Baker 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 

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

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i 

Baker 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: Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker) 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 Baker and the 

operational support needed to conduct comprehensive conservation. Four conservation plan

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

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

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 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 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 Baker but does not alter the scale or scope of the management 

activities. 
Baker 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 

Baker, 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 Baker will remain closed under all CCP alternatives. Specific requests to access 

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

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents iii 

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 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker) 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. 

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 Baker; 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 describe 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 Baker. 

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 

effect of each alternative on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3 at 

Baker. 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 unavoidable 

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

iv 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 Baker Island describes mandatory precautions for 

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

species. 

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 Baker Island NWR is required as part of this CCP. This 

appendix lists the criteria used in conducting the wilderness review. Portions of Baker appear to 

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

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

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes the Executive orders and 

legislative acts that apply to this CCP.

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

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents v 

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......................................................... 1-9 

Figure 1.2 ...........................................................................................................................1-11 

1.4.5 Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans.......................................................... 1-13 

1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities................................................................. 1-14 

1.6 Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................ 1-16 

1.7 Refuge Goals...................................................................................................................1-17 

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) ................................................... 2-5 

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 ....................................... 2-10 

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

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

Table 2.2 ............................................................................................................................2-16 

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............................................................................................................3-9 

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals..................................................................................... 3-9 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

vi Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents 

3.9.2 Shorebirds ................................................................................................................3-10 

3.9.3 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................3-10 

3.9.4 Invertebrates.............................................................................................................3-10 

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

3.10.1 Previous Surveys.................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.10.2 Submergent Habitats.............................................................................................. 3-11 

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

3.10.4 Corals .....................................................................................................................3-12 

3.10.5 Nearshore Fish .......................................................................................................3-12 

3.10.6 Marine Mammals................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................3-14 

3.12 Invasive Species............................................................................................................3-14 

3.13 Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................... 3-14 

3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology.....................................................................................3-14 

3.15 Recent Cultural History ................................................................................................ 3-15 

 3.16 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................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 ....................................................................................................... 4-7 

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

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

4.8 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................4-8 

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-3 

Table B-3 .......................................................................................................................... B-12 

Table B-4 .......................................................................................................................... B-13 

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

List of Cited References.......................................................................................................... C-1 

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

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

Appendix E .................................................................................................................................E-1 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents vii 

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

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

Wilderness Review for Baker 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 Baker 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 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary... 1-11 

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...... 2-16 

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

viii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Baker 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 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). Once approved, the 

CCP will guide management of refuge operations, site visitation, and habitat restoration for the 

15-year life of the plan. Guidance within the CCP will be in the form of goals, objectives, 

strategies (Chapter 1.7 and 2.6), and wilderness study findings (Appendix F). An appropriate 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document will accompany the CCP. The Final CCP 

will incorporate appropriate 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to adopt and implement a CCP for Baker. 

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 

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

promulgated under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Act). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 amended the Act. According to the 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 Act as receiving 

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

wildlife observation, interpretation, environmental education, and photography. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

provides 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 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 

Act and NEPA. Both the 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 

Baker and its management and administrative activities are managed as part of the System within 

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

mission and goals, the purpose(s) 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 System mission. Following is a discussion of concepts and guidance for 

the System covered in the Act, Service policies, and relevant supplemental guidance documents. 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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

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

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

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

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

certain marine mammals, coral reef ecosystems, wetlands, and other special aquatic habitats. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 547, totaling 

approximately 100 million acres. These refuges, found in every State and several U.S. 

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

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

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

first” mandate of the System means the needs of wildlife and their habitats take priority on 

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

description of some of the most relevant acts and policies that guide the management of the 

System. 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended

This 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 

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 Act to regulate activities that occur on 

water bodies “within” a refuge. The Act requires a CCP be completed for each refuge and that 

the public has an opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision 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 System mission 

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

 

The Act established the following statutory mission for the System: 

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

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

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

and future generations of Americans.” 

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

(601 FW 1, July 2006): 

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

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

Compatibility (603 FW2)

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

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

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

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

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

purpose of the refuge. The Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 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 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 the 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 use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ 

contribution to maintenance and, where possible, restoration of biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health) 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 (6 RM 8) 

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 national wildlife refuges (NWRs) are scattered across the central and 

western Pacific Ocean, with 10 refuges located on the main Hawaiian Islands and 9 found from 

Guam to American Samoa (Figure 1.1). The Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 

(NOAA) and the State of Hawaii. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Preferred Alternative for the Baker CCP identifies several management strategies that are 

dependent upon activities and staff support from the Remotes Complex office, ship 

transportation support from other Federal agencies, and the establishment of partnerships with 

other organizations. Because of the great distances involved in traveling to these remote refuges, 

most management activities, including the simple act of visiting a refuge, are sometimes planned 

to occur concurrently during the same voyage. For this reason, cost estimates for management 

activities at Baker are pro-rated amongst the seven Remotes Complex refuges in the analysis of 

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

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

This page left intentionally blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 Baker Island with the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary). Originally administered by the Office of Territorial Affairs, the Secretary, on June 

27, 1974, designated Baker 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 Baker, this general purpose is: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of transfer to the Service is (USFWS 1973): 

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

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

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

there prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” 

Refuge Boundary

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

includes: 

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

limit.” (39 F R 27930). 

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

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

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

This page left intentionally blank. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

This page left intentionally blank. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 Refuges 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildlife Refuges 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USFWS 1998a). Both the NOAA – National Marine 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. 

U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

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

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

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

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

Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region 

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

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

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

Central Pacific World Heritage Project 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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 

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

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

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

• distance from refuge headquarters; 

• lack of affordable and reliable transportation; 

• lack of infrastructure to support field operations; 

• extreme environmental conditions; and 

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

small boats. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-15 

Issue 2: Biological and Ecological Resources 

Biological and ecological information sufficient for management or conservation purposes is 

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

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

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

management objectives. 

Issue 3: External Forces 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are largely unknown. 

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 is being studied and the subject of considerable 

academic debate. 

Issue 4: Public Use Resources 

The key issues related to public use are: 

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

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

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

• to what extent the use should occur; and 

• how the use should be managed. 

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

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

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

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

remote Pacific island refuges. However, only amateur radio operators have pursued and 

obtained a SUP after an initial inquiry. 

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

1-16 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

Issue 5: Education and Outreach

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

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

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

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

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

interpretative opportunities are necessarily delivered remotely through various media. 

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

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

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

Issue 6: Communication and Cooperation 

 

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

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

agencies/organizations share include: 

• expedition planning; 

• collaborative research projects; and 

• protection of trust resources. 

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

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

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

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

responsibilities for marine turtles. 

1.6 Refuge Vision Statement 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

human activities are still visible on the landscape, the island now offers the opportunity 

to serve as a living laboratory for measuring past human impacts and the ability of 

nature to recover. Natural, physical, and ecological processes unfold with limited human 

interference and support a diverse community of native marine organisms including 

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

and foraging seabirds dominate the landscape and seascape while sheer isolation and 

solitude help us see our place in the natural world. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-17 

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 Baker are as follows, and will again be presented along 

with objectives and strategies in Chapter 2.6. 

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

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

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

remote tropical Pacific islands. 

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

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

endangered species, and species of management concern. 

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

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

5. Preserve Baker’s cultural and historic resources. 

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

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

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

1-18 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 

This page left intentionally blank.
Baker 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 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for Baker 

Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). These include a no action alternative (as required 

under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)) and three “action” alternatives, each 

of which describes strategies for managing Baker over the 15-year life time of the plan that is 

intended to 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 (SUP) process. Wildlife and habitat management activities such as monitoring 

seabird populations, documenting the presence of invasive plant species, and monitoring 

and investigating contaminated sites would be restricted to the 1 to 2 day period that 

occur once every 2 years. Transportation to and from Baker would be provided by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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 2 years to annually. Overall, wildlife and 

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

Alternative. The use of solar powered electronic calling devices to encourage seabird 

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

would be dependent upon partnership opportunities developed with NOAA, University of 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 

Alternative. Project funding proposals would be developed for transportation to the 

refuge and contaminants monitoring and remediation. 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 Baker 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, monitor and investigate contaminated sites, 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. 

Contaminant investigation and clean-up 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 Baker’s wildlife 

resources would be possible. The primary difference between these two alternatives is 

that a single field camp would be established on only one 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)-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 

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

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

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

upon this minimum level of visitation and monitoring. 

• 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 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to eradicate or control them. Visitors to Baker 

would be required to wear new and frozen clothing and other quarantine precautions as 

outlined in quarantine protocols (Appendix D). 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 attends various professional 

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

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

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

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

with some alternatives.

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

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

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

and coral reef ecosystem. Management activities across all alternatives would not 

impinge on these values.

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

access and use. Access and public use remains closed 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 National Wildlife Refuge System (System). 

Interpretative displays are also used periodically at conventions and professional 

meetings. 

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

in situ 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. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

• 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 

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. 

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

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

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. Baker 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 (WSA) 

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

would be postponed until a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) and 

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

refuges (NWRs) as part of their CCP processes. 

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

slope resources. Use of a ship equipped with a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to 

operate at depths between 150 -300 feet may be possible across all action alternatives. 

• Seabird Nesting Restoration. Electronic calls would be deployed and used 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 Baker Island 

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

of each species.

• Contaminant Investigation Proposal. Refuge staff would work cooperatively with 

Regional Office staff to develop funding and operational proposals to quantify 

contaminant concerns on Baker in preparation for remediation activities.

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

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

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 Baker Island and the 

associated coral reefs and marine habitats out to 3 nautical miles (nmi) as a NWR. Site visits to 

Baker 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 (Coast Guard), and other organizations providing berths for refuge staff. During these 

staff visits, two refuge staff 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, monitor and investigate contaminated sites, and 

collecting and destruction of bird entrapments caused by rusting drums and other debris. The 

brief and infrequent visits in this alternative preclude any habitat management other than 

monitoring and investigation of contaminated sites, and 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 Baker. In the recent years, NOAA, Coast Guard, and private charter vessels 

have all provided transportation. A typical voyage originating from Honolulu, Hawaii will take 

approximately 6 to 7 days to arrive at Baker with intermediate stops at Rose or Palmyra Atoll 

NWRs, or Johnston, Howland, or Jarvis Island NWRs. Once on site, 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. Conditions that allow 

biologists to land on the island occur during approximately 50% of the voyages to the island. 

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 monitoring of contaminated sites, collection and on-island stockpile 

of marine debris that washes ashore and poses a threat to seabirds and other wildlife that utilize 

Baker. Any evidence of illegal activity such as unauthorized access will also be documented. 

Photographs will record general habitat conditions; however, further habitat assessments do not 

occur. Although no specific activities occur with respect to wilderness values, the simple fact 

that a 1 to 2 day field camp consisting of temporary lodging arrangements and minimal activity 

is consistent with maintaining the wilderness values of the area. 

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

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

activities of the marine environment. Some monitoring activities occur on-board the vessel, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

based on the vessel awaiting the conclusion of terrestrial surveys and thus do not come ashore. 

Marine scientists typically collect information on currents, weather, temperature, chemical 

composition of the water, and the abundance and distribution of coral and fish species. Specific 

marine-based surveys known as Rapid Ecological Assessments (REA) are conducted and collect 

ecological data such as fish species, abundance, and predator prey relationships. Data are also 

collected from permanently marked coral transects which document coral species, age class, and 

percent coral cover. These data are collected over a 2-day period (six 1-hour dives). Following 

the voyage, data from marine scientists are provided to the Service and include 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. 

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

manner. Travel time between Howland and Baker is 5 hours, and Baker and Jarvis is 2 days. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3.2 Alternative B - (Preferred Alternative) 

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

only alter the current management regime to incorporate the use of solar powered electronic 

calling devices to encourage additional seabird species to nest, and develop funding proposals for 

island transportation and contamination monitoring and remediation. Habitat assessments and 

wildlife and contaminant 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 2 years to annually respectively. Thus, at the end of the 

15-year lifespan of the plan, it is anticipated that there will have been 15 visits to Baker. 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 site visits and project proposals for contaminant monitoring and clean-up. This may 

take the form of producing internal project proposals, 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 Baker would increase under this alternative. Seasonal field camps 

lasting approximately 4 months would be established concurrently on Baker and two other 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

Baker annually during a different 4 month period. At the end of 3 years, it is expected that field 

camp staff would have spent 12 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 resupply trips. Thus, a contract vessel for two 

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

vessel would be required to implement this alternative. Aside from 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 Baker 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 among 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 and contaminants 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 and effects of 

contamination. 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 would 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. 

Contamination and trash remaining from past human occupation will be quantified. The 

extended field camp operations would provide refuge staff and contaminant experts the 

opportunity to collect samples of soils and other suspect materials in order to quantify the extent 

and type of contamination. Baker is being evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) (EPA ID HI6143690075) for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) as 

directed by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

(CERCLA). If so designated, the Service will work cooperatively with the responsible parties 

such as the U.S. Navy (Navy), U.S. Army (Army), and the Coast Guard to remediate the area. 

Alternative C will provide the opportunity to remediate contamination at Baker. 

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 

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 Baker day beacon could be accomplished during one of the 4-month periods. 

Cultural resource surveys would need to be completed prior to any cultural resource restoration 

and maintenance, establishment of the field camp, or contaminant remediation. 

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 Baker and other refuges. 

2.3.4 Alternative D 

 

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

the camp among Howland, Jarvis, Johnston Island NWRs and Rose Atoll NWR in subsequent 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 resupply 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. Contaminant and 

debris remediation and removal would be similar to that 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 Baker and other refuges for visiting researchers, 

archeologists, and cultural resource specialists. The use and benefit of remotely operated 

cameras, 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 Baker 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 System 

mission, “...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 restoration and preservation of the complete 

ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to 

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

prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” There would be no 

opportunity to remediate contaminated sites. A 1 to 2 day visit to the island once every 2 years 

or annually respectively does not provide the opportunity for refuge staff to complete anything 

other than basic biological surveys of species presence or absence. With the exception of 

establishing electronic calling devices in the Preferred Alternative, restoration, preservation, or 

protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, or nesting seabirds is not possible with the No 

Action or Preferred Alternative. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 

entrapment hazards caused by debris, monitoring and remediating contaminated sites, 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 Baker 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 visit 

Baker once every 2 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, CERCLA, or the Act. Custodial status for 

Baker – not visiting – 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 one was determined to meet the minimum 

criteria for wilderness recommendation (Appendix F). 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. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-11 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, 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- to 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- to 26-day voyage. Funding required for passenger aboard partner or charter vessel, one trip every year. 

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

LoyeaFunannopeshaNW

Method/Cost of Voyage Transportation 

Transportation provided aboard partner vessels. No transportation cost to Service 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. 

TraaboSerreqannprorefexp

Frequency of Site Visit 1- to 2-day visit every 2 

years. 

1- to 2-day visit every year. 

Annually host a 4-month per year field camp. 

A camyea
Baker 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

Field Camp Duration and Staff Required 

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

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

2- to 3- person seasonal field camp established concurrently on Baker and 2 other nearby refuge islands. 

2- rouestrotothisla

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 annually 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-month duration monitoring period. 

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

2-13 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, 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) not currently onisland. 

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

Use of remote cameras, in addition to playback of recorded 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 aof bmoMaequannfor occyeamoRecon

Other Wildlife and Habitat Monitoring 

Each visit documents species presence or absence, presence of invasive species, and abiotic variables (e.g., temperature, wind speed). 

Each visit documents species presence or absence, presence of invasive species, and abiotic variables (e.g., temperature, wind speed). 

Each visit documents species presence or absence, abundance, habitat condition, presence and distribution of invasive species, and abiotic variables (e.g., temperature, wind speed). 

Easpeabshabpreof abitemspe

Vegetation Mapping None. None. Mapping of vegetation 

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

Mawilcampatnot 
Baker 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

Habitat Management Activities 

No habitat management activities occur other than destruction of bird entrapments due to debris. 

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

Control invasive species as detected. 

Coas 

Contaminants Monitoring activities 

would occur. 

Monitoring activities would occur. No remediation activities would occur. However, funding proposals to monitor/evaluate contaminants would be developed. 

Monitoring activities would occur. Funding level may allow for remediation. 

Mowolevrem

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

2-15 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, 

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 2 years. 

Marine ecosystem monitored. REA and established surveys completed annually. No new surveys. 

Marine ecosystem monitored. REA and established surveys completed semiannually. No new surveys proposed. 

MamoestcomAdpos

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 SUPs on a case-by-case basis. Opportunities for environmental education exist off-site. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam
Baker 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 2-2. 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 2 years and relies on the ability of refuge staff to be 

transported on a NOAA research or partner vessel to Baker. 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, grant funding, or charter 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 prorated amount 

for the Baker 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 5 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 Baker. Use of this vessel to support the two national wildlife 

refuges in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands would further decrease these prorated costs. Until 

such time that contaminant surveys occur, cost estimates for remediation will not be possible and 

are not part of this comparison. 

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

Field Camp Budget 

for Baker 

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 

N/A 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

Field Camp Budget 

for Baker 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

year 

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, supplies 

and equipment 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 System mission. 

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

broadly reflects the refuge purposes, the 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 prepared an environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a 

variety of management goals, objectives and implementation strategies. 

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

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

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

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

the goals, objectives, and strategies is a brief rationale intended to provide further background 

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

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

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

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Readers, please note the following: 

The objective statement as written is the same that applies to the Service’s Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative B. 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. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

of seabirds. 

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

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

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

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

Island as nesting habitat for 11 seabird species. 

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 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. 

 ✓ ✓

Adhere to strict quarantine protocols for all 

island visitors (see Appendix D). 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Monitor contaminated areas. Remove 

entrapment hazards due to marine and other 

human debris not considered to be 

historically important. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove stockpiled marine and other debris. ✓ ✓ 

Rationale: 

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

Appendix B). Masked and brown boobies prefer to nest on bare, open ground. 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 Baker. Red-tailed tropicbirds prefer shaded 

areas and can be found nesting on the surface, under coral slabs, or in shrubs. Red-footed 

booby and great frigatebird are the only two exclusive shrub nesting species. However, 

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

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

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

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

areas of upwelling currents with important food resources for seabirds. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 entrapment and entanglement threat for 

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

the overall area impacted, thereby reducing the threat. 

 

Objective 1b: Increase baseline information on terrestrial habitat. 

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

presence/absence and distribution on Baker Island. 

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. 

 ✓ ✓

Coordinate with Regional Office GIS staff to 

assess and/or develop remote sensing 

capability to map and monitor island habitats. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

information is essential to adequately understand and manage the refuge. Although it is 

known that the 11 nesting seabird species use all habitats on Baker, this information has 

only been obtained from the short duration, infrequent visits (1 to 2 days every 2 years) to 

the island. There has been no quantitative assessment of breeding species habitat 

associations. The distribution and delineation of habitats itself has been estimated, but 

never been quantified. Remotely collected data may provide an option for data collection 

in the absence of being capable of visiting Baker. 

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

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

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

the EPA threshold value for designation on the NPL under CERCLA. 

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 and extent of known 

contamination. 

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

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

Conduct contaminant survey of entire island 

as a follow-up site investigation to address 

deficiencies listed by EPA in the Foster 

Wheeler 1998 report to determine if Baker 

meets criteria for EPA Superfund Site 

designation. 

✓ ✓

Coordinate with the responsible parties such 

as the Coast Guard to conduct the Site 

Investigation. 

 ✓ ✓ ✓

 If the responsible parties are not willing to 

conduct the Site Investigation, obtain Service 

funding through the Refuge Cleanup Fund. 

 ✓ ✓ ✓

Coordinate with regional office contaminants 

staff to develop funding/operational package 

to conduct monitoring activity. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Coordinate and consult with EPA in design 

and conduct of follow-up Site Investigation. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

responsibility to determine if Baker meets CERCLA criteria. Further and follow up 

monitoring is required by the Service before NPL determination can be made. 

Objective 1d: Remediate contaminated areas of Baker 

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

areas of Baker. 

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 

Cooperate and coordinate with the Coast 

Guard or Navy to remediate contaminated 

areas of Baker. 

 ✓ ✓

Institute long monitoring program of the 

remediation. 

 ✓ ✓

If required, develop Service funding request 

for cleanup through the Refuge Cleanup 

Fund. 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

unacceptably contaminated. If so, the responsible parties for the contamination, i.e., the 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

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

then it will increase the priority for remediation by the responsible parties. For the Navy 

and Army, responsibility for Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) has been delegated 

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

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

become a priority site. Therefore, the ACOE through FUDS will not be able to remediate 

contaminated lands or waters at Baker. Remediation will only be possible through the 

Coast Guard environmental program or if funding becomes available through the Service’s 

Refuge Cleanup Funds. It will be incumbent upon Service staff to work cooperatively with 

the responsible parties or their delegates and the EPA to coordinate and complete 

remediation activities. 

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

representative of remote tropical Pacific islands. 

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

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

submerged lands consisting of an estimated 3,000 acres coral reef and 28,378 acres of deep 

water/pelagic habitat on Baker. 

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 Baker extends to 3 nmi from the 

island shoreline, all coral reefs are contained within the refuge boundary. Threats to the 

coral reef system include invasive species such as crown-of-thorns starfish and marine 

debris (e.g., abandoned fishing gear, sunken landing craft) that collects on corals, 

smothering or breaking them. The responsibility for protecting, managing, and conserving 

coral reef ecosystems is shared with NOAA. The Service and NOAA often participate in 

joint management activities throughout the Pacific, however, no active management 

activities have occurred at Baker. 

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

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

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 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 

corals, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and 

their habitats. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Accompany NOAA or other scientific 

partners on marine surveys. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct REA 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 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 Baker. Additionally, since most site visits to Baker are aboard NOAA research vessels, 

the purpose of these voyages is to conduct marine surveys and studies. Consequently, a 

full compliment of up to 20 marine researchers and 40 support staff contribute to 

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

comprehensive than terrestrial surveys on Baker. 

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

all alternative strategies. Further expansion of REAs could be accomplished only as a 

component of Alternative D. 

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

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

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

Baker, although it is known that some species are found in the vicinity. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

The Marine Mammal Commission has encouraged the Service to generate partnerships 

with NOAA to help document baseline information. Developing additional partnerships 

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

providing the opportunity for additional trips to Baker. 

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

native species with special consideration for seabirds, migratory shorebirds, 

federally listed threatened and endangered species, and species of 

management concern. 

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

Within 10 years of CCP approval, conduct monitoring (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 Baker Island. The desired 

conditions by which this will be met is understanding of the complete annual chronology 

for 5 of 11 nesting seabird species; population trend data over the 10-year period for all 11 

nesting seabird species; and the presence/absence and distribution of shorebirds, turtles and 

other terrestrial invertebrates. 

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 (USFWS 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 Conservation Plan further identifies 

population monitoring inventories as insufficient to accurately detect or monitor 

populations, suggesting instead that a rigorous collection of population data is needed. 

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

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

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

of the Central Pacific Islands Subregion. The endangered species recovery plans for both 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

species of sea turtles indicate that little is known about their biology in the central Pacific. 

Data on other terrestrial wildlife species found on Baker Island are lacking. 

 

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

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

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

minimum of 3 consecutive years on Baker Island. 

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 (USFWS 2005) recognizes the Polynesian storm-petrel 

may flourish on Baker, as well as Jarvis 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 Baker, though it is thought that they did historically. A recommendation 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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 Baker. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

it is known that they do use refuge habitats. Sea turtles have been photographed in the 

water during joint Service/NOAA expeditions since 2000. Data collected over the life of 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

this plan would help to establish a baseline understanding of sea turtle populations in the 

central Pacific. 

 

Objective 3d: Expand baseline information on marine community. 

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

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

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

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

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

Baker. 

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

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

provide the opportunity to study and protect the marine ecosystem. 

 

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

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

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

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

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 Baker. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

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

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

the threats human activity may pose to this important resource (Marine Mammal 

Commission. pers. comm.). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

Baker’s marine communities. 

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

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

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

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

eliminated it for potential designation (see Appendix F). 

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 Baker as wilderness. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Monitor values of naturalness and solitude. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove debris remaining from military or 

other past human use, not considered cultural 

resources. 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

limited human presence, even though the terrestrial portion of the refuge suffers from 

historic human impacts. Human generated debris, some containing contamination, remains 

from past occupations. Additionally, debris such as discarded fishing nets continuously 

washes ashore. This debris impinges upon the wilderness value of naturalness. A cultural 

resource review is required prior to removal of any human debris, identified as a 

component of Alternatives C and D, which may be considered a cultural resource. 

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

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

development of a LEIS will be pursued for all Pacific remote island refuges once their 

CCPs have been completed. In the interim, the area identified as a suitable WSA would 

continue to be managed as wilderness. All management activities would be conducted in 

such a manner as not to detract from the wilderness values identified in the Wilderness 

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

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

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

Objective 5a: Protect cultural resources. 

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

conditions by which this will be met will be to document any change in condition of the 

Baker day beacon, or other recognized cultural/historical resource. 

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: 

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

opportunity for invasive species establishment, and reducing the opportunity for 

unauthorized collection or disturbance. In order to keep cultural resource sites protected, 

the locations and descriptions of fragile cultural resources would not be made available to 

the public. 

 

Objective 5b: Enhance 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). 

 ✓ ✓

Coordinate with Regional Office cultural 

resource staff to develop funding package to 

conduct monitoring activity. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

and establishment of seasonal or annual field camps would require approval from 

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

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

remote Pacific island NWRs wilderness values, cultural and historical 

resources, and their ecosystems, with special emphasis on seabirds. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

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

tropical island ecosystems, seabirds, and coral reefs. The desired conditions by which this 

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

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 Baker 

and still protect the island’s wildlife, habitats, wilderness values, cultural and historical 

resources, and visitor’s safety. For these reasons, interpretative or educational 

opportunities for the public to learn and appreciate the values of remote Pacific island 

refuges and resources will be provided primarily as off-site programs and interpretative 

brochures. 

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

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

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

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

the development of one research project. 

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 

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

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

which to measure future change. 

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

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Republic of Kiribati are the next closest neighbors to Baker, up to 480 nmi to the southeast. 

The next closest landmasses outside the Phoenix Islands are the Gilbert Islands with Beru Island 

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

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

 

3.2 Climate 

General climate and related oceanographic conditions in the central Equatorial Pacific

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

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

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

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

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

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

closest weather monitoring station. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trade winds because they converge and rise upward. 

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

producing a band of heavy precipitation several degrees to either side of the ITCZ (Wallace and 

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

seasonally along a north-south axis and during periodic events known as the El Niño Southern 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-2 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

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

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

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

USFWS 1998a, Vitousek et al. 1980). 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

influenced by the current. 

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

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

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

always within the flow regime of the SEC. 

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

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

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

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

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

surface warming events. 

Baker climate and related oceanographic conditions 

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

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

variable. Baker is also in an area with high probability of mesoscale eddy formation and intraannual variation due to north-south movement of the ITCZ (Inter-tropical Convergence Zone) 

and inter-annual variation due to variation in strength of the ENSO (Longhurst and Pauly 1987). 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

winter, the average daily range of air temperature is reported as 78oF to 88oF, and during summer 

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

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

nearest (370 nmi) historic weather station to Baker (NOAA 1991, USFWS 1998a). Weather data 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-3 

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

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

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

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

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

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 that may have the greatest potential effect on Baker and other central Pacific 

islands are coral bleaching, sea level rise and oceanic chemical composition change. 

Vitousek (1994) reported, “[c]hanges 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 versus natural background variation. However, it is certain 

that increasing concentrations of C02 and other greenhouse gasses will cause increasing climate 

change (Vitousek 1994). 

The equatorial locale for Baker places it near the path of anomalous water current and surface 

wind conditions during ENSO events, but the paucity of weather and oceanographic data at 

Baker renders it difficult to assess the impacts and trends of global climate change at the island. 

The upward deflection of cool subsurface waters into shallow water by the upwelling effects of 

the EUC further complicates an assessment of climate change effects, because this phenomenon 

has been rarely reported outside of the three equatorial refuges (Howland, Baker, Jarvis). 

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: “[r]eef 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 and coworkers (2004) go on to note that, “[t]he causes of coral bleaching are debatable, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-4 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

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 Baker during five separate expeditions from 2000-2006 indicate 

that corals appear to be recovering from a bleaching event that took place during the previous 

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 Baker 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 unpub. data 2000-2006). 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. 

Analysis of cores obtained from large, old coral heads on the shallow reefs would help to track 

sea surface temperature and coral growth rates over several or more decades. Although large 

heads of the preferred coral (Porites) are not common at Baker, a 20-inch.core was collected 

during the 2002 visit from a large Porites australiensis coral head at a depth of 11 meters off the 

south side of the island (Maragos unpublished data 2000-2006). However, the coral core has not 

yet been analyzed for its calcification temperature and growth records. 

Sea Level Rise 

While global temperature is projected to rise by 3.6oF 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 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 0.06 to 0.16 inches/year over the past century, whereas, they have 

indicated a 0.35 to 0.39 inches/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 Baker, increases in 

sea level could significantly erode shorelines and overall island surface area since opportunities 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-5 

for accretion of lands do not exist. Data related to sea level near Baker Island currently do not 

exist or are not documented in the literature reviewed for this plan. 

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 microliters/liter (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 oversaturation 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 might also affect 

terrestrial ecosystems. For instance, the quantity of nitrogen available to organisms affects 

species composition and productivity. Increase in nitrogen can alter species composition by 

favoring those plant species that respond to nitrogen increases (Vitousek 1994). Increased 

carbon dioxide can also affect photosynthetic rates in plants, change plant species composition, 

lower nutrient levels, and lower weight gain by herbivores. 

Summary

Coral bleaching has not been documented at Baker 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 Baker 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 Baker, the opportunity exists for Baker, 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 

Baker is a low-lying, nearly level island surrounded by a narrow shallow fringing reef and with a 

broader submerged reef terrace off the east side of the island. The submarine slopes descend 

steeply to great depths beyond the fringing reefs. Surface deposits on the island consist of 

calcareous sands and coral rock. A small ponded depression is likely the result of the combined 

effects of guano mining more than a century ago. The island was likely formed as a result of 

submarine volcanic activity and changes in the earth’s crust caused by continental tectonic plate 

movement, including emergence of a high volcanic island, its later subsidence, reef accretion, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-6 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

and its gradual northwesterly drift way from the East 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 Baker Island was formed have 

not been specifically investigated although this is now being reviewed by Joyce Miller (in prep.). 

The specifics likely follow the general sequence first postulated by Darwin. 

 

The dominant theory of atoll formation states that islands form in deep tropical oceans as a result 

of underwater volcanoes that grow to the surface to form high volcanic islands, giving coral 

polyps a foundation to grow upon and form reefs fringing the island. In time, the volcano 

becomes dormant, and its mass pushes down on the earth’s crust causing it and its island to 

subside and shrink in size, while its fringing reefs continue to grow upward and maintain 

proximity to the sea surface. Coral reefs, originally fringing the edges of a large island, become 

a barrier reef around larger islands outlining the contour of the original coastline, with a lagoon 

occupying the space vacated by the shrinking island. Eventually, further subsidence causes the 

island to disappear completely from the lagoon leaving behind an atoll. However, for small 

islands such as Baker, lagoons may not have formed at latter stages, and continued subsidence 

has left only a small low reef island in its wake. Based upon deep drilling through the atolls in 

the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 1950s, it is believed that these processes occurred well 

before the beginning of the last ice age (approximately 115,000 years ago) and encompassed 

more than 50-70 million years and up to several thousand feet of reef growth equal to the degree 

of subsidence over that time span. In addition, it is hypothesized that changes in sea level 

associated with the end of the last ice age and the deposition of highly permeable coralline 

limestone (calcium carbonate) derived from the remains of marine organisms likely contributed 

to the carbonate platform that characterizes the contemporary geologic structure of Baker Island. 

The western (leeward) shoreline of the island is sandy, while all other sides are covered with 

coral rubble. There is no pronounced beach crest or central basin (dried up lagoon) typically 

found on some larger low-lying reef islands. A small borrow pit with an interior island is located 

near the eastern shore. Soils of low-lying atolls in the Pacific frequently consist of 

accumulations organic matter, guano, pumice or other transported material on top of a calcareous 

sand or limestone substratum (Morrison 1990). The soil of Baker Island is composed of coral 

fragments and light brown coral sand with a low percentage of organic matter. 

Hutchinson (1950) concluded that phosphates accumulate preferentially on islands, such as 

Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands, that are situated in climatic dry belts used by large 

populations of seabirds. Deposits of phosphate-rich soils have formed over time from guano 

deposited on the island by fish-eating seabirds. Mild acids formed from the decomposition of 

organic matter carry the guano downward in the soil to limestone soil layers were acids are 

neutralized and calcium phosphate accumulated from the chemical changes. In addition, when 

guano-beds are exposed to rain their soluble constituents are removed and the insoluble matter is 

left behind. The soluble phosphates washed out of the guano may also become fixed to the coral 

sand and limestone by the process described above. The calcium phosphate rocks and soil occur 

among the sedimentary strata and were the principal sources of phosphate targeted for 

commercial fertilizer and military use during the guano mining period between 1861 and 1891 

(see Chapter 3.15). Even after the guano mining era, the soil profile still contained heavy guano 

deposits (Christophersen 1927). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 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 Baker Island. However, its small 

size and prevailing arid rainfall conditions would not likely result in the formation of a drinkable 

groundwater lens. During staff visits to Baker, potable water is carried in containers to the island 

for short visits, and could be produced on-site via reverse osmosis technology for prolonged 

visits, just as it is now produced for permanent field stations at other remote Pacific island 

NWRs. 

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. Vapors from abandoned spilled fuel storage drums left behind during the World 

War II era are likely to be confined to the immediate vicinity of the drums and have probably all 

volatized. However, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants may have 

entered the groundwater or nearshore environment. The acoustic environment at Baker is 

completely natural without any anthropogenic noise except during periodic visits. On the island, 

dominant natural sounds include the wind, calls of seabird and shorebirds, and seawater lapping 

on the shoreline with wave action crashing further offshore on the outer reef margin. 

Underwater the dominant sounds are wave action and surge striking the reef slopes and the 

sounds of thousands of feeding and moving invertebrates and fish. 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants 

Debris from past human occupation is scattered throughout the island and in offshore waters. 

Most of this debris is left from the U.S. military and Coast Guard occupation of the island from 

1942-46. The most noticeable remnant remaining from the military is the 150-foot wide, 5,400- 

foot long airstrip. At the northeast section, apparently the main camp area, are the remains of 

several buildings and heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet in height 

remain standing in the camp. Several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers 

are scattered around the island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of 

metal, fuel, and water drums are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of 

the island. The Navy reported the loss of 11 landing craft in the surf during World War II 

(WWII). 

Thousands of fuel storage drums, cylinders of pressurized gases, piles of old batteries, cans of 

waste materials, paints, kerosene, oils, grease, and unidentified substances were left behind by 

the U.S. military and Coast Guard after occupation during the WWII era. In 1987, the ACOE, 

sponsored by funds from the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, organized an 

expedition to Howland and Baker to dispose of the fuel by burning it on-site while in the drums 

(ACOE 1987). However, ACOE efforts did not completely consume the fuel, and the burning 

left toxic residues in many of the drums and surrounding soils (Lee Ann Woodward, pers. 

comm.). Another large source of contamination is rusting steel and iron from various machine 

parts and drums. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-8 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Baker is slowly being evaluated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA ID 

HI6143690075) for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) as directed by the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 

U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq.). The evaluation is due to the large amounts of fuel, debris, and dumps 

left behind by the military and the Coast Guard when they abandoned the island. While the 

Service is responsible for monitoring and reporting in a timely fashion, the EPA has allowed an 

extended evaluation period due to the remoteness of the site. A brief summary of activities 

relevant to this action follows. 

Beginning in 1978, the Service and Coast Guard visited the island and reported several large 

ditches containing “hundreds” of corroded and leaking 55-gallon drums. Open, upright drums 

were reported to be fatal traps for red-footed boobies that fell in while roosting on the drum rims. 

An estimated 25% of the upright drums were reported to contain bird remains. By 1984, the 

Service filed a “Notification of Hazardous Waste Site” form with EPA. Another joint Service 

and Coast Guard expedition in 1986 identified 2,758 55-gallon drums of diesel fuel, kerosene, 

motor oil, and unidentified liquids, and hundreds of smaller containers of powders, grease, paint, 

and unidentified substances. Most of the drums and other containers had rusted through and 

spilled their contents, however, 640 55-gallon drums were found to be intact with their original 

contents (USCG 1986). 

Again in 1986, this time with the Service and ACOE personnel, mounted an expedition resulting 

in burning, in situ, approximately one-third of the wastes identified in previous expeditions. No 

sampling or cleanup of the remaining ash was done following the waste/fuel burn (ACOE 1987). 

In 1988, EPA published the “Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket” in the 

Federal Register listing Baker as a potential, uncontrolled, “federal facility” hazardous waste site 

requiring Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site Investigation (SI) reports within 18 months of 

being placed on the docket. The EPA submitted a letter to the Service in 1991 requesting the PA 

and SI reports be completed for Baker. The Service conducted a SI in 1992 to further map and 

characterize trenches and drums identified from previous investigations. Samples were also 

collected to satisfy Service reporting requirements to EPA under the provisions of Section 107 of 

CERCLA. However, no report was filed with EPA. Further investigations by Service 

contractor, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (Foster Wheeler 1998) were deemed by 

EPA and the Service to be inconclusive. 

3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats 

Baker Island is vegetated with grasses, herbaceous plants, and shrubs. Only strand species able 

to survive long periods of drought and irregular opportunities to reproduce during the infrequent 

wet years of the ENSO persist here. By 1924 when Christophersen (1927) did the first thorough 

survey of Baker Island’s vegetation, there had already been approximately a century of visits by 

Europeans and guano mining. Despite this traffic and the potential for introductions, 

Christophersen found 16 species, consisting of 8 native species (Digitaria pacifica, Eragrostis

whitneyi, Lepturus repens, Fimbristylus cymosa, Boerhavia sp., Portulaca lutea, Tribulus 

cistoides, and Triumfetta procumbens) and 8 that had probably been accidentally introduced. 

Since then some species have been lost and new wave-carried adventives have resulted in a 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-9 

modern day total of only 16 species (see Appendix B). Flint and Woodside found 16 species in 

1993. It is likely that seeds of additional species are regularly washing up on the beach and then 

dying back as conditions become too dry or high surf washes the plant away. Table B-3, 

Appendix B, lists all the plant species of Baker Island, collections or first observations. 

3.9 Terrestrial Wildlife 

Seabirds, shorebirds, lizards, vegetation, insects, crabs, and alien rats, house mice, and cats have 

been observed and studied at Baker Island during the current century. 

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals 

There are no native land mammals at Baker Island. Numerically dominant vertebrates are 

seabirds and migratory shorebirds. Earliest ornithological surveys at Baker Island took place 

long after the introduction of the rat (Rattus norvegicus) so the composition of the avian 

community prior to human contact can only be surmised by looking at other islands in the 

Phoenix Archipelago that did not suffer the invasion of rats. The rats were present in the 1930s 

when the Panala’au colonists arrived but they were exterminated some time after 1937 when the 

colonists introduced cats (Clapp and Sibley 1965). House mice (Mus musculus) were not 

recorded by the Whippoorwill Expedition in 1924 but were mentioned by Rodman in 1935. 

They persist today and their population size fluctuates with rainfall levels. Cats were introduced 

in 1937 or 1938 by colonists to control the rats. Addtitional cats may have been brought during 

the military occupation. The scientists of the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program 

eradicated most of the cats in 1964 and the last sighting was in 1965. Dogs (Canis lupus 

familiaris) were used to guard the LORAN station, but were removed at the termination of 

operation (USCG 1946). 

The findings of the ornithologist on the Whippoorwill Expedition of 1924, are the only 

ornithological records prior to 1963, when scientists from the Smithsonian Institution visited 

eight times between 1963 and 1965. Table B-4 in Appendix B lists species and estimates of 

numbers for seabird species on all visits since 1973. Munro (1924) found eight species of 

seabirds breeding in 1924. Cats were introduced during 1935-1942 and the numbers and kinds 

of seabirds breeding at Baker decreased to four species by 1963 (Sibley and Clapp 1965). After 

the cats were removed in 1965, the bird populations rebounded, and now 11 species breed there. 

The three most numerous breeding species at Baker are the lesser frigatebird (Fregata ariel),

brown noddy (Anous stolidus), and sooty tern (Onychoprion fuscatus). Table B-4 also indicates 

the breeding seabird species at Baker. 

 

Several species of concern exist or have the potential to exist on Baker. The Phoenix petrel 

(Pterodroma alba) is considered a bird of National Conservation Concern by the Service and is 

listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Vulnerable. The 

Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa) and blue noddy (Procelsterna cerulea) are 

Birds of Conservation Concern at the regional level (USFWS 2005). Both the Phoenix petrel 

and the Polynesian storm-petrel probably occurred at Baker Island prior to the introduction of 

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

3-10 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

3.9.2 Shorebirds 

Species occurrence and counts of the nine migratory shorebird species recorded from Baker 

Island are displayed in Table B-4, Appendix B. The four most common migrants wintering at 

Baker are ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva), bristlethighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis), and wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus). Of all 

shorebirds reported from Baker, the ruddy turnstone, bar-tailed godwit, sanderling, bristlethighed curlew and the Pacific golden plover are considered species of High Concern in the 

national conservation priority scheme for shorebirds (Engilis and Naughton 2004). These islands 

provide crucial wintering habitat and may also serve as rest-stops for arctic-breeding shorebirds 

going to winter farther south in the Pacific islands. In addition, the bristle-thighed curlew and 

Pacific golden plover are recognized in the Birds of Conservation Concern, BCR 68 (USFWS 

2002). These islands provide crucial wintering habitat and may serve as rest-stops for arcticbreeding shorebirds wintering farther south in the Pacific islands. 

3.9.3 Reptiles 

Only two species of terrestrial reptiles have been reported from Baker Island, the snake-eyed 

skink (Cryptoblepharus poecilopleurus) and the mourning gecko (Leipidodactylus lugubris). 

The skink was first reported by Hague in 1862, and the gecko by Bryan in 1935 (cited in Clapp 

and Sibley 1965). Both species were seen by Flint and Woodside (1993). The green sea turtle 

(Chelonia mydas) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) have been observed 

foraging at Baker. 

3.9.4 Terrestrial Invertebrates 

 

Baker Island is home to a large number of the land crab Coenobita perlata. Their large biomass 

plays a dominant role in terrestrial food webs on the island where they consume a wide variety of 

organic matter of all types. Other terrestrial arthropods and mollusks are very poorly known. 

The entomologist Edward L. Caum visited Baker Island in 1924 and a number of other 

naturalists collected insects on subsequent trips but there are no published accounts or lists. 

Recent observations and collections during visits by Service biologists include house flies, small 

ants, moths and millers, butterflies, spiders, and an earthworm. 

 

3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

3.10.1 Previous surveys 

Five sets of recent surveys from 2000-2006 have been accomplished in cooperation with the 

NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and their research vessels (Townsend 

Cromwell, Oscar Elton Sette, and Hi‛ialakai), primarily through the sponsorship of the Center’s 

Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) (R. Brainard, pers. 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 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-11 

identification and description in the lab. The Service, with assistance from CRED established 

three permanently marked transects to document trends in corals and some macro-invertebrates 

over time since 2000. Despite these intense efforts, several important habitats at Baker have not 

been adequately surveyed, especially below depths of 65 feet. The NOAA collected high 

resolution bathymetry of Baker from Multi-BeamTM surveys in 2006 (S. Ferguson, pers. comm.), 

and substantial oceanographic data have been collected since 2000 (R. Brainard, pers. comm.). 

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have been launched to collect video- and camera-based data 

at depths greater than 65 feet. 

Before 1998, Baker had not been surveyed for corals. About 30 specimens of corals were 

collected at Baker by Service biologist John Schmerfeld in 1998, and NOAA and the Service 

sponsored field studies at Baker in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Studies through 2002 

focused on the collection of biodiversity information and the relative abundance of each coral 

species at the REA sites. During 2004 and 2006 coral surveys shifted to population censuses 

following the methodology described in Maragos and coworkers (2004). Maragos accomplished 

the censuses at eight sites in 2006 and the incidence of coral diseases were assessed at the same 

sites by Greta Aeby in 2004 and Bernardo Vargas in 2006. Coral population data has also been 

assessed at three permanently marked transect sites since 2000. In 2006, a deeper (90 feet.) area 

off the historic western anchorage was examined for metallic debris, including anchors and 

chains that appear to be degrading corals further upslope. 

 

3.10.2 Submergent Habitats 

Baker’s shallow marine benthic habitats consist of fringing reef crests, shallow back reefs, steep 

fore reefs, spurs-and-grooves, and small reef terraces. The last two habitats are restricted to the 

windward (east side) of the island. In addition, a shallow short channel was blasted through the 

narrow fringing reef during the pre-World War II era to facilitate small boat access between the 

shoreline and ocean. Pelagic habitats occur further offshore beyond the influence of upwelling 

and nearshore oceanographic processes. Nearshore habitats include distinct nutrient-rich 

upwelling zones off the west side of the island and oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) waters off the 

windward reefs. The PIFSC is researching the differences between these zones. 

 

3.10.3 Reef Life 

The dominant reef life studied during the post-1997 expeditions includes benthic algae (Peter 

Vroom, Kim Paige pers. comm.) corals and anemones (John Schmerfeld, Jim Maragos, Greta 

Aeby and Jean Kenyon pers. comm.), other reef invertebrates (Scott Godwin, Dwayne Minton, 

and Robin Newbold pers. comm.), and reef fishes (Ed DeMartini, Bruce Mundy, Brian 

Zgliczynski, Brian Green, Richard Wass, Alan Friedlander, Stephanie Holzwarth, and others 

pers. comm.). Additionally extensive collections of reef fishes were accomplished by Fowler 

(1927), anon. (1950), Helfrich (1962), Wass (1966), Smithsonian Institution Pacific Ocean 

Biological Survey (SIPOBS), and others cited in Mundy et al (2002). At the time of this CCP, 

only data from coral (Table 3.1) and fish surveys (Appendix B) were available for review and 

compilation. The algae and non-coral invertebrate analyses are not complete enough to provide 

compilations. 

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

3-12 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

3.10.4 Corals 

A total of 91 species and 37 genera of corals and anemones have now been reported from Baker 

since surveys and collections through 2006, including 32 genera and 82 species of stony corals 

(Appendix B, Table B-1). One site off the eastern reef terrace demonstrated high coral cover of 

about 80% with the dominant staghorn coral Acropora monopolizing all substrates. An invasive 

anemone, tentatively identified as Aptasia sp. was abundant at most survey sites in 2004, but had 

totally disappeared by the time of the 2006 surveys. However, the invasive red corallimorph, 

Rhodactis howseii, is now increasing in abundance and expanding its distribution on the reefs at 

Baker. It appears to be stimulated by dissolved iron from metallic debris. 

 

Coral population data at Baker in 2006 reveal characteristics similar to those reported for 

Howland in 2006. Coral frequencies (number of corals per square meter) at Baker in 2006 were 

substantially higher compared to 2004 frequencies at the same three sites in 2004. The largest 

corals at the same three Baker sites were comparable to 2004 levels, but there was nearly an 

order of magnitude increase in the numbers of corals for the four smallest size classes and total 

numbers of corals. The mean percent coral cover also increased at the three sites from 2004 

levels averaging 49.8% to 2006 levels averaging 52.9% although the trends were not consistent 

at the individual site level. 

 

The staghorn and table corals of Acropora were common at all research sites, and other corals 

seemed healthy except at the western anchorage. The bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea 

quadricolor) was observed for the first time in 2006, and the stone snake coral (Herpolitha spp.) 

was also observed at three REA sites for the first time. 

The red invasive corallimorph showed dramatic increases off the west and south coast at 

historical boat landing and anchorage locations. Corroding iron from anchors and chains may be 

stimulating the growth of this species as observed elsewhere at Palmyra Atoll adjacent to a 

shipwreck in 2005-2006, and also observed at the Howland landing site in 2006. The historic 

western anchorage site appears to be degraded, at both transect depths of 30 and 100 feet. It is 

the only site at either Howland or Baker that appeared “sick”. Wave action appeared to have 

fractured some corals, and Rhodactis is asserting its dominance, especially at depth. Non-coral 

substrates are dark and covered by cyanobacteria, also likely stimulated by dissolved iron from 

the numerous anchors and chains observed at all depths. Sediment samples were collected at the 

site for toxicological analyses, and photoquadrat data show a steady decline in corals over a 6-

year period. 

3.10.5 Nearshore Fish 

There are approximately 247 species of reef fish known from Baker reefs (Mundy et al. 2002; 

Table B-2, Appendix B). This compares with 324 species from nearby Howland Island. 

Moreover, 10 families of fish reported at Howland Island have not been reported from Baker 

Island, and 6 minor families from Baker have not been reported from Howland Island. Of 

interest is the presence of several species of goby and scorpion fish families at Howland Island 

and the lack of these families at Baker Island. Possible explanations for these differences may be 

that sampling and survey intensities may be insufficient and different between the two islands, or 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-13 

that geographic isolation may result in differential recruitment rates between the two islands. As 

noted earlier, not all habitats at Howland have been surveyed to the same degree as those at 

Baker. 

Reef fish populations at Baker appeared healthy and diverse with little indication of unauthorized 

harvest (Maragos, pers. comm.). However, Maragos, during 2000 surveys noted that there were 

many small sharks and no larger sharks at both Howland and Baker. In contrast, there were 

numerous small and some large sharks at both locales by 2004 and 2006. Because “shark 

finning” (the catching of sharks only to remove their fins for sale) is a growing concern in the 

Pacific and other oceans, it is possible that the pre-2000 harvest of sharks at Baker resulted in the 

absence of larger adult sharks in 2000. Larger sharks and additional recruitment by 2004, and 

lack of subsequent shark fin harvest in the area may explain the more normal size distribution in 

sharks observed in 2004 and 2006. 

The fact that the disparities for the coral genera did not track in the same direction as for the fish 

families (more coral genera at Baker vs. more fish families at Howland), reinforces the 

hypothesis of geographic isolation may lead to biodiversity heterogeneity based on chance and 

differential recruitment success. Geographic isolation would require both corals and reef fish to 

rely more on local recruitment vis-à-vis external recruitment. The latter would likely play a 

much larger role where reefs and islands are larger and closer together and result in similar 

biodiversity characteristics. 

3.10.6 Marine Mammals 

On most visits to Baker Island, a group of approximately 40 bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) appears as the ship approaches the island. Formal quantitative surveys of marine 

mammal distribution and abundance have not been undertaken at the refuge. 

 

3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife 

 

The estimated hundreds of thousands of seabirds breeding at Baker 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 the predatory fish and the birds are 

capable of foraging throughout their pelagic ranges (which encompass the entire tropical ocean), 

the birds are most successful at feeding their young when they can find schools of predatory fish 

within easy commuting range of the breeding colonies. 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 higher tuna populations locally. Johannes (1981) describes the daily migrations of 

skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna to and from the waters near islands and banks. 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 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-14 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

and serve to keep them close to reefs, enhancing survivorship of larvae and recruitment of 

juveniles and adults back to the reefs. For at least three of the nine seabird species breeding at 

Baker (brown noddy, white tern, and brown booby), significant proportions (33-56 %) of their 

diet originates from the surrounding coral reef ecosystem in other areas where their diet has been 

studied (Ashmole and Ashmole 1967; Harrison et al. 1983; King 1970; Diamond 1978). 

 

3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act documented to use Baker include the threatened 

green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 

although little information is available on sea turtle populations at Baker. However, both species 

have been observed and photographed foraging in the shallow water near the island. 

3.12 Invasive Species 

Human activities at Baker Island have resulted in various non-native species being introduced 

including the house cat, a rat species, house mouse, various ant and cockroach species, and 

plants such as coconut palm, tropical almond,, ilima, Portulaca oleracea, and milo. The cats 

were introduced in 1937 and finally eliminated in 1965. The rats were documented as early as 

1854 and in many accounts were described as extremely abundant. 

3.13 Wilderness Resources 

Portions of Baker remain in a wilderness state in terms of its biota, seascape, and landscape. 

However, the collection of abandoned fuel drums, excavations and pits left behind from the 

guano mining era, the airfield constructed during WWII, and remains from a Coast Guard Long 

Range Navigation (LORAN) station degrade the wilderness values of the terrestrial portion of 

Baker. The wilderness values of the marine portion of Baker are influenced by the small section 

of the reef blasted for a boat passage during the guano-mining era, the potential for 11 loaded 

LCMs (Marine Landing Craft) lost by the military while landing on the island in the 1940s to be 

present in the nearshore waters, and abandoned anchors and chain near the western shoreline. 

However, the collective contribution of these detractions to the marine portion of Baker is minor 

compared to the otherwise overwhelming wilderness character of the surrounding reefs. 

Additional wilderness information and evaluation are covered in greater detail in Appendix F. 

3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology 

Polynesians visited Baker Island prior to its discovery by European navigators (Hague 1862). 

However, Emory (1925) reported that no traces of Polynesian remains were found on Baker. 

Baker has many visible signs and debris of human occupation. Most of the remaining debris is 

left from the military and Coast Guard occupation of the island from 1942-46. However, there 

are many remnants of earlier inhabitants. There is a burial ground on the southern portion of the 

western edge that dates from the guano mining days. A second cemetery, probably dating from 

WWII, is located on the western ridge north of the lighthouse. The most noticeable remnant 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-15 

remaining from the military is the airstrip 150 feet wide and 5,400 feet long. At the northeast 

section, apparently the main camp area, there are the remains of several buildings and pieces of 

heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet in height remain standing in the 

camp. Several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers are scattered around the 

island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of metal, fuel, and water drums 

are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of the island. 

An archaeological reconnaissance survey performed on September 18-20, 1987, and consisting 

of only surface reconnaissance and limited subsurface testing performed as part of a ACOE 

Defense Environmental Restoration project to inventory and burn fuel in abandoned WWII fuel 

drums on Baker and Howland Islands (ACOE 1987). The archaeological reconnaissance was 

conducted prior to the drum collection and burning to avoid possible damage to cultural 

resources (Shun 1987). This archaeological reconnaissance at Baker in 1987 (Shun 1987) 

resulted in the identification of 20 surface sites, all less than 200 years old. These include a 

lighthouse, the remains of the Meyerton settlement, a guano miner’s stone structure, a cemetery, 

mounds, trenches, and runway matting. 

Environmental conditions on Baker are inhospitable to lengthy human occupation. 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 Baker Island as a stopping, resting, or 

gathering place during their voyages across the Pacific Ocean, including capture of nesting sea 

turtles kept alive for extended food supply during long ocean voyages. However, it is doubtful 

that voyagers would have willingly settled on this island. Landings in any vessel would have 

been difficult, although access gained by small canoe is possible. Due to its remoteness and lack 

of a sustainable freshwater supply, it is likely that Baker played a minimal role, if any, in the 

colonizing efforts of prehistoric people across the Pacific. 

No records were found of paleontological surveys, although paleontological resources could 

exist in the form of fossilized coral or algae and other invertebrates. The chances of prehistoric 

indigenous terrestrial mammals inhabiting Baker are non-existent due to the geological forces 

that formed the island, and its remoteness and dry climate. 

 

3.15 Recent Cultural History 

The occupation and use of Baker after post-European contact, approximately AD 1800, can be 

divided into five distinctive time periods or eras based upon alternating periods of occupation, 

use, and abandonment. The eras are categorized as whaling, guano mining, colonizing, military, 

and post military. 

Whaling Era: circa AD 1800—1870

Baker has also borne the names New Nantucket and Phoebe. The island was frequently visited 

by whaling vessels that used the island as a mail drop-off and provisioning station. While the 

first sighting of the island is unknown, the first name recorded for the island was New Nantucket. 

This name was given by either Captain Elisha Folger, of Nantucket, who visited the island in the 

whaler Equator in 1818, or by Captain Obed Starbuck on the ship Loper in 1825. Finally, in 

1832, Michael Baker of New Bedford, Massachusetts gave the name ‘Baker’ to the island. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-16 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Guano Mining Era: 1850-1891

On February 5, 1857, Alfred G. Benson and Charles H. Judd on board the Hawaiian schooner 

Liholiho officially claimed the island under the “Guano Act” of 1856 for the American Guano 

Company (Bryan 1974). Guano mining on Baker Island was delayed because the ships sent to 

investigate the guano resources would not land at the island due to severe surf conditions (Clapp 

and Sibley 1965). While mining on Baker commenced in 1858 by the American Guano 

Company, formal recognition of their rights to the island did not occur until 1861 due to a 

mining rights dispute with the United States Guano Company. Mining on Baker Island peaked 

in the 1860s and 1870s. An estimated 200,000 to 240,000 tons of guano was removed from the 

island (Clapp and Sibley 1965). Evidence of this era of exploitation still remains as a large basin 

from mining excavation and mounds of low-grade guano mark the island landscape. 

After 17 years of guano mining, Baker Island appears to have been uninhabited. Visits or very 

brief stopovers no doubt occurred during the interim. The Whippoorwill Expedition sponsored 

by Bishop Museum paid one such visit in September 1924. This scientific team spent only 1 day 

on Baker Island. 

Colonizing Era: 1935-1942

The establishment of trans-Pacific air routes; territorial ownership disputes over several islands 

in the Pacific between the United States and the United Kingdom in the early 1900s and the 

threat of a second world war led to colonizing efforts by the United States on several Pacific 

islands including Baker Island. Colonizing efforts began in March 1935. Several military 

personnel and graduates of Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii established a colony on Baker Island 

(Brown et al. 2002). After initial establishment, the colonists were comprised of Kamehameha 

graduates and were supplied with enough food, water and other necessities to sustain them “for a 

period of from six weeks to several months” (Bryan 1974). Water and bulk food were supplied 

from Hawaii. During this colonizing era, at least 26 trips were made to Baker Island by various 

Coast Guard cutters.

The colonists erected Meyerton as their place of permanent settlement, with structures for water, 

food storage, radio equipment, and walls around the main settlement being constructed. 

Attempts to grow trees, flowers, and vegetables were tried but the conditions were unfavorable 

for cultivated crops. During this era, a beacon was constructed from the stone slabs from the 

guano mining houses (Bryan 1974). 

 

Military Era: 1942-1944

The colony on Baker Island continued undisturbed except for routine Coast Guard visits until 

December 10, 1941. A Japanese submarine surfaced offshore and fired about 30 rounds into the 

colonists’ installations. A second round of 15 shells was fired later in the day. The shelling 

destroyed all the buildings except the rain shed and beacon. On December 28, a Japanese plane 

bombed and machine-gunned the island. The colonists were not injured by these raids and were 

removed by the destroyer Helm on January 31, 1942. 

On July 30, 1943, engineer troops of the 7th Army Air Force (AAF) were landed on Baker with 

equipment and supplies to construct an airstrip to defend the central Pacific islands. In the 

landing of materials for construction of the base, 11 out of 23 LCMs were damaged or lost in the 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-17 

surf (Morison 1951). The main portion of the base was constructed by October 1943, including 

the runway, 5,750 feet long and 150 feet wide, coved in a metal Marston mat, and a 50-foot wide 

taxi-way made of rolled coral. Approximately 2-3,000 men were stationed on Baker Island 

during peak operations. The base participated in the Tarawa-Makin operation from November 

through December of 1943, the airfield being used extensively by B-24s. Military operations 

ceased thereafter and the island was evacuated in March 1944 (Bryan 1974). 

On February 5, 1944, the Coast Guard authorized the construction of the Phoenix LORAN 

station on Baker Island. Construction began in June 1944, and required 12,000 cubic yards of 

coral to level off the selected area. Seven Quonset huts left by the AAF were placed on cribbed 

sleds and hauled about a mile to the station location on the north shore. Sufficient fuel was 

delivered to the site for the operation of a water distillation unit for over a year. This was one of 

the first LORAN stations where sentry dogs were used (USCG 1946). Due to high winds, 

treacherous surf, and torrential rains, landing materials at Baker took 2 weeks. Equipment was 

aided ashore by lines attached from the LCM to a tractor on shore that would haul the boat onto 

the beach (Willoughby 1980). The Coast Guard administered the island and LORAN station 

until it was abandoned in May 1946 (Clapp and Sibley 1965). 

Post War Era: 1944 to present

No attempt was made to re-colonize Baker Island after the departure of the Coast Guard, 

although the Department of the Interior thought of doing so. In 1948, the United States decided 

that the claim to Baker Island could be effectively maintained by annual Coast Guard visits. 

Most visits to Baker Island usually occurred in the first four months of the year with the ships’ 

crews completing repairs to the day beacon and taking photographs to establish their presence on 

the island (Shun 1987).

In March 1963, and for the following 2 years, Smithsonian Institution employees made a number 

of visits to Baker Island as part of the SIPOBS (Sibley et al. 1965). During this period of 

investigation by the Smithsonian, a reconnaissance team of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission 

(AEC) visited the island. This group arrived on Baker Island on October 18, 1963, conducted 

their survey for the following 3 days and departed. In addition, a survey by AEC was made of 

topographical, geological, and oceanographic features of the island (USAEC 1963). 

 

In recent years, sporadic visits have occurred in the form of Coast Guard and NOAA patrols and 

scientific expeditions. The island and its territorial seas were transferred to the Service in 1974 

from the Office of Insular Affairs. This area is now managed as a unit of the System. Refuge 

staff continue to participate in scientific expeditions, typically aboard NOAA vessels and 

occurring, on average, once every 2 years since 2000. 

 3.16 Socioeconomics 

 

Historical Developments

Since whaling days, Baker Island has been used for a variety of commercial enterprises. During 

the whaling era, it appears that Baker Island served as a port-in-a-storm and possible gathering 

site for provisions by harvesting seabirds, sea turtles, and their eggs. Fishing for tuna and other 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-18 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

species may also have occurred. The guano-mining era provided the world with a nutrient-rich 

fertilizer. Baker and other central Pacific islands were exploited for their deep guano deposits. 

After the guano mining period, Baker Island was retained by the U.S. Government to aid in 

transportation and commerce during the mid-1930s. A colony was established on Baker Island 

to assert U.S. possession by placing four to five men on Baker Island from 1935 to 1942 (Bryan 

1974, Brown et al. 2002). Baker Island was used as an U.S. Army airfield from 1943-44. The 

Coast Guard constructed and staffed a LORAN station from 1944-46. After 1946, there was no 

further military use of the island, but Coast Guard vessels performed annual patrols to protect 

U.S. economic interests in the central Pacific. 

In modern times, a proposal to use of the island for military/atomic testing was developed in 

1963 (USAEC 1963), but the proposal did not materialize for Baker, moving instead to Johnston 

Island. In 1974, Baker Island and its territorial sea was transferred to the Service as a unit of the 

System to preserve and restore ecosystem values, focusing on nesting seabird populations 

During the past decade, the government of Kiribati requested permission to allow their fishing 

fleets within Baker Island’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Subsequently, the 

Service working with the U.S. State Department have denied Kiribati’s request. There are no 

current economic uses of Baker, and the island remains unpopulated. 

Land Use

Baker has been uninhabited since the World War II era and will remain so except for occupation 

during periodic field camps. As such, the future “land use” for Baker will likely include 

designation of a preferred field camp site that will not conflict with important wildlife functions, 

habitat restoration, cultural sites, or wilderness values or be in a contaminated area. Site 

planning will also identify corridors for small boat access, footpaths for regular island patrols, 

study sites, areas designated for solar power and potable water production generation, waste and 

trash disposal areas, work areas, and other needs. 

Public Access

Baker is closed to public access. There has never been, nor are there plans to formally open the 

refuge to recreational activities by publishing public notice in the Federal Register. However, 

limited public access of Baker has been authorized in the past. Refuge access is managed 

through the issuance of a 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 Baker for unauthorized 

and illegal fishing because of the lack of on-site surveillance and enforcement capacity. Baker is 

habitat to many commercially valuable fishery species including sharks, lobsters, groupers, giant 

clams, tuna, wahoo, swordfish, deepwater snappers, bumphead parrotfish, humphead wrasses, 

various aquarium fish, pearl oysters, sea cucumbers, and other species. The no-take mandate and 

establishment of the refuge predated the applicability of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1996 as amended (16 USC 1361 et seq.) to Baker. 

Neither the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) nor NOAA 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-19 

Fisheries advocates commercial fishing within Baker, 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 Baker and the home ports of the fishing vessels. 

However, foreign fishing vessels may target Baker for illegal commercial fishery harvest, and 

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

3-20 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Baker 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 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). These range from establishing an overnight field 

camp once every 2 years and conducting basic biological surveys, to establishing a year-round 

field camp every 5 years, conducting additional biological and ecological surveys, and basic 

habitat management practices such as invasive species control and monitoring and remediation 

of contaminants. Other than infrequent field camps, Baker is unoccupied throughout the year. 

Permanent infrastructure development is not a component of any alternative. Field camps are 

temporary, mobile, low-impact, 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 Baker 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, 

contaminant clean-up, 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 Baker 

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 Baker 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 Baker, 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 the current limited staff visits and 

management activity on Baker. 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 Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS)) to implement either Alternative C or D would be required. 

These two alternatives (C, D) establish a temporary field camp lasting up to 1 year on Baker, 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-2 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

which could result in disturbances to wildlife. However, all possible effects can be mitigated 

through advanced planning and scientific surveys. Except for minor disturbance to possible 

historic sites that can be avoided through archaeological and cultural surveys, and minor wildlife 

disturbance during seasonal field camp missions including containment and removal of 

contaminants and debris, 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 all the alternatives. Table 

4.1 summarizes the similarities among and differences between alternatives. 

4.2 Geology and Soils

The geology and soils of Baker 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 a 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 Baker since the soils are either resistant to 

compaction or already naturally compacted. 

The containment and removal of contaminated soil will have a localized effect on already 

disturbed and degraded soils. Depending upon the results of contaminant surveys, and activities 

to remediate the contamination, it may be required to physically remove contaminated soils. 

Archeological and cultural surveys as described above will be conducted prior to any soil 

removal activities. While soils may be removed, contaminated soils pose a threat to human 

visitors and wildlife. Therefore, any effort to contain and remove contaminated soils and debris 

will have a beneficial effect on the integrity and environmental health of Baker. 

4.3 Air and Water Quality 

4.3.1 Air Quality 

 

None of the 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 Baker. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-3 

Indirectly, ship traffic to and from Baker and local boat traffic would generate noise, some 

exhaust emission and lights at night, which could disturb some light sensitive bird species, such 

as adult and fledgling petrels and boobies. These effects can be fully avoided or minimized by 

establishing night-time operating procedures for ships. Small boats and skiffs operating during 

the field camps will use outboard engines generating low noise levels and emissions (e.g., fourstroke engines with properly fitted cowlings), regularly maintained and complying with 

appropriate air quality emission guidelines. 

4.3.2 Water Quality and Ocean Environment 

Marine water quality and ambient currents, swells, waves, and tidal fluctuations will not be 

affected by any of the alternatives. No disposal of waste in the ocean is required for any 

alternative. No physical modifications of the shoreline are proposed as part of any alternative. 

To the contrary, more frequent marine debris and shoreline flotsam collections during field camp 

operations, and the removal of contaminants from the environment for Alternatives C and D will 

result in beneficial effects to coastal and marine environments. Only minor effects to the nonpotable groundwater of Baker are expected during temporary field camp operations from human 

waste disposal. These effects could be mitigated by using composting toilets, or removing 

human waste via sealable chemical toilets. 

4.4 Biological Resources 

4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife 

General

All alternatives impacts would have net 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 action alternatives (B-D) 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 

Baker without 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 

Baker, especially the terrestrial environment. Wildlife disturbance would increase as staff and 

scientists move about on patrols, conduct research, monitor contaminated sites, 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. Removal of 

contaminants would disturb the soils, vegetation, and wildlife in the immediate vicinity. 

However, human visitors and wildlife would ultimately benefit from the removing contaminated 

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

4-4 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

would be minor and outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional field camp on the 

island. 

Habitat

With the potential exception of contaminant remediation activities, 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 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. 

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. Since there will be little to 

no soil surface disturbance, vegetation will fully recover once field camp is demobilized. 

In the event that a suitable funding source is secured, and contaminant remediation activities 

occur, localized habitat will be negatively impacted by the removal of soils. Site restoration of 

vegetation and soil structure will be a component of any contaminant remediation activity. Thus, 

the benefits of the removal of contaminated soil and debris will outweigh the localized and 

temporary disturbance to habitat. 

Seabirds

Alternatives A and B would have a temporary (1 to 2 days 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 Baker's resources once the 

field camps are demobilized. 

Seabird nest attraction devices, if successful in attracting Phoenix petrel and Polynesian stormpetrel to Baker, will provide these populations with an additional nesting location free from 

mammalian predators. It is difficult to predict the overall impact that reestablishment of nesting 

by these species on Baker will have on their overall population status. However, since predatorfree islands in the Pacific are rare, predator-free islands such as Baker are becoming more 

important to ground nesting seabird species such as the Phoenix petrel and Polynesian stormpetrel. 

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

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-5 

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 0.15%) 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. 

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 0.15%) 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 Baker as closed to recreational and commercial fishing and harvesting, except 

for those activities authorized by a Special Use Permit (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. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-6 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

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. 

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals are found in the nearshore waters of Baker. 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 Baker. 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 negatively 

affected by any of the proposed alternatives. During the infrequent visits to Baker, 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 semiannually, 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 Baker. No specific surveys are planned. Remote sensing or the physical presence of the 

field camp would help to discourage any potential illegal take. Unauthorized harvest would be 

especially unlikely during the 1-year-long field camp established every fifth year at Baker 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 4-7 

Administration- National Marine Fisheries Service (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 Baker would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives. 

Although wilderness is not being proposed for the terrestrial component of Baker, 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 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (66 FR 3708). Alternatives C or D may also improve the wilderness 

character of the island by removing contaminated soils and other debris that currently limits the 

terrestrial component of meeting wilderness criteria, as defined in the Wilderness Act. 

4.6 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources at Baker may include archaeological and historic sites. The Baker day 

beacon, cemeteries, 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, or conduct of contaminant remediation activities 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 effecting any 

identified sites. Consequently all alternatives would have minimal to no 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 

Baker is currently managed with a portion of several Pacific Remote Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex employees staff time. Taken collectively under Alternative A, staff time 

devoted to Baker is approximately 0.2 permanent position in a given year. Alternative B 

increases this amount to approximately 0.3 permanent position. 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 0.2 permanent position is 

funded. It would be possible to adjust position duties of existing staff to cover the increase 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-8 Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects 

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 Baker. The nearest inhabited land mass to Baker is Kiritimati Island, 184 nmi to the north. 

The nearest inhabited U.S. landmass is Hawaii at 1,690 nmi. Due to the extensive distances 

between human populations and Baker, no adverse human health or environmental effects were 

identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

4.9 Cumulative Effects 

Overall, there are minimal long-term adverse impacts to the terrestrial or marine resources of 

Baker. Vegetation disturbed 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. Contaminant remediation activities 

will benefit the overall integrity and environmental health of the ecosystem. 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 gained 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 Baker will not be noticeable and thus insignificant. 

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

4-9 Chapter Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternaPhysical Environment Effects Geology and Soils 

Neutral effect. Coarse soils and infrequent site visits preclude effects of disturbance. 

Neutral effect. Although frequency of site visits increases, the level of visitation still precludes the effects of disturbance. 

Minor but temporary negative effect due to soil compaction and disturbance along established trails. 

Minor negativcompadisturbestabli

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 nto field and limpowereincreasAlternatemporfrom trboat traconstanalterna

Environmental Contaminants 

Neutral effect. Known contamination exists, but minimal action taken to monitor or remediate. Potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral effect. Known contamination exists, but minimal action taken to monitor or remediate. Potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Potential positive benefit (funding dependent) to survey, monitor, and remediate known and unknown contaminated sites. Potential exists for fuel spills during deployment/demobilization of field camp. 

 Potent(fundinsurveyremediunknowsites. Pfuel spdeployof field 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternaEffects to Wildlife and Habitat Terrestrial Habitats 

Neutral to slightly positive effect. Habitat management limited to eliminate entrapment hazards due to debris. 

 Neutral to slightly positive effect. Habitat management limited to eliminate entrapment hazards due to debris. 

Moderately positive effect. Habitat management includes elimination of entrapment hazards and removal of marine debris. 

ModerHabitaincludeentrapmremova

Invasive Species 

Neutral effect. Invasive species documentation occurs during course of other duties. Potential negative effect exists for invasive species to become established during 2-year 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 1- year staff absence between visits. 

Moderately positive effect. Surveys and control activities of invasive species occur annually during the 4-month field camp. 

SlightlSurveyactivitispecies year. Dcamp (competime be

Seabirds Neutral effect. Basic 

monitoring of species presence/absence occurs biannually. 

Slightly positive effect. Basic monitoring of species presence/absence occurs annually. 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. 

ModerExpandactivitiscientiseabird Electropotentirestore species

Shorebirds Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

 Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Other Wildlife Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

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

4-11 Chapter  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternaMarine 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. 

Neutraeffect. effect osurveyundersecosys

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. 

Potentieffect bdeploydemobcamps. increasincreascorals, negativobservdamag

Fish Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same a

Marine Mammals 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Moder

Full timallows survey

Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Same as Alternative A. Slight positive effect. 

Increased opportunity to survey. 

ModerIncreassurvey

Social and Other Effects Wilderness Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas identified for 

NeutraStudy A
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Effects  Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alterna

Wilderness values exist, but no wilderness designation. 

identified for both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

both teareas o

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Same as Alternative A. Minor positive effect. 

Cultural resource survey required prior to field camp establishment. Maintenance of historical structures possible. 

Minor Culturarequirecamp eMaintestructu

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. 

Moderdue to operati

Environmental Justice 

Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutra

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 long-term changes in habitat occur. 

ModerGreateundersand teris achiechange
Baker 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. The comment period identified in the Planning 

Update closed on November 14, 2005. This update announced the intent of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) to produce a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Baker 

Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker), 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) staff and the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) on May 31, 

2005. Refuge staff also met with members of The Nature Conservancy on June 2, 2005. Both 

NOAA and DLNR informally indicated that they were interested in the process, wished to be 

kept informed of planning progress and would review the draft plan when it became available. 

A second meeting between State, NOAA, and Service staff was held on May 19, 2006, to discuss 

issues of mutual interest, which included their potential involvement in the Service’s CCP 

process. A follow-up formal request was sent to the agencies on June 7, 2006. 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. 

Baker 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; NOAA; Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-2 Chapter 5 –Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Resources; Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Governor of Hawaii; the Honorary ConsulateGeneral of the Republic of Kiribati; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO). 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A A-1 

Appendix A 

 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

 ACOE. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

AEC. Atomic Energy Commission 

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. 

CERCLA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

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. 

DERA. Defense Environmental Restoration Act 

DERP. Defense Environmental Restoration Program. 

DLNR. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

DMA. Defense Mapping Agency.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-2 Appendix A 

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 

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. 

EPA. Environmental Protection Agency 

EUC. Equatorial Undercurrent; a subsurface ocean current flowing east at the Equator. 

Federal Register (FR). Official bulletin publicizing notices of Federal actions. 

FUDS. Formerly Used Defense Site 

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

Appendix A A-3 

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. 

LORAN. Long Range Aid to Navigation 

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. 

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 System mission, addresses the 

issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-4 Appendix A 

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. 

RO. Reverse Osmosis 

RONS. Refuge Operating Needs System; Service program for NWR operating funds. 

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. 

SI. Site Investigation 

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

Appendix A A-5 

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

A-6 Appendix A 

This page left intentionally blank.
Baker 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: FAMILIES, genera, common names, and number of species/genus for corals and 

other cnidarians reported from Baker Island NWR 1998-2006. After Maragos (2000-2003, 2004, 

2006), and Maragos & Schmerfeld (1998). 

 

Scientific Name Common Name Number of 

Species 

MILLEPORIDAE 

 Millepora fire coral 1 

POCILLOPORIDAE 

 Pocillopora antler coral and cauliflower corals 3 

ACROPORIDAE 

 Acropora table and staghorn corals 23 

 Astreopora crater coral 1 

 Montipora rice and plate corals 10 

PORITIDAE

 Porites annae lobe corals 5 

AGARICIIDAE 

 Gardineroseris honeycomb coral 1 

 Leptoseris deep encrusting coral 1 

 Pachyseris combed plate coral 1 

 Pavona star and corrugated corals 4 

FUNGIIDAE 

 Cycloseris small mushroom coral 1 

 Fungia mushroom coral 4 

 Halomitra giant basket coral 1 

 Herpolitha stone snake coral 1 

 Sandalolitha oval mushroom coral 1 

MUSSIDAE 

 Acanthastrea spiny encrusting coral 1 

 Lobophyllia spiny lobe coral 1 

 Symphyllia spiny brain coral 1 

MERULINIDAE 

 Hydnophora pedestal coral 1 

FAVIIDAE 

 Cyphastrea sp. small walled brain coral 1 

 Diploastrea star brain coral 1 

 Echinopora encrusting brain coral 1 

 Favia circular brain corals 3 

 Favites honeycomb brain coral 2 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name Number of 

Species 

 Leptastrea bewickensis incrusting brain coral 2 

 Montastrea large walled brain corals 2 

 Platygyra true brain corals 2 

DENDROPHYLLIIDAE 

 Cladopsammia slender yellow tube coral 1 

 Tubastraea common tube coral 1 

 Turbinaria cabbage coral 1 

 Rhizopsammia rhizome tube corals 1 

DISCOSOMATIDAE 

 Rhodactis skeleton-less corals 1 

SIDERASTREIDAE 

 Coscinaraea sandpaper corals 2 

 Psammocora granulated corals 4 

ACTINARIA 

 Aptasia stalked anemone 1 

 Entacmaea bubble-tip anemone 1 

 Heteractis magnificent anemone 1 

ZOANTHIDEA 

 Palythoa tuberculosa rubber coral 1 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-3 

Table B-2: Fish species and genera collected from or observed at Baker Island from 1927-2002. 

Collected or compiled by Mundy et al. (2002). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

CARCHARHINIDAE Requiem Sharks 

 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Bleeker 1856) grey reef shark 

 Carcharhinus melanopterus 

 (Quoy &Gaimard 1824) 

 reef black-tip shark 

HEMIGALEIDAE Weasel Sharks, White-tip Reef Sharks 

 Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell 1837) white-tip reef shark 

SPHYRNIDAE Hammerhead Sharks 

 Sphyrna mokarran (Rüppell 1837) great hammerhead shark 

 Sphyrna sp. unidentified Sphyrna species 

DASYATIDAE Sand Rays 

 Taeniura meyeni (Müller & Henle 1841) giant sand ray 

MYLIOBATIDAE Eagle Rays 

 Manta sp. unidentified Manta species 

MURAENIDAE Moray Eels 

 Echidna nebulosa (Ahl 1789) snowflake moray 

 Gymnomuraena zebra 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder 1797) 

 zebra moray 

 Gymnothorax breedini 

 (McCosker & Randall 1977) 

 Breeden’s moray 

 Gymnothorax flavimarginatus (Rüppell 1830) yellow-margined moray 

 Gymnothorax rueppelliae (McClelland 1844) yellow-headed moray 

 Gymnothorax sp. unidentified Gymnothorax species. 

 Uropterygius marmoratus marbled snake moray 

 Uropterygius micropterus tide pool snake moray 

 Uropterygius sp. unidentified Uropterygius species 

MUGILIDAE Mullets 

 Chaenomugil leuciscus acute-jawed mullet 

 Crenimugil crenilabrus fringelip mullet 

 Valamugil engeli Engel’s mullet 

HOLOCENTRIDAE Squirrelfishes and Soldierfishes 

 Myripristis berndti 

 (Jordan & Evermann 1903) 

 bigscale soldierfish 

 Neoniphon opercularis blackfin squirrelfish 

 Sargocentron caudimaculatum 

 (Rüppell 1838) 

 tailspot squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum punctatissimum speckled squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum tiere blue-lined squirrelfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829) 

 Pseudanthias cooperi red-bar fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pascalus fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pleurotaenia fairy basslet 

CARACANTHIDAE Orbicular Velvetfishes 

 Caracanthus maculates (Gray 1831) spotted coral croucher 

SERRANIDAE Sea Basses, Fairy Basslets & Groupers 

 Aethaloperca rogaa redmouth grouper 

 Cephalopholis argus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 peacock grouper 

 Cephalopholis miniatatus (Forsskål 1775) coral grouper 

 Cephalopholis urodeta 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 flagtail grouper 

 Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskål 1775) black-tipped grouper 

 Epinephelus hexagonatus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 hexagon grouper 

 Epinephelus howlandi (Günther 1873) Howland Island grouper 

 Epinephelus macrospilos (Bleeker 1855) black-spotted grouper 

 Epinephelus melanostigmus 

 (Schultz in Schultz et al. 1953) 

 blackspot honeycomb grouper 

 Epinephelus merra (Bloch 1793) honeycomb grouper 

 Epinephelus spilotoceps 

 (Schultz in Schultz et al. 1953) 

 four-saddle grouper 

 Gracila albomarginata 

 (Fowler & Bean 1930) 

 white-margined grouper 

 Luzonichthys whitleyi (Smith 1955) Whitley’s slender basslet 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum 

 (Randall & Lubbock 1981) 

 Bartlett’s fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum var. “red spot” 

 (Randall & Lubbock 1981) 

 Bartlett’s “red spot” basslet 

 Pseudanthias cooperi red-bar fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias olivaceus 

 (Randall & McCosker 1982) 

 fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pascalus fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias pleurotaenia fairy basslet 

 Pseudantias sp. unidentified Pseudantias sp. 

 Variola louti (Forsskål 1775) lyretail grouper 

BELONIDAE Needlefishes 

 Platybelone argulus platyura keeled needlefish 

 Tylosurus crocodilus 

 (Peron & Lesueur in Lesueur 1821) 

 crocodile needlefish 

EXOCOETIDAE Flying Fish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-5 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Exocoetidae sp. unidentified flyingfish species 

HEMIRAMPHIDAE Halfbeaks 

 Hemiramphidae sp. unidentified halfbeak species 

APOGONIDAE Cardinalfishes 

 Apogon angustatus 

 (Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe 1911) 

 broad-striped cardinalfish 

 Apogon apogonides (Bleeker 1856) cardinalfish 

 Apogon taeniophorus (Regan 1908) cardinalfish 

ECHENEIDAE Remoras 

 Remora remora remora 

CARANGIDAE Jacks and Trevallys 

 Carangoides ferdau (Forsskål 1775) bar jack 

 Carangoides orthogrammus 

 (Jordan & Gilbert 1882) 

 yellow-spotted trevally 

 Caranx ignobilis (Forsskål 1775) giant trevally 

 Caranx lugubris (Poey 1860) black jack 

 Carnax melampygus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1833) 

 bluefin trevally 

 Caranx sexfasciatus (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) bigeye trevally 

 Elegatis bipinnulata (Quoy & Gaimar 1825) rainbow runner 

 Trachinotus baillonii pompano 

LUTJANIDAE Snappers 

 Aphareus furca (Lacepède 1801) blue small-tooth jobfish 

 Aphareus rutilans jobfish 

 Aprion virescens jobfish, uku 

 Lutjanus bohar (Forsskål 1775) twinspot snapper, redspot snapper 

 Lutjanus fulvus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 

 flametail snapper 

 Lutjanus gibbus (Forsskål 1775) humpback snapper 

 Lutjanus monostigma 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1828) 

 one-spot snapper 

 Macolor niger black snapper 

 Pristipomoides filamentosus snapper 

CAESIONIDAE Fusiliers 

 Caesio teres (Seale 1906) yellow-back fusilier 

 Pterocaesio tile bluestreak fusilier 

LETHRINIDAE Emperors 

 Gnathodentex aureolineatus (Lacepède 1802) yellowspot emperor 

 Monotaxis grandoculis (Forsskål 1775) bigeye emperor 

 Lethrinus sp. unidentified emperor species 

MULLIDAE Goatfishes 

 Mulloides mimicus (Randall & Guézé 1980) mimic goatfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Mulloides vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish 

 Parupeneus bifasciatus (Lacepède 1801) two-barred goatfish 

 Parupeneus multifasciatus multibarred goatfish 

PEMPHERIDAE Sweepers 

 Pempheris oualensis 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 bronze sweeper 

KYPHOSIDAE Rudderfishes & Sea Chubs 

 Kyphosus cinerascens (Forsskål 1775) highfin rudderfish, snubnose rudderfish 

 Kyphosus vaigiensis (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) lowfin rudderfish, brassy chub 

 Sectator ocyurus rudderfish 

CHAETODONTIDAE Butterflyfishes 

 Chaetodon auriga (Forsskål 1775) threadfin butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon citrinellus speckled butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon lineolatus (Cuvier (ex Quoy & 

 Gaimard) in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 lined butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon lunula (Lacépède 1802) racoon butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon meyeri (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Meyer’s butterflyfish 

 Chaedodon ornatissimus (Cuvier (ex 

 Solander) in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 ornate butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon quadrimaculatus (Gray 1831) fourspot butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon reticulatus reticulated butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon semeion dotted butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon trifascialis chevroned butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon unimaculatus (Bloch 1787) teardrop butterflyfish 

 Forcipiger flavissimus (Jordan & McGregor 

 in Jordan & Evermann 1898) 

 long-nosed butterflyfish 

POMACANTHIDAE Angelfishes 

 Apolemichthys griffisi 

 (Carlson & Taylor 1981) 

 Griffith’s angelfish 

 Apolemichthys xanthopunctatus 

 (Burgess 1973) 

 golden-spotted angelfish 

 Centropyge bicolor Bicolor angelfish 

 Centropyge flavissima 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1831) 

 lemon-peel angelfish 

 Centropyge loricula (Günther 1874) flame angelfish 

 Centropyge vrolikii Pearlscale angelfish 

 Pygoplites diacanthus Regal angelfish 

POMACENTRIDAE Damselfishes 

 Abudefduf sordidus (Forsskål 1775) black-spot sergeant 

 Abudefduf vaigiensis sergeant 

 Abudefduf species unidentified sergeant species 

 Amblyglyphidodan aureus golden damsel 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-7 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Amphiprion chrysopterus orange-fin Anemonefish 

 Chromis acares (Randall & Swerdloff 1973) midget chromis 

 Chromis caudalis blue axil chromis 

 Chromis margaritifer (Fowler 1946) bicolor chromis 

 Chromis xanthura (Bleeker 1854) black chromis 

 Chrysiptera brownriggi Brownrugg’s damoiselle 

 Chrysiptera glauca 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830) 

 gray demoiselle 

 Dascyllus auripinnis yellow-fin dascyllus 

 Lepidozygus tapeinosoma (Bleeker 1856) fusilier damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon phoenixensis

 (Schultz 1943) Phoenix Islands damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon dickii (Liénard 1839) Dick’s damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon imparipennis 

 (Vaillant & Sauvage 1875) 

 bright-eye damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus 

 (Fowler & Ball 1924) 

 Johnston Island damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus jewel damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon leucozonus white-band damsel 

 Stegastes albifasciolatus white-bar gregory 

 Stegastes aureus (Fowler 1927) golden gregory 

 Stegastes fasciolatus (Ogilby 1889) Pacific gregory 

 Stegastes nigricans (Lacepède 1802) dusky farmfish 

 Stegastes sp. or Pomacentrus sp. unidentified damselfish species 

KUHLIIDAE Flagtails 

 Kuhlia sandvicensis (Steindachner 1876) Hawaiian flagtail 

CIRRHITIDAE Hawkfishes 

 Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus (Bleeker 1855) pixy hawkfish 

 Cirrhitops hubbardi Hubbard’s hawkfish 

 Neocirrhites armatus (Castelnau 1873) flame hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites arcatus 

 (Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829) 

 arc-eye hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites forsteri 

 (Schneider in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 freckled hawkfish, blackside hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites hemistictus (Günther 1874) whitespot hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites xanthus (Randall 1963) yellow hawkfish 

 SPHYRAENIDAE Barracudas 

 Sphyraena sp. unidentified Sphyraena species 

 Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum, 1792) great barracuda 

LABRIDAE Wrasses 

 Anampses caeruleopunctatus (Rüppell 1829) blue-spotted wrasse 

 Anampses meleagrides (Valenciennes in yellowtail wrasse 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-8 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840) 

 Bodianus axillaries (Bennett 1832) axilspot hogfish 

 Bodianus prognathus (Lobel 1981) hogfish 

 Cheilinus oxycephalus snooty wrasse 

 Cheilinus trilobatus (Lacepède 1801) tripletail wrasse 

 Cheilinus undulatus (Rüppell 1835) humphead wrasse, Napoleonfish, 

 Napoleon wrasse 

 Coris aygula (Lacepède 1801) clown coris 

 Coris centralis (Randall 1999) coris 

 Coris gaimard (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) yellowtail coris 

 Dioroctacanthus xanthurus wandering cleaner wrasse 

 Gomphosus varius (Lacepède 1801) bird wrasse 

 Halichoeres ornatissinus (Garrett 1863) ornate wrasse fish 

 Hemigymnus fasciatus (Bloch 1792) barred thicklip wrasse 

 Labrichthys unilineatus tubelip wrasse 

 Labroides bicolor (Fowler & Bean 1928) bicolor cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides dimidiatus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1839) 

 bluestreak cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides rubrolabiatus (Randall, 1958) cleaner wrasse 

 Labropsis xanthonota (Randall, 1981) wedge-tailed wrasse 

 Macropharyngodon meleagris (Valenciennes 

 in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839) 

 leopard wrasse 

 Novaculichtyhs taeniourus dragon wrasse, rockmover wrasse 

 Oxycheilinus unifasciatus (Streets 1877) wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus hexataenia (Bleeker 1857) sixline wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus octotaenia (Jenkins 1901) eightline wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia (Schultz in 

 Schultz et al. 1960) 

 fourline wrasse 

 Pseudocoris heteroptera (Bleeker 1857) wrasse 

 Pseudodax mollucanus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840) 

 wrasse 

 Stethojulis bandanensis (Bleeker 1851) redshoulder wrasse 

 Thalassoma amblycephalum (Bleeker 1856) twotone wrasse 

 Thalassoma hardwicke sixbar wrasse 

 Thalassoma lutescens (Lay & Bennett (ex 

 Solander) 1839) 

 sunset wrasse 

 Thalassoma purpureum (Forsskål 1775) surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma quinquevittatum 

 (Lay & Bennett 1839) 

 fivestripe surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma trilobatum (Lacepède 1801) Christmas wrasse 

SCARIDAE Parrotfishes 

 Calatomus carolinus (Valenciennes 1840) bucktooth parrotfish, stareye parrotfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-9 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Chlorurus frontalis (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes 1840) 

 tan-faced parrotfish 

 Chlorurus microrhinus (Bleeker 1854) parrotfish 

 Scarus niger black parrotfish 

 Scarus frenatus (Lacepède 1802) vermiculate parrotfish 

 Scarus oviceps (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1840) 

 dark-capped parrotfish 

 Scarus rubroviolaceus (Bleeker 1847) red and violet parrotfish, redlip parrotfish 

 Scarus tricolor (Bleeker 1847) tricolor parrotfish 

BLENNIIDAE Blennies 

 Blenniella gibbifrons 

 (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) 

 blenny 

 Cirripectes quagga (Fowler & Ball 1924) squiggly blenny 

 Cirripectes sp. unidentified Cirripectes species 

 Cirripectes variolosus (Valenciennes in

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1836) 

 red-speckled blenny 

 Istiblennius edentulous (Schneider in Bloch & 

 Schneider 1801) 

 rippled rockskipper 

 Meiacanthus atrodorsalis poison-fang blenny 

 Plagiotremus laudandus poison-fang blenny mimic 

 Plagiotremus rhynorhynchus (Bleeker 1852) blue-striped blenny 

 Plagiotremus tapeinosoma (Bleeker 1857) piano blenny, scale-eating blenny 

 Rhabdoblennius snowi Snow’s rockskipper 

PTERELEOTRIDAE Dartfishes, Hovergobies, & Wormfishes 

 Ptereleotris zebra zebra dartfish 

ACANTHURIDAE Surgeonfishes & Unicornfishes 

 Acanthurus achilles (Shaw 1803) Achilles tang 

 Acanthurus blochii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1835) 

 ringtail surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus guttatus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 spotted surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus lineatus (Linnaeus 1758) blue-banded surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus maculiceps White-freckled surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus mata (Cuvier 1829) elongate surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigricans (Linnaeus 1758) whitecheek surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigricauda 

 (Duncker & Mohr 1929) 

 epaulette surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigrofuscus (Forsskål 1775) brown surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigroris (Valenciennes in Cuvier 

 & Valenciennes 1835) 

 blue-lined surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus olivaceus 

 (Bloch & Schneider (ex Forster) 1801) 

 orangeband surgeonfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-10 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Acanthurus pyroferus chocolate surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus rackliffei 

 (A. achilles x A. nigricans)(Schultz 1943) 

 hybrid surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus thompsoni (Fowler 1923) Thompson’s surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus triostegus (Linnaeus 1758) convict tang 

 Acanthurus xanthopterus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1835) 

 yellow-finned surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus 

 (Randall & Clements 2001) 

 surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus flavicaudis (Fowler 1938) surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis (Randall 1955) chevron tang, black surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus marginatus (Valenciennes in 

 Cuvier & Valenciennes 1835) 

 blue-spotted bristletooth 

 Ctenochaetus striatus 

 (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) 

 striped bristletooth 

 Naso caesius unicornfish 

 Naso hexacanthus (Bleeker 1855) 

 black-tongue unicornfish, sleek 

 unicornfish 

 Naso lituratus 

 (Forster in Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 liturate surgeonfish 

 Naso unicornis bluespine unicornfish 

 Naso vlamingii (Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

 Valenciennes 1835) 

 bignose unicornfish 

Paracanthurus hepatus Palette surgeonfish, Hepatus tang 

 Zebrasoma rostratum (Günther 1873) tang 

 Zebrasoma scopas (Cuvier 1829) brown tang 

 Zebrasoma veliferum sailfin tang 

EPHIPPIDAE Batfishes 

 Platax orbicularis circular spadefish, batfish 

ZANCLIDAE Moorish Idol 

 Zanclus cornutus (Linnaeus 1758) moorish idol 

SCOMBRIDAE Tunas 

 Euthynnus affinis (Cantor 1849) kawakawa, bonito 

 Gymnosarda unicolor (Rüppell 1836) dogtooth tuna 

 Scomber japonicus Japanese mackerel, saba 

BALISTIDAE Triggerfishes 

 Balistapus undulatus (Park 1797) orangestriped triggerfish 

 Balistoides viridescens 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 mustache triggerfish, titan triggerfish 

 Melichtys niger (Bloch 1786) black triggerfish 

 Melichtys vidua 

 (Richardson (ex Solander) 1845) 

 pinktail triggerfish 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-11 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Odonus niger (Rüppell 1836) redtooth triggerfish 

 Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus 

 (Rüppell1829) 

 yellowmargin triggerfish 

 Rhinecanthus rectangulus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 wedge picassofish, humunukunukuapua‘a 

 Sufflamen bursa (Bloch & Schneider 1801) scythe triggerfish, boomerang triggerfish 

 Sufflamen chrysopterus 

 (Bloch & Schneider 1801) 

 halfmoon triggerfish 

 Sufflamen frenatus bridle triggerfish 

 Xanthichthys caeruleolineatus 

 (Randall et al. 1978) 

 bluelined triggerfish 

MONACANTHIDAE Filefishes & Leatherjackets 

 Aluterus scriptus (Osbeck 1765) scribbled filefish 

 Amanses scopas (Cuvier 1829) broom filefish 

 Cantherhines dumerilii (Hollard 1854) barred filefish 

 Cantherhines pardalis (Rüppell 1837) wire-net filefish 

 Pervagor janthinosoma blackbar filefish 

OSTRACIIDAE Trunkfishes 

 Ostracion meleagris meleagris 

 (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder 1796) 

 spotted trunkfish 

TETRAODONTIDAE Puffers 

 Arothron meleagris 

 (Lacepède (ex Commerson) 1798) 

 guineafowl puffer 

 Arothron nigropunctatus blackspotted puffer 

 Canthigaster amboinensis (Bleeker 1865) Ambon sharpnose puffer 

 Canthigaster solandri 

 (Richardson (ex Solander) 1845) 

 spotted sharpnose puffer 

DIODONTIDAE Porcupinefishes 

 Diodon hystrix (Linnaeus 1758) porcupinefish 

 

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

B-12 Appendix B 

Table B-3: Vegetation of Baker Island NWR. Compiled from unpublished Service trip 

reports and literature 

Scientific Name Common Name, 

(Hawaiian Name) 

Source* Observed 

by** 

Cocos nucifera coconut, niu I h 

Cordia subcordata cordia, kou N a,c,d,e 

Terminalia catappa tropical almond I b 

Ipomoea macrantha W a,b 

Ipomoea pes-caprae beach morning glory W d,e 

Fimbristylis cymosa mauu akiaki N a,e 

Euphorbia hirta asthra weed A a,b,d,e 

Phyllanthus amarus A a,d,e 

Sophora tomentosa yellow neclacepod W e 

Scaevola taccada naupaka W f 

Cassytha filiformia N i 

Barringtonia asiatica fish poison tree W i 

Sida fallax ‘ilima A a,b,d,e 

Thespesia populnea milo I b 

Abutilon indicum abutilon I a,e 

Boerhavia sp. alena N a,b,c,d,e 

Cenchrus echinatus sandbur A e 

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass A e 

Digitaria pacifica Pacific crabgrass N d,e 

Lepturus repens Pacific island thintail N a,b,c,d,e 

Eragrostis tenela love grass 

Eragrostis whitneyi love grass N a 

Setaria verticillata hooked bristle grass A e 

Portulaca lutea portulaca, ‘ihi N a,,b,d,e 

Portulaca oleracea portulaca, ‘ihi A a,,b,d,e 

Suriana maritime bay cedar W f 

Triumfetta procumbens N a,b,e 

Vitex negundo five leaved chaste tree I e 

Tribulus cistoides puncturevine, nohu N a,b,c,d,e 

*Source: N = native, I = introduced, A = accidentally introduced, W = wave carried 

** Collectors and Observers: 

a -Christophersen 1924 e –Long 1964 i – Forsell & Bauer 1988 

b - Bryan 1938 f - Rauzon & Woodside 1998 j – Flint & Woodside 1993 

c - Sibley 1963 g - Depkin & Newton 1995 

d - Marshall 1963 h – Rodman 1935 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-13 

Table B-4: Birds of Baker Island NWR. Numbers are counts of adult birds only and 

compiled from unpublished Service trip reports. Note: No bird species found on Baker are listed 

under to the Endangered Species Act. 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Highest 

count 

since 1973

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Statusb

National 

Shorebird 

Prioritization 

Categorya

Regional 

Seabird 

Conservation 

Categoryc

Phaethon 

rubricauda 

red-tailed 

tropicbird* 

72 Moderate 

Sula 

dactylatra

masked 

booby* 

3,134 Moderate 

Sula 

leucogaster 

brown 

booby* 

375 Moderate 

Sula sula red-footed 

booby* 

714 Currently not 

at Risk 

Fregata 

minor 

great 

frigatebird* 

900 Moderate 

Fregata 

ariel 

lesser 

frigatebird* 

16,200 BCC 68 High Concern

Onychoprion 

lunatus 

graybacked 

tern* 

2,000 Moderate 

Onychoprion 

fuscatus 

sooty tern* 1,600,000 Moderate 

Anous 

stolidus 

brown 

noddy* 

3,600 Currently not 

at Risk 

Procelsterna 

cerulea 

blue-grey 

noddy* 

26 BCC 68 High Concern

Gygis 

Alba 

white tern* 38 Moderate 

Pluvianlis 

dominica 

Pacific 

goldenplover 

512 BCC 68 High Concern 

Tringa 

incana 

Wandering 

tattler 

70 Moderate 

Concern 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-14 Appendix B 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Highest 

count 

since 

1973 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Statusb

National 

Shorebird 

Prioritization 

Categorya

Regional 

Seabird 

Conservation 

Categoryc

Numenius 

tahitiensis 

bristlethighed 

curlew 

26 BCC 68 High Concern 

Arenaria 

interpres 

ruddy 

turnstone 

391 High Concern 

Limosa 

lapponica 

bar-tailed 

godwit 

2 High Concern 

Calidris 

acuminata 

sharp-tailed 

sandpiper 

6 Not Listed 

Calidris 

melanotos 

pectoral 

sandpiper 

2 Low Concern 

Calidris alba sanderling 4 High Concern 

Charadrius 

semipalmatus 

Semipalmated 

Plover 

2 Low Concern 

Larus 

atricilla 

Laughing 

Gull 

1 

*indicates documented breeding species on Baker. 

a

Species prioritization categories according to United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

(Brown et al. 2000). 

b

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) status according to Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 

(USFWS 2002). 

c

Conservation classification according to Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (Englis and 

Naughton 2004) 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 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. 

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. 

Clapp, R. B. and F. C. Sibley. 1965. Biological Survey of Baker Island, March 1963 – May 

1965. Unpublished Report. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C. 

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. 

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

C-2 Appendix C

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. 

Fosberg, F.R. and D. R. Stoddart. 1994. Flora of the Phoenix Islands, Central Pacific. Atoll 

Research Bulletin No. 393. 

Foster Wheeler. 1998. CERCLA Site Inspection. Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Central Pacific Ocean. Final Report. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Lakewood, 

CO. UFSWS Contract No. 14-48-0010-93-004. Task Order 98-Y006 

Hague, J.D. 1862. On phosphatic guano islands of the Pacific. Am. Jour. Sci., Ser. II, 84:224-

243. 

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. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Ed., 2001. Climate Change 2001: The 

Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 881 pp. 

Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in the Palau District of 

Micronesia. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

King, W.B. 1970. The trade wind zone oceanography pilot study. Part VII: observations of 

seabirds March 1964 to June 1965. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. Spec. Sci. Rep. - Fish. 586. 136pp. 

Kirkpatrick R.D. and M.J. Rauzon. 1986. Foods of Feral Cats Felis catus on Jarvis and 

Howland Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. Biotropica 18 (1): 72-75. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-3 

Longhurst, A.R. and D. Pauly. 1987. Ecology of Tropical Oceans. Academic Press, San 

Diego. 407 pp. 

Maude, H. E. 1961. Post-Spanish discoveries in the central Pacific. Jour. Pol. Soc. 70(1):67-111. 

Maragos, J.E., 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). 

Morison, S.E. 1951. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Volume 

Seven. Aleutians, Gilberts and Marshalls. June 1942-April 1944. First Illinois paperback, 2002. 

374 pp. 

Morrison, R.J. 1990. Pacific Atoll Soils: Chemistry, Mineralogy and Classification. Atoll 

Research Bulletin. No. 339: 25p. 

Mundy, B., R. Wass, E. DeMartini, B. Greene, B. Zgliczynski, and R. Schroeder. 2002. Inshore 

fishes of Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef. 

Unpublished ms. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, 80 pp. 

Munro, G.C. 1924. (unpublished) Report of the ornithologist on the USS Whippoorwill 

expedition trip “B” to Howland and Baker Islands. Sept. 15 to Oct. 7, 1924. (Extracted Aug. 4, 

1965, by Roger Clapp) 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 

1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricate). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS). 

1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1991. Climates of the World. 

Historical Climatology Series 6-4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. p. 26. 

Overpeck, J.T., B.L. Otto-Bliesner, G.H. Miller, D.R. Muhs, R.B. Alley, and J.T. Kiehl. 2006. 

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise. Science 

311:1747-1750. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-4 Appendix C

Rodman, J. 1935. Unpublished Diary kept on Baker Island in files of Hui Panala’au in Bishop 

Museum, Honolulu. Cited in Sibley and Clapp, 1965. 

Rauzon, M. J. 1990. Expedition Report: Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge. Administrative 

Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. 

 

Rauzon, M.J. and D.H. Woodside. 1998. Howland Island Trip Report26 4-9 March 1998. 

Administrative Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. 

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. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage 

Centre. 2003. Central Pacific World Heritage Project International Workshop Report, 2-6 June 

2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Paris, 44pp. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage 

Centre. 2004. Central Pacific World Heritage Project, National Workshop Report, 5-11 October 

2004, Kiritimati Island, the Republic of Kiribati. Paris, 11pp. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-5 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1987. Defense Environmental Restoration Program for 

Formerly Used Sites, Inventory Project Report, Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker 

Island Military Reservation) Baker Island, USA. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC). 1963. Reconnaissance Survey Report. Howland, 

Baker & Canton Islands. October, 1963. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations 

Office. Prepared by: Holmes & Narver Inc. Logistics Planning Group. Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 1986. Memorandum to the USFWS Baker and Howland Island 

Surveys. April 1986. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island 

National Wildlife Refuges, Biological Ascertainment Reports. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1975. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island 

National Wildlife Refuges, Narrative Report, FY 1975. Kailua, HI 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. Coral Reef Initiative in the Pacific: Howland 

Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges. Honolulu, HI. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b. Remote islands ecosystem plan: Howland 

Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges. Honolulu, HI. 16 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Special Conditions & Rules for Moving Between Islands and Atolls and 

Packing for Field Camps. Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Palmyra 

Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Arlington, Va. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific 

Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, 

Portland, 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. 

Wallace, J.M. and P.V. Hobbs. 1977. Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey. 

Academic Press. 467 pp. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-6 Appendix C

Willoughby, M.F. 1980. The U.S. Coast Guard in World War II. Arno Press. New York. 347 

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

Appendix D D-1 

Appendix D 

 Quarantine Protocol for Baker Island NWR 

The following protocol was developed to maintain consistency in quarantine procedures for all 

national wildlife refuges (NWRs) in the Pacific. Thus, these provisions apply to all of the remote 

island national wildlife refuges. Some refuges, including Baker, may have additional restrictions 

and requirements.

Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Special Conditions and Rules for 

Moving Between Islands and Atolls and 

Packing for Field Camps 

 

The islands and atolls of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Remotes 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 (Remotes Complex files). 

Several of the islands within the Remotes Complex are especially pristine, and, as a result, are 

diverse in terms of rare and special declining native plants and animals. Nihoa Island has 13 

potential candidate endangered insect species, numerous endangered plants, and 2 endangered 

birds. Necker Island has endangered plants and 7 endemic insects that are candidates for the 

Endangered Species List. Laysan Island has endangered plants, five potential candidate 

endangered insect species and the endangered Laysan finch and Laysan duck. Other islands in 

the Remotes 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” (e.g., Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Kauai) as 

well as, certain islands within Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and French Frigate Shoals 

have native plants and/or animals that are at high risk from introduction to the relatively pristine 

islands discussed above. Of special concerns are introductions of non-native snakes, rats, ants 

and a variety of other insect and plant species. Invasive plants of highest concern are Verbesina 

encelioides, Cenchrus echinatus, and Setaria verticillata.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-2 Appendix D 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for the management and protection 

of the fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats associated with islands of the Remotes 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 Remotes 

Complex exist. Note: Kure Island and Midway Atoll are not part of this refuge Complex. 

With the exception of Johnston Island NWR, Palmyra Atoll NWR, and 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. 

• Otherwise, any personnel entering any vegetated area, regardless of how sparse the 

vegetation, must have new footwear, new clothes and new soft gear all frozen for at least 

48 hours. 

Definitions: 

• “new" means off the shelf and never used anywhere but the island in question. 

• "clothing" is all apparel , shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

• "soft gear" is all gear such as daypacks, fanny packs, camera bags, camera/binocular 

straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or 

any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds or insects. 

Clothing or gear coming off Kure and Midway should never be moved to any of the other refuge 

islands. 

During transit, clothing and gear coming off Kure and Midway must be carefully sequestered to 

avoid contamination of gear bound for other remote islands. Special care must be taken to avoid 

contaminating gear storage areas and quarters aboard transporting vessels with seeds or insects 

from these islands. 

General Rules: 

• Regardless of origin or destination, inspect and clean all equipment and 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. 
Baker 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, Palmyra Atoll, and Johnston Atoll are the exceptions 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 and Johnston Atoll. In addition, there is no requirement for 

freezing or fumigating items disembarked at Tem. Although requirements for Palmyra 

Atoll, Johnston Atoll and Tem Island are more lax, the Remotes Complex 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 Remotes 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. 
Baker 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 (e.g., potatoes, onions, cabbage, 

apples, oranges) are not likely to become established and flourish on the Refuge Complex and 

are allowed. However, other food items such as tomatoes could easily become established. Soil 

can contain many seeds, eggs, larvae, etc., and cannot be transported to or among islands. 

Other food species such as alfalfa, mustard and cress, commonly used for sprouted greens, could 

potentially become established and cannot be brought to the islands. Other species such as mung 

beans, soybeans, and radishes would not likely survive on the islands and can be used for fresh 

greens. A list of fresh foods and seeds that are prohibited is provided below. Permittees should 

contact the Refuge Manager for more information or for questions about items not included on 

this list. 

Strictly Prohibited: 

Tomatoes (any variety), ray sunflower seeds, alfalfa seeds, mustard seeds. 

Bulk dried fruits are allowed but should be frozen solid for at least one day to kill any insects. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 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 Environmental Assessment (EA), public 

notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) decision, and Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) approval, refuge staff would begin to implement the CCP. This 

appendix describes the various partnerships, management plans, staffing and projects required to 

implement the plan over the next 15 years. 

Partnerships

Partnerships are a critical component of implementation of the Baker Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (Baker) CCP. Refuge staff would strengthen existing partnerships with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Hawaii 

Undersea Research Laboratory to implement enhanced law enforcement coverage at this remote 

location and facilitate inventory and monitoring of marine resources. In addition, the refuge staff 

would seek to enhance its volunteer program. Volunteers are critically important in providing 

the logistical support in the Honolulu office and field support required to effectively manage and 

operate year-round field camps at remote locations. 

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is one of several plans necessary for refuge management. The CCP provides guidance 

in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several refuge program areas but may lack 

some of the specifics need for implementation. Given the abbreviated and qualitative once-ayear management activities identified in the preferred alternative, step-down plans would not be 

developed for individual program areas after CCP completion. The Draft Seabird Monitoring 

Assessment for Hawaii and the Pacific islands (Citta and Reynolds 2006), U.S. Pacific Islands 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004), Seabird Conservation Plan 

for the Pacific Region (USFWS 2005), and U.S. Coral Reef Task Force planning efforts would 

be applied to refuge operations described in the preferred alternative. 

Staffing 

The proportion of current staffing and proposed staffing within the Pacific Remote Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex dedicated to Baker are shown in the following tables. 

The proposed staffing indicates a 0.16 full-time-equivalent increase over current levels. This 

represents the difference in staffing needs from visiting Baker biannually to annually. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-2 Appendix E 

Current Staffing for Baker Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 

PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Resource Contaminant 

Specialist 

PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

Proposed Staffing for Baker Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 

PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Resource Contaminant 

Specialist 

PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

Projects 

The table below contains projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Brief project 

descriptions and their associated costs are provided. Funding of these projects would assist 

refuge staff in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP for Baker Island NWR. 

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 

325.25 9 
Baker 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 

seabirds, sea turtles and marine life within thousands of 

square miles of ocean. 

00001 Eliminate Exotic Rodent Species on Remote Pacific 

Islands: Provide biological technicians and transportation 

expenses to restore habitat for pelagic seabirds and 

terrestrial plant and animal species on Howland, Baker and 

Jarvis NWRs. 

194.0 10 

980002 Eliminate Exotic Rodent Species on Remote Pacific 

Islands: Provide Wildlife Refuge Specialist to supervise 

biological technicians and transportation expenses to 

restore habitat for pelagic seabirds and terrestrial plant and 

animal species on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis NWRs. 

174.75 10 

98002 Develop Interpretative Program, Remote Island 

NWRs: Develop a brochure for Baker, Howland and 

Jarvis Island NWRs and host 3 special outreach events 

every year in Hawaii. 

77.875 999 

00006 Staff and Maintain a New Vessel to Accomplish Basic 

Refuge Operations: This vessel will provide basic 

logistical support for 16 islands and remote field stations 

on 9 different national wildlife refuges across the Pacific 

Ocean. The vessel will be similar in size and capability to 

the M/V Tiglax at the Alaska Maritime NWR 

204.8 3 

00018 Inventory and Monitor Coral Reef Resources: Remote 

refuges contain some of the most valuable and spectacular 

marine and coralline resources in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Baker Island NWR is so remote that basic 

knowledge of marine resources is lacking. There is a need 

to perform biennial monitoring of the marine resources at 

this refuge.

137.0 4 

98004 Install Remote Surveillance System: Acquire camera 

equipment and service contract with a satellite 

communications provider to detect incursion by 

unauthorized visitors, such as poachers and commercial 

fishing vessels to assist the Coast Guard and Refuge Law 

Enforcement Officers in investigating illegal activities 

within the Refuge. 

241.2 14 

90100411 Replace Broken, Rotten, and Vandalized Signs: 

Replace degraded entrance signs to deter trespass and 

prevent introduction of invasive species. 

190.0 6 

02121744 Rehabilitate Historic Day Beacon: This beacon not only 

has historic significance, it is also used as a landmark by 

355.0 999 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-4 Appendix E 

Project 

No. 

Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands) 

Station

Rank 

mariners. The beacon requires structural repairs and 

painting. 

00018 Establish Refuge Contaminants Abatement and 

Remediation Program Environmental Toxicologist 

183.75 2 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-1 

Appendix F 

 Wilderness Review for Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 

I. General Information on Wilderness Reviews 

Wilderness review is the process used to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to the United States Congress for designation 

as wilderness. Planning policy for the System (602 FW 3) mandates conducting wilderness 

reviews every 15 years through the Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process. 

The wilderness review process has three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. After 

first identifying lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, the resulting 

wilderness study areas (WSA) are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Areas recommended for 

designation are managed to maintain wilderness character in accordance with management goals, 

objectives, and strategies outlined in the Final CCP until Congress makes a decision or the CCP 

is amended to modify or remove the wilderness proposal. A brief discussion of wilderness 

inventory, study, and recommendation follows. 

Wilderness Inventory

The wilderness inventory consists of identifying areas that minimally meet the requirements for 

of wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). Wilderness is defined 

as an area which: 

• Has at least 5 thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to 

wilderness character through appropriate management at the time of review, or be a 

roadless island; 

• Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; and 

• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value. These features and values, though desirable, are not 

necessary for an area to qualify as a wilderness. 

Wilderness Study

During the study phase, lands and waters qualifying for wilderness as a result of the inventory 

are studied to analyze values (ecological, recreational, cultural, spiritual), resources (e.g.,

wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (habitat management, public use) within the 

area. The findings of the study help determine whether to recommend the area for designation as 

wilderness. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge 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 Congress for approval. 

The following sections summarize the inventory and study phases of the wilderness review for 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). 

II. Wilderness Inventory 

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at the planning area to identify WSAs. These WSAs 

are roadless areas within refuge boundaries, including submerged lands and their associated 

water column, that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness identified in Sect. 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act. A WSA must meet the minimum size criteria (or be a roadless island), appear 

natural, and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Other 

supplemental values are evaluated, but not required. In order to identify WSAs, Baker was 

divided into two inventory units based upon the differences between the terrestrial and marine 

ecological resources. Inventory Unit A is the 531-acre roadless island known as Baker Island, 

and Inventory Unit B is composed of the 31,378 combined acres of coral reefs, submergent lands 

and their associated water column lying within 3 nautical miles (nmi) from the shoreline at the 

mean high water mark of Baker Island. The inventory of roadless areas, submerged lands, and 

associated water column of Baker and application of the wilderness criteria is described in the 

following sections and summarized in Table F-1. 

Evaluation of Size Criteria for Roadless Areas, Roadless Islands, and Submergent Lands and 

Associated Water Column

Identification of roadless areas, roadless islands, and submerged lands and associated water 

column, required gathering land status maps, land use and road inventory data, satellite imagery, 

aerial photographs, and personal observations of areas within refuge boundaries. “Roadless” 

refers to the absence of improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of 

motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use. Wilderness inventory units currently 

owned by the Service in fee title were evaluated. These units include Baker Island and the 

submergent lands and waters lying within 3 nmi of shore. 

 

Inventory units meet the size criteria for a WSA if any one of the following standards applies. 

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in 

making this acreage determination. 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-3 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau 

of Land Management. 

There are no roads on Baker Island, and the submerged lands and associated water column meet 

the minimum acreage criteria, thus both inventory units within the refuge boundary meet one or 

more of the size criteria for wilderness study areas. The physical features of these units are 

described in detail in the Draft Baker CCP/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA), Chapter 3. 

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria

A WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines 

wilderness as an area that “...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural 

to the average visitor rather than “pristine.” The presence of ecologically accurate, historic 

landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some man-made features and human 

impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Human-caused 

hazards, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical 

impacts of refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in the evaluation of the 

naturalness criteria. An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis 

of “sights and sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. The 

cumulative effects of these factors were considered in the evaluation of naturalness for each 

wilderness inventory unit. 

In the wilderness inventory, specific man-made features and other human impacts need to be 

identified that affect the overall apparent naturalness of the tract. Based upon the Preferred 

Alternative contained in the Draft Baker CCP/EA, the following factors were primary 

considerations in evaluating the naturalness of the inventory units: 

Man-made Features: 

• abandoned metal airstrip; 

• day beacon (aid to navigation); 

• derelict airplanes (World War II (WWII) vintage); 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• marine debris, including 11 marine landing crafts (LCMs); 

• abandoned rock building foundations; 

• abandoned military machinery; 

• five wooden poles (long range navigation (LORAN) and communications); 

• trenches filled with rusting remains of hundreds of barrels; 

• contamination from burning thousands of gallons of fuel and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs); 

• electrical debris contaminated with PCBs; 

• batteries, paint, other unidentified contaminants; 

• unidentified large human-made mounds; 

• abandoned military village; 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-4 Appendix F 

• airplane revetments; 

• un-located ammunition dump; 

• two graveyards; 

• cuts in berm to channel and runway approach; 

• mining activity including small ponded area. 

Management Activities: 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• field camp; 

• generators; 

• contaminant remediation activities; 

• invasive species control; 

• collect and stockpile marine debris; 

• migratory bird surveys; 

• marine surveys (including SCUBA); and 

• boat transportation. 

A 4 x 8 foot boundary sign announcing the name and ownership of the island is maintained on 

Baker. The sign is informational in nature, identifying the sanctuary status the island enjoys. 

The primary management intrusion to the naturalness of Baker is during the deployment and 

demobilization of field camps. Transportation from Honolulu, Hawaii across 1,690 nmi of open 

ocean to Baker is only safely and reliably possible with motorized ocean-going marine vessels. 

Once the marine transport vessel arrives at Baker, small boats with outboard motors are deployed 

to transport two biologists and their field camp gear to the island. Once on the island, biologists 

set up tents, sleeping gear, food, and other supplies. Walking surveys occur across the island to 

document bird species presence, potentially hand pull or hand spray invasive plant species, 

inventory cultural sites, and monitor contaminated areas. Marine surveys also occur. They are 

based from the marine vessel primarily using SCUBA. Field camps are planned to last for 2 

days and typically occur once every two years. Occasional field camps with 5-8 individuals 

staying for up to 2 weeks have occurred in the past. During these extended field camps, dieselpowered generators have been used to operate communication equipment. All other mechanical 

equipment such as air compressors for SCUBA equipment 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 Baker is the presence of marine debris that washes onto coral 

reefs and beaches. Attempts to remove and stockpile this debris for eventual removal occur 

during field camps. Otherwise, Baker is an isolated, uninhabited island in the middle of the 

Pacific Ocean for the vast majority of time. 

The terrestrial tract does not meet the naturalness criteria. Considerable evidence of human 

activities and abuse of the island exists. The metal airstrip is plainly evident, as are derelict 

vehicles, airplanes, and buildings. Fuel and other liquid filled drums are in various stages of 

decay, most having released their contents and thereby contaminating the associated soils. At 

present, these man-made features act collectively for the terrestrial portion of Baker not meet the 

naturalness criteria. If at some point in the future funding becomes available to clean up the 

contamination and debris, the terrestrial portion would need to be reevaluated for the naturalness 

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

Appendix F F-5 

The submerged tract meets the naturalness criteria. There is a small channel cut in the coral reef 

to aid navigation, and there are scattered sections of chain and anchor, but these do not detract 

from Baker’s submerged lands meeting the naturalness criteria. Being over 60 years old, new 

coral growth along the channel has made it indistinguishable from adjoining coral reef areas. 

Although the U.S. Navy documented the loss of 11 LCMs in the nearshore waters, their presence 

has yet to be confirmed. Taken collectively, these impacts to naturalness in the marine 

environment are a minor component of the overall marine area. 

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

In addition to meeting the size and naturalness criteria, a WSA must provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. The area does not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and does not need to 

have outstanding opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public 

use and access to qualify under these criteria. Congress has designated a number of wilderness 

areas in the NWPS that are closed to public access to protect ecological resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude 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 

Baker: 

• island size, vegetation, and terrain; 

• distance to habitation, whether mainland or an inhabited island; 

• presence of day beacon or aid to navigation and associated structures; and 

• viewshed within and from refuge boundary. 

Solitude is the overwhelming force that visitors experience on Baker. The island is separated by 

over 1,690 nautical miles from Hawaii, and approximately 1110 nmi from Kiritimati Island 

Atoll, the nearest inhabited island. Expanses of open ocean with no other landform are visible 

from every angle. The island itself, with the exception of a few historical features, is a mixture 

of short grass and shrubs, bare ground, and shoreline beaches and cobble. In the past, field 

camps have been temporary, with only 2 individuals spending 2 days every 2 years. However, 

the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Baker CCP/EA proposes to visit the refuge every year with 

the same number of individuals for the same duration. Underwater, coral reefs are pristine and 

the open-water depths are devoid of human presence. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-6 Appendix F 

Since establishment, Baker has been and will remain closed to general public access in order to 

protect the valuable seabird and marine resource values. Thus, there are no outdoor recreational 

opportunities. 

Both Baker inventory units meet the solitude criteria, but do not meet the primitive unconfined 

recreation criteria. 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” Baker Island and its surrounding 

coral reefs and deep water areas compose a complete and functioning ecosystem. Isolated, 

predator-free islands are valuable and often required for successful seabird nesting. Nearshore 

waters, coral reefs, and associated currents combine and provide food resources for foraging 

seabirds and coral reef communities. The position and underwater gradient of Baker in deep 

ocean currents allows these currents to reach the surface, thereby increasing rates of productivity 

for plants, corals and vertebrate species. These rich ecological resources in a relatively pristine 

and unaltered environment provide unique opportunities for scientific study and environmental 

education. There are no known archaeological resources on Baker. Historically, Baker Island 

was important to early colonization efforts during the guano mining and WWII eras. Historical 

artifacts such as the day beacon, building ruins, and guano mining excavations are present but 

eroded and are distinguishable from the natural environment. One landmark, the Baker day 

beacon, contrasts vividly with the overall expansive vistas of open ocean and island habitats. 

These values are not required for wilderness but their presence compliments the requirements for 

wilderness designation. Please see Chapter 3 of the Draft CCP/EA for a more complete 

description of these supplemental values. 

Inventory Findings and Wilderness Study Areas

Only the marine Inventory Unit B meets the minimum criteria for consideration as WSA (Figure 

F-1), and is identified as: 

• WSA-A: Coral reefs, submergent lands, and associated water column of the Baker Island 

WSA. 

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

Appendix F F-7 

Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-8 Appendix F 

Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary 

Inventory Unit A: 

Baker Island (531 acres) 

Inventory Unit B: 

Submerged lands and waters 

to 3 nmi (31,378 acres) 

Required Components 

(1) Has at least 5000 acres of 

land or is of sufficient size to 

make practicable its 

preservation and use in an 

unconfined condition, or is a 

roadless island. 

Yes. Is a 531-acre roadless 

island. 

Yes. Approximately 31,378 

acres contained within the 

territorial sea from mean high 

tide to 3 nmi. 

(2) Generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable. 

No. The imprint of man’s 

work is substantially 

noticeable. 

Yes. Coral reefs and other 

underwater features untouched 

by humans. 

(3a) Has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude. 

Yes. Uninhabited island 

1,690 nmi from Hawaii. 

Yes. Isolation from habitation 

both on surface and below. 

(3b) Has outstanding 

opportunities for a primitive 

and unconfined type of 

recreation. 

No. Refuge is closed to all 

recreational activities. 

No. Refuge is closed to all 

recreational activities. 

Other Components 

(4) Contains ecological, 

geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historical value. 

Baker day beacon, guano 

mining, colonization ruins, 

WWII military ruins, and 

nesting seabirds. 

Nearly pristine coral reefs and 

associated marine fish, 

mammals, and turtles abound. 

Summary 

Parcel qualifies as a wilderness 

study area (meets criteria 1, 2 & 

3a or 3b). 

No Yes 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-9 

III. Wilderness Study 

The WSA identified in the Wilderness Inventory was further evaluated to determine suitability 

for designation, management, and preservation as wilderness. Considerations in this evaluation 

included: 

• quality of wilderness values; and, 

• capability for management of refuge as wilderness (or manageability) and minimum 

requirements/tools analysis. 

This information provides a basis to compare the impacts of a range of management alternatives 

and determine the most appropriate management direction for each WSA. 

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

The following information considers the quality of the WSAs’ mandatory and supplemental 

wilderness characteristics. 

Size

WSA-A meets the minimum size criteria, being a 31,378-acre marine ecosystem. 

Naturalness

WSA-A generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human uses and activities substantially unnoticeable. Except for the boat channel and 

potential presence of LCMs mentioned in the Wilderness Inventory, all submerged features were 

entirely created by the natural processes of volcanism; wind erosion; wave erosion; water 

erosion; geological subsidence; and reef growth and consolidation from coral, coralline algae, 

and giant clam calcification during the past 50 to 80 million years. Except the boat channel, no 

substantial features were constructed or modified by humans in the marine environment during 

the island’s entire geological history. The impacts of past human presence (boat channel) are 

barely apparent. See Chapter 3 of the Draft Baker CCP/EA for a more detailed description of 

natural and cultural features. Management activities will temporarily disturb the naturalness of 

the area. Temporary field camps on adjacent Baker Island and marine research activities in the 

WSA will require boat access as the only safe, practical and reliable means of transportation. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation

WSA-A offers outstanding opportunity for solitude. Solitude overwhelms the human spirit at 

Baker. The only noise on the island is from pounding surf, winds, buzzing insects, and the calls 

of birds. Underwater, all that is heard is one’s own breath, the surf, and the sound of fish feeding 

on coral. The blue of the sky and sea and the brightness of the stark landscape saturate the visual 

character; and birds, winds, and surf saturate the acoustic character of the refuge. It is hard to 

image a more remote, isolated, and truly more wilderness experience in the entire equatorial 

Pacific than when standing on the island or diving on adjacent reefs. 

There are no permanent improvements of any kind to accommodate visitors to Baker. The 

capacity to reach Baker without substantial investment, preplanning, and permission is 

considerable and further restricts the capability of individuals from reaching the island and 

intruding on the opportunity for solitude. The nearest humans live 330 nmi to the southeast 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-10 Appendix F 

where less than 100 Kiribati people inhabit Kanton Atoll where there is an airfield and dock. 

There are no other inhabitants elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands. These logistical constraints 

contribute to the maintenance of solitude. 

Supplemental Values

WSA-A offers outstanding ecological values with features of scientific, educational, scenic 

interest, and historical value. Nearly pristine coral reefs, reef fish, giant clams, beaches, native 

terrestrial vegetation, unexplored deep slopes, localized upwelling currents, migratory 

shorebirds, and large populations and variety of seabirds are among the strong ecological values. 

The lack of current human impact provides a rare opportunity to study unaltered marine 

ecosystems, and the impact that global climate change may have on these systems. The sheer 

vastness of the ocean landscape, punctuated by a small dot of land, and the multitude of bird and 

marine life attracted to it, provide a sense of awe and spectacular beauty to the landscape. 

Evaluation of Manageability and Minimum Requirements/Tools Analysis 

Originally administered by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Territorial Affairs, the 

Secretary, on June 27, 1974, designated Baker Island and its territorial sea extending to the 3 nmi 

limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930). The Service administers all units of the System 

pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. The 

acquisition authority for establishing the refuge is found in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 

U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). It states the general purpose for establishing the refuge is “... for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...”, and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services” (16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)). The specific purpose for 

establishing Baker is (USFWS 1973), “...the restoration and preservation of the complete 

ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to 

reestablish on Baker so eventually they would eventually reach the great numbers which were 

present there prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” 

There are no valid existing private rights, including mineral rights, associated with this WSA. 

Several management activities are required for the Service to meet responsibilities for managing 

Baker Island and its associated marine waters as a national wildlife refuge as specified in 

relevant legislation and policies. A complete description of management activities can be found 

in Chapter 2 of the Draft Baker CCP/EA. The following is a brief description of management 

activities as they relate to minimum requirement determinations of activities occurring within 

designated wilderness. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 lists several generally prohibited uses including no 

temporary roads, no use of motor vehicles, no motorized equipment or motorboats, no aircraft 

landings, no other forms of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation. However, 

Section 4(c) also states an exception to these general prohibitions: “...as necessary to meet 

minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...” 

Examples of actions that may satisfy this exception include recreational developments such as 

trails, bridges, and signs. 

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

Appendix F F-11 

WSA-A on Baker can be managed to preserve its wilderness character in perpetuity, recognizing 

that using a “minimum requirements” approach would be required for all activities. Existing 

refuge management activities within the WSA is consistent with management direction in the 

Wilderness Act and current Service wilderness stewardship policy in the Refuge Manual (6 RM 

8). These management activities include: motorized marine vessel transportation to and from 

Baker; small motorboat operations used in deployment and demobilization of field camp 

operations; survey and monitoring of marine habitat including the use of SCUBA equipment; 

and control of invasive species. None of the current or expected refuge management activities 

would permanently diminish the wilderness character of WSA-A. Additionally, there are no 

plans to construct permanent facilities or structures to accommodate these uses or activities. 

Located in the central Pacific Ocean, transportation to Baker can only occur with the use of 

ocean-going marine vessels. The only practical and safe mode of vessel propulsion is gas or 

diesel powered engine. While it is possible to use sail power to navigate to the island, the 

reliability of mechanical engines provides a margin of safety to escape extreme weather hazards, 

or proceed on course and on time in the absence of wind. For the same reasons of safety and 

practicality, small motorized vessels are used to transport equipment and personnel from the 

transport vessel to the island to establish field camps and conduct biological survey and 

monitoring activities. Rough surf, shallow coral reefs, and strong winds preclude the use of nonmotorized craft to safely navigate these hazards. 

Monitoring of the marine ecosystem occurs from scientists based aboard the marine 

transportation vessel. Small motorboats often provide safe transportation to specific research 

sites near Baker. SCUBA equipment is often used to complete marine surveys and is the only 

safe and practical method of conducting underwater marine surveys. 

In summary, safety, practicality, and effectiveness require the occasional use of management 

programs and associated tools (some of which are generally prohibited by the Wilderness Act) to 

pursue achievement of refuge purposes, goals and objectives. Current and proposed refuge 

management would be consistent with wilderness designation and management of both WSAs. 

Although occasionally diminished, none of the resource values identified above would be 

permanently impacted because of wilderness designation and the management described herein. 

IV. Development of Alternatives 

 

After evaluating the quality of wilderness values, manageability, minimum management 

requirements, the following alternatives were developed and analyzed for wilderness 

designation. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under this alternative, no WSAs would be recommended as suitable for wilderness 

designation. The refuge lands and waters would be managed as they have been in the past 

to accomplish refuge purposes in accordance with legal and policy guidance for the 

System. 

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

F-12 Appendix F 

Alternative B 

WSA-A, which includes the submerged lands and associated water column would be 

immediately recommended for inclusion in the NWPS. Selection of this alternative would 

require the completion of an Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)

WSA-A, which includes the submerged lands and associated water column of Baker would 

be recommended for inclusion in the NWPS. The wilderness study area would be 

managed to ensure that its wilderness character was not adversely impacted. However, the 

recommendation to include this area in the NWPS would be postponed until such time that 

CCPs and their associated wilderness inventories and studies for remote Pacific Island 

NWRs were completed. At such a time, a wilderness study report and associated LEIS that 

encompasses remote Pacific island refuges would be prepared. Alternative D is identified 

here as the Preferred Alternative for the Wilderness Review of Baker, and is a component 

of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Baker CCP/EA. 

 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study

Federal agencies are required by National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to 

rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly 

discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 

CFR 1502.14). It was determined that there was no benefit in analyzing partial wilderness 

alternatives. There are no feasible or practical boundary adjustments that would improve 

the manageability of this WSA. 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G G-1 

Appendix G 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

for Implementation of the 

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Baker Island NWR. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The CCP planning 

process is conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act implementing 

procedures, Department of Interior (Interior) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

procedures, and is performed in coordination with the affected public. Procedures used to 

reach this decision meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations in 40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508. These procedures include: the development of a range of alternatives 

for the Baker CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and public involvement 

throughout the planning process. 

The CCP management objectives and alternatives are integrated into an environmental 

assessment (EA) document and process, including the release of a Draft CCP/EA for a 30-

day public comment period. Public notices of availability of the Draft CCP/EA include a 

Federal Register notice, news releases to local media outlets, the Service’s refuge planning 

website, and planning updates. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA and planning updates were 

distributed to an extensive mailing list. In addition, the Service met with staff from the 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Revisions in the Final CCP are based on public 

comments received from the Draft CCP/EA. Comment letters and Service response to 

comments can be found as an Appendix in the Final CCP. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S. C.470 et seq.). This act requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), State or Territorial Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Park Service 

(NPS) for any proposed actions that may affect cultural resources eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Consultation has occurred with the ACHP and NPS for their 

input. Consultation with a State Historic Preservation Officer is not required for this 

proposal because Baker Island NWR lies outside any state jurisdiction. No Territorial 

Historic Preservation Officer is assigned to Baker Island NWR. Rather 

territories/possessions lie in the jurisdiction of the ACHP. 

The management of archaeological and cultural resources of Baker Island NWR complies 

with the regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historic 

properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places have been 

identified on Baker Island NWR. No historic properties are known to be affected by the 

proposed action based on the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as an undertaking defined 

in 36 CFR 800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW 2. Determining whether a particular action has 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-2 Appendix G 

a potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that occurs as step-down and 

site-specific project plans are developed. Should historic properties be identified in the 

future, the Service will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act if any 

management actions have the potential to affect any these properties. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Secretarial Order 3127, and Section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (10 U.S.C. 2701-2706, 2810-2811). Contamination 

resulting from military occupation is required to be mitigated as a Formerly Used Defense 

Site (FUDS). Any FUDS is part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

(DERP), administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE is responsible 

for the identification, investigation, research and development, and cleanup of contamination 

from hazardous substances, and pollutants and contaminants; correction of environmental 

damage such as detection and disposal of unexploded ordnance; and demolition and removal 

of unsafe buildings and structures at former Department of Defense sites. In 1986, the ACOE 

maintain they have completed their responsibilities under DERP. 

 

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206 American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the 

refuge manager determined that there are no tribal governments associated with Baker Island 

NWR. Thus, there was no coordination with any American Indian tribe. 

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

other affected Federal agencies has been completed through personal contact by Service 

planners, refuge managers, and supervisors. In addition, the refuge manager determined 

there are no local, state or tribal governments associated with Baker Island NWR. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and 

Indian Tribes in the United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or 

environmental effects were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, 

or anyone else. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703-712). Baker Island NWR is an 

important site for migratory shorebirds and nesting seabirds. Protecting nesting seabird 

habitat is the major purpose of the refuge, and is consistent with the provisions of MBTA. 

All of the proposed alternatives would be consistent with the refuge purpose and the MBTA 

in protecting of these birds, although the proposed action would afford more benefits. This 

planning effort is being coordinated with other offices of the Service and Interior that have 

responsibilities pertaining to the MBTA. 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds. This Order directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G G-3 

implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A provision of the Order directs Federal agencies 

to consider the impacts of their activities, especially in reference to birds on the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). It also directs agencies to 

incorporate conservation recommendations and objectives found within the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by Partners in Flight 

(PIF) into agency planning. Species selected as focal conservation targets in the CCP were 

identified from multiple sources including pertinent BCC lists, applicable Flyway 

Management Plans, and regional seabird and shorebird conservation plans. The effects of all 

alternatives on focal conservation targets were assessed during this planning process. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). The ESA provides for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal 

action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for the 

determination and listing of endangered and threatened species and the designation of critical 

habitats. Section 7 of the ESA requires refuge managers to perform consultation before 

initiating projects that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Baker Island NWR provides feeding and potential nesting habitat for two listed species of 

endangered sea turtle: the endangered hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata and the 

threatened green turtle Chelonia mydas. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. Seq.), the Service, as a component of 

this CCP/EA, evaluated potential impacts to the two listed turtle species. It was determined 

that undertaking any action as part of any alternative in this CCP will have no affect on either 

of the two turtle species. Therefore, formal consultation with NOAA-National Marine 

Fisheries Service is not required and will not be initiated. 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires the Service to develop and implement a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. These conservation plans identify and 

describe a refuge purpose; refuge vision and goals; fish, wildlife, and plant populations and 

related habitats; archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; issues that may affect 

populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and 

improve biological diversity of the refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). The Wilderness Act requires the 

Service to evaluate the suitability of Baker for wilderness designation (Appendix F) and has 

found that the marine wilderness inventory unit met wilderness study area criteria. 

Recommendation for portions of Baker to be included in the Wilderness Preservation System 

is deferred until such time that other remote Pacific island refuges are evaluated for 

wilderness designation and a combined proposal as part of a larger comprehensive 

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. 

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

G-4 Appendix G 

Federal waters by NOAA in consultation with Regional Fisheries Management Councils that 

develop fisheries management plans (FMPS) subject to NOAA approval, monitoring and 

implementation. The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WESPAC) 

and NOAA have implemented and approved several FMPS that apply to U.S. insular Pacific 

waters. The FMPS were all implemented after Baker Island NWR was established in 1974 

and include plans for: 1) pelagic fish; 2) bottom fish including some reef species; 3) 

crustaceans including lobsters; and, 4) precious corals. Commercial activities including 

commercial fishing are prohibited in surrounding marine water and benthic habitat out to the 

3 nautical mile (nmi) limit because Baker 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, pers. 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 

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

Appendix G G-5 

The Proposed Action and other alternatives are consistent with the spirit and intent of these 

policies. Baker Island NWR 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 
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-6 Appendix G 

This page left intentionally blank.