

 Gymnothorax meleagris 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1795)

 white-mouth moray 

 Gymnothorax monostigmus (Regan, 1909) one-spot moray 

 Gymnothorax picta (Ahl, 1789) peppered moray 

 Gymnothorax rueppelliae (McClelland, 1844) yellow-headed moray 

 Gymnothorax sp. unidentified Gymnothorax species. 

 Uropterygius concolor (Rüppell, 1838) unicolor snake moray 

 Uropterygius xanthopterus (Bleeker, 1859) yellow-fin snake moray 

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-3 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Uropterygius sp. unidentified Uropterygius species 

SYNODONTIDAE Lizardfishes 

 Synodus sp. unidentified Synodus species 

HOLOCENTRIDAE Squirrelfishes and Soldierfishes 

 Myripristis berndti 

 (Jordan & Evermann, 1903) 

 bigscale soldierfish 

 Myripristis murdjan (Forsskål, 1775) soldierfish 

 Sargocentron caudimaculatum 

 (Rüppell, 1838) 

 tailspot squirrelfish 

 Sargocentron spiniferum (Forsskål, 1775) long-jawed squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum tiere 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829) 

 blue-lined squirrelfish 

SCORPAENIDAE Scorpionfishes 

 Scorpaenidae sp. unidentified Scorpaenidae species 

 (recorded by James Maragos) 

 Dendrochirus biocellatus (Fowler, 1938) oscillated lionfish 

 Scorpaenopsis sp. unidentified Scorpaenopsis species 

 [perhaps S. papuensis 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829)] 

 Scorpaenopsis diabolis (Cuvier, 1829) devil scorpionfish 

 Sebastapistes cyanostigma (Bleeker, 1856) yellow-spotted scorpionfish 

 Sebastapistes mauritiana 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes1829) 

 Mauritius scorpionfish 

CARACANTHIDAE Orbicular Velvetfishes 

 Caracanthus maculates (Gray, 1831) spotted coral croucher 

SERRANIDAE Sea Basses, Fairy Basslets & Groupers 

 Cephalopholis argus 

 (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 peacock grouper 

 Cephalopholis leopardus (Lacepède, 1801) leopard 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 retouti (Bleeker, 1868) grouper 

 Epinephelus socialis (Günther, 1873) tidepool grouper 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Epinephelus spilotoceps 

 (Schultz in Schultz et al., 1953) 

 four-saddle grouper 

 Epinephelus tauvina (Forsskål, 1775) greasy grouper 

 Gracila albomarginata 

 (Fowler & Bean, 1930) 

 white-margined grouper 

 Luzonichthys whitleyi (Smith, 1955) Whitley’s slender basslet 

 Pogonoperca punctata (Valenciennes in

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830) 

 spotted soapfish 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum 

 (Randall & Lubbock, 1981) 

 Bartlett’s fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum var. “red spot” 

 (Randall & Lubbock, 1981) 

 Bartlett’s “red spot” basslet 

 Pseudanthias olivaceus 

 (Randall & McCosker, 1982) 

 fairy basslet 

 Pseudantias sp. unknown Pseudantias sp. 

 Variola louti (Forsskål, 1775) lyretail grouper 

PSEUDOCHROMIDAE Dottybacks 

 Pseudochromidae sp. unidentified Pseudochromidae species 

BELONIDAE Needlefishes 

 Tylosurus crocodilus 

 (Peron & Lesueur in Lesueur, 1821) 

 crocodile needlefish 

EXOCOETIDAE Flying Fish 

 Cheilopogon furcatus (Mitchill, 1815) flying fish 

 Hirundichthys sp. unidentified Hirundichthys species 

HEMIRAMPHIDAE Halfbeaks 

 Hyporamphus acutus acutus (Günther, 1871) Pacific halfbeak 

APOGONIDAE Cardinalfishes 

 Apogon angustatus 

 (Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1911) 

 broad-striped cardinalfish 

 Apogon apogonides (Bleeker, 1856) cardinalfish 

 Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier &Valenciennes, 1828) 

 five-lined cardinalfish 

 Apogon susanae (Greenfield, 2001) cardinalfish 

 Apogon taeniophorus (Regan, 1908) cardinalfish 

CARANGIDAE Jacks and Trevallys 

 Alectis ciliaris (Bloch, 1787) threadfin pompano 

 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 bluefin trevally 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-5 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833) 

 Caranx sexfasciatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825) bigeye trevally 

 Elegatis bipinnulata (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825) rainbow runner 

 Naucrates ductor (Linnaeus, 1758) jack 

 Scomberoides lysan (Forsskål, 1775) leatherback 

LUTJANIDAE Snappers 

 Aphareus furca (Lacepède, 1801) blue small-tooth jobfish 

 Lutjanus bohar (Forsskål, 1775) twinspot snapper, redspot snapper 

 Lutjanus fulvus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 flametail snapper 

 Lutjanus gibbus (Forsskål, 1775) humpback snapper 

 Lutjanus kasmira (Forsskål, 1775) blue-lined snapper 

 Lutjanus monostigma 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828) 

 one-spot snapper 

CAESIONIDAE Fusiliers 

 Caesio teres (Seale, 1906) yellow-back fusilier 

LETHRINIDAE Emperors 

 Gnathodentex aureolineatus (Lacepède, 1802) yellowspot emperor 

 Lethrinus olivaceus (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes, 1830) 

 olive emperor 

 Monotaxis grandoculis (Forsskål, 1775) bigeye emperor 

MULLIDAE Goatfishes 

 Mulloides mimicus (Randall & Guézé, 1980) mimic goatfish 

 Parupeneus bifasciatus (Lacepède, 1801) two-barred goatfish 

 Parupeneus cyclostomus (Lacepède, 1801) yellowsaddle goatfish 

 Parupeneus trifasciatus (Lacepède, 1801) three-barred 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 

 Kyphosus sp. unidentified Kyphosus species 

CHAETODONTIDAE Butterflyfishes 

 Chaetodon auriga (Forsskål, 1775) threadfin 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Chaetodon unimaculatus (Bloch, 1787) teardrop butterflyfish 

 Forcipiger flavissimus (Jordan & McGregor 

 in Jordan & Evermann, 1898) 

 long-nosed butterflyfish 

 Hemitaurichthys thompsoni (Fowler, 1923) Thompson’s butterflyfish 

POMACANTHIDAE Angelfishes 

 Apolemichthys griffisi 

 (Carlson & Taylor, 1981) 

 Griffith’s angelfish 

 Apolemichthys xanthopunctatus 

 (Burgess, 1973) 

 golden-spotted angelfish 

 Centropyge flavissima 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1831) 

 lemon-peel angelfish 

 Centropyge loricula (Günther, 1874) flame angelfish 

 Pomacanthus imperator (Bloch, 1787) emporer angelfish 

POMACENTRIDAE Damselfishes 

 Abudefduf septemfasciatus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830) 

 banded sergeant 

 Abudefduf sordidus (Forsskål, 1775) black-spot sergeant 

 Chromis acares (Randall & Swerdloff, 1973) midget chromis 

 Chromis agilis (Smith, 1960) bronze reef chromis 

 Chromis margaritifer (Fowler, 1946) bicolor chromis 

 Chromis vanderbilti (Fowler, 1941) Vanderbilt’s chromis 

 Chromis xanthura (Bleeker, 1854) black chromis 

 Chrysiptera cyanea (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825) blue devil 

 Chrysiptera glauca 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830) 

 gray demoiselle 

 Lepidozygus tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1856) fusilier damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon dickii (Liénard, 1839) Dick’s damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon imparipennis 

 (Vaillant & Sauvage, 1875) 

 bright-eye damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus 

 (Fowler & Ball, 1924) 

 Johnston Island damsel 

 Plectroglyphid. phoenixensis (Schultz, 1943) Phoenix Islands damsel 

 Pomacentrus bankanensis (Bleeker, 1853) speckled damsel 

 Pomacentrus coelestis 

 (Jordan & Starks, 1901) neon damsel 

 Stegastes sp. or Pomacentrus sp. unidentified damselfish (brown head and 

 anterior body, pale caudal area) 

 Stegastes sp. unidentified Stegastes species, gregory 

 Stegastes aureus (Fowler, 1927) golden gregory 

 Stegastes fasciolatus (Ogilby, 1889) Pacific gregory 

 Stegastes nigricans (Lacepède, 1802) dusky farmfish 

KUHLIIDAE Flagtails 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-7 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Kuhlia petiti (Schultz, 1943) flagtail 

 Kuhlia sandvicensis (Steindachner, 1876) Hawaiian flagtail 

 Kuhlia sp. unidentified Kuhlia species 

CIRRHITIDAE Hawkfishes 

 Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus (Bleeker, 1855) pixy hawkfish 

 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 

 Sphyraena qenie (Klunziger, 1870) blackfin barracuda 

LABRIDAE Wrasses 

 Anampses caeruleopunctatus (Rüppell, 1829) blue-spotted wrasse 

 Anampses melanurus (Bleeker, 1857) wrasse 

 Anampses meleagrides (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840) 

 yellowtail wrasse 

 Bodianus axillaries (Bennett, 1832) axilspot hogfish 

 Bodianus loxozonus (Snyder, 1908) blackfin hogfish 

 Bodianus prognathus (Lobel, 1981) hogfish 

 Cheilinus trilobatus (Lacepède, 1801) tripletail wrasse 

 Cheilinus undulatus (Rüppell, 1835) humphead wrasse, Napoleonfish, 

 Napoleon wrasse 

 Cirrhilabrus exquisitus (Smith, 1957) exquisite wrasse 

 Coris aygula (Lacepède, 1801) clown coris 

 Coris centralis (Randall, 1999) coris 

 Coris gaimard (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) yellowtail coris 

 Epibulus insidiator (Pallas, 1770) slingjaw wrasse 

 Gomphosus varius (Lacepède, 1801) bird wrasse 

 Halichoeres hortulanus (Lacepède, 1801) checkerboard wrasse 

 Halichoeres melasmopomus (Randall, 1981) black-ear wrasse 

 Halichoeres ornatissinus (Garrett, 1863) ornate wrasse fish 

 Halichoeres pallidus (Kuiter & Randall, 

 1995) 

 wrasse 

 Halichoeres trimaculatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 

 1834) 

 three-spot wrasse 

 Hemigymnus fasciatus (Bloch, 1792) barred thicklip wrasse 

 Hologymnosus annulatus (Lacepède, 1801) ring wrasse 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-8 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 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 

 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 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840) 

 Wrasse 

 Pseudojuloides cerasinus (Snyder, 1904) smalltail wrasse 

 Stethojulis bandanensis (Bleeker, 1851) redshoulder wrasse 

 Thalassoma amblycephalum (Bleeker, 1856) twotone 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 

 Bolbometopon muricatum (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840) 

 humphead parrotfish, bumphead 

 parrotfish 

 Calatomus carolinus (Valenciennes, 1840) bucktooth parrotfish, stareye parrotfish 

 Chlorurus frontalis (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes, 1840) 

 tan-faced parrotfish 

 Chlorurus microrhinus (Bleeker, 1854) parrotfish 

 Chlorurus sordidus (Forsskål, 1775) bullethead parrotfish 

 Scarus altipinnis (Steindachner, 1879) filament-finned parrotfish 

 Scarus frenatus (Lacepède, 1802) vermiculate parrotfish 

 Scarus ghobban (Forsskål, 1775) blue-barred parrotfish 

 Scarus globiceps (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes, 1840) 

 roundhead 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 

CREEDIIDAE Sand Burrowers 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-9 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Crystallodytes cookei enderburyensis 

 (Schultz, 1943) 

 sand burrower 

TRIPTERYGIIDAE Triplefins 

 Enneapterygius nigricada (Fricke, 1997) triplefin 

BLENNIIDAE Blennies 

 Blenniidae sp. unidentified blenny species 

 Aspidontus taeniatus 

 (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834) 

 cleaner mimic 

 Blenniella gibbifrons 

 (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) 

 blenny 

 Blenniella paula (Bryan & Herre, 1903) blenny 

 Cirripectes quagga (Fowler & Ball, 1924) squiggly blenny 

 Cirripectes variolosus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836) 

 red-speckled blenny 

 Cirripectes sp. Unidentified Cirripectes species 

 Ecsenius midas (Starck, 1969) blenny 

 Entomacrodus cymatobiotus (Schultz & 

 Chapman, 1960) 

 blenny 

 Entomacrodus sealei (Bryan & Herre, 1903) Seale’s rockskipper 

 Entomacrodus striatus 

 (Quoy & Gaimard, 1836) 

 pearly rockskipper 

 Entomacrodus thalassinus thalassinus 

 (Jordan & Seale, 1906) 

 reef margin blenny 

 Istiblennius edentulous (Schneider in Bloch & 

 Schneider, 1801) 

 rippled rockskipper 

 Plagiotremus rhynorhynchus (Bleeker, 1852) blue-striped blenny 

 Plagiotremus tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1857) piano blenny, scale-eating blenny 

 Rhabdoblennius sp. unidentified Rhabdoblennius species 

CALLIONYMIDAE Dragonets 

 Callionymidae sp. unidentified dragonet species (probably 

 Synchiropus sp.) 

GOBIIDAE Gobies 

 Gobiidae sp. unidentified goby species (reported 2001) 

 Amblygobius phalaena (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837) 

 brown-barred goby 

 Eviota zonura (Jordan & Seale, 1906) zoned pygmy goby 

 Priolepis squamogena 

 (Winterbottom & Burridge, 1989) 

 goby 

 Valenciennea strigata (Broussonet, 1782) blue-streak goby 

ACANTHURIDAE Surgeonfishes & Unicornfishes 

 Acanthurus achilles (Shaw, 1803) Achilles tang 

 Acanthurus blochii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & ringtail surgeonfish 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-10 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Valenciennes, 1835) 

 Acanthurus guttatus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 spotted surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus leucochilus (Herre, 1927) pale-lipped surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) blue-banded 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 rackliffei 

 (A. achilles x A. nigricans)(Schultz, 1943) 

 hybrid surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus triostegus (Linnaeus, 1758) convict tang 

 Acanthurus thompsoni (Fowler, 1923) Thompson’s surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus xanthopterus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1835) 

 yellow-finned surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus sp. unidentified Ctenochaetus species 

 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 brevirostris (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes, 1835) 

 spotted unicornfish 

 Naso hexacanthus (Bleeker, 1855) 

 black-tongue unicornfish, sleek 

 unicornfish 

 Naso lituratus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 liturate surgeonfish 

 Naso vlamingii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes, 1835) 

 bignose unicornfish 

 Zebrasoma rostratum (Günther, 1873) tang 

 Zebrasoma scopas (Cuvier, 1829) brown tang 

EPHIPPIDAE Batfishes 

Platax sp. unidentified Platax species 

Platax teira (Forsskål, 1775) longfin spadefish 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-11 

Scientific Name Common Name 

ZANCLIDAE Moorish Idol 

 Zanclus cornutus (Linnaeus, 1758) moorish idol 

SCOMBRIDAE Tunas 

 Euthynnus affinis (Cantor, 1849) kawakawa, bonito 

 Gymnosarda unicolor (Rüppell, 1836) dogtooth tuna 

NOMEIDAE Driftfishes, Man-of-war Fishes, and 

Shepherdfishes 

 Nomeidae sp. unidentified Nomeidae species 

 Psenes cyanophrys (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes, 1833) 

 freckled driftfish 

BOTHIDAE Left-hand Flounders 

 Bothus mancus (Broussonet, 1782) peacock flounder 

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 

 (Rüppell,1829) 

 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 

 Xanthichthys caeruleolineatus 

 (Randall, Matsuura, & Zama, 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 marginalis (Hutchins, 1986) blackbar filefish 

OSTRACIIDAE Trunkfishes 

 Ostracion meleagris meleagris 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1796) 

 spotted trunkfish 

TETRAODONTIDAE Puffers 

 Arothron meleagris 

 (Lacepède (ex Commerson), 1798) 

 guineafowl puffer 

 Canthigaster amboinensis (Bleeker, 1865) Ambon sharpnose puffer 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-12 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Canthigaster janthinoptera (Bleeker, 1855) puffer 

 Canthigaster solandri 

 (Richardson (ex Solander), 1845) 

 spotted sharpnose puffer 

DIODONTIDAE Porcupinefishes 

 Diodon hystrix (Linnaeus, 1758) porcupinefish 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-13 

Table B-3: Plant species of Jarvis Island NWR. Compiled from unpublished USFWS trip 

reports. 

Scientific Name Common Name, 

(Hawaiian Name) 

Source* Observed in 

2004 

Cocos nucifera coconut, (nui) I no 

Pandanus sp. pandanus, (hala) I no 

Eragristus whitneyi native lovegrass N yes 

Lepturus repens Pacific Island thintail, 

wiry bunchgrass 

N yes 

Fimbristylis cymosa buttonsedge N no 

Boerhavia tetranda (alena) N yes 

Portulaca lutea portulaca, (‘ihi) N yes 

 Sesuvium portulacastrum sea purslane N yes 

Tribulus cistoides puncturevine, (nohu) N yes 

Abutilon indicum Indian mallow A yes 

Sida fallax (‘ilima) A yes 

*Source: N = native, I = introduced, A = accidentally introduced 

 

Note: Various cultivated crop plants including cabbage, onion, radish, celery, peanut, lettuce, 

zinnia, phlox, marigold, white bean, avocado, plum and date plum were planted during 

occupation periods. None of these plants were observed in 2004. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-14 Appendix B 

Table B-4: Birds of Jarvis Island NWR. Numbers are counts of adult birds only and compiled 

from unpublished USFWS trip reports. Note: No bird species found on Jarvis are listed 

according 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

Nesofregetta 

fuliginosa 

Polynesian 

storm-petrel 

3 BCC 68 Highly 

Imperiled 

Puffinus 

nativitatis 

Christmas 

Shearwater* 

20 BCC 68 High Concern 

Puffinus 

lhermineri 

Audubon’s 

Shearwater* 

20 High Concern

Puffinus 

pacificus 

wedgetailed 

shearwater* 

41 Low 

Phaethon 

rubricauda 

red-tailed 

tropicbird* 

2,500 Moderate 

Sula 

dactylatra

masked 

booby* 

7,000 Moderate 

Sula 

leucogaster 

brown 

booby* 

2,000 Moderate 

Sula sula red-footed 

booby* 

1,000 Currently not 

at Risk 

Fregata 

minor 

great 

frigatebird* 

2,400 Moderate 

Fregata 

ariel 

lesser 

frigatebird* 

4,000 BCC 68 High Concern

Onychoprion 

lunatus 

gray-backed 

tern* 

1,100 Moderate 

Onychoprion 

fuscatus 

sooty tern* 1,000,000+ Moderate 

Anous 

stolidus 

brown 

noddy* 

10,000 Currently not 

at Risk 

Procelsterna 

cerulea 

blue noddy* 650 BCC 68 High Concern

Gygis 

alba 

white tern* 11 Moderate 

Pluvialis 

fulva 

Pacific 

goldenplover 

117 BCC 68 High Concern 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-15 

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 

51 BCC 68 High Concern 

Arenaria 

interpres 

ruddy 

turnstone 

20 High Concern 

Calidris 

alba 

sanderling 2 High Concern 

Anas acuta northern 

pintail 

1 

*indicates documented breeding species on Jarvis 

a

Species prioritization categories according to United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

(Brown et al. 2000) 

b

Birds of Conservation Concern status according to Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

c

Conservation classification according to Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (Englis and 

Naughton 2004) 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-16 Appendix B 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-1 

Appendix C 

 List of Cited References 

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. 

Atomic Energy Commission. 1963. Reconnaissance Survey Report: Howland, Baker & Canton 

Islands. Las Vegas, NV. 

 

Boehlert, G., editor. 1993. Fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S. associated Pacific Islands. 

Marine Fisheries Review 55:1-138. 

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. 1974. Panala’au Memoirs. Pacific Scientific Information Center. Bernice P. 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. 

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. 

D’Arrigo, R, R. Wilson, C. Deser, G. Wiles, E. Cook, R. Villalba, A. Tudhope, 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.96850. 

Diamond, A.W. 1978. Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds. American 

Naturalist 112:215-223. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-2 Appendix C 

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. 

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 

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 96850. 

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. 

Hague, J.D. 1862. On phosphatic guano islands of the Pacific Ocean. Amer. Jour. Sci., 84: 224-

243, 1862. 

 

Gove, J.M., M.A. Merrifield and R.E. Brainard. 2006. Temporal Variability of current-driven 

upwelling of Jarvis Island. J. Geophys. Res. 111(C12): C12011. 

Harrison, C.S., T. S. Hida, M.P. Seki. 1983. Hawaiian Seabird Feeding Ecology. Wildlife 

Monographs 85:1-71. 

 

Hutchinson, G.E. 1950. The Biochemistry of Vertebrate Excretion. Bull. Amer. 

Museum Nat. Hist. 96. 554 p. 

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. 

Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in the Palau District of 

Micronesia. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Ketaing, B.H. 1992. Insular geology of the Line Islands, in Keating, B.H., B. Bolton. Eds. 

Geology and offshore mineral resources of the Central Pacific Basin. Circum Pacific Council 

En. And Min. Res., Earth Sciences, Monograph Series. 

Kirby, H. 1925. The birds of Fanning Island, Central Pacific Ocean. The Condor 23: 185-196. 

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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-3 

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. 

Maude, H. E. 1961. Post-Spanish discoveries in the central Pacific. Jour. Pol. Soc. 70(1):67-111. 

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) 

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. 

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). 

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, 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. 1998. Recovery Plan for 

U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for 

U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

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. 

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. 

Rauzon, M. J. 1990. Expedition Report: Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge. Administrative 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-4 Appendix C 

Rauzon, M.J. and A.S. Wegmann. 2004. Expedition to the Line Islands. Jarvis Island, Palmyra 

Atoll, Kingman Reef terrestrial surveys. Administrative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildife 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, Hawaii. 

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, Hawaii. 

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, Hawaii. 100 pp. 

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. 

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. 

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2003. Central Pacific World Heritage Project International 

Workshop Report, 2-6 June 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Paris, 44pp. 

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2004. Central Pacific World Heritage Project, National 

Workshop Report, 5-11 October 2004, Kiritimati Island, the Republic of Kiribati. Paris, 11pp. 

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, Nevada. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuges, Biological Ascertainment Reports. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-5 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuges, Narrative Report, FY 1975. Kailua, HI 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. 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. 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. 2001. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Palmyra Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge, Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Arlington, Va. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Vitousek, M. J., Kilonsky, B, 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-6 Appendix C 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D D-1 

Appendix D 

 Quarantine Protocol for Jarvis Island NWR 

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 Jarvis, 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 candidates 

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 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.
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-2 Appendix D 

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. 

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 pre-designated 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. 

During transit, clothing and gear coming off Kure, Midway, and Pearl and Hermes Reef 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. 

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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D D-3 

 

• 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, 

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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-4 Appendix D 

• 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E E-1 

Appendix E 

 Plan Implementation and Costs 

Introduction 

Following public review and comment on the Draft EA, public notification of the Service’s 

decision, and 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. 

Partnerships

Partnerships are an important component of implementation of the Jarvis Island NWR 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 yearround 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, Seabird Conservation Plan for the Pacific Region, and 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force planning efforts would be applied to refuge operations described in 

the preferred alternative. 

Staffing 

The proportion of current staffing and proposed staffing within the Pacific Remote Islands NWR 

Complex dedicated to Jarvis 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 Jarvis once every other year to once every year. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-2 Appendix E 

Current Staffing for Jarvis 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 

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 Jarvis 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 

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.

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 Jarvis Island NWR. 

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 

194.0 10 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E E-3 

Project 

No. 

Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands) 

Station

Rank 

terrestrial plant and animal species on Howland, Baker 

and Jarvis NWRs. 

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 

00002 Develop interpretative program, Remote Island 

NWRs: Develop a brochure for Howland, Baker, and 

Jarvis Island NWRs and host 3 special outreach events 

every year in Hawaii. 

23.9 999 

00006 Staff and maintain a new vessel to accomplish basic 

refuge operations: This vessel would provide basic 

logistical support for 16 islands and remote field stations 

on nine different national wildlife refuges across the 

Pacific Ocean. The vessel would 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. Jarvis 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 

90100411 Replace broken, rotten, and vandalized signs: Replace 

degraded entrance signs to deter trespass and prevent 

introduction of invasive species. 

190.0 6 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-4 Appendix E 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-1 

Appendix F 

 Wilderness Review for Jarvis Island NWR 

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 (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 Service to the Secretary of Interior 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 five 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-2 Appendix F 

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 the United States Congress for 

approval. 

The following sections summarize the inventory and study phases of the wilderness review for 

Jarvis. 

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, Jarvis was 

divided into two inventory units based upon the differences between the terrestrial and marine 

ecological resources. Inventory Unit A is the 648-acre roadless island known as Jarvis Island, 

and Inventory Unit B is composed of the 34,319 combined acres of coral reefs, submergent lands 

and their associated water column lying within 3 nmi from the shoreline at the mean high water 

mark of Jarvis Island. The inventory of roadless areas, submerged lands, and associated water 

column of Jarvis 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 Jarvis 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-3 

• 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. 

• 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 Jarvis 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 Jarvis 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 CCP/EA, the following factors were primary considerations in 

evaluating the naturalness of the inventory units: 

Historical 

• abandoned crushed coral roadways; 

• Jarvis Light daybeacon (aid to navigation); 

• Colonizing era ruins 

• Shipwreck remains of Amaranth 

• Amaranth memorial cairn

• abandoned guano mine tailing piles. 

Little can be seen of the historical artifacts found on Jarvis. Wind erosion, past storms and 

vegetative growth have muted any visual impact of these cultural sites. Consequently, they are 

indistinguishable from adjacent habitats on the island. Most other artifacts equally blend into the 

environment. The Jarvis Light daybeacon, some rock walls, and the cairn are the only visual 

intrusions into an otherwise natural setting. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-4 Appendix F 

Management Activities: 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• field camp; 

• generators; 

• invasive species control; 

• collect and stockpile marine debris; 

• migratory bird surveys; 

• marine surveys (including SCUBA); and 

• boat transportation. 

A 4’ x 8’ boundary sign announcing the name and ownership of the island is maintained on 

Jarvis. The sign is informational in nature, identifying the sanctuary status the island enjoys. 

The primary management intrusion to the naturalness of Jarvis is during the deployment and 

demobilization of field camps. Transportation from Honolulu, Hawaii across 1,263 nmi of open 

ocean to Jarvis is only safely and reliably possible with motorized ocean-going marine vessels. 

Once the marine transport vessel arrives at Jarvis, 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 collect and stockpile marine debris. 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, diesel-powered generators have been used to operate communication equipment. All 

other mechanical equipment such as air compressors for SCUBA equipment remain 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 Jarvis 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, Jarvis is an isolated, uninhabited island 

in the middle of the Pacific ocean for the vast majority of time. 

Both Jarvis inventory units meet the naturalness criteria. Overall, the forces of nature sculpt the 

island’s resources. Wave action erodes and accretes shorelines and rearranges underwater coral 

features. Rainfall patterns either suppress or encourage vegetative growth with brown and barren 

ground during drought and lush grasses and forbs during wet periods. Bird life is the dominant 

feature with nesting seabirds common throughout the year. Occasional field camps infrequently 

intrude on this isolation. 

Although historic markers, monuments, and other signs of past human occupation exist, they do 

not detract from Howland meeting the naturalness criteria since they are a minor component of 

the landscape and are substantially unnoticeable in the area as a whole. The submerged lands, 

with the exception of scattered marine debris also meet the naturalness criteria. 

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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-5 

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 refers 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 

Jarvis: 

• island size, vegetation, and terrain; 

• distance to habitation, whether mainland or an inhabited island; 

• presence of operating lighthouse or aid to navigation and associated structures; and 

• view shed within and from refuge boundary. 

Solitude is the overwhelming force that visitors experience on Jarvis. The island is separated by 

over 1,263 nautical miles from Hawaii, and approximately 184 nmi from Kiritimatai 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 Jarvis 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. 

Since establishment, Jarvis 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 Jarvis 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.” Jarvis 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-6 Appendix F 

waters, coral reefs, and associated currents combine and provide food resources for foraging 

seabirds and coral reef communities. The position and underwater gradient of Jarvis 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 Jarvis. Historically, Jarvis Island 

was important to early colonization efforts during the guano mining era. Historical artifacts such 

as isolated building ruins, a memorial cairn and plaque commemorating the Amaranth

grounding, and guano mining excavations are present but eroded, covered by vegetation, and 

otherwise assimilated into the environment and indistinguishable from the natural environment. 

One landmark, the Jarvis Light 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

Both inventory units meet the minimum criteria for consideration as WSAs (Figure F-1). These 

two units are either roadless islands or meet minimum size requirements, are primarily natural, 

and meet the solitude or unconfined recreation criteria. The units are identified as: 

• WSA-A: Jarvis Island WSA, and 

• WSA-B: Coral reefs, submergent lands, and associated water column of the Jarvis Island 

WSA. 

 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-7 

Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-8 Appendix F 

Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary

Inventory Unit A: 

Jarvis Island (1,273 acres) 

Inventory Unit B: 

Submerged lands and waters 

to 3 nmi (36,214 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 roadless island. Yes. Approximately 36,214 

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. 

Yes. Not diminished by day 

beacon and other artifacts. 

Yes. Coral reefs and other 

underwater features untouched 

by humans. 

(3a) Has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude. 

Yes. Uninhabited island 

1000 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. 

Jarvis Light day beacon, 

Amaranth memorial, guano 

mining, colonization ruins, 

historic shipwreck, and 

nesting seabirds. 

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). 

Yes Yes 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-9 

III. Wilderness Study 

The two WSAs identified in the Wilderness Inventory were 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

Both WSA-A and WSA-B meet the minimum size criteria being a 1,273-acre roadless island and 

a 36,214-acre marine ecosystem respectively. 

Naturalness

Both of the WSAs generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of human uses and activities substantially unnoticeable. Except for the footprint of 

the long-abandoned airstrip and the few small features mentioned in the Wilderness Inventory, 

all emergent and submerged features were entirely created by the natural processes of volcanism; 

wind erosion; wave erosion; water erosion; seabird deposits; vegetation deposits; geological 

subsidence; and reef growth and consolidation from coral, coralline algae, and giant clam 

calcification during the past 50 to 80 million years. No substantial features were constructed or 

modified by humans during the island’s entire geological history. The impacts of past human 

presence are small in terms of constructed features (beacons), and are barely apparent (groundlevel views of mining pits and a boat channel), or transitory (marine debris that washes up or 

blows in from the surrounding sea and air). A few remnant, rusty fuel drums is the only trash 

feature that is not transient, but its overall impact to naturalness is minimal. See Chapter 3 of the 

Draft Jarvis CCP/EA for a more detailed description of natural and cultural features. 

Management activities will temporarily disturb the naturalness of the area. Field camps lasting 

for 2 days will be visible across the island. Occasional use of generators will produce noise. 

However, modern generators produce decibel levels lower than speaking voice levels. 

Transportation by motorized marine vessel, the only safe, practical and reliable means available 

to arrive on the island, is equally temporary. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation

Both of the WSAs offer outstanding opportunities for solitude. 

Solitude overwhelms the human spirit at Jarvis. 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-10 Appendix F 

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 reaching the island. 

The capacity to reach Jarvis 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 island itself is inaccessible except by small craft 

lightered from a transport ship during calm seas. There are no human inhabitants on Jarvis. The 

nearest humans live 330 nmi to the southeast where less than 5,000 Kiribati people inhabit 

Kiritimatai Atoll. There are no other inhabitants elsewhere in the Line Islands. These logistical 

constraints contribute to the maintenance of solitude. 

Supplemental Values

Both of the WSAs offer outstanding ecological values with features of scientific, educational, 

scenic interest, and historical value. 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 historic and 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. The remaining features of early colonization efforts stand testament to the bravery of 

those early pioneers, and the ability of nature to endure. 

Evaluation of Manageability and Minimum Requirements/Tools Analysis 

Originally administered by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Territorial Affairs, the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), on June 27, 1974, designated Jarvis Island and its territorial 

sea extending to the 3 nautical mile (nmi) limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930). The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service administers all units of the system pursuant to the Administration Act. 

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 Jarvis is (USFWS 1973 “...the preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial 

as well as marine. Special emphasis to be given to the large seabird nesting colonies.” 

There are no valid existing private rights, including mineral rights, associated with any of these 

WSAs. 

Several management activities are required for the Service to meet responsibilities for managing 

Jarvis 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-11 

in Chapter 2 of the Draft Jarvis 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. 

 

Each WSA on Jarvis 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 WSAs are 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 Jarvis; establishing temporary field camps (typically 2 days every 

other year); small motorboat operations used in deployment and demobilization of field camp 

operations; survey and monitoring of habitat, seabird and other wildlife monitoring activities; 

control of invasive species using hand pulling or hand spraying; use of solar powered electronic 

calling devices to encourage nesting by extirpated seabird species; use of portable generators and 

solar power to operate communications and other equipment; and monitoring the marine 

ecosystem with the use of SCUBA equipment. None of the current or expected refuge 

management activities would permanently diminish the wilderness character of Jarvis. 

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 Jarvis 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 and ocean currents 

preclude the use of non-motorized craft to safely navigate these hazards. 

Field camps themselves are temporary, consisting of tents, portable tables, chairs, cooking gear, 

and scientific equipment. Most field camps are set up for a period of 1 to 2 days. No permanent 

structures are established, and no motorized equipment is used to transport equipment around the 

island. Field camp activities consist of monitoring habitat and nesting seabird populations, 

inventorying the condition of known historic resources, and collecting and stockpiling of marine 

debris. Portable diesel powered generators are components of field camp equipment and are 

typically used to operate two-way radio communication equipment. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-12 Appendix F 

Wildlife managers often use electronic calling devices to attract nesting seabird species to 

suitable nesting locations. Powered by small solar panels, these devices can be placed in 

inconspicuous locations and produce only sounds that occur naturally on the island. Once a 

species is attracted to the island, the calling device can then be removed. 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 Howland. 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. 

Alternative B 

Only the emergent lands, WSA-A, would be recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

Alternative C

Both WSA-A and WSA-B, which includes the emergent lands and the submerged lands 

and associated water column would be immediately recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Selection of this alternative would 

require the completion of an EIS. 

 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Both WSA-A and WSA-B, which includes the emergent lands and the submerged lands 

and associated water column of Jarvis would be recommended for inclusion in the NWPS. 

Both wilderness study areas would be managed to ensure their wilderness character was 

not adversely impacted. However, the recommendation to include these areas 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 Legislative Environmental Impact Statement that 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-13 

encompasses remote Pacific Island refuges would be prepared. Alternative D is identified 

here as the Preferred Alternative for the Wilderness Review of Jarvis, and is a component 

of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Jarvis CCP/EA. 

 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study

Federal agencies are required by 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 an individual WSA. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-14 Appendix F 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G G-1 

Appendix G 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

for Implementation of the 

Jarvis 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 the Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuge (Jarvis). 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The CCP planning 

process is conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act implementing 

procedures, Department of Interior and Service procedures, and is performed in coordination 

with the affected public. Procedures used to reach this decision meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508. These procedures include: the development of a range of alternatives for the Jarvis 

CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and public involvement throughout the 

planning process. 

The CCP management objectives and alternatives are integrated into an environmental 

assessment 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 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. 

Revisions to 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 Jarvis lies outside any state jurisdiction. No Territorial Historic 

Preservation Officer is assigned to Jarvis. Rather territories/possessions lie in the jurisdiction 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

The management of archaeological and cultural resources of Jarvis 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 Jarvis. 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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-2 Appendix G 

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 DERP 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 

completed their responsibilities under DERP. No contaminant or hazardous waste materials 

are currently known to exist on Jarvis. 

 

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 Jarvis. 

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 Jarvis. 

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) Jarvis 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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G 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 (Management) 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. 

Jarvis provides feeding and potential nesting habitat for two species of endangered sea turtle: 

the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata and the 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-NMFS 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 Jarvis for wilderness designation (Appendix F) and has 

found that both wilderness study areas meet wilderness criteria. Recommendation for Jarvis 

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. 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-4 Appendix G 

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 

island waters. The FMPS were all implemented after Jarvis was established in 1974 and 

include plans for: 1) pelagic fish; 2) bottom fish including some reef species; 3) crustaceans 

including lobsters; and, 4) precious corals. Commercial activities including commercial 

fishing are prohibited in surrounding marine water and benthic habitat out to the 3 nmi limit 

because Jarvis Island is established as a no-take marine protected area and a National 

Wildlife Refuge. 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 being pursued outside the 3 nmi boundary of the refuge. 

Informal consultation also indicates that WESPAC continues to honor Service jurisdiction 

and authorities within the 3 nmi offshore boundary of the refuge (K. Simonds, per. comm. 

with J. Maragos 2006). 

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 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G G-5 

development of existing and candidate marine protected areas located on coral reefs. The 

Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 is scheduled for reauthorization in 2007. 

The Proposed Action and other alternatives are consistent with the spirit and intent of these 

policies. Jarvis is one of only a few Federal no-take marine protected areas in the equatorial 

Pacific. Implementation of the Proposed Action would materially improve surveillance and 

enforcement and discourage unauthorized take of fish and wildlife within the refuge and 

improve the capacity of the Service to monitor fish and wildlife and manage their protection 

within the refuge. 

 _______________________________ _________________________ 

 Chief, Branch of Refuge Planning Date 
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-6 Appendix G