Howland 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

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

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i 

Howland 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 Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 Box 50167

 Honolulu, HI 96850 

 (808) 792-9550 

Abstract: Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (Howland) 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 

Howland and the operational support needed to carry out comprehensive conservation. Four

conservation plan alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are 

described, compared, and assessed for Howland. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The selection of Alternative A would adopt 

and continue current refuge management practices conducted during short staff visits (i.e. 1-2 

days) at approximately 2-year intervals. Management activities described in Alternatives B, C, 

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

Action Alternative. Alternatives C and D describe desired improvements over current 

management that enhances protection of wildlife through increased surveillance, enforcement, 

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

measures that would be desirable from a comprehensive conservation perspective, it is beyond 

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

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

alternative and describes improvements over current management that could be implemented 

until such time that management activities described in Alternative 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 Howland but does not alter the scale or scope of the management 

activities. 
Howland 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 

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

access Howland 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).
Howland 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 

Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (Howland) 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 longterm adaptive management process including implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating, 

adjusting and revising the CCP accordingly. Additional step-down planning would be required 

prior to implementation of certain programs and projects. 

This document combines a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and an Environmental 

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

understanding the various components of this combined document. 

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

establishment of and purposes for Howland; 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 Howland. 

Alternatives C and D describe progressively more intensive management activities if 

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

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

all alternatives and identifies those eliminated from detailed consideration. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

avoidable consequences. 

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

involvement and interagency coordination during the planning process. 

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

terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader.

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

refuge. 
Howland 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 Howland Island describes mandatory precautions for 

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

species and hazardous materials. 

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

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

describes projects and costs associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

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

This appendix lists the criteria used in conducting the wilderness review. Howland appears to 

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

Appendix G: Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Howland Island 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes the executive orders 

and legislative acts that apply to this CCP.
Howland 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 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 ........................................................................... 1-3 

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

1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific ................................................................... 1-7 

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

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

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

1.6 Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................ 1-14 

1.7 Refuge Goals...................................................................................................................1-14 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

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 (Status Quo)....................................................................2-4 

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

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

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

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

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

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements ..............................................2-15 

2.6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale......................................................2-16 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

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

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

3.3 Global Climate Change.....................................................................................................3-2 

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

3.5 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................3-6 

3.6 Air and Water Quality.......................................................................................................3-6 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants............................................................................................ 3-6 

3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats ..................................................................................3-7 

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

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals..................................................................................... 3-8 

3.9.2 Shorebirds ..................................................................................................................3-8 

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

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

3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish and Wildlife................................................................................. 3-9 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

vi Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents 

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 .....................................................................................................................3-11 

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 ............................................................................3-13 

3.12 Invasive Species ...........................................................................................................3-13 

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

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

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

3.16 Socio-economics...........................................................................................................3-18 

Chapter 4: Environmental Effects

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 and Climate............................................................................................. 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 

Chapter 5: Compliance, Consultation and Coordination with Others

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

Appendix A

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

Appendix B

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

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

Table B-2 ............................................................................................................................ B-4 

Table B-3 .......................................................................................................................... B-14 

Table B-4 .......................................................................................................................... B-15 

Appendix C

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

Appendix D

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

Appendix E

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

Appendix F

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

 Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary.............................................................................F-7 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents vii 

Appendix G

 Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Howland 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 Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary.1-9 

List of Tables 

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

 Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Cost Comparison of Various Field Camp Configurations...... 2-16 

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

Howland 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 Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (Howland). Once finalized, the CCP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

containing programs for habitat management and restoration, ecological monitoring and 

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

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

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

responsible for implementing the approved CCP. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1.2.1 Proposed Action 

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

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

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

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

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

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

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

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

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

1.2.2 Purpose and Need 

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

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

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

System Improvement Act of 1997 amended the NWRS Administration Act. According to the 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-2 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

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

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

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

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

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

observation, interpretation, environmental education, and photography. 

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

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

15 years. Specifically, the CCP: 

• sets a long term vision; 

• establishes wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives; 

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

educational uses; 

• identifies strategies for habitat enhancement and restoration projects; 

• describes the highest monitoring and research priorities; and 

• describes and evaluates wilderness values. 

1.3 Description of Planning Process 

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

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

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

review. This Draft CCP/EA is intended to meet the dual requirements of compliance with the 

NWRS Administration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both the 

NWRS Administration Act and NEPA require the Service to actively seek public involvement in 

the preparation and adoption of environmental and conservation documents and policies. 

Furthermore, NEPA also requires the Service to consider a reasonable range of alternatives 

including its Preferred Alternative and the “No Action” alternative; the latter defined as 

continuation of current management practices. 

1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance 

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

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

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

authority, Service policy, Federal laws and executive orders, and international treaties. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need 1-3 

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

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

was established or the mission of the System. Following is a discussion of concepts and 

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

relevant supplemental guidance documents. 

1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

refuge in 1903. Since that time, the number of refuges has expanded to include 545, totaling 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended

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

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

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

is the priority of System lands and that the Secretary shall ensure that the biological integrity, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service policy that each CCP is developed in an open public process. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-4 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

and future generations of Americans.” 

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

(601 FW 1, July 2006)....” 

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

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

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

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that are strategically distributed 

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

ranges. 

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

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

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

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

education and interpretation). 

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

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

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

principals for the refuge are located and documented. 

Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW1)

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

appropriate refuge uses. Serving as a “prescreening” for proposed uses of a national wildlife 

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

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need 1-5 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

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

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

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

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

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

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Compatibility (603 FW2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

planning and management. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 

 

Wilderness (602 FW 3) 

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-6 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

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

included in Appendix F. 

General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (605 FW1)

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

on refuge lands and identifies visitor service standards. 

1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific 

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

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

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

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

Complex also co-manages the newly established Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

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

Hawaii. 

Within this administrative structure is a subset of eight 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 Howland. Staff, funding, and logistical 

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

The preferred alternative for the Howland CCP identifies several management strategies that are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-8 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

1.4.4 Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary 

Refuge Establishment

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

May 13, 1936, placing control and jurisdiction of Howland Island with the Secretary of the 

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

(Secretary), on June 27, 1974, designated Howland 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 Howland, 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 Howland 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. 

Special consideration must be given to the protection of nesting seabird populations.” 

Refuge Boundary

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

Howland includes: 

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

limit.” (39 Federal Register 27930). 

The emergent land area for Howland encompasses 648 acres and submerged lands and waters 

within the three-mile limit encompass 33,671 acres for a total of 39,319 acres. 

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

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need 1-9 

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

1-10 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

1.4.5 Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans 

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

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

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

established. 

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

Wildlife Refuge 

The ecosystem plan for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis identifies Howland as having a reef that is 

“...healthy and provides habitat for giant clams” (USFWS 1998b). The plan further implies that 

all three islands represent models of intact ecosystem components that are either pristine in 

nature, have been, or are being managed and restored to pre-human contact conditions. 

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

Wildlife Refuges 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NMFS and USFWS 1998) 

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

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) 

and the Service share responsibility at the Federal level for the research, management, and 

recovery of Pacific marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. 

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

USFWS 1998) 

Few green turtles are known to forage in the waters surrounding Howland Island and nesting is 

not known to occur. However, data from the area is limited and use of Howland may be greater 

than currently documented. Both the NMFS and the Service share responsibility at the Federal 

level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific marine turtle populations under U.S. 

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

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need 1-11 

U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004) 

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

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

uninhabited islands are important for shorebirds. Population and habitat goals for this subregion 

state that determining population size and trends for bristle-thighed curlews and other shorebirds, 

and their habitats is a management priority. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2000) 

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

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

this plan notes that these islands provide wintering habitat essential to the maintenance of these 

species as well as several other migratory shorebird species. 

Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (USFWS 2005) 

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. 

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 may do so in the future. 

1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities 

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

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

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

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

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

1-12 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

Issue 1: Operational Limitations 

Howland is located approximately 1,815 nmi from the management staff located in Honolulu, 

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

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

• distance from refuge headquarters; 

• lack of affordable and reliable transportation; 

• lack of infrastructure to support field operations; 

• extreme environmental conditions; and 

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

small boats. 

Issue 2: Biological and Ecological Resources 

Biological and ecological information sufficient for management or conservation purposes is 

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

ecological information does not 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 island opens the opportunity for invasive species introductions, limits the ability to remove 

marine debris, and delays in response to vessel groundings. 

Global climate change (see Chapter 3.3) may also affect refuge resources, but is beyond control 

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

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

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

However, the extent and nature of these impacts, if any, is unclear and the subject of 

considerable academic debate. 

Issue 4: Public Use Resources 

The key issues related to public use are: 

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

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

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

• to what extent the use should occur; and 

• how the use should be managed. 

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

access to Howland is managed through use of a refuge-issued Special Use Permits (SUP). 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need 1-13 

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

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

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

obtained a SUP after an initial inquiry. 

 

Issue 5: Education and Outreach 

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

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

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

The remote location and isolation of Howland 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 

 

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

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

agencies/organizations share include: 

• expedition planning; 

• collaborative research projects; and 

• jurisdictions of trust resources. 

Most access for refuge staff to Howland 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 Howland’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 Howland is as follows. 

 

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

island ecosystems are still intact and relatively free of human impacts. 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, 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-14 Chapter 1 - Introduction, Purpose and Need

plants, corals, and other invertebrates. Nesting and foraging seabirds dominate the 

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

natural world. 

1.7 Refuge Goals 

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

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

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

along with objectives and strategies in Chapter 2.6. 

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

tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit of seabirds. 

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

remote tropical Pacific Islands. 

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

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

endangered species, and species of management concern. 

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

and marine communities. 

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.1 Development of Alternatives 

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

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

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

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

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

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

refuge goals and objectives. These alternatives provide different ways to address and respond to 

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

All of the major issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and addressed for 

each alternative. The four alternatives are summarized below: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and other debris would be restricted to the 1 to 2 day period that occur once every 2 

years. Transportation to and from Howland would be provided by NOAA or other 

partners, at the discretion and capability of the partner. 

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

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

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

alternative. One additional activity, the placement of solar powered electronic radio calls 

used to encourage seabird nesting activity would be implemented. Increased monitoring 

in the marine environment would be dependent upon partnership opportunities developed 

with NOAA, the University of Hawaii, or other partners. Transportation to and from the 

island would rely upon NOAA or other partners providing arrangements similar to those 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

provided in the No Action Alternative. Public use and access would remain closed and 

be administered as described in the No Action alternative. 

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

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

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

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

monitoring of seabird populations would create greater understanding of migration and 

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

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

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

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

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

and be administered as described in the No Action alternative. 

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

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

Howland’s wildlife resources would be possible. The primary difference between these 

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

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

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

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

alternative. 

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

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

that defines the rationale for selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

2.2 Similarities among Alternatives 

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

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

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

2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D) 

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

and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

support greater numbers or staff-days on the refuge. 

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

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

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

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

use of hand-held lights.

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

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

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

Other quarantine precautions include prohibiting fresh fruits or vegetables, cardboard 

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

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

pesticides, where appropriate, may also occur. 

• Scientific Information Exchange. Refuge staff currently attend various professional 

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

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

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

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

with some alternatives.

• Preservation of Wilderness Values. Since its establishment, Howland 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, Howland has never been formally opened to public 

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

individual opportunities for compatible use such as specific research projects would 

continue to be administered using individual SUPs. 

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

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

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

invasive species, marine debris, and the System. Interpretative displays are also used 

periodically at conventions and professional meetings. 

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

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

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

cultural resources would be required prior to management activity that would potentially 

disturb surface or subsurface resources. 

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

alternatives. 

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

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

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

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

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

be removed during field camp demobilization. 

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

alternative. 

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. 

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

calls as seabird nesting attraction devices designed to attract Phoenix petrels (Pterodroma 

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

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

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

depleted or extirpated throughout much of their range. The mammal-free status of 

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

breeding population of each species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pacific Island NWRs as part of their CCP processes. 

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

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

vehicle (ROV) to operate at depths between 50 -100m may be possible across all action 

alternatives. 

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives 

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

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

compares the cost estimates for each alternative. 

 

2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) 

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

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

Complex office would continue to maintain jurisdiction and management of Howland Island and 

the associated coral reefs and marine habitats out to 3 nmi as a NWR. Site visits to Howland 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

would be arranged through the cooperation of partner agencies such as NOAA, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and other organizations providing berths for refuge staff. During these staff visits, two 

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

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

visiting cultural resources, and collecting and stockpiling marine debris. The brief and 

infrequent visits in this alternative preclude any habitat management other than stockpiling 

entrapment hazards that may wash ashore or remain because of human habitation during the 

guano mining era. 

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

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

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

Hawaii will take approximately 6 to 7 days to arrive at Howland with intermediate stops at 

Palmyra Atoll or Johnston Atoll 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. 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 such as the Amelia 

Earhart day beacon will be visited with observations made about condition and deterioration. 

The only active management that occurs during these site visits is the collection and on-island 

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

that utilize Howland. 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 Howland, marine scientists from NOAA, the Service, 

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

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

while others require the use of SCUBA equipment. 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 is also 

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

percent coral cover. These data are collected over a 2-day period (six 1-hour dives). Following 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

the voyage, data from marine scientists is provided to the Service and includes a full range of 

oceanographic, bathymetric, and marine biological data. 

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

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

Typically, the other two nearby refuges (Baker 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 

Atoll 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 Howland, Baker, 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 Howland and 

slightly alter the current management regime. Habitat assessments and wildlife monitoring data 

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

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

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

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

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

increase in the number of site visits, refuge staff in Honolulu would be administratively burdened 

to seek additional funding sources and develop partnerships for additional visits. This may take 

the form of producing internal project proposals (RONS), or seeking funding support through 

grants or partnerships with other agencies, research institutions, and non-government 

organizations. The only additional terrestrial management activities that would occur under this 

alternative would be promoting nesting use by two seabird species with the use of solar powered 

electronic calling devices. Phoenix petrel calls would be placed near the kou grove, and the 

Polynesian storm-petrels calls near the coral slab habitat on the north beach crest. 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 Howland would increase under this alternative. Seasonal field camps 

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

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

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

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

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

present on the island during each month of the year. Due to the relatively short duration of each 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 research 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 Howland would foster a better understanding of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vessel was near the island during deployment and demobilization. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the debris for off-site removal during demobilization activities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

turtle or marine mammal use outside of nearshore waters. 

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

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

seabird productivity, and other ecological attributes. These biotic and abiotic characteristics 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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 Amelia Earhart day beacon could be accomplished during one of the 3-year 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

activities to minimize the impacts. 

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

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

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

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

agencies and organizations for access to Howland and other refuges. 

2.3.4 Alternative D 

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

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

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

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

is an integral component of this alternative. Interim staff change and 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. 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 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

also be able to provide access to Howland 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 Howland and other Pacific Island refuges to serve as baseline sites for 

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

changing oceanographic conditions near the equator could be investigated. 

2.3.5 Summary 

The ability of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to contribute to meeting the mission of 

the System, “...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” is limited. Likewise, the No Action and the Preferred Action provide a minimal 

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

ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Special consideration must be given to the protection of 

nesting seabird populations.” A 1 to 2 day visit to the island once every 2 years or once every 

year respectively does not provide the opportunity for refuge staff to complete anything other 

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

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

Action or Preferred Alternative. 

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

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

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

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

implications and impacts of global climate change on seabird populations. However, lack of 

projected budget and staffing preclude management staff from looking for increased 

management activity beyond what is proposed in 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 Howland in custodial status, or in other words doing less than the No 

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

visits Howland once every two years, thereby managing the refuge just above a custodial or bare 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, or the Administration Act. Custodial 

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

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

island ensures U.S. Sovereignty. Eliminating visitation by placing the refuge in custodial status 

may jeopardize the U.S. claim of territorial ownership. Thus, custodial status as an alternative 

was not further evaluated. 

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

wilderness recommendation. Recommendation for wilderness designation as a component of 

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

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

 

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

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

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 Table 2.1 Summary of CCP Actions, by Alternative Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Access to Refuge 

Voyage Preparation and Administration 

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

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

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

LoyeaFunannopeshaNW

Method/Cost of Voyage Transportation 

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

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

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

TraaboSerreqannprorefthaalte

Frequency of Site Visit One- to 2- day visit 

every 2 years. 

One- to 2-day visit every year. 

Annually host a 4-month per year field camp. 

A camyea

Field Camp Duration and Staff Required 

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

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

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

Twrouestand witisla
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-12 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and StrategiesKey Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Quarantine Procedures Standard, strict visitation 

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

 Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Seabirds, Other Wildlife, and Habitats 

Seabird Monitoring Basic monitoring of 

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

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

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

Funof seaspeabuevemomo

Seabird Nesting Restoration 

There is no current management activity to restore nesting seabirds. 

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

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

Usin acalmoMaequannfor occyeamoRecon
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Other Wildlife and Habitat Monitoring 

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

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

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

Easpeabshabpreof abi(temspe

Vegetation Mapping None. None. Mapping of vegetation 

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

Mawilcampatnot 

Habitat Management Activities 

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

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

Control of invasive species occurs as occurrences are detected. 

Cospeocc

Wilderness 

Wilderness Resource Management 

Refuge activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Management activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Management activities will continue to preserve wilderness resource values. 

Mawilwilval

Wilderness Study Area No current WSA. WSA identified. 

Wilderness recommendation delayed until all Pacific Island CCPs are complete. 

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

WSWirecuntCC
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-14 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and StrategiesKey Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action

(Current Management) 

Alternative B Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C Alt

Marine Monitoring 

Marine Exploration No current activity. Deep slope monitoring 

by ROV proposed, but dependent upon funding. 

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

Deby dep

Marine Monitoring Marine ecosystem 

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

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

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

Mamoestcomyeasite

Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resource Cultural resources 

preserved. 

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

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

Cupreculreqestlon

Recreational, Educational and Research Use 

Recreational, Educational, and Research Use 

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

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

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rotational schedule that would include deployments at Howland, Jarvis and Baker, 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 Howland. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

Field Camp Budget 

for Howland 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Staff $17,000 (0.3 

FTE every 2 

years) 

$34,000 (0.3 

FTE per year) 

$66,000 (0.66 

FTE per year) 

$200,000 (2 FTE 

once every 5 

years) 

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

Remote Sensing 

equipment 

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

Remote Sensing 

operations 

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

Deep sea exploration N/A $25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

$25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

$25,000 per 

submersible 

vessel dive 

Seabird recolonization 

initiative 

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

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

for 50 days = 

$600,000 per 

year 

N/A 

Vessel Purchase (one 

time cost) 

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

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

every 5 years 

Adjusted annual 

personnel and 

operating costs 

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

2.6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale 

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

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

the Refuge System Mission. 

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

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

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

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

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

accomplish objectives. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a 

variety of management goals, objectives and implementation strategies. 

The goals for Howland over the next fifteen years under the CCP are presented on the following 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Readers, please note the following: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

will not be used in that alternative. 

 

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

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

seabirds. 

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

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

mosaic of approximately 648 acres of terrestrial habitat consisting of 30 acres of beach 

and beach strand, 500 acres as short grass and forbs, 6 acres as scrub shrub, and 112 acres 

as bare ground on Howland Island as nesting habitat for ≥ 11 seabird species. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

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

Conduct and record incidental observations 

of invasive species. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Control and where possible, eradicate 

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

tools including hand pulling and selective 

application of pesticides. 

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

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

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

IPM tools as needed to protect nesting 

seabirds. 

 ✓ ✓

Adhere to strict quarantine protocols for all 

island visitors (see Appendix D). 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Collect and stockpile marine and other 

human debris not considered to be 

historically important. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove stockpiled marine and other debris. ✓ ✓ 

Rationale: 

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

and Appendix B). Masked and brown boobies prefer to nest on bare open ground. Graybacked, sooty, and white tern, and brown and blue grey noddy also nest on the surface, 

but are tolerant of vegetated areas. Lesser frigatebirds, typically known as a shrub 

nesting species, are found exclusively on the ground at Howland. Red-tailed tropicbirds 

prefer shaded areas and can be found nesting on the surface, under coral slabs, or in 

shrubs. Red-footed booby and great frigatebird are the only two exclusive shrub nesting 

species. 

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

important and varied breeding habitat, specifically Howland as being important for 

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

areas of upwelling currents with important food resources for seabirds. 

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

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

previously established for all island visitors in order to eliminate the threat of introducing 

invasive plants, insects, and animals (see Appendix D). 

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

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

reducing the entanglement threat. 

Objective 1b: Increase baseline information on terrestrial habitat. 

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

species presence/absence and distribution on Howland 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 of island 

vegetation. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct inventory of plant species 

distribution, including use of GPS and 

vegetation transects. 

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

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

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 Howland to adequately quantify habitat on 

Howland, 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 Howland, 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 Howland. 

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 33,671 acres of 

submerged lands consisting of an estimated 3,000 acres coral reef and 30,671 acres of 

deep water/pelagic habitat on Howland. 

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 Howland extends to 3 nmi 

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

Threats to the coral reef system include invasive species such as crown-of-thorns starfish 

and marine debris (e.g. abandoned fishing gear) that collects on corals, smothering or 

breaking them. The responsibility for protecting, managing, and conserving coral reef 

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

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

have occurred at Howland. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

Objective 2b: Increase baseline information on marine community. 

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

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

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

Alternatives Alt A AltB2 Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

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

Conduct and record incidental observations 

of corals, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, 

and their habitats. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Accompany NOAA or other scientific 

partners on marine surveys. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct REA (Rapid Ecological 

Assessments) on all existing survey routes to 

document coral, fish and turtle density, 

diversity, distribution, and habitat 

associations. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Develop proposals and conduct deep slope 

marine surveys by ROV (remotely operated 

vessel) to document presence/absence of 

deep slope coral and fish species. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct comprehensive survey for invasive 

species. 

✓

Increase level of REA and other marine 

habitat surveys by 20%. 

 ✓ 

Conduct specific surveys for marine mammal 

presence/absence. ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

component of Alternative D. 

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

Alternative B can be achieved as components of cooperative efforts with other agencies 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

The Marine Mammal Commission has encouraged the Service to generate partnerships 

with NOAA to help document baseline information. Developing additional partnerships 

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

providing the opportunity for additional trips to Howland. 

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 Howland Island. The desired 

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

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

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

terrestrial invertebrates. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

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

Record incidental observations of all species 

presence/absence, relative abundance, and 

distribution. 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Conduct seabird monitoring activities for 

breeding chronology, and habitat use. 

 ✓ ✓

Coordinate with Migratory Bird Office and 

Office of Refuge Biology, Region 1 Regional 

Office to develop specific monitoring needs 

and data collection protocols. 

 ✓ ✓ 

Rationale: 

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

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

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

importance. The Seabird Plan further identifies population monitoring inventories as 

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

collection of population data is needed. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004) lists determining baseline 

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

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

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

other terrestrial wildlife species found on Howland Island is lacking. 

 

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

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

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

minimum of three consecutive years on Howland Island. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓

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

Implement and maintain electronic calling 

devices to promote nesting 

 ✓ ✓

Coordinate with RO and develop capabilities 

for remote surveillance equipment 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

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

recommendation of the Seabird Conservation Plan (2005) is expand efforts to assess 

habitat suitability and restore populations through translocation to predator-free U.S. 

islands such as Howland. While the physical translocation of species to Howland 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 Howland. 

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. 

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

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

Develop and conduct survey of other marine 

areas for turtle use. 

 ✓

Develop partnership with NOAA for study of 

turtles at Howland. 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

in the water during joint Service/NOAA expeditions since 2000. Data collected over the 

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

in the central Pacific. 

 

Objective 3d: Expand baseline information on marine community. 

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

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

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

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

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

presence/absence and relative abundance on Howland. 

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 Howland still provide sanctuary areas. However, illegal fishing activity has 

been noted surrounding several Remotes refuges. Howland, 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 

Howland. 

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

presence and use of Howland 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 (✓)

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

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

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 Howland 

✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

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

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

However, studies elsewhere in the Pacific indicate that waters surrounding small islands 

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

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

Mammal Commission. pers. comm.). 

Goal 4: Protect, maintain, enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of 

Howland’s terrestrial and marine communities. 

Objective 4a: Protect and maintain wilderness values. 

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

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

evaluated by assessing loss or degradation of values that qualified it for potential 

designation (see Appendix F). 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

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

Use minimum tools necessary to manage 

refuge resources 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Continue to manage Howland as wilderness ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Monitor values of naturalness and solitude. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Remove debris remaining from military or 

other past human use, not considered cultural 

resources. 

 ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

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

historic lack of human impact, and limited human presence. Areas of Howland have 

been identified as meeting the criteria for a Wilderness Study Area (Appendix F). 

Completion of the wilderness review process and as appropriate development of a 

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

have been completed. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

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

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

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

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

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

cultural resource. 

In the interim, all areas identified as suitable WSAs would continue to be managed as 

wilderness. All management activities would be conducted in such a manner as not to 

detract from the wilderness values identified in the Wilderness Inventory. 

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

Objective 5a: Protect cultural resources. 

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

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

Amelia Earhart day beacon memorial, or other recognized cultural/historical resource. 

Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Objective as written above applies to 

Alternatives (✓)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

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

Record incidental observations of condition 

of cultural resources 

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rationale: 

Rationale: Restricting human use of Howland 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) 

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

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

Rationale: 

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

opportunity for invasive species establishment, and reducing the opportunity for 

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

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

the public. Any maintenance activity and establishment of seasonal or annual field 

camps would require approval from appropriate archeological resource professional 

(Service’s Regional Archeologist). 

Goal 6: An informed, interested, and educated public appreciates remote 

Pacific Island NWRs wilderness values, cultural and historical resources, and 

their ecosystems, with special emphasis on seabirds. 

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

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

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

resources, tropical island ecosystems, seabirds, and coral reef. 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, display, 

or educational program 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 

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

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

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 Howland, refuge staff need a baseline from 

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

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

Howland Island, located at approximately lat. 0o49’ N. and long. 176o38’ W is a northwestern 

outlier of the Phoenix Archipelago and 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. 

Howland 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 Baker Island 32 nmi to the south, and McKean Island 352 nmi to the 

south southeast. Both islands are also in the Phoenix Islands. The remaining 8 Phoenix Islands 

under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kiribati are the next closest neighbors to Howland 

Island, up to 480 nmi to the southeast. The next closest landmasses outside the Phoenix Islands 

are the Gilbert Islands, with Beru Island closest to Howland Island 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 

Archipelago. 

3.2 Climate 

General climate and related oceanographic conditions in the central Equatorial Pacific

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

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

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

Consequently, site-specific data is lacking for most central Pacific locations, or have only been 

collected for a short period. In order to describe the weather conditions on Howland Island, 

weather monitoring data are taken from historic onsite weather data, or from the closest weather 

monitoring station, located on Kanton Island. 

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

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

regions and predominate from the southeast at Howland between 12-17 miles per hour. 

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

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

trade winds. This area of low pressure located just north of the Equator is referred to as the 

‘doldrums’ or the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and lacks these prevailing trade winds 

because they converge and rise upward. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-2 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

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

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

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

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

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

south and east toward unusually warmer waters. At Howland, this shift typically leads to lighter 

wind speeds and more rainfall (USFWS 2001, USFWS 1998a, Vitousek et al. 1980). 

Prevailing ocean currents surrounding Howland Island also influence weather patterns on the 

island by moderating the surrounding surface air temperatures. These surface currents roughly 

mimic the direction of the trade winds. Howland is almost always within the flow regime of the 

westward flowing South Equatorial Current. 

Howland Island also lies in the path of the subsurface easterly flowing Equatorial Undercurrent 

(EUC) also referred to as the Cromwell Current. As the EUC strikes the submerged western 

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

productivity of the surface waters surrounding Howland. 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. 

Howland Island climate data 

 

There is very little weather data available from Howland Island. Weather observations were 

made during the military occupation of Baker and Howland Islands from 1935-1945 (AEC 

1963). However, these military records could not be located within refuge files in Honolulu. A 

single reconnaissance trip to Howland and Baker Islands by the Logistics Planning Group of 

Holmes & Narver INC, for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in October 1963 

recorded sea water temperatures between 86oF and 87oF (AEC 1963). Air temperatures during 

that time period ranged from 80oF to 94oF with an average of 85oF. Wind speeds during this visit 

averaged 13 miles per hour with a range of 6-23 miles per hour. In winter, the average daily 

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

90oF (NOAA 1991). 

The nearest weather station to Howland is the Kanton Atoll weather station, located in the 

Phoenix Islands at lat. 02o46’ S., long. 171o43’ W., or roughly 378 nmi southeast of Howland 

(USFWS 1998a). This station reports total annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches with 

precipitation consistent throughout the year (NOAA 1991). Weather data at Kanton support the 

conclusions of arid conditions in the northern Phoenix Islands. 

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. The warming of average global 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-3 

temperatures, sea level rise, and change in chemical concentrations in the world’s oceans are 

typically cited as being affected by global climate change. Changes in the global climate 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/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 some debate regarding the extent 

of the impact these changes would have on Earth’s environment, there are several trends that 

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

have the greatest potential effect on Howland 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 would cause increasing 

climate change (Vitousek 1994). 

The equatorial locale for Howland 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 

Howland except for the past few decades 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 

NWRs (Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island). 

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 et al. (2004) goes on to note that, “[t]he causes of coral bleaching are debatable, but 

widely thought to be the result of a variety of stresses, both natural and human-induced, that 

cause the degeneration and the loss of the colored zooxanthellae from the coral tissues.” 

Field observation of corals at Howland 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) staff visits. Although coral bleaching was predicted to occur at Howland 

in 2003, based upon NOAA satellite-based temperature and wind data, no evidence of bleaching 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-4 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

was reported during the early 2004, visit or in earlier 2006 (Maragos 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. However, large 

heads of the preferred coral (Porites) have not been encountered at shallow depths off the mostly 

steep slopes surrounding Howland because such corals need stable level substrates to keep from 

rolling down slopes as they grow larger and heavier. Deeper scuba and submersible dives could 

help locate larger corals for sample collection and analysis. 

Sea Level Rise

 

While global temperature is projected to rise by 3.6 to 9oF and sea level to rise by more than 31.5 

inches during the next two centuries, sea levels have fluctuated by an order of 328 feet over the 

past 18,000 years as natural background variation and thawing out from the last ice age 

(Michener et al. 1997). Contributions to sea level rise by climate change are ice-sheet melting, 

alpine glacier melting and thermal expansion of the sea. Sea levels have risen by 4 to 8 inches 

during the past century (Michener et al. 1997). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC 2001) predicted a sea level rise of 3.5 inches to 34.6 inches by the year 2100 unless 

greenhouse gas emissions were reduced substantially. They also suggested that continuing 

greenhouse gas emissions could trigger polar ice-cap melting after 2100 accompanied by sea 

level rise greater than 16 feet. More recent modeling indicates that melting could occur faster 

than the IPCC predicted (Overpeck, et al. 2006). 

Evidence also suggests that the world’s oceans are regionally divisible with regard to historic 

fluctuations in sea level. Localized variations in subsidence and emergence of the sea floor and 

plate-tectonics activity prevent extrapolations in sea level fluctuations and trends between 

different regions. Thus, it may not be possible to discuss uniform changes in sea level on a 

global scale, or the magnitude of greenhouse gas-forced changes as these changes may vary 

regionally (Michener et al. 1997). As an example, tide gauge records on the Atlantic coast 

indicate a sea level rise of 0.06 to 0.16 in/year over the past century, whereas, they have 

indicated a 0.35 to 0.39 in/year increase along the Gulf coast of the United States (Michener et 

al. 1997). 

Increases in sea level may also affect low-lying equatorial islands and atolls. Shoreline erosion 

and salt water intrusion into subsurface freshwater aquifers have been noted throughout the 

Pacific (Shea et al. 2001). Due to the deep marine slopes directly adjacent to Howland Island, 

increases in sea level could erode shorelines and overall island surface area since the 

opportunities for accretion of lands do not exist. Data related to sea level near Howland Island 

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

Oceanic Chemical Concentration Change

There have been glacial and interglacial periods in the Earth’s history cycle respectively with 

low and high concentrations of CO2 (as measured from deep Antarctic ice cores). However, 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-5 

recent increases fall outside the range of peak prehistoric carbon dioxide levels. The rate of 

increase is also 5 to 10 times more rapid than any of the sustained changes in the ice-core record 

(Vitousek 1994). Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to 355 μL/L since 1800, a level 

of increase otherwise never reported during the past 160,000 years. Data suggest this increase is 

linked to fossil fuel combustion and not deforestation (Vitousek 1994). 

Change in carbon dioxide levels would increase the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in 

seawater, thus reducing the over saturation of aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate that is the 

major building block for coral reefs (Vitousek 1994). The result of this is uncertain but is 

thought to reduce the rate at which corals can deposit calcium carbonate, and thus reduce the rate 

at which coral reefs would be able to keep up with any increases in sea level elevations. 

It should also be noted that chemical composition changes in the atmosphere may also affect 

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

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

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

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

composition, lower nutrient levels, and lower weight gain by herbivores. 

Summary

Coral bleaching has been documented at Howland, but has not followed predicted expectations. 

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 Howland 

Island ecosystems is currently speculative. The localized impact of changes in atmospheric and 

oceanic chemical concentrations is also unknown. While many of the impacts of global climate 

change currently cannot be documented at Howland Island, the opportunity exists for Howland 

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 

Howland Island is a low-lying, nearly level island with a slightly depressed central area 

surrounded by a narrow shallow fringing reef. The submarine slopes descend steeply to great 

depths beyond the fringing reefs. Surface deposits on the island consist of calcareous sands and 

coral rock. Soil texture is coarse and not easily compacted. The central depression is likely the 

result of the combined effects of guano mining more than a century ago and wave action 

depositing sand rocks and boulders around the island’s fringe. The island was likely formed as a 

result of submarine volcanic activity and changes in the earth’s crust caused by continental 

tectonic plate movement, including emergence of a high volcanic island, its later subsidence, reef 

accretion, and its gradual northwesterly drift away from the East Pacific Rise over the past 50 to 

80 million years. Although scientists since Darwin (1842) have been pondering seamount, 

island, and atoll formation in the Pacific, the specifics of how Howland Island was formed have 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-6 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

not been investigated, although they would likely follow the general sequence first postulated by 

Darwin. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

islands such as Howland, 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 to 60 million years and up to several thousand feet of reef growth equal to the 

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

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

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

to the carbonate platform that characterizes the contemporary geologic structure of Howland 

Island. 

The entire western or leeward beach of the island is sandy and low, while the eastern side, 

constantly pounded by waves generated by the trade winds, is higher, more abrupt, and covered 

with coral rubble and sandstone slabs. There is no pronounced beach crest or central basin (dry 

lagoon) typically found on some larger low-lying reef islands. 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 

Howland 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, 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 where acids are neutralized and 

calcium phosphate is accumulating 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 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). 
Howland 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 Howland 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 Howland, potable water is carried in containers to the 

island for short staff visits, and could be produced on site via reverse osmosis technology for 

prolonged staff 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. The acoustic environment at Howland is completely natural without any 

anthropogenic noise except during periodic staff 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 

Fuel storage drums left behind by the U.S. military during the World War II era contained 

residual aviation and motor fuel. In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 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 (H. Takemoto, 

agency, per. comm.). However, the Corps efforts did not completely consume the fuel, and the 

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

USFWS, per. comm.). At Howland Island, there were only a handful of these drums. The total 

area impacted by the drums and contaminated soil is estimated at 26 yd2

. The main source of 

contamination is rusting steel and iron from various machine parts and drums. 

3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats 

Howland Island is vegetated with grasses, herbaceous plants, and shrubs. Areas devoid of 

vegetation occur along exposed beach and shoreline areas. 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 

Howland 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 a very depauperate flora consisting of five native species (Lepturus repens, 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-8 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Boerhavia sp., Portulaca lutea, Tribulus cistoides, and Cordia subcordata) and one that had 

probably been accidentally introduced (Portulaca oleracea). Since then at least 4 more species 

were intentionally introduced (Cocos nucifera, Casuarina sp., Pandanus sp., and Coccoloba 

uvifera) and at least 7 as wave carried adventives or additional accidental introductions by 

humans (Digitaria pacifica, Sophora tomentosa, Sida fallax, Scaevola taccada, Suriana 

maritima, and Tournefortia argentea) for a modern day total of only 16 species (see Appendix 

B). On a short visit in 2004, only nine species of plants were located (Flint and Eggleston 2004). 

It is likely that seeds of additional species are regularly washing up on the beach and then dying 

back as conditions become too dry or high surf washes the plants away. Table B-3, Appendix B, 

lists all the plant species of Howland Island, collections or first observations, and most recent 

information about current presence or absence.

The structure of the plant community is grassland and low forbs cover. A single grove of kou 

(Cordia subcordata) in shrub growth form reaching 15 feet high grows in the interior. The kou 

along with Tournefortia and Scaevola bordering the beach serve as important nesting and 

roosting habitat for the red-footed booby and cover for wintering bristle-thighed curlews. Great 

frigatebirds and white terns also prefer to nest above the ground on the few shrubs available, but 

all the other species nest directly on the ground. Shrubs and rock piles also provide shade and 

daytime cover for the numerous land hermit crabs, Coenobita perlatus that inhabit Howland 

Island. 

3.9 Terrestrial Wildlife 

Seabirds, shorebirds, lizards, vegetation, insects, crabs, and invasive rats and feral cats have been 

observed and studied at Howland Island during the current century. The Service subsequently 

eradicated all rats and cats from the island to allow repopulation by several nesting seabird 

species and greater use by all remaining indigenous terrestrial species. 

3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals 

There are no native land mammals at Howland Island. Numerically dominant vertebrates are 

migratory seabirds and shorebirds. Howland Island falls into the North American Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 68 along with all the other island territories of the United States. 

Earliest ornithological surveys at Howland Island took place long after the introduction of the 

Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) so the composition of the avian community prior to human 

contact can only be surmised by looking at other islands in the Phoenix Archipelago that did not 

suffer the invasion of rats. The findings of the ornithologist on the Whippoorwill Expedition of 

1924 are the only comprehensive 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 staff visits since 1973. Munro 

(1924) found 11 species of seabirds breeding in 1924. 

Several avian species are listed by various authorities as species of concern. Of note, seabird 

species listed by IUCN as Vulnerable include Phoenix petrel (Pterodroma alba) and the 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-9 

Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa), both of which probably occurred at Howland 

Island prior to the introduction of rats. The Phoenix petrel is also considered a bird of National 

Conservation Concern by the Service and the Phoenix petrel and Polynesian storm-petrel are 

classified as highly imperiled in the Pacific Region Seabird Conservation plan. The blue noddy 

(Procelsterna cerulean) and lesser frigatebird (Fregata ariel) are included in the category of 

High concern in that document (USFWS 2005). 

Cats were introduced during 1935 to 1942 resulting in decreased abundance and diversity of 

seabirds species breeding at Howland by 1963 (Sibley et al., 1965). After feral cats were 

removed in 1986, 11 seabird species are again breeding and 2 Procellariform species (Wedgetailed Shearwaters Puffinus pacificus and an unidentified storm-petrel) that likely bred there prior 

to rat introduction have been seen on the ground in the colony presaging re-colonization. The 

three most numerous breeding species at Howland are the lesser frigatebird (Fregata ariel) [a 

BCC or bird of conservation concern in BCR (Bird Conservation Region) 68 and listed as a bird 

of High concern at the Regional level], masked booby, (Sula dactylatra), and sooty tern (Sterna 

fuscata). Table B-4 also provides the breeding seabird species at Howland. 

3.9.2 Shorebirds 

Species occurrence and counts of the eight migratory shorebird species recorded from Howland 

Island are displayed in Table B-4, Appendix B. The four most common migrants wintering at 

Howland are ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva), 

bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis), and wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus). Of 

these, the bristle-thighed curlew and the Pacific golden plover are considered species of High 

Concern in the national conservation priority scheme for shorebirds (Engilis and Naughton 

2004). All of the species mentioned above except wandering tattler are labeled as high concern 

in the Regional shorebird plan and Bristle –thighed Curlews and Pacific Golden Plovers are 

Birds of Conservation Concern in BCR 68. These islands provide crucial wintering habitat and 

may serve as rest-stops for arctic-breeding shorebirds wintering farther south in the Pacific 

Islands. 

3.9.3 Reptiles 

Only two species of terrestrial reptiles have been reported from Howland Island: snake-eyed 

skink (Cryptoblepharus peocidopleurus) and mourning gecko (Lipidodactylus lugubris). Both 

species were first reported by Hague in 1862, and served as alternate prey for cats when they 

were present on Howland Island. Only the snake-eyed skink has been observed during recent 

visits to Howland. 

3.9.4 Invertebrates (crabs and insects) 

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

3-10 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

known. The entomologist Edward L. Caum visited Howland Island in 1924 and a number of 

other naturalists collected insects on subsequent trips but there are no published accounts or lists 

until Ashley Browne of the University of Hawaii visited in 1939 and published a short note 

listing 3 species of insects that were collected (Browne 1940). Recent observations, but not 

collections, during staff visits by Service biologists include house flies, small ants, moths and 

millers, butterflies, and spiders. 

Kirkpatric and Rauzon (1986) compared food habits of feral cats at Howland and Jarvis Islands. 

Although there were crickets, cockroaches and Tenebrionid beetles in the stomach of Jarvis cats 

(n=73), no insect remains were found in a smaller sample (n=5) of Howland Island cats. 

3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

3.10.1 Previous surveys 

Before regular marine assessment and monitoring efforts began in 2000, marine scientists visited 

Howland to collect fish, corals, and perhaps other reef life, but there were no systematic surveys 

of the reefs in the literature. Extensive collections of reef fishes were accomplished by Fowler 

(1927), anon. (1950), Helfrich (1962), and Wass (1966). More recently, the Smithsonian 

Institution Pacific Ocean Biological Survey (SIPOBS), and others in Mundy et al (2002) 

continued this work. The dominant reef life studied during post-1997 expeditions include: 

benthic algae (Peter Vroom, Kim Paige per. comm.), corals and anemones (John Schmerfeld, Jim 

Maragos, Greta Aeby and Jean Kenyon per. comm.), other reef invertebrates (Scott Godwin, 

Dwayne Minton, and Robin Newbold per. comm.), and reef fishes (Ed DeMartini, Bruce Mundy, 

Brian Zgliczynski, Brian Green, Richard Wass, Alan Friedlander, Stephanie Holzwarth, and 

others per. comm.). 

Five sets of recent surveys through early 2006, have been accomplished in cooperation with the 

NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and their research vessels (Townsend 

Cromwell, Oscar Elton Sette, and Hi‛ialakai), primarily through the sponsorship of the Center’s 

Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) (R. Brainard, per. comm.) The surveys since 2000, are 

of several types including oceanographic data collection, towed diver surveys, rapid ecological 

assessments (REA) at stationary sites, and collections of marine animals and plants for 

identification and description in the lab. The Service, with assistance from CRED established 

three permanently marked transects to document trends in corals and some macro-invertebrates 

over time since 2000. 

Despite these intense efforts, several important habitats at Howland have not been adequately 

surveyed. Both the southern and northern horns of the island and reefs are bathed in strong, 

turbulent and at times unpredictable currents, preventing REAs at both ends. In addition, the 

windward reefs were inaccessible during most staff visits because of heavy tradewind generated 

waves close to the reef and onshore winds that would push the dive skiffs too close to the reefs. 

Moreover, due to safety concerns, dives have generally been limited to depths of 65 feet and one 

hour duration. Because of these limitations, some important habitats are still poorly sampled and 

deep slope habitats (164 to 3,281 ft) within the refuge remain mostly unexplored, except for 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-11 

early 2006 acquisition of high resolution bathymetry of Howland from Multi-BeamTM surveys 

(S. Ferguson, per. comm.) and substantial oceanographic data (R. Brainard, per. comm.). 

At the time of this CCP, only data from coral, algae, and fish surveys were available for review 

and compilation. The algae and non-coral invertebrate analyses are not complete enough to 

provide compilations. 

3.10.2 Submergent Habitats 

Howland’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. The deep slope habitats below depths of 65-98 feet have not 

been surveyed by divers, although remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have been launched to 

collect video- and camera-based data. Pelagic habitats occur further offshore beyond the 

influence of upwelling and nearshore oceanographic processes. Nearshore habitats include 

distinct upwelling zones off the west side of the island; oligotrophic waters off the windward 

reefs; and turbulent rip currents and possibly mesoscale eddies off the north and south ends of 

the island. The PIFSC has conducted oceanographic research off the island to contrast the 

differences between nutrient rich upwelling zones and the ambient nutrient-poor ocean 

conditions outside areas of upwelling currents. 

3.10.3 Reef Life 

The marine ecosystem of Howland remains mostly undisturbed and pristine. Multitudes of 

marine species inhabit and visit the shallow water habitats that surround Howland Island, several 

of which are listed or ranked by various authorities as being imperiled. Of note, the giant clam 

(Tridacna maxima) is abundant at Howland Island and is listed under the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The humphead 

wrasse (Cheilinus undulates) is also listed under CITES and designated as Endangered by the 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and occurs in the nearshore waters 

of Howland. Nearshore waters are also home to two endangered species of sea turtles and sea 

mammals that have yet to be studied. Taken collectively with the terrestrial habitat, the coral 

reefs are an integral component of the overall health of the Howland Island ecosystem. 

3.10.4 Corals 

To date (January 2006), 97 species and 30 genera of corals and a few other large anthozoans 

have been reported from Howland reefs (Table B-1, Appendix B). Additional range extension 

records from collections and photographs may also exist. This compares to 92 species and 38 

genera reported at neighboring Baker, only 32 nmi to the south. These totals are in the range of 

other atolls in the Phoenix Islands (Kanton in Maragos and Jokiel 1978); lower than, or 

comparable to similarly sized islands further to the west (Marshalls, Samoa); and higher than, or 

comparable to similarly sized islands to the east (Hawaii, Line Islands). There is no credible 

explanation for the higher genera totals at Baker compared to Howland, except that geographic 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-12 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

isolation may be causing differential recruitment success. Supportive of this hypothesis is that 3 

of the genera reported at Howland were missing at Baker, and 11 of the genera at Baker were 

missing from Howland. All sides of Baker have been surveyed compared to just the west and 

southeast side of Howland, and this may also be contributing to the higher generic diversity at 

Baker and discrepancies between the two reefs (Maragos per. comm.). 

Corals are generally in healthy condition at Howland, with the eight most abundant genera there 

also the same as the eight most abundant found throughout the Line, Phoenix, and eastern 

Samoan Islands: Acropora, Favia, Fungia, Leptoseris, Montipora, Pavona, Pocillopora, and 

Porites. Coral disease prevalence and predation on corals are also low (G. Aeby and B. Vargas 

per. comm.). Although dead standing corals reported during the summer of 2000 were likely 

indicative of a coral bleaching event a few years earlier, no major bleaching event has been 

reported during the 2000-2004 surveys, and corals are recovering rapidly during the period. Of 

future possible concern is the rapid expansion of the corallomorpharian Rhodactis howseii at 

Howland between the 2004 and 2006 staff visits. This species has increased to “invasive” 

proportions at Baker and Palmyra Atoll NWR where it appears to be stimulated by dissolved iron 

from corroding anchors or shipwrecks. Thus, it raises the possibility of corroding steel or iron 

being present at Howland Island, although none has yet been seen. 

3.10.5 Nearshore Fish 

Approximately 324 species of reef fish known from Howland reefs (Mundy et al. 2002; Table B2, Appendix B). This compares with 247 species from nearby Baker. Moreover, ten families of 

fish reported at Howland have not been reported from Baker, and six minor families from Baker 

have not been reported from Howland. Of interest is the presence of several species of goby and 

scorpion fish families at Howland and the lack of these families at Baker. Possible explanations 

for these differences may be that sampling and survey intensities may be insufficient and 

different between the two islands, or that geographic isolation may result in differential 

recruitment rates between the two islands. As noted earlier, not all habitats at Howland have 

been surveyed to the same degree as those at Baker. 

Reef fish populations appeared healthy and diverse with little indication of unauthorized harvest 

(Maragos, USFWS, per. comm.). However, during 2000 surveys Maragos noted many small 

sharks and no larger sharks at both Howland and Baker. In contrast, numerous small and some 

large sharks were 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 a pre-2000 harvest of sharks at Howland 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 versus 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 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-13 

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 staff visits to Howland Island, a group of ~approximately 40 bottle-nosed dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) appear as the ship approaches the island. In 1993, individuals from this 

group were observed preying on rainbow runners (Elagatis bipinnulatus) that were sheltering 

under the vessel. Formal quantitative surveys of marine mammal distribution and abundance 

have not been undertaken at the refuge. Historically, sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ) 

were caught near Howland in the nineteenth century (Townsed, 1935, cited in Sibley and Clapp, 

1965). 

 

3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife 

The estimated hundreds of thousands of seabirds breeding at Howland 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 

and serve to keep them close to reefs, enhancing survivorship of larvae and recruitment of 

juveniles and adults back to the reefs. For at least 3 of the 10 seabird species breeding at 

Howland (brown noddies, white terns, and brown boobies), large proportions (33 to 56 percent) 

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 at Howland include the threatened 

green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-14 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

imbricata). The Service shares responsibility with NMFS for these species. Both species have 

been observed and photographed foraging in the shallow water near the island. 

3.12 Invasive Species 

Human activities at Howland Island have resulted in various non-native species being introduced 

including the house cat (Felis catus), the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), various ant and 

cockroach species, and plants such as pandanus, ironwood, coconut palm, sea grape, ilima, 

Portulaca oleracea, and Pacific crabgrass. Feral cats were introduced in 1937 and finally 

eliminated in 1986. The rats were documented as early as 1854 and in many accounts were 

described as extremely abundant. Sometime after 1938, they were eliminated and have not been 

recorded since. Of the plants introduced by humans, only the Pacific crabgrass seems to have 

persisted. 

3.13 Wilderness Resources 

Howland remains in a wilderness state in terms of its biota, seascape, and landscape except for 

the collection of abandoned fuel drums, excavations, and pits left behind from the guano mining 

era, and a small section of the reef blasted for a boat passage during the guano mining era. There 

was a makeshift airfield constructed in preparation for Amelia Earhart’s last flight but today it is 

undistinguishable on the ground. A stone monument in her honor currently exists on the island. 

Abandoned anchors and chain may occur near the western boat passage. However, the collective 

contribution of these detractions is minor compared to the otherwise overwhelming wilderness 

character of the island and surrounding reefs. Additional wilderness information and evaluation 

are covered in greater detail in Appendix F. 

3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology 

Polynesians visited Howland Island prior to its discovery by European navigators (Hague 1862). 

Hague is the first to describe artifacts left by these earlier inhabitants. Among the artifacts 

described were excavations and mounds near the kou thicket in the center of the island, 

fragments of a canoe, footpaths, a blue bead, remains of a hut, and a human skeleton. The 

largest of the excavations was "several hundred feet long, and about one hundred feet wide, and 

ten or fifteen feet deep... [on each side of which the]... sand gravel [was] carefully banked up and 

kept in its place by walls laid up of coral stone.” 

Members of the Whippoorwill Expedition reexamined the ruins in 1924. Kenneth Emory (1939) 

remarked that the central excavation was of a sort commonly used in the Tuamotu Archipelago 

for growing taro, bananas, and sugar cane and that a canoe paddle was "exactly like a Tahitian 

paddle." 

Howland had its first and only archaeological reconnaissance survey performed in 1987 (Shun 

1987). This worked occurred on September 18-20, 1987, and consisted of only surface 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-15 

reconnaissance survey and limited subsurface testing performed as part of a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Defense Environmental Restoration project to inventory and burn fuel in abandoned 

World War II fuel drums on Baker and Howland Islands (Helene Takemoto per. comm.). The 

archaeological reconnaissance was done prior to the drum collection and burning to avoid 

possible damage to cultural resources (Shun 1987). 

Environmental conditions on Howland 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 Howland 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 Howland Island’s 

remoteness and lack of a sustainable freshwater supply, it is likely that Howland Island played a 

minimal role, if any, in the colonizing efforts of prehistoric people across the Pacific. 

No records were found of palentological 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 Howland Island are non-existent due to the geological 

forces that formed the island, its remoteness, and dry climate. 

3.15 Recent Cultural History 

The occupation and use of Howland Island 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: ca AD 1800-1850

Howland Island was initially called by various names and its first European discoverer remains 

unknown. At least three whaling vessels sighted or visited Howland Island during this period. 

The island was also known as “Worth” after Captain George B. Worth who viewed it from the 

whaling ship Oeno around 1822. Captain Daniel McKenzie of the New Bedford whaler, 

Minerva Smith, gave the island its present name. A quotation from McKenzie (in Maude 1961) 

explicitly states that he named the island for the owners of his ship. These owners were I. 

Howland, Jr. and Company (Starbuck 1878). However, it was Captain George E. Netcher of the 

whaling vessel Isabella who is generally credited for bestowing the island with its present name 

after the lookout who first saw it on September 9, 1842 (Bryan 1974). Thus, Howland Island 

appears to have been named Howland on two separate occasions. 

Use of the island by whaling ship crews is speculative. Lacking an adequate harbor or sheltered 

bay, landings on the island are difficult to this day. However, whaling vessels may have stopped 

at Howland Island to acquire birds and eggs. Whalers also used nearby Baker Island and at times 

would leave letters and other correspondence. 
Howland 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 Howland Island was delayed until after 1861 because 

of a mining rights dispute between the American Guano Company and United States Guano 

Companies, which was settled in favor of the American Guano Company. Mining on Howland 

Island peaked between 1870 and 1872 when, during a 4 month period in 1870, 7,600 tons of 

guano were off-loaded from the island in 109 working days, setting a record for guano mining in 

those days. An estimate of the total amount of guano removed varies between 85,000 to 100,000 

tons (Bryan 1974). Evidence of this era of exploitation still remains as large basins from mining 

excavations and mounds of low-grade guano mark the island landscape. 

Howland Island appears to have been abandoned from 1891 until 1935, although 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 7 days on 

Howland Island, but written record was not located during the development of this CCP. 

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 Howland Island. Colonizing efforts began in March 1935. Several military 

personnel and graduates of Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii established a colony on Howland 

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 

Howland Island by various United States Coast Guard (USCG) cutters. During the colonizing 

era, Howland Island was visited frequently and was often the scene of busy activity.

The colonists erected Itascatown as their place of permanent settlement. Other structures for 

water, food storage, radio equipment, and walls around the main settlement were constructed. 

Attempts to grow trees, flowers, and vegetables were tried but the climate was unfavorable for 

cultivated crops. 

 

During this era, Amelia Earhart Putnan achieved national recognition as a pioneering aviator. 

Along with navigator Fred J. Noonan, they planned a circumnavigation of the world with a 

refueling stop on Howland Island. The U.S. Government, which had been planning to build an 

airfield on Howland Island, began construction of a runway in January 1937, so that it might be 

ready for the Earhart flight (Bryan 1974). By the time the airfield was completed, it consisted of 

three runways, 150 feet wide and of varying lengths. The North-South, East-West, and 

Northeast-Southwest runways were respectively 5,200 feet, 2,400 feet, and 3,000 feet long (Shun 

1987). 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-17 

On July 1, Amelia and Fred departed Lae, New Guinea hoping to complete the flight of 

approximately 2,250 miles to Howland Island in l8 to 20 hours. Somewhere between Lae, New 

Guinea and Howland Island, they vanished at sea. In the following 2 weeks, 10 ships and 

approximately 66 planes aided in the unsuccessful search for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan 

(Shun 1987). 

Construction of a memorial to Amelia Earhart began on October l6, 1937, with the placement of 

the cornerstone for the Amelia Earhart light beacon (Bryan 1974). 

Military Era: 1942-1944

The colony on Howland Island continued undisturbed except for routine USCG staff visits until 

December 8, 1941, when the island was bombed and machine-gunned by 14 Japanese planes. 

Some 60 bombs in all were dropped, but damage to the colonists' installations was negligible 

(Bryan 1974). Sadly, two colonists were killed. The island's surface was heavily scarred with 

some of the bombs leaving craters 20 feet across and 12 feet in depth on the surface of the island 

(Bryan 1974). 

On December 10, a Japanese submarine surfaced offshore and fired approximately 50 shells into 

Itascatown, causing more damage than the initial bombing (Bryan 1974). The house and kitchen 

were destroyed and one shell hit the top of the Amelia Earhart light, rendering it useless. Two 

more aerial bombing attacks were made on the island on January 5 and January 24, 1942. The 

two survivors were removed from the island by the U.S. Navy destroyer Helm on January 31, 

1942. 

Howland Island was not visited again until September 13, 1943, when a military inspection team 

from nearby Baker Island reported that there were no bomb craters on the 2,400-foot strip and 

that all of the colonial installations had been rendered useless. The airstrip was subsequently 

readied for use for emergency landings (Shun 1987).

Post War Era: 1944 to present

No attempt was made to re-colonize Howland Island after the war, although the Department of 

the Interior thought of doing so. In 1948, the U.S. decided that the claim to Howland Island 

could be effectively maintained by annual USCG staff visits. Thus, a USCG vessel apparently 

first visited the island after the war. Other USCG vessels that visited Howland Island included 

the Kettle, Basswood, Buttonwood, Kukui, the Planetree, Blackhaw and Ironwood. Most staff 

visits to Howland Island usually occurred in the first 4 months of the year with the ships’ crews 

completing repairs to the day beacon and taking photographs to establish their presence on the 

Island. In 1963, the Blackhaw finally repaired the Earhart beacon destroyed 20 years earlier 

(Shun 1987).

In March 1963, and for the following 2 years, Smithsonian Institution employees made a number 

of staff visits to Howland Island as part of the SIPOBS (Sibley et al. 1965). During this period 

of investigation by the Smithsonian, a reconnaissance team of the AEC visited the island. This 

group arrived on Howland Island on October 14, 1963, conducted their survey for the following 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

3-18 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3 days and departed. In addition, a survey by AEC was made of topographical, geological, and 

oceanographic features of the island. 

 

In recent years, sporadic staff visits have occurred in the form of USCG 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 once every 2 years since 2000. 

3.16 Socio-economics 

Historical Developments

Since whaling days, Howland Island has been used for a variety of commercial enterprises. 

During the whaling era, it appears that Howland 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 species may also have occurred. The guano-mining era provided the world with a 

nutrient-rich fertilizer. Howland and other central Pacific islands were exploited for their deep 

guano deposits. 

After the guano mining period, Howland Island was retained by the U.S. Government to aid in 

transportation and commerce during the mid-1930s. A colony was established on Howland 

Island to assert U.S. possession by placing 4 to 5 men on Howland Island from 1935 to 1942 

(Bryan 1974, Brown et al. 2002). Howland Island was also used by the military during World 

War II as an emergency landing strip for operations on nearby Baker Island. After 1945, there 

was no further military use of the island, but USCG 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 (AEC 1963), but the proposal did not materialize. In 1974, Howland 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 Howland 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 Howland, and the island remains unpopulated. 

Land Use

Howland Island has been uninhabited since the World War II era and would remain so except for 

occupation during periodic field camps. As such, the future “land use” for Howland Island 

would likely include establishing a temporary field camp site that would not conflict with 

important wildlife functions, habitat restoration, or wilderness values. Site planning would also 

identify corridors for small boat access, footpaths for regular island patrols, study sites, areas 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3-19 

designated for solar power and potable water production generation, waste and trash disposal 

areas, work areas, and other needs. 

Public Access

Howland is closed to public access. There has never been, nor are there plans to formally open 

the refuge to recreational activities by publishing public notice in the Federal Register. 

However, limited public access of Howland has been authorized in the past. Refuge access is 

managed through the issuance of a SUP when the activity is deemed compatible and appropriate 

with the purposes of refuge establishment. 

Commercial Fishing

Over the years commercial fishing vessels may have targeted uninhabited Howland for 

unauthorized and illegal fishing because of the lack of on-site surveillance and enforcement 

capacity. Howland 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 Howland. Neither the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

(WESPAC) nor NMFS advocates commercial fishing within Howland, 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 Howland and the home ports of the 

fishing vessels. However, foreign fishing vessels may target Howland for illegal commercial 

fishery harvest, and the economic pressure to pursue this option would likely increase in the 

future as commercial fishing stocks in Asia and the Pacific become more heavily fished and 

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

3-20 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-1 

Chapter 4: Environmental Effects 

4.1 Introduction 

All alternatives presented in this document describe varying levels of management activity on 

Howland. These range from establishing an overnight field camp once every two years and 

conducting basic biological surveys, to establishing a year-round field camp every five years, 

conducting additional biological and ecological surveys, and basic habitat management practices 

such as invasive species control. Other than infrequent field camps, Howland is unoccupied 

throughout the year. Permanent infrastructure development is not a component of any 

alternative. Field camps are temporary, mobile, and removed at the end of each field camp 

season. The few potential adverse impacts are generally temporary, localized, and can be fully 

mitigated or avoided. As a result, most of the impacts of all alternatives are beneficial and are 

designed to maintain Howland in a natural wilderness state driven by natural process, and to 

restore native species and habitats that may have been lost in the past. 

Alternatives primarily differ in their degree of affording staff visitation and surveillance of the 

refuge, which in turn have varying degrees of effectiveness on reducing alien and invasive 

species, unauthorized visitation and harvest, monitoring the status of fish and wildlife, and 

instituting restoration programs such as the reestablishment of extirpated nesting seabird species. 

All four alternatives would generally result in some positive impacts to the refuge. However, 

continuing the existing levels of visitation is not guaranteed and relies on partners being capable 

and willing to provide transportation for Service staff to Howland 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 Howland 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 Howland, and the other Pacific Island refuges is to provide adequate staff visitation and 

surveillance to mitigate and protect the refuge from these and other forces. 

Alternative A, the No Action alternative describes limited staff visits and management activity 

on Howland. Alternatives B, C and D provide strategies to increase management and use 

electronic and remote sensing equipment at the refuge to varying degrees. However, a 

substantial increase in internal Service funding (most likely from RONS) to implement either 

Alternative C or D would be required. These two alternatives (C, D) establish a temporary field 

camp lasting up to one year on Howland Island, which could result in disturbances to wildlife. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-2 Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 

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 or mitigated through 

archaeological and cultural surveys, and minor wildlife disturbance during seasonal field camp 

missions, none of the alternative actions themselves would result in adverse impacts and most all 

of the remaining effects are positive, although more so for Alternatives C or D. The following 

sections evaluate the consequences of implementing Alternatives A – D. Table 4-1 summarizes 

the similarities among and differences between alternatives. 

4.2 Geology and Soils 

The geology and soils of Howland and surrounding coral reefs likely would not be affected by 

any of the alternatives. Field camps, whether overnight, or year-round would consist of 

temporary shelters (tents) which rest on the surface of the soil, only penetrating where a tent 

stake has to be driven into the soil in order to stabilize the shelter. Archeological and cultural 

resource surveys, required of Alternatives C and D before establishment of field camps will 

disturb soil surface at the location of the survey. Since these surveys will be localized and 

completed by trained archeologist, impacts are thought to be minimal. Subsurface surveys will 

not be required for overnight field camps described in Alternatives A and B. The disturbance to 

soils from an overnight camp is thought to be minimal since soil texture is either coarse, being 

composed of sand, or already compacted and dense, being solidified by the soluble phosphates 

becoming fixed to the coral sand and limestone. Field camps and biological surveys have a risk 

of soil compaction along well traveled trails and at campsites. This risk is greater for 

Alternatives C and D due to the longer length of time that biologists would be present on the 

island. However, this risk is not thought to have a long term or detrimental impact to the soils or 

geology of Howland since the soils are either resistant to compaction or already naturally 

compacted. 

4.3 Air and Water Quality 

4.3.1 Air Quality 

None of 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 Howland. 

Indirectly, ship traffic to and from Howland would generate some noise and exhaust emissions. 

On average across all alternatives during the life of this plan, transport vessels would generally 

operate in nearshore waters approximately 2 days per year. Small boats operating during field 

camp deployment and demobilization would use modern four-stroke outboard engines that emit 

low noise and exhaust levels. Overall effects to air quality would be minimal and temporary. 

Field camps and transport vessels also have the capability to produce unnatural lighting at night, 

which could disturb some light sensitive bird species, such as petrels and boobies, and detract 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-3 

from the visual clarity of night skies. These effects will be avoided or minimized by establishing 

night-time operating procedures for ships and field camps that limit the amount of light, and 

require window shades to block interior lights. 

4.3.2 Water Quality and Ocean Environment 

Marine water quality as well as ambient currents, swells, waves, and tidal fluctuations likely 

would not be affected by actions associated with any of the alternatives. No physical 

modification of the shoreline is proposed as part of any alternative. To the contrary, more 

frequent marine debris and shoreline flotsam collections during field camp operations for 

Alternatives C and D would result in modest beneficial effects to coastal and marine 

environments. 

A policy of ‘pack it in, pack it out’ will be standard for all alternatives, thus there will be no 

impact to water quality and the ocean environment. This policy will also apply to human 

excrement. Biodegradable (composting) toilets, sealable chemical toilets, or simply sealable 

containers (double bagged zip-lock bags) used to contain human waste will eliminate any 

potential negative impacts. All trash and waste will be removed during field camp 

demobilization. 

 

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife 

General

All action alternatives (B-D) impacts would have benefits to terrestrial and marine wildlife 

including vegetation, insects, crabs, insects, reptiles, seabirds, shorebirds, fish, and corals. 

However, Alternatives C and D would result in comparatively more benefits than Alternatives A 

and B. Alternative B would be similar in scope to Alternative A, but occur more frequently. 

More frequent and thorough staff visits would improve detection rates of, and response to 

invasive plants and animals. Alternatives B, C, and D would attempt 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 

Howland without proper and prior permission from the Service. In turn, these added capabilities 

would reduce the threat of invasive species introductions via the clothing, shoes, supplies, and 

vessels of possible trespassers. 

 

Two of the alternatives (C and D) would increase the human presence on and management of 

Howland, especially the terrestrial environment. Wildlife disturbance would increase as staff 

and scientists move about on patrols, conduct research, remove possible invasive species, erect 

tents and other camp facilities, gather and dispose of waste, collect accumulated floating and 

emergent marine debris, and restore some habitats. These activities would be scheduled and 

located on the island where disturbance would be temporary and localized. Even under any 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-4 Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 

possible scenario, the degree of detrimental effects would be minor and outweighed by the 

benefits of having a fully functional field camp on the island. 

Habitat

There will be minor and temporary disturbance to terrestrial habitats under all alternatives. All 

field camps, regardless of duration, will create a ‘footprint’, or disturbed area surrounding the 

camping and cooking area. Impacts may be trampling of vegetation or covering vegetation with 

tents or tarps. These impacts can be reduced or eliminated by selecting field camp sites with 

limited or no vegetation. Since there will be little to no soil surface disturbance, vegetation will 

fully recover once field camp is demobilized. 

The footprint of the field camp described in Alternative A and B has less chance of impacting 

habitat due to the shorter time period that biologist would be on-site. 

Seabirds

Alternatives A and B would have a temporary (1 to 2 day per year or every other year) 

disturbance to nesting seabirds due to biologists conducting surveys and establishing a field 

camp. These disturbances will be minimized by locating field camps away from nesting 

colonies, and only approaching nesting colonies to collect scientific data such as species 

presence, population numbers, and nesting activity. Alternatives C and D, seasonal and yearlong field camps respectively would have increasingly more potential disturbance simply from 

staff being present on the island. However, these disturbances will be minimized in the same 

manner as for Alternatives A and B. The additional survey components of Alternatives C and D 

of nesting success and nesting chronology will require biologists to enter the seabird breeding 

colony. Precautions such as limited time spent in the colony, and collecting/observing a 

representative sample instead of the entire colony will limit disturbances. Under all alternatives, 

these minor disturbances are temporary in nature and will not affect Howland's resources once 

the field camps are demobilized. 

Seabird nest attraction devices, if successful in attracting Phoenix petrel and Polynesian stormpetrel to Howland, will provide these populations with an additional nesting location that is free 

from mammalian predators. It is difficult to predict the overall impact that reestablishment of 

nesting by these species on Howland will have on their overall population status. However, 

since predator-free islands in the Pacific are rare, predator-free islands such as Howland are 

becoming more important to ground nesting seabird species such as the Phoenix petrel and 

Polynesian storm-petrel. 

Shorebirds

All alternatives will have minimal impact to shorebird resources. Biological surveys and field 

campsites have the potential to displace or disturb shorebird loafing and foraging sites. 

However, the relative impact of human activity and imprint of the field camp to areas that 

shorebirds utilize is minimal. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-5 

Reptiles

Management activities such as biological surveys and campsites described in all the alternatives 

will have minimal impact to reptile resources since the estimated area of the field camp and 

survey routes (approximately 1 acre) is a minor percent (approximately 0.0015%) of the overall 

habitat available to reptiles on the island. While biological surveys and campsites have the 

potential to displace or disturb reptiles, there are ample other areas of suitable habitat. 

Invertebrates

Management activities such as biological surveys and campsites described in all the alternatives 

will have minimal impact to the land invertebrates resources, specifically land hermit crabs, 

since the estimated area of the field camp and survey routes (approximately 1 acre) is a minor 

percent (approximately 0.0015%) of the overall habitat available to land hermit crabs on the 

island. While biological surveys and field camp sites have the potential to displace or disturb 

invertebrates, there are ample other areas of suitable habitat. 

4.4.2 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife 

General

Marine fish, wildlife, and submergent habitats would not be adversely affected by any of the 

alternatives. The increased on-site visitation proposed for Alternatives B, C, and D would 

discourage poaching and unauthorized harvest of sharks, giant clams, other reef fish, corals and 

other invertebrates, sea turtles, and other species used in the aquarium trade. All alternatives 

would maintain Howland as closed to recreational and commercial fishing and harvesting, except 

for those activities authorized by SUP. Greater presence and enhanced monitoring of selected 

marine species during field camp operations would result in better understanding and protection 

of corals and other key marine species. Enhanced marine assessment and monitoring would also 

allow early detection and control of marine invasive species. Therefore, the net result of the 

proposed action would be slightly beneficial for marine fish and wildlife while the other action 

alternatives would have greater benefit. 

Corals

All alternatives have potential to disturb corals during field camp deployment and 

demobilization. Small boat operations will necessarily cross shallow water reef areas to reach 

the shoreline of the island. During periods of calm seas, natural and manmade cuts in the reef 

allow safe passage of small boats. However, the potential exists for strong currents, surf, or wind 

to push boats onto the reef. Boats will not be allowed to land on the island during unsafe 

conditions, thereby limiting the threat of reef damage. Anchorage of transport vessel also poses 

a threat to corals. To the extent possible, transport vessels are requested not to anchor, but 

rather stay stationary during deployment and demobilization. If anchoring is required, anchors 

will be placed in deep water areas devoid of coral cover. Thus, impacts to coral are expected to 

be minimal. 

Marine surveys also have the potential to disturb corals. Inattentive snorkel and SCUBA 

activities have the risk of equipment contacting coral. Alternatives C and D, with their increased 

marine surveys have a greater risk than Alternatives A and B. However, this threat is minimal 

since trained scientists will conduct all marine surveys. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-6 Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 

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 Howland. 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 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 Howland. All 

other alternatives utilize vessels strictly for transport and do not appreciably add to our baseline 

information. 

Marine Turtles

Impacts to marine turtles are reported in the following section, 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered 

Species. 

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The threatened green sea turtle and endangered hawksbill sea turtle will not be impacted by any 

of the proposed alternatives. During the infrequent visits to Howland, these species may 

encounter small boats during field camp deployment and demobilization, or larger vessels during 

arrivals and departures. The probability of a sea turtle being struck by a boat during these 

infrequent events, roughly twice per year, is very low. Small boat operations will be limited to 

minimum safe operating speeds to minimize any risk that may exist. There would be no effect to 

sea turtles caused by monitoring activities on the island. Any turtles found to be loafing on 

exposed shoreline are easily avoided. Those seen during marine surveys are equally easy to 

avoid. Alternatives A and B provide limited opportunity to improve our understanding of the 

turtles habitat use. The short length of time of these field camps allow for only casual 

observations of turtles. Longer term field camps described in Alternatives C and D would 

provide more opportunity for observing turtles. Additionally, full time access to a vessel as 

described in Alternative D would increase the opportunity to survey for turtles. Even so, the 

anticipated amount of survey data would not considerably increase our knowledge base of turtle 

use of Howland. No specific surveys are planned. Remote sensing and/or the physical presence 

of the field camp would help to discourage any potential illegal take. Unauthorized harvest 

would especially be unlikely during the 1-year-long field camp established every third year at 

Howland under Alternative D. None of the actions described in any of these alternatives will 

have impacts to the two listed turtle species. Therefore, formal consultation with NOAA-NMFS, 

in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is not required and will not 

be initiated. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-7 

4.5 Wilderness Resources 

The wilderness values of Howland would not be adversely affected by any of the alternatives. 

No permanent structures, roads, or other features would be constructed. The proposed field 

camp under all alternatives would be temporary, dismantled, and removed after each field camp. 

This temporary field camp and the activities associated with its operation would be considered 

the “minimum tool”, as defined in the Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy pursuant to the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (66 FR 3708). Alternatives C or D may also improve the wilderness 

character of the island by removing abandoned fuel drums and other unsightly debris. 

4.6 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources at Howland include archaeological and historic sites, with several likely 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Most of the historic sites such as the Amelia 

Earhart day beacon, airfield, and other World War II sites are apparent on the surface but many 

of the archaeological sites may be subsurface or in the marine environment and not apparent 

except to trained archeologists. Deployment of field camps has limited potential to impact 

subsurface archeological or historical resources. Alternatives A and B would have the least 

potential to disturb archeological or cultural resources due to the limited staff time on-island and 

transient nature of the field camps. Prior to establishment of field camps for Alternative C or 

Alternative D, archaeological reconnaissance surveys with limited sub-surface testing will be 

used to identify the precise locations of all sites and afford preliminary assessment of their 

nature, function, and significance of any cultural sites. Field campsites would be situated to 

avoid affecting any identified sites. Consequently all alternatives would have minimal long-term 

effects. Other management activities such as biological surveys, invasive species control, or 

marine debris collection and removal would likewise have limited potential to impact cultural 

resources. In this manner, impacts to cultural resources would be very unlikely for Alternatives 

A and B, and minor and avoidable for Alternatives C and D. Under Alternatives C and D, only 

trained archeologists will complete archeological and cultural surveys. Surveys will only be 

used to document the presence or absence of artifacts. 

4.7 Economic Effects 

Howland is currently managed with a portion of several Remotes employees staff time. Taken 

collectively under Alternative A, staff time devoted to Howland is approximately 1/5 of one 

permanent positions salary in a given year. Alternative B increases this amount to approximately 

1/3 of a permanent positions annual salary. Implementing Alternatives C and D would increase 

the staffing needs by approximately two additional annual permanent salaries. None of the 

positions or portions of positions, beyond the current 1/5 of one salary is funded. It would be 

possible to adjust position duties of existing staff to cover the increase needed to implement 

Alternative B. Additional funding would be required to implement Alternatives C or D. 

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

4-8 Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 

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 Howland. The nearest inhabited land mass to Howland is Kanton Island, located 378 nmi 

across open ocean. The nearest inhabited U.S. landmass is Hawaii at 1,661 nmi. Due to the 

extensive distances between human populations and Howland, 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 

Howland. Vegetation trampled during field camp operations will fully recover during 

subsequent seasons when field camps are not present. Precautions will limit disturbance to 

seabird colonies. There will be no permanent facilities or survey markers erected. All trash will 

be collected and removed from the island at the end of all field camp seasons. Aside from the 

potential establishment of nesting seabird species, there will be no physical signs that any of 

these alternatives has been implemented. The only other beneficial affects or impacts will be 

knowledge based through the collection and dissemination of scientific information. Considered 

in their totality, the adverse or beneficial impacts of implementing any alternative to the physical, 

observable resources of Howland will not be noticeable and thus insignificant. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-9 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 trampling or disturbance. 

Neutral effect. Although frequency of site visits increases, the level of visitation still precludes the effects of trampling or disturbance. 

Minor but temporary negative effect due to soil compaction and disturbance along established trails. 

Minor bnegativcompacdisturbaestablis

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 traboat traconstanalternat

Environmental Contaminants 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential exists for fuel spills during deployment and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral effect. No known existing contaminants, although potential increases slightly for fuel spills during deployment, operation, and demobilization of field camp. 

Neutral known contampotentiaslightly during operatiodemobicamp. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-10 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 stockpile marine debris. 

 Neutral to slightly positive effect. Habitat management limited to stockpile marine debris. 

Moderately positive effect. Habitat management includes stockpile and removal of marine debris. 

Moderaeffect. managestockpimarine 

Invasive Species 

Neutral effect. Invasive species documentation occurs during course of other duties. Potential negative effect exists for invasive species to become established during twoyear staff absence between visits. 

Neutral effect. Invasive species documentation occurs during course of other duties. Potential negative effect reduced for invasive species to become established during one- year staff absence between visits. 

Moderately positive effect. Surveys and control activities of invasive species occur annually during the 4-month field camp. 

Slightly Surveyactivitiespecies 

year. Dcamp (compenlengthefield ca

Seabirds Neutral effect. Basic 

monitoring of species presence/absence occurs every other year. 

Slightly positive effect. Basic monitoring of species presence/absence occurs every year. Electronic calls have potential positive effect to restore 2 nesting seabird species. 

Moderate positive effect. Expanded monitoring activities increase scientific understanding of seabird biology. Electronic calls have potential positive effect to restore 2 nesting seabird species. 

ModeraExpandactivitiescientifof seabElectropotentiato restoseabird 

Shorebirds Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

 Neutrachange conditio

Other Wildlife Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral change conditio
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 4-11 

 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. 

Neutral effect. effect osurveys understecosyst

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 bduring demobicamps. increasincreascorals, slight nfrom obdisturbacorals. 

Fish Neutral effect. No change 

from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral change conditio

Marine Mammals 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition 

ModeraFull timallows surveys

Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition 

Slight positive effect. Increased opportunity to survey. 

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

4-12 Chapter 4 – Environmental Effects 

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C AlternaSocial and Other Effects Wilderness Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. Wilderness values exist, but no wilderness designation. 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas identified for both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

Neutral effect. Wilderness Study Areas identified for both terrestrial and marine areas of refuge. 

Neutral Wildernidentifiterrestrareas of 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Neutral effect. No change from current condition. 

Minor positive effect. Cultural resource survey required prior to field camp establishment. Maintenance of historical structures possible. 

Minor presourcprior to establisMaintenstructur

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. 

Moderadue to ioperatio

Environmental Justice 

Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutral effect. Neutral 

Cumulative Effects 

Neutral effect. Slight positive effect. 

Scale and scope of most management activities do not change from Alternative A. 

Moderate positive effect. Greater scientific understanding of marine and terrestrial ecosystems is achieved. No longterm changes in habitat occur. 

ModeraGreater understand terris achieterm choccur. 
Howland 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 Service to 

produce a CCP for Howland, and invited comments on issues and concerns and interest in 

attending public meetings. A total of five responses were received. 

A second planning update was mailed on May 17, 2006. This update announced the 

development of a list of alternatives and solicited comments on the draft alternatives. This 

update was mailed to 253 private individuals; non-governmental organizations; local, state, 

Federal and international governments; and members of the media throughout the Pacific. To 

date, no responses have been received. 

Agency and Interest Group Consultation/Coordination

Members of the planning team met with NOAA staff and the Hawaii Department of Land and 

Natural Resources (DLNR) on May 31, 2005. Refuge staff also met with members of The 

Nature Conservancy on June 2, 2005. 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. 

Howland Island is uninhabited and an unincorporated U.S. territory far removed and beyond the 

jurisdiction of any State, insular area, or foreign nation. Other parties involved in 

correspondence related to this document included multiple nongovernmental organizations, U.S. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-2 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Environmental Protection Agency; National Park Service; U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. 

Department of Defense; President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council; Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources; Hawaii Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs; Governor of Hawaii; the Honorary Consulate-General of the Republic of 

Kiribati; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A A-1 

Appendix A 

 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

ACHP. President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

Alien species. Non-native species intentionally or accidentally introduced into habitats of the 

refuge. 

Atoll. A tropical reef formation with a shallow water lagoon, surrounding perimeter reef, and 

reef islet(s). 

Baker. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

CCP. Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

CCP/EA. A document that combines a Comprehensive Conservation Plan and an 

Environmental Assessment. 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. A comprehensive directory of all Federal regulations. 

CITES. Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager 

to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

CPWHP. Central Pacific World Heritage Project. 

CRED. The Coral Reef Ecosystem Division of NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center. 

DLNR. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

DMA. Defense Mapping Agency.

EEZ. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

EIS. Environmental Impact Statement. NEPA documentation that assesses the impacts of major 

Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-2 Appendix A 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

ENSO. El Niño Southern Oscillation; a periodic ocean warming anomaly in the tropics. 

EUC. Equatorial Undercurrent; a subsurface ocean current flowing east at the Equator. 

Federal Register (FR). Official bulletin publicizing notices of Federal actions. 

FMPS. Fishery Management Plans for commercial fisheries in Federal waters. 

FONSI. Finding of No Significant Impact; a federal agency notice and preliminary decision that 

its proposed action would not require preparation of an EIS. 

GIS. Geographic information system; a database integrating tabular and geographic data. 

GPS. Global Positioning System; satellite-based for accurate geographic/site positioning. 

Howland. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Hydrophone. Underwater microphone or listening device. 

Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Insular Area. The current generic term used to refer to a United States possession, territory, 

Territory, freely associated state, or commonwealth under United States sovereignty. 

Invasive Species. Either an alien or native species that spreads, or achieves dominance quickly, 

resulting in undesirable effects on native species and their habitats 

ITCZ. Inter-tropical Convergence Zone; approximately along 5o N Latitude where the northeast 

and southeast tradewinds collide, rise, and create a zone of heavy rainfall and low winds; also 

known as the doldrums. 

IUCN. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 

Jarvis. Used alone in this report, it refers to the Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

LEIS. Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. See EIS. 

MBTA. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Mesoscale Eddy. A circular flow of water near an island or reef, roughly 10 to 100 nm in 

diameter caused by the wake of currents passing the reef or island. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A A-3 

μ L. Micro liter, or one-millionth of a liter. 

NEC. North Equatorial Current, west-flowing surface current between 5-30oN Latitude. 

NECC. North Equatorial Countercurrent; east-flowing surface current under the ITCZ. 

NEPA. National Environmental Policy Act; establishes procedures requiring all Federal 

agencies to assess the environmental consequences of their actions. 

NMI. Nautical mile; the equivalent of 1.15 statute (land) mile. 

NMFS. The National Marine Fisheries Service of NOAA. 

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NPS. National Park Service. 

NWR. National Wildlife Refuge. 

NWRS. National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Oligotrophic. Waters having low levels of the mineral nutrients required by green plants. At 

Howland, this refers to the transparent zone of nutrient-poor shallow tropical waters, bounded by 

a thermocline serving as a barrier against exchange with deeper nutrient-rich waters. 

Phenology. The study of periodic biological phenomena, such as breeding, flowering, and 

migrations, especially as related to climate. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the refuge purpose(s), vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Proposed Action. Preferred Alternative among several evaluated to comply with NEPA. 

Quadrat. A rigid frame used by ecologists to facilitate unit area estimates of the size and 

density of surface-dwelling plants and animals; Photo-quadrat. A photograph of the area inside 

the quadrat to allow office data analysis after field staff visits. 

PIFSC. NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. 

REA. Rapid ecological assessments. 

Reef Island. Low tropical islet resting on a coral reef and consisting of reef rock and sand. 

RONS. Refuge Operating Needs System; Service program for NWR operating funds. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-4 Appendix A 

ROV. Remotely operated vehicle; mobile un-manned device for collecting deep-sea data. 

SAMMS. Service Asset Maintenance Management System; Service program to provide funds to 

maintain refuge property. 

SEC. South Equatorial Current; westward-flowing ocean current driven by the southeast 

tradewinds between Latitudes 5o N and 30o S. 

Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior. 

Service. Used alone in this report, it refers to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

SIPOBS. Smithsonian Institution Pacific Ocean Biological Survey. 

SUP. Special Use Permit; written Service approval and conditions for conducting an activity in 

a refuge. 

System. Used alone in this report, it refers to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Thermocline. In oceans, it is a depth zone of rapid density and temperature change serving as a 

barrier between mixing of shallow warmer surface and deeper subsurface waters. 

Transect. A linear scientific field survey sampling design or area to facilitate repeatability, 

standard units of measurement, and future site relocation and resurvey. 

UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

USCG. United States Coast Guard. 

U.S. Possession. Equivalent to U.S. territory. It is no longer current colloquial usage. 

U.S. Territory. An incorporated United States insular area, of which only one currently exists, 

Palmyra Atoll, in which the United States Congress has applied the full body of the United States 

Constitution. 

U.S. territory. A United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined 

that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply.

WESPAC. Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council. 

WSA. Wilderness Study Area. 

World Heritage Property. A protected and inscribed natural and/or cultural site with 

“outstanding universal value” and meeting one or more of the eligibility criteria of the 

International Convention on World Heritage. 
Howland 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: Corals and other cnidarians reported from Howland Island NWR 1998-2006. After 

Maragos (2000-2003, 2004, 2006), and Maragos & Schmerfeld (1998) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

MILLEPORIDAE Fire Corals 

 Millepora platyphylla fire coral 

POCILLOPORIDAE 

 Pocillopora eydouxi antler coral 

 Pocillopora meandrina cauliflower or rose coral 

 Pocillopora verrucosa pink cauliflower coral 

ACROPORIDAE Table, Plate, and Rice Corals 

 Montipora tuberculosa 

 Montipora aequituberculata cup or whorl coral 

PORITIDAE Poritid Corals 

 Porites australiensis 

 Porites latistella-vaughani 

 Porites lichen lichen or yellow finger coral 

 Porites lobata lobe or lobed porous coral 

 Porites lutea mound coral 

 Porites rus plate and pillar, or thin finger coral 

 Porites solida solid or boulder coral 

 Porites sp. 

 Porites vaughani 

 Porites annae encrusting boulder coral 

 Porites superfusa 

AGARICIIDAE Cactus, Elephant Skin, Plate, Lettuce Corals 

 Gardineroseris planulata honeycomb coral 

 Leptoseris mycetoseroides swelling coral 

 Pachyseris sp.

 Pavona explanulata 

 Pavona minuta 

 Pavona varians corrugated or frilly coral 

 Pavona clavus star column coral 

FUNGIIDAE Mushroom Corals 

 Fungia scutaria oval mushroom coral 

 Fungia granulose 

 Fungia repanda mushroom coral 

 Halomitra pileus 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Herpolitha limax tongue or slipper coral 

 Podabacia crustacean 

MUSSIDAE 

 Symphyllia recta wrinkle coral 

MERULINIDAE 

 Hydnophora rigida velvet, horn, knob, or thorny coral 

 Hydnophora exesa velvet horn coral 

 Hydnophora microconos 

FAVIIDAE Honeycomb and Brain Corals 

 Favites pentagona pineapple coral 

 Favites complanata pineapple coral 

 Favites flexuosa pineapple coral 

 Favites russelli 

 Goniastrea retiformis 

 Goniastrea sp.

 Leptastrea pruinosa 

 Leptastrea transversa 

 Leptastrea bewickensis Bewick coral 

 Leptastrea purpurea crust or mosaic coral 

 Montastrea caliculata 

 Montastrea curta 

 Montastrea danae 

 Montastrea efflorescens 

 Montastrea foliosa 

 Montastrea foveolata 

 Montastrea hispida 

 Montastrea informis 

 Montastrea millepora 

 Montastrea patula 

 Montastrea sp. cf verrilli 

 Montastrea venosa 

 Montastrea annuligera 

DENDROPHYLLIIDAE Pagoda, Sun, and Cup Corals 

 Tubastraea coccinea rose, sun, or orange polyp coral 

ZOOANTHIDAE Mat Anemone 

 *Palythoa sp. anemone or colonial palathoa 

DISCOSOMATIDAE Mushroom Corals 

 *Rhodactis howseii 

ALCYONIIDAE Leather Corals 

• Sarcophyton sp.

SIDERASTREIDAE 

 Psammocora nierstraszi 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-3 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Psammocora profundacella 

 Psammocora haimeana 

 Psammocora stellata 

*indicates non-stony species 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B 

Table B-2: Shallow water records of fish collected from or observed at Howland Island from 

1927-2002. Collected or compiled by Mundy et al. (2002). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

GINGLYMOSTOMATIDAE Nurse Sharks 

 Nebrius ferrugineus nurse shark 

CARCHARHINIDAE Requiem Sharks 

 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos grey reef shark 

 Carcharhinus melanopterus reef blacktip shark 

 Galeocerdo cuvieri tiger shark 

HEMIGALEIDAE Weasel Sharks 

 Triaenodon obesus reef whitetip shark 

SPHYRNIDAE Hammerhead Sharks 

 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark 

DASYATIDAE Sand Rays 

 Taeniura meyeni 

MYLIOBATIDIDAE Eagle Rays 

 Aetobatus narinari spotted eagle ray 

MOBULIDAE Manta Rays 

 Manta sp. manta 

MURAENIDAE Moray Eels 

 Anarchias allardicei Allardice’s moray 

 Anarchias cantonenesis Canton Island moray 

 Echidna nebulosa snowflake moray 

 Echidna polyzona barred moray 

 Enchelycore pardalis 

 Gymnomuraena zebra zebra moray 

 Gymnothorax breedini 

 Gymnothorax chilospilus 

 Gymnothorax javanicus giant moray 

 Gymnothorax flavimarginatus yellow-margined moray 

 Gymnothorax marshallensis Marshall Island moray 

 Gymnothorax meleagris white-mouth moray 

 Gymnothorax picta peppered moray 

 Gymnothorax rueppelliae yellow-headed moray 

 Gymnothorax sp.

 Gymnothorax thyrsoideus 

 Gymnothorax undulatus undulated moray 

 Uropterygius sp.

 Uropterygius marmoratus marbled snake moray 

OPHICHTHIDAE 

 Myrichthys maculosus spotted snake eel 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-5 

Scientific Name Common Name 

CONGRIDAE Conger Eel 

 Conger sp.

CHANIDAE Milkfish 

 Chanos chanos milkfish 

SYNODONTIDAE Lizardfishes 

 Synodus sp.

HOLOCENTRIDAE Squirrelfishes 

 Myripristis berndti bigscale soldierfish 

 Sargocentron caudimaculatum tailspot squirrelfish 

 Sargocentron diadema crown squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum microstoma finelined squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum punctatissimum speckled squirrelfish 

 Sargocentrum tiere blue-lined squirrelfish 

SYNGNATHIDAE Pipefishes and Seahorses 

 Choeroichthys sculptus sculpted pipefish 

AULOSTOMIDAE Trumpetfishes 

 Aulostomus chinensis trumpetfish 

SCORPAENIDAE Scorpionfishes 

 Pterois antennata spotfin lionfish 

 Pterois radiate clearfin lionfish 

 Petrois volitans lionfish, turkeyfish 

 unidentified scorpionfish 

CARACANTHIDAE Orbicular Velvetfishes 

 Caracanthus maculates spotted coral croucher 

SERRANIDAE Groupers & Sea Basses 

 Aethaloperca rogaa redmouth grouper 

 Cephalopholis argus peacock grouper 

 Cephalopholis aurantia 

 Cephalopholis miniata coral grouper 

 Cephalopholis urodeta flagtail grouper 

 Epinephelus fasciatus black-tipped grouper 

 Epinephelus hexagonatus hexagon grouper 

 Epinephelus howlandi 

 Epinephelus macrospilos black-spotted grouper 

 Epinephelus maculatus highfin grouper 

 Epinephelus melanostigmus blackspot honeycomb grouper 

 Epinephelus merra honeycomb merra 

 Epinephelus retouti 

 Epinephelus sp.

 Epinephelus spilotoceps four-saddle grouper 

 Epinephelus tauvina greasy grouper 

 Gracila albomarginata white-margined grouper 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Luzonichthys whitleyi Whitley’s slender basslet 

 Plectropomus laevis Saddleback grouper 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum Bartlett’s fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias bartlettorum 

 Pseudanthias cooperi red-bar fairy basslet 

 Pseudanthias olivaceus 

 Pseudantias sp. 

 Variola louti 

ANTENNARIIDAE Frogfishes 

 Antennarius tuberosus 

BELONIDAE Needlefishes 

 Platybelone argulus platyura keeled needlefish 

 Tylosurus crocodilus crocodile needlefish 

APOGONIDAE Cardinalfishes 

 Apogon angustatus broad-striped cardinalfish 

 Apogon apogonides 

 Apogon coccineus cryptic cardinalfish 

 Apogon fraenatus bridled cardinalfish 

 Apogon luteus 

 Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus five-lined cardinalfish 

MALACANTHIDAE Sand Tilefishes 

 Malacanthus latovittatus striped blanquillo 

CORYPHAENIDAE 

 Coryphaena hippurus mahi mahi, common dolphinfish 

ECHENEIDAE Remoras 

 Echeneis sp. 

CARANGIDAE Jacks 

 Carangoides ferdau bar jack 

 Carangoides orthogrammus yellow-spotted trevally 

 Caranx ignobilis giant trevally 

 Caranx lugubris black jack 

 Caranx melampygus bluefin trevally 

 Caranx sexfasciatus bigeye trevally 

 Elegatis bipinnulata rainbow runner 

 Seriola dumerili greater amberjack 

 Trachinotus baillonii 

LUTJANIDAE Snappers 

 Aphareus furca blue smalltooth jobfish 

 Aprion virescens jobfish, uku 

 Lutjanus bohar twinspot snapper, redspot snapper 

 Lutjanus fulvus flametail snapper 

 Lutjanus gibbus humpback snapper 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-7 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Lutjanus kasmira bluelined snapper 

 Lutjanus monostigma onespot snapper 

 Macolor niger black snapper 

CAESIONIDAE Fusiliers 

 Caesio teres yellowback fusilier 

 Pterocaesio latovittata yellowstreak fusilier 

 Pterocaesio marri twinstripe fusilier 

 Pterocaesio tile bluestreak fusilier 

LETHRINIDAE Emperors 

 Gnathodentex aureolineatus yellowspot emperor 

 Monotaxis grandoculis bigeye emperor 

MULLIDAE Goatfishes 

 Mulloides flavolineatus yellowstripe goatfish 

 Mulloides mimicus (L. kasmira) 

 Mulloides vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish 

 Parupeneus bifasciatus two-barred goatfish 

 Parupeneus cyclostomus yellowsaddle goatfish 

 Parupeneus multifasciatus multibarred goatfish 

 Parupeneus pleurostigma sidespot goatfish 

 Parupeneus trifasciatus 

PRIACANTHIDAE Bigeyes 

 Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 

PEMPHERIDAE Sweepers 

 Pempheris oualensis bronze sweeper 

KYPHOSIDAE Chubs 

 Kyphosus bigibbus brown chub 

 Kyphosus cinerascens highfin rudderfish 

 Kyphosus vaigiensis lowfin rudderfish 

 Kyphosus sp.

 Sectator ocyurus 

EPHIPPIDAE Batfishes 

 Platax orbicularis circular spadefish, batfish 

 Platax teira longfin spadefish 

CHAETODONTIDAE Butterflyfishes 

 Chaetodon auriga threadfin butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon citrinellus speckled butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon kleinii Klein’s butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon lunula racoon butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon meyeri Meyer’s butterflyfish 

 Chaedodon ornatissimus ornate butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon quadrimaculatus gourspot butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon reticulatus reticulated butterflyfish 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-8 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Chaetodon trifascialis chevroned butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon unimaculatus teardrop butterflyfish 

 Chaetodon vagabundus vagabond butterflyfish 

 Forcipiger flavissimus long-nosed butterflyfish 

 Forcipiger longirostris big long-nosed butterflyfish 

 Hemitaurichthys thompsoni Thompson’s butterflyfish 

 Heniochus monoceros masked bannerfish 

 Heniochus varius humphead bannerfish 

POMACANTHIDAE Angelfishes 

 Apolemichthys griffisi Griffis angelfish 

 Apolemichthys trimaculatus three-spot angelfish 

 Apolemichthys xanthopunctatus golden spotted angelfish 

 Centropyge bicolor bicolor angelfish 

 Centropyge flavissima lemonpeel angelfish 

Centropyge flavissima vrolikii hyb. Lemonpeel and Pearlscale angelfish hybrid 

 Centropyge loricula flame angelfish 

 Centropyge vrolikii pearlscale angelfish 

 Pomacanthus imperator emporer angelfish 

Pygoplites diacanthus Regal angelfish 

POMACENTRIDAE damselfishes 

 Abudefduf notatus yellow-tail sergeant 

 Abudefduf septemfasciatus banded sergeant 

 Abudefduf sordidus black-spot sergeant 

 Amphiprion chrysopterus orange-fin anemonefish 

 Amphiprion perideraion pink anemonefish 

 Chromis acares midget chromis 

 Chromis agilis bronze reef chromis 

 Chromis analis yellow chromis 

 Chromis bicolor 

 Chromis caudalis blue axil chromis 

 Chromis margaritifer bicolor chromis 

 Chromis vanderbilti Vanderbilt’s chromis 

 Chromis viridis (caerulea) blue-green chromis 

 Chromis xanthura black chromis 

 Chrysiptera glauca gray demoiselle 

 Chry.brownriggii (leucopoma) 

 Dascyllus auripinnis (ms) 

 Lepidozygus tapeinosoma Fusilier damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon dickii Dick’s damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon imparipennis bright-eye damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus Johnston Island damsel 

 Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus jewel damsel 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-9 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Plectroglyphidodon leucozonus white-band damsel 

 Plectroglyphid. phoenixensis Phoenix Islands damsel 

 Pomacentrus bankanensis speckled damsel 

 Stegastes albifasciolatus white-bar gregory 

 Stegastes aureus 

 Stegastes fasciolatus Pacific gregory 

 Stegastes nigricans dusky farmerfish 

KUHLIIDAE Flagtails 

 Kuhlia petiti 

CIRRHITIDAE Hawkfishes 

 Cirrhiticythys aprenius 

 Cirrhitichthys falco falco hawkfish 

 Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus pixy hawkfish 

 Cirrhitops hubbardsi 

 Cirrhitus pinnulatus stocky hawkfish 

 Neocirrhites armatus flame hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites arcatus arc-eye hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites forsteri freckled hawkfish 

 Paracirrhites hemistictus whitespot hawkfish 

SPHYRAENIDAE Barracudas 

 Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda 

LABRIDAE Wrasses 

 Anampses caeruleopunctatus blue-spotted wrasse 

 Anampses meleagrides yellowtail wrasse 

 Anampses twistii yellowbreasted wrasse 

 Bodianus axillaries axilspot hogfish 

 Bodianus dianna Diana’s hogfish 

 Bodianus prognathus 

 Cheilinus oxycephalus snooty wrasse 

 Cheilinus trilobatus tripletail wrasse 

 Cheilinus undulatus humphead wrasse, napoleonfish 

 Cirrhilabrus exquisitus exquisite wrasse 

 Coris aygula clown coris 

 Coris centralis 

 Coris gaimard yellowtail coris 

 Gomphosus varius bird wrasse 

 Halichoeres hortulanus checkerboard wrasse 

 Halichoeres margaritaceus weedy surge wrasse 

 Halichoeres melasmopomus black-ear wrasse 

 Halichoeres ornatissinus ornate wrasse fish 

 Halichoeres scapularis zigzag wrasse 

 Halichoeres trimaculatus three-spot wrasse 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-10 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Hemigymnus fasciatus barred thicklip wrasse 

 Labroides bicolor bicolor cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides dimidiatus bluestreak cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides pectoralis black-spot cleaner wrasse 

 Labroides rubrolabiatus 

 Labropsis xanthonota wedge-tailed wrasse 

 Macropharyngodon meleagris leopard wrasse 

 Novaculichtyhs taeniourus dragon wrasse, rockmover wrasse 

 Oxycheilinus unifasciatus 

 Oxycheilinus evanidus 

 Pseudocheilinus hexataenia sixline wrasse 

 Pseudocheilinus octotaenia eightline wrasse 

 Pseudocoris heteroptera 

 Pseudodax mollucanus 

 Stethojulis bandanensis red-shoulder wrasse 

 Thalassoma amblycephalum two-tone wrasse 

 Thalassoma lutescens sunset wrasse 

 Thalassoma purpureum surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma quinquevittatum five-stripe surge wrasse 

 Thalassoma trilobatum Christmas wrasse 

SCARIDAE Parrotfishes 

 Bolbometopon muricatum humphead parrotfish 

 Calatomus carolinus bucktooth parrotfish, stareye parrotfish 

 Chlorurus microrhinus 

 Chlorurus sordidus 

 Scarus altipinnis filament-finned parrotfish 

 Scarus frenatus vermiculate parrotfish 

 Scarus niger black parrotfish 

 Scarus oviceps dark-capped parrotfish 

 Scarus rubroviolaceus red and violet parrotfish 

 Scarus tricolor 

 Scarus sp. 

TRIPTERYGIIDAE Triplefins 

 Enneapterygius sp

 Enneapterygius nigricada 

 Helcogramma chica 

BLENNIIDAE Blennies 

 Blenniela caudolineata 

 Blenniella gibbifrons 

 Blenniella paula 

 Cirripectes polyzona barred blenny 

 Cirripectes quagga sguiggly blenny 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-11 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Cirripectes sp.

 Cirripectes variolosus red-speckled blenny 

 Ecsenius midas 

 Entomacrodus sp.

 Entomacrodus striatus 

 Exallias brevis 

 Istiblennius sp.

 Istiblennius edentulous rippled rockskipper 

 Istiblennius lineatus lined rockskipper 

 Plagiotremus rhynorhynchus bluestriped blenny 

 Plagiotremus tapeinosoma piano blenny, Scale-eating blenny 

 Rhabdoblennius rhabdotrachelus 

GOBIESOCIDAE Clingfishes and Singleslits 

 Lepidichthys minor 

GOBIIDAE Gobies 

 unid. goby cf. Eviota viridis 

 Bathygobius cocosensis Cocos frill goby 

 Bathygobius fuscus fusky frill goby 

 Eviota sp. 

 Eviota epiphanies small sleeper 

 Eviota saipanensis Saipan pygmy goby 

 Eviota viridis 

 Gnatholepis sp. 

 Priolepis semidoliatus 

 Priolepis squamogena 

 Valenciennea strigata 

CALLIONYMIDAE Dragonets 

 Synchiropus sp. mandarin fish 

PTERELEOTRIDAE Dartfishes 

 Ptereleotris evides 

ACANTHURIDAE Surgeonfishes & Unicornfishes 

 Acanthurus Achilles Achilles tang 

 Acanthurus blochii (mata) ringtail surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus guttatus spotted surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus lineatus 

 Acanthurus maculiceps white-freckled surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus mata elongate surgeonfish 

 A. nigricans (glaucopareius) whitecheek surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigricauda epaulette surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigrofuscus brown surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nigroris blue-lined surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus nubilis 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-12 Appendix B 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Acanthurus olivaceus orangeband surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus pyroferus chocolate surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus rackliffei 

 Acanthurus triostegus 

 Acanthurus thompsoni Thompson’s surgeonfish 

 Acanthurus xanthopterus yellow-finned surgeonfish 

 Acan. achilles x nigricans 

 Acanthurus sp. 

 Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus 

 Ctenochaetus flavicaudis 

 Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis chevron tang, black surgeonfish 

 Ctenochaetus marginatus blue-spotted bristletooth 

 Ctenochaetus striatus striped bristletooth 

 Naso brevirostris spotted unicornfish 

 Naso hexacanthus blacktongue unicornfish , sleek unicornfish 

 Naso lituratus liturate surgeonfish 

 Naso vlamingii bignose unicornfish 

 Naso sp.

 Paracanthurus hepatus palette surgeonfish, hepatus tang 

 Zebrasoma rostratum 

 Zebrasoma scopas brown tang 

 Zebrasoma veliferum sailfin tang 

ZANCLIDAE Moorish Idol 

 Zanclus cornutus moorish idol 

ISTIOPHORIDAE Billfishes 

SCOMBRIDAE Tunas 

 Euthynnus affinis kawakawa, bonito 

 Gymnosarda nuda dogtooth tuna 

 Thunnus albacares yellowfin tuna 

BOTHIDAE Left-hand Flounders 

 Bothus mancus peacock flounder 

BALISTIDAE Triggerfishes 

 Balistapus undulatus orangestriped triggerfish 

 Ballistoides conspicillum clown triggerfish 

 Balistoides viridescens mustache triggerfish, titan triggerfish 

 Melichtys niger black triggerfish 

 Melichtys vidua pinktail triggerfish 

 Odonus niger redtooth triggerfish 

 Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus yellowmargin triggerfish 

 Rhinecanthus rectangulus wedge picassofish, humuhumu 

 Sufflamen bursa scythe triggerfish, boomerang triggerfish 

 Sufflamen chrysopterus halfmoon triggerfish 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-13 

Scientific Name Common Name 

 Sufflamen frenatus bridle triggerfish 

 Xanthichthys auromarginatus bluechin triggerfish, guilded triggerfish 

 Xanthichthys caeruleolineatus bluelined triggerfish 

MONACANTHIDAE Filefishes 

 Aluterus scriptus scribbled filefish 

 Amanses scopas broom filefish 

 Cantherhines dumerilii barred filefish 

 Cantherhines pardalis wire-net filefish 

OSTRACIIDAE Trunkfishes 

 Ostracion meleagris spotted trunkfish 

TETRAODONTIDAE Puffers 

 Arothron hispidus whitespotted puffer 

 Arothron meleagris guineafowl puffer 

 Canthigaster amboinensis Ambon sharpnose puffer 

 Canthigaster janthinoptera 

 Canthigaster solandri spotted sharpnose puffer 

DIODONTIDAE Porcupinefishes 

 Diodon hystrix porcupinefish 

 Diodon liturosis shortspine porcupinefish 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-14 Appendix B 

Table B-3: Plant species of Howland Island NWR. Compiled from unpublished USFWS trip 

reports. 

Scientific Name Common Name, 

(Hawaiian Name) 

Source* Observed 

by** 

Observed in 

2004 

Cocos nucifera coconut, 

(nui) 

I no 

Casuarina sp. ironwood I no 

Pandanus sp. pandanus, 

(hala) 

I no 

Digitaria pacifica Pacific crabgrass A d,e yes 

Lepturus repens Pacific Island thintail N a,b,c,d,e yes 

Boerhavia sp. (alena) N a,b,c,d,e yes 

Portulaca lutea portulaca, 

(‘ihi) 

N a,,b,d,e yes 

Portulaca oleracea portulaca, 

(‘ihi) 

A a,,b,d,e yes 

Sophora tomentosa 

yellow neclacepod 

W e no 

Tribulus cistoides puncturevine, 

(nohu) 

N a,b,c,d,e yes 

Cordia subcordata cordia, kou N a,c,d,e yes 

Coccoloba uvifera sea grape I c,d,e no 

Sida fallax (‘ilima) A e no 

Scaevola taccada (naupaka) W f yes 

Suriana maritime bay cedar W f yes 

Tournefortia argentea tree heliotrope W g yes 

*Source: N = native, I = introduced, A = accidentally introduced, W = wave carried 

** Collectors and Observers: 

 a - E. Christophersen 1924 e - C.R. Long 1964 

 b - E.H. Bryan 1938 f - Rauzon and Woodside 1998 

 c - F. Sibley 1963 g - Depkin and Newton 1995 

 d - P. Marshall 1963 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B B-15 

Table B-4: Birds of Howland Island NWR. Numbers are counts of adult birds only and 

compiled from unpublished USFWS trip reports. Note: No bird species found on Howland are 

listed according to the Endangered Species Act. 

Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Highest 

count 

since 

1973 

Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Statusb

National 

Shorebird 

Prioritization 

Categorya

Regional 

Seabird 

Conservation 

Categoryc

Nesofregetta 

fuliginosa 

Polynesian 

stormpetrel 

- BCC 68 Highly 

Imperiled 

Pterodroma 

alba 

Phoenix 

petrel 

- BCC 68 Highly 

Imperiled 

Puffinus 

pacificus 

wedgetailed 

shearwater 

1 Low 

Phaethon 

lepturus 

whitetailed 

tropicbird 

1 Low 

Phaethon 

rubricauda 

red-tailed 

tropicbird* 

496 Moderate 

Sula 

dactylatra

masked 

booby* 

3,763 Moderate 

Sula 

leucogaster 

brown 

booby* 

275 Moderate 

Sula sula red-footed 

booby* 

825 Currently not 

at Risk 

Fregata 

minor 

great 

frigatebird* 

550 Moderate 

Fregata 

ariel 

lesser 

frigatebird* 

3,850 BCC 68 High Concern

Onychoprion 

lunata 

graybacked 

tern* 

2,000 Moderate 

Onychoprion 

fuscatuc 

sooty tern* 150,000 Moderate 

Anous 

stolidus 

brown 

noddy* 

1,000 Currently not 

at Risk 

Procelsterna 

cerulea 

blue-grey 

noddy* 

11 BCC 68 High Concern

Gygis alba white tern* 50 Moderate 

Pluvianlis 

dominica 

Pacific 

goldenplover 

126 BCC 68 High Concern 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-16 Appendix B 

Tringa 

incana 

wandering 

tattler 

27 Moderate 

Concern 

Numenius 

tahitiensis 

bristlethighed 

curlew 

62 BCC 68 High Concern 

Arenaria 

interpres 

ruddy 

turnstone 

141 High Concern 

Limosa 

lapponica 

bar-tailed 

godwit 

1 High Concern 

Calidris 

acuminata 

sharp-tailed 

sandpiper 

1 

Calidris 

melanotos 

pectoral 

sandpiper 

1 

Calidris 

alba 

sanderling 1 

Bubuculus 

ibis 

cattle egret - 

Anas acuta northern 

pintail 

14 

*indicates documented breeding species on Howland 

a

Species prioritization categories according to United States Shorebird Conservation Plan 

(Brown et al. 2000) 

b

Birds of Conservation Concern status according to Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

c

Conservation classification according to Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region (Englis and 

Naughton 2004) 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-1 

Appendix C 

 List of Cited References 

 

Ashmole, N.P. and M.J Ashmole. 1967. Comparative Feeding Ecology of Sea Birds of a 

Tropical Oceanic Island. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin 24. 

Atomic Energy Commission. 1963. Reconnaissance Survey Report: Howland, Baker & Canton 

Islands. Las Vegas, NV. 

 

Boehlert, G., editor. 1993. Fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S. associated Pacific Islands. 

Marine Fisheries Review 55:1-138. 

Brown, D, N. M. K. Y. Kahanu, S.K. Kikiloi, T.K. Tengan and J. Zisk. 2002. Hui Panalā‛au. 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, published pamphlet, 16 pp. 

Brown, S. C. Hickey, and B. Harrington eds. 2000. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Browne, A.C. 1940. Proc. Hawaiian Ent. Soc. 10(3):369. 

Bryan, E.H., Jr. 1974. Panala’au Memoirs. Pacific Scientific Information Center. Bernice P. 

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. 

Christophersen, E. 1927. Vegetation of Pacific Equatorial Islands. Bernice P. Bishop Museum 

Bulletin 44: No. 2. 79 p. 

Citta, John and Michelle H. Reynolds. 2006. Draft Seabird Monitoring Assessment for Hawaii 

and the Pacific Islands . Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs USFWS. USGS-BRD 183 pp. 

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

C-2 Appendix C 

Engilis, Jr., A. and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 

Fefer, S.I., C.S. Harrison, M.B. Naughton, and R.J. Shallenberger. 1984. Synopsis of results of 

recent seabird research conducted in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Proc. Res. Inv. NWHI 

UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01 

Flint, E. and D. Woodside. 1993. Howland and Baker Islands Trip Report, 19 January to 15 

February, 1993. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI 96850. 

Flint, E. and C. Eggleston. 2004. Draft Equatorial Refuges Trip Report. January 8-31, 2004. 

Administrative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI 

Floros, C. D., M. J. Samways, and B. Armstrong. 2004. Taxonomic patterns of bleaching within 

a South African coral assemblage. Biodiversity and Conservation. 13: 1175-1194.Fowler. 1927. 

Hague, J.D. 1862. On phosphatic guano islands of the Pacific Ocean. Amer. Jour. Sci., 84: 224-

243, 1862. 

 

Harrison, C.S., T. S. Hida, M.P. Seki. 1983. Hawaiian Seabird Feeding Ecology. Wildlife 

Monographs 85:1-71. 

 

Hutchinson, G.E. 1950. The Biochemistry of Vertebrate Excretion. Bull. Amer. 

Museum Nat. Hist. 96. 554 p. 

IPCC, Ed., 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 881 pp. 

Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in the Palau District of 

Micronesia. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

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. 

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

Appendix C C-3 

Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.M. Brinson, and L.R. Gardner. 1997. Climate 

change, hurricanes and tropical storms and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological 

Applications. 7:770-801. 

Mueller-Dombois, D. and F.R. Fosberg. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Island Pacific. 

Springer-Verlag, New York (Book in collection of H. Freifeld, 3-122 Federal Building). 

Morrison, R.J. 1990. Pacific Atoll Soils: Chemistry, Mineralogy and Classification. Atoll 

Research Bulletin. No. 339: 25p. 

Mundy, B., R. Wass, E. DeMartini, B. Greene, B. Zgliczynski, and R. Schroeder. 2002. Inshore 

fishes of Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef. 

Unpublished ms. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, 80 pp. 

Munro, G.C. 1924. (unpublished) Report of the ornithologist on the USS Whippoorwill 

expedition trip “B” to Howland and Baker Islands. Sept. 15 to Oct. 7, 1924. (Extracted Aug. 4, 

1965, by Roger Clapp) 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for 

U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for 

U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD. 

NOAA 1991. Climates of the World. Historical Climatology Series 6-4. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C. p. 26. 

Overpeck, J.T., B.L. Otto-Bliesner, G.H. Miller, D.R. Muhs, R.B. Alley, and J.T. Kiehl. 2006. 

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise. Science 

311:1747-1750. 

 

Rauzon, M.J. 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. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-4 Appendix C 

Sibley, F.C. R.B. Clapp, and C.R. Long. 1965. Biological Survey of Howland Island, March 

1963 – May 1965. Unpublished Report of Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program, Division 

of Birds Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

Skaggs, J. M., 1994. The Great Guano Rush. Entrepreneurs and American Overseas Expansion. 

St. Martin’s Griffin. New York. 

Smith, S.V and R. M. Buddemeier. 1992. Global Change and Coral Reef Ecosystems. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 23:89-118. 

Starbuck, A., 1878. History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to the year 

1876. In Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1875-1876. Washington, 

Government Printing Office. Pp. 1-779. 

Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of 

American whaleships. Zoolologica 19:3-50. 

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2003. Central Pacific World Heritage Project International 

Workshop Report, 2-6 June 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Paris, 44pp. 

UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2004. Central Pacific World Heritage Project, National 

Workshop Report, 5-11 October 2004, Kiritimati Island, the Republic of Kiribati. Paris, 11pp. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC). 1963. Reconnaissance Survey Report. Howland, 

Baker & Canton Islands. October, 1963. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations 

Office. Prepared by: Holmes & Narver Inc. Logistics Planning Group. Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuges, Biological Ascertainment Reports. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island National 

Wildlife Refuges, Narrative Report, FY 1975. Kailua, HI 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Coral Reef Initiative in the Pacific: Howland Island, 

Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges. Honolulu, HI. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Remote islands ecosystem plan: Howland Island, Baker 

Island, and Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuges. Honolulu, HI. 16 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Special Conditions & Rules for Moving Between Islands and Atolls and Packing for Field 

Camps. Honolulu, HI. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C C-5 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Palmyra Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge, Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Arlington, Va. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Vitousek, M. J., Kilonsky, B, and W. G. Leslie. 1980. Meteorological Observations in the Line 

Islands, 1972-1980. Honolulu, HI. 74 pp. 

Vitousek, P. M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology. 75:1861-

1876. 

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

Appendix D D-1 

Appendix D 

 Quarantine Protocol for Howland Island NWR 

The following protocol was developed to maintain consistency in quarantine procedures for all 

NWRs in the Pacific. Thus, these provisions apply to all of the remote island national wildlife 

refuges. Some refuges, including Howland, may have additional restrictions and requirements.

Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Special Conditions and Rules for 

Moving Between Islands and Atolls and 

Packing for Field Camps 

The islands and atolls of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex are 

special places providing habitat for many rare, endemic plants and animals. Many of these 

species are formally listed as federally Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. Endemic plants and insects, and the predators they support, are especially 

vulnerable to the introduction of competing or consuming, non-native species. Such 

introductions may cause the extinction of island endemics, or even the destruction of entire 

island ecological communities. Notable local examples include: the introduction of rabbits to 

Laysan Island in 1902 which caused the extinction of numerous plant and insect species and 3 

endemic landbird species; the introduction of rats to many Pacific Islands causing the elimination 

of many burrowing seabird colonies; the introduction of the annual grass, sandbur, to Laysan 

Island where it has out competed native bunch grass and eliminated nesting habitat for the 

Endangered Laysan finch; and the introduction and proliferation of numerous ant species 

throughout the Pacific Islands to the widespread detriment of endemic plant and insect species 

(refuge files). 

Several of the islands within the Refuge Complex are especially pristine, and, as a result, are 

diverse in terms of rare and special declining native plants and animals. Nihoa Island has 13 

potential candidate Endangered insect species, numerous Endangered plants, and 2 Endangered 

birds. Necker Island has Endangered plants and 7 endemic insects that are candidates for the 

Endangered Species List. Laysan Island has endangered plants, five potential candidate 

endangered insect species and the Endangered Laysan finch and Laysan duck. Other islands in 

the Refuge Complex such as Lisianski, Howland, Baker, and Jarvis and islets in Atolls such as 

Rose, Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals are inhabited by a variety of endemic 

and/or endangered species and require special protection from invasive species. 

Other Pacific Island such as Kure and the “high islands” (Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Kauai, etc.) as 

well as, certain islands within Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals 

have native plants and/or animals that are at high risk from introduction to the relatively pristine 

islands discussed above. Of special concerns are introductions of non-native snakes, rats, ants 

and a variety of other insect and plant species. Invasive plants of highest concern are Verbesina 

encelioides, Cenchrus echinatus, and Setaria verticillata.
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-2 Appendix D 

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the management and protection of the fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats associated with islands of the Pacific Remote Islands NWR 

Complex. No one is permitted to access any of the Refuge's islands without the express written 

permission of the Refuge Manager in the form of a Special Use Permit. Because of the above 

concerns, the following restrictions on the movement of personnel and materials to the islands of 

the Refuge Complex exist. Note: Kure Island and Midway Atoll are not part of this Refuge 

Complex. 

With the exception of Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals, the following rules apply: 

Clothing and Soft Gear: 

• Any personnel landing boats at any island should have clean clothes and shoes, meaning 

that they are free of dirt and seeds. 

• Any personnel going ashore at any island and moving inshore from the immediate area in 

which waves are breaking at the time of landing must have new footwear, new or islandspecific clothes and new or island-specific soft gear that have been frozen (<4 C) for at 

least 48 hours. 

• At the discretion of the local USFWS representative, personnel from a NOAA ship or any 

other vessel servicing the Refuge may be allowed on shore to visit predesignated areas 

for guided tours. All stipulations for clean and frozen clothes apply. 

• Otherwise, any personnel entering any vegetated area, regardless of how sparse the 

vegetation, must have new footwear, new clothes and new soft gear all frozen for at least 

48 hours. 

Definitions: 

• “new" means off the shelf and never used anywhere but the island in question. 

• "clothing" is all apparel , shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

• "soft gear" is all gear such as daypacks, fanny packs, camera bags, camera/binocular 

straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or 

any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds or insects. 

Clothing or gear coming off Kure and Midway should never be moved to any of the other refuge 

islands. 

During transit, clothing and gear coming off Kure and Midway must be carefully sequestered to 

avoid contamination of gear bound for other remote islands. Special care must be taken to avoid 

contaminating gear storage areas and quarters aboard transporting vessels with seeds or insects 

from these islands. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D D-3 

General Rules: 

• Regardless of origin or destination, inspect and clean all equipment, supplies, 

immediately prior to any trip to the Refuge. Carefully clean all clothing, footwear and 

soft gear following use to minimize risk of cross contamination of materials between 

islands. 

 

• Pack supplies in plastic buckets with fitted lids or other sealable metal or plastic 

containers so they can be thoroughly cleaned inside and out. Cardboard is not 

permitted on islands. Cardboard boxes disintegrate in a short time and harbor seeds, 

animals, etc., which cannot be easily found or removed. Wood is not permitted unless 

sealed on all surfaces. 

Wooden boxes can also harbor insects and seeds and, therefore, are only allowed if well 

constructed (tight fitting seams are required). All wood must be treated, and inside and 

outside surfaces must be painted or varnished to provide a smooth, cleanable finish that 

seals all holes. 

• Freeze or tarp and fumigate then seal all equipment (clothes, books, tents) immediately 

prior to departure. Food and cooking items need not be fumigated but should be cleaned 

and frozen, if freezable. Cameras, binoculars, radios, and other electronic equipment 

must be thoroughly cleaned, including internal inspection whenever possible, but they do 

not need to be frozen or fumigated. Such equipment can only be packed in wooden 

crates if treated as in #2 above. Any containers must contain new, clean packing 

materials and be frozen or fumigated. 

• At present, Tern Island is the singular exception to the above rule having less stringent 

rules due to the large number of previously established invasive species. Careful 

inspection of all materials and containers is still required. However, it is acceptable to 

use wooden and cardboard containers for transporting supplies to Tem Island. In 

addition, there is no requirement for freezing or fumigating items disembarked at Tem. 

Although requirements for Tem Island are more lax, the Refuge is still concerned about 

the possibilities of new introductions. 

Additional Special Conditions for Restricted Access to Nihoa Island: 

Nihoa is one of the most pristine locations in the Refuge Complex. It is also inhabited by the 

highest number of federally listed endangered species. It is a small rugged island with many 

inaccessible areas. Introduction of any invasive species could have immediate, disastrous effects 

to natural resources. It would be almost impossible to mount any kind of control or eradication 

program on this island should an invasive species become established. Because of these reasons, 

access to Nihoa is strictly limited and rules governing entry are more stringent. 

• Access to Nihoa by permittees would only be allowed under the direct supervision of a 

Refuge representative. The person, who shall be appointed by the Refuge Manager, 

would work with permittees to assure careful adherence with all rules for inspection, 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-4 Appendix D 

handling, and preparation of equipment. The Refuge Representative would have the 

authority to control and limit access to various parts of the island to protect animals, 

plants (especially endangered species), and archaeological sites. The Refuge 

Representative would have the authority to revoke access to the island or order an 

immediate departure from the island if conditions for working on the island are not fully 

met or are violated in some way. 

• All field equipment made out of fabric material or wood must be new and never 

previously used in the Northwestern or main Hawaiian Islands. Equipment previously 

purchased or made for use on Nihoa that has been carefully sealed and stored while away 

from Nihoa, and not used elsewhere, may also be brought onto the island. Rules for 

freezing and/or fumigating are as described for other sites in the Refuge (see above). 

• Clothing and personal effects must be cleaned and thoroughly inspected. All footwear 

(shoes, slippers, socks, etc.) must be new, unused, or previously only used on Nihoa and 

carefully sealed and stored while off of the island. 

Rules Regarding Food: 

Fresh foods that are typically transported to island field camps (potatoes, onions, cabbage, 

apples, oranges, etc.) are not likely to become established and flourish on the Refuge Complex 

and are allowed. However, other food items such as tomatoes could easily become established. 

Soil can contain many seeds, eggs, larvae, etc., and cannot be transported to or among islands. 

Other food species such as alfalfa, mustard and cress, commonly used for sprouted greens, could 

potentially become established and cannot be brought to the islands. Other species such as mung 

beans, soybeans, and radishes would not likely survive on the islands and can be used for fresh 

greens. A list of fresh foods and seeds that are prohibited is provided below. Permittees should 

contact the Refuge Manager for more information or for questions about items not included on 

this list. 

Strictly Prohibited: 

Tomatoes (any variety), ray sunflower seeds, alfalfa seeds, mustard seeds. 

Bulk dried fruits are allowed but should be frozen solid for at least one day to kill any insects. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E E-1 

Appendix E 

 Plan Implementation and Costs 

Introduction 

Following public review and comment on the Draft EA, public notification of the Service’s 

decision, and CCP approval, Refuge staff would begin to implement the CCP. This appendix 

describes the various partnerships, management plans, staffing and projects required to 

implement the plan over the next 15 years. 

Partnerships

Partnerships are an important component of implementation of the Howland Island NWR CCP. 

Refuge staff would strengthen existing partnerships with the U.S. Coast Guard, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Hawaii Undersea Research 

Laboratory to implement enhanced law enforcement coverage at this remote location and 

facilitate inventory and monitoring of marine resources. In addition, the refuge staff would seek 

to enhance its volunteer program. Volunteers are critically important in providing the logistical 

support in the Honolulu office and field support required to effectively manage and operate yearround field camps at remote locations. 

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is one of several plans necessary for refuge management. The CCP provides guidance 

in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several refuge program areas but may lack 

some of the specifics need for implementation. Given the abbreviated and qualitative once-ayear management activities identified in the preferred alternative, step-down plans would not be 

developed for individual program areas after CCP completion. The Draft Seabird Monitoring 

Assessment for Hawaii and the Pacific Islands (Citta and Reynolds, 2006), U.S. Pacific Islands 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan, Seabird Conservation Plan for the Pacific Region, and 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force planning efforts would be applied to refuge operations described in 

the preferred alternative. 

Staffing 

The proportion of current staffing and proposed staffing within the Pacific Remote Islands NWR 

Complex dedicated to Howland 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 Howland once every other year to once every year. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-2 Appendix E 

Current Staffing for Howland Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 

PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.07 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.01 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

Proposed Staffing for Howland Island NWR 

Staff Employment Status and 

Proportion of Time1 

Salary Rating

Project Leader PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 13 

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 

PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Coral Reef Biologist PFT (0.14 FTE) GS 12 

Administrative Officer PFT (0.02 FTE) GS 9 

1 PFT = Permanent Full Time; FTE = Full Time Equivalent where 1.0 equals one staff year. 

Projects 

The table below contains projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). Brief project 

descriptions and their associated costs are provided. Funding of these projects would assist 

refuge staff in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP for Howland Island 

NWR. 

Projects: RONS and SAMMS List 

Project 

No. 

Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(Thousands)

Station

Rank 

97003 Inventory and Monitor Terrestrial Resources: Provide 

a wildlife biologist to inventory and monitor terrestrial 

plants, invertebrates and nesting seabirds. Remote Pacific 

Islands provide the only secure habitat for nesting 

seabirds, sea turtles and marine life within thousands of 

square miles of ocean. 

325.25 9 
Howland 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 

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 

00002 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. 

23.9 999 

00006 Staff and maintain a new vessel to accomplish basic 

refuge operations: This vessel would provide basic 

logistical support for 16 islands and remote field stations 

on nine different national wildlife refuges across the 

Pacific Ocean. The vessel would be similar in size and 

capability to the M/V Tiglax at the Alaska Maritime NWR 

204.8 3 

00018 Inventory and monitor coral reef resources: Remote 

refuges contain some of the most valuable and spectacular 

marine and coralline resources in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Howland 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 

02121745 Rehabilitate historic Amelia Earhart Day Beacon: 

This beacon not only has historic significance, it is also 

used as a landmark by mariners. The beacon requires 

structural repairs and painting. 

355.0 999 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-4 Appendix E 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-1 

Appendix F 

Wilderness Review for Howland Island NWR 

I. General Information on Wilderness Reviews 

Wilderness review is the process used to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to the United States Congress (Congress) for 

designation as wilderness. Planning policy for the System (602 FW 3) mandates conducting 

wilderness reviews every 15 years through the Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) 

process. 

The wilderness review process has three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. After 

first identifying lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, the resulting 

wilderness study areas (WSA) are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation 

from the Service to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (NWPS). Areas recommended for designation are managed to maintain 

wilderness character in accordance with management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in 

the final CCP until Congress makes a decision or the CCP is amended to modify or remove the 

wilderness proposal. A brief discussion of wilderness inventory, study, and recommendation 

follows. 

Wilderness Inventory: The wilderness inventory consists of identifying areas that minimally 

meet the requirements for of wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness 

Act). Wilderness is defined as an area which: 

• Has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to 

wilderness character through appropriate management at the time of review, or be a 

roadless island; 

• Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; and 

• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value. These features and values, though desirable, are not 

necessary for an area to qualify as a wilderness. 

Wilderness Study: During the study phase, lands and waters qualifying for wilderness as a result 

of the inventory are studied to analyze values (ecological, recreational, cultural, spiritual), 

resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (habitat management, public 

use) within the area. The findings of the study help determine whether to recommend the area 

for designation as wilderness. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-2 Appendix F 

 

 

Wilderness Recommendation: Once a wilderness study determines that a WSA meets the 

requirements for inclusion in the NWPS, a wilderness study report that presents the results of the 

wilderness review, accompanied by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), is 

prepared. The wilderness study report and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then 

transmitted through the Secretary of Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to 

the United States Congress for approval. 

The following sections summarize the inventory and study phases of the wilderness review for 

Howland. 

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, Howland was 

divided into two inventory units based upon the differences between the terrestrial and marine 

ecological resources. Inventory Unit A is the 648-acre roadless island known as Howland Island, 

and Inventory Unit B is composed of the 34,319 combined acres of coral reefs, submergent lands 

and their associated water column lying within 3 nmi from the shoreline at the mean high water 

mark of Howland Island. The inventory of roadless areas, submerged lands, and associated 

water column of Howland 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 Howland 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. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-3 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau 

of Land Management. 

There are no roads on Howland 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 Howland CCP/EA, Chapter 3. 

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria

A WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2.(c) of the Wilderness Act defines 

wilderness as an area that “...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural 

to the average visitor rather than “pristine.” The presence of ecologically accurate, historic 

landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some man-made features and human 

impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Human-caused 

hazards, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical 

impacts of refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in the evaluation of the 

naturalness criteria. An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis 

of “sights and sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. The 

cumulative effects of these factors were considered in the evaluation of naturalness for each 

wilderness inventory unit. 

In the wilderness inventory, specific man-made features and other human impacts need to be 

identified that affect the overall apparent naturalness of the tract. Based upon the Preferred 

Alternative contained in the draft CCP/EA, the following factors were primary considerations in 

evaluating the naturalness of the inventory units: 

Historical 

• abandoned crushed coral airstrip; 

• Amelia Earhart daybeacon (aid to navigation); 

• rock cairn; 

• geological monument; 

• derelict airplane wing (World War II vintage); and, 

• abandoned well and mining activity. 

Little can be seen of the historical artifacts found on Howland. The airstrip, prepared as a 

waypoint for Amelia Earhart’s flight around the world has not been maintained since World War 

II. Remnants of island occupation during guano mining and World War II periods such as hand 

dug pits, wells and crumbled building walls are present on the island. However, wind erosion, 

storm activity, and vegetative growth have covered these artifacts so that they are 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-4 Appendix F 

 

 

indistinguishable from adjacent habitats on the island. The Amelia Earhart daybeacon is the only 

visual intrusion into an otherwise natural setting. 

Management Activities: 

• refuge boundary sign; 

• field camp; 

• generators; 

• control of invasive species; 

• collect and stockpile marine debris; 

• migratory bird surveys; 

• marine surveys (including SCUBA); and 

• boat transportation. 

A 4’ x 8’ boundary sign announcing the name and ownership of the island is maintained on 

Howland. The sign is informational in nature, identifying the sanctuary status the island enjoys. 

The primary management intrusion to the naturalness of Howland is during the deployment and 

demobilization of field camps. Transportation from Honolulu, Hawaii across 1,600 nmi of open 

ocean to Howland is only safely and reliably possible with motorized ocean-going marine 

vessels. Once the marine transport vessel arrives at Howland, small boats with outboard motors 

are deployed to transport two biologists and their field camp gear to the island. Once on the 

island, biologists set up tents, sleeping gear, food, and other supplies. Walking surveys occur 

across the island to document bird species presence, potentially hand pull or hand spray invasive 

plant species, inventory cultural sites, and collect and stockpile marine debris. Marine surveys 

also occur. They are based from the marine vessel primarily using SCUBA. Field camps are 

planned to last for 2 days and typically occur once every two years. Occasional field camps with 

5-8 individuals staying for up to 2 weeks have occurred in the past. During these extended field 

camps, diesel-powered generators have been used to operate communication equipment. All 

other mechanical equipment such as air compressors for SCUBA equipment remain on the 

marine transport vessel. Upon demobilization of the field camp, all equipment and debris are 

removed. An indirect human impact to the naturalness of Howland 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, Howland is an isolated, uninhabited 

island in the middle of the Pacific ocean for the vast majority of time. 

Both Howland inventory units meet the naturalness criteria. Overall, the forces of nature sculpt 

the island’s resources. Wave action erodes and accretes shorelines and rearranges underwater 

coral features. Rainfall patterns either suppress or encourage vegetative growth with brown and 

barren ground during drought and lush grasses and forbs during wet periods. Bird life is the 

dominant feature with nesting seabirds common throughout the year. Occasional field camps 

infrequently intrude on this isolation. 

Although historic markers, monuments, and other signs of past human occupation exist, they do 

not detract from Howland meeting the naturalness criteria since they are a minor component of 

the landscape and are substantially unnoticeable in the area as a whole. The submerged lands, 

with the exception of scattered marine debris also meet the naturalness criteria. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-5 

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 

Howland: 

• island size, vegetation, and terrain; 

• distance to habitation, whether mainland or an inhabited island; 

• presence of operating lighthouse or aid to navigation and associated structures; and 

• viewshed within and from refuge boundary. 

Solitude is the overwhelming force that visitors experience on Howland. The island is separated 

by over 1,600 nautical miles from Hawaii, and approximately 330 nmi from Kanton 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 Howland 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 openwater depths are devoid of human presence. 

Since establishment, Howland 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 Howland inventory units meet the solitude criteria, but do not meet the primitive 

unconfined recreation criteria. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-6 Appendix F 

 

 

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.” Howland 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 Howland 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 Howland. Historically, Howland 

Island was important to early colonization efforts during the guano mining era, and as the illfated destination for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on their around the world flight. 

Historical artifacts such as isolated building ruins, an abandoned runway, and guano mining 

excavations are present but eroded, covered by vegetation, and otherwise assimilated into the 

environment and indistinguishable from the natural environment. One historical landmark, the 

Amelia Earhart day beacon, contrasts vividly with the overall expansive vistas of open ocean and 

island habitats. These values are not required for wilderness but their presence compliments the 

requirements for wilderness designation. Please see Chapter 3 of the Draft CCP/EA for a more 

complete description of these supplemental values. 

Inventory Findings and Wilderness Study Areas

Both inventory units meet the minimum criteria for consideration as WSAs (Figure F-1). These 

two units are either roadless islands or meet minimum size requirements, are primarily natural, 

and meet the solitude or unconfined recreation criteria. The units are identified as: 

• WSA-A: Howland Island WSA, and 

• WSA-B: Coral reefs, submergent lands, and associated water column of the Howland 

Island WSA. 

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

Appendix F F-7 

Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas 

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

F-8 Appendix F 

 

 

Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary 

Inventory Unit A: 

Howland Island (330 acres)

Inventory Unit B: 

Submerged lands and waters 

to 3 nmi (34,000 acres) 

Required Components 

(1) Has at least 5000 acres of 

land or is of sufficient size to 

make practicable its 

preservation and use in an 

unconfined condition, or is a 

roadless island. 

Yes. Is a roadless island. Yes. Approximately 34,000 

acres contained within the 

territorial sea from mean high 

tide to 3 nmi. 

(2) Generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable. 

Yes. Not diminished by day 

beacon and other artifacts. 

Yes. Coral reefs and other 

underwater features untouched 

by humans. 

(3a) Has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude. 

Yes. Uninhabited island 

1000 nmi from Hawaii. 

Yes. Isolation from habitation 

both on surface and below. 

(3b) Has outstanding 

opportunities for a primitive 

and unconfined type of 

recreation. 

No. Refuge is closed to all 

recreational activities. 

No. Refuge is closed to all 

recreational activities. 

Other Components 

(4) Contains ecological, 

geological or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historical value. 

Earhart day beacon, WWII 

artifacts, guano mining, and 

nesting seabirds. 

Pristine coral reefs and 

associated marine fish, 

mammals, and turtles abound. 

Summary 

Parcel qualifies as a wilderness 

study area (meets criteria 1, 2 & 

3a or 3b). 

Yes Yes 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-9 

III. Wilderness Study 

The two WSAs identified in the Wilderness Inventory were further evaluated to determine 

suitability for designation, management, and preservation as wilderness. Considerations in this 

evaluation included: 

• quality of wilderness values; and, 

• capability for management of refuge as wilderness (or manageability) and minimum 

requirements/tools analysis. 

This information provides a basis to compare the impacts of a range of management alternatives 

and determine the most appropriate management direction for each WSA. 

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

The following information considers the quality of the WSAs’ mandatory and supplemental 

wilderness characteristics. 

Size

Both WSA-A and WSA-B meet the minimum size criteria being a 648-acre roadless island and a 

34,319-acre marine ecosystem respectively. 

Naturalness

Both of the WSAs generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of human uses and activities substantially unnoticeable. Except for the footprint of 

the long-abandoned airstrip and the few small features mentioned in the Wilderness Inventory, 

all emergent and submerged features were entirely created by the natural processes of volcanism; 

wind erosion; wave erosion; water erosion; seabird deposits; vegetation deposits; geological 

subsidence; and reef growth and consolidation from coral, coralline algae, and giant clam 

calcification during the past 50 to 80 million years. No substantial features were constructed or 

modified by humans during the island’s entire geological history. The impacts of past human 

presence are small in terms of constructed features (beacons, monuments), and are barely 

apparent (ground-level views of the airfield, mining pits, boat channel), or transitory (marine 

debris that washes up or blows in from the surrounding sea and air). A few remnant, rusty fuel 

drums is the only trash feature that is not transient, but its overall impact to naturalness is 

minimal. See Chapter 3 of the Draft Howland CCP/EA for a more detailed description of natural 

and cultural features. Management activities will temporarily disturb the naturalness of the area. 

Field camps lasting for 2 days will be visible across the island. Occasional use of generators will 

produce noise. However, modern generators produce decibel levels lower than speaking voice 

levels. Transportation by motorized marine vessel, the only safe, practical and reliable means 

available to arrive on the island, is equally temporary. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation

Both of the WSAs offer outstanding opportunities for solitude. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-10 Appendix F 

 

 

Solitude overwhelms the human spirit at Howland. 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 reaching the island. 

The capacity to reach Howland without substantial investment, preplanning, and permission is 

considerable and further restricts the capability of individuals from reaching the island and 

intruding on the opportunity for solitude. The island itself is inaccessible except by small craft 

lightered from a transport ship during calm seas. The airstrip is unusable and has never been 

maintained since World War II. Island vegetation, erosion, and accretion has reclaimed the 

airstrip and now make it unrecognizable. There are no human inhabitants on Howland. The 

nearest humans live 330 nmi to the southeast where less than 100 Kiribati people inhabit Kanton 

Atoll. There are no other inhabitants elsewhere in the Phoenix Islands. These logistical 

constraints contribute to the maintenance of solitude. 

Supplemental Values

Both of the WSAs offer outstanding ecological values with features of scientific, educational, 

scenic interest, and historical value. Pristine coral reefs, reef fish, giant clams, beaches, native 

terrestrial vegetation, unexplored deep slopes, localized upwelling currents, migratory 

shorebirds, and large populations and variety of seabirds are among the strong ecological values. 

The lack of historic and current human impact provides a rare opportunity to study unaltered 

marine ecosystems, and the impact that global climate change may have on these systems. The 

sheer vastness of the ocean landscape, punctuated by a small dot of land, and the multitude of 

bird and marine life attracted to it, provide a sense of awe and spectacular beauty to the 

landscape. The remaining features of early colonization efforts, as well as the memorial to 

Amelia Earhart, stand testament to the bravery of those early pioneers, and the ability of nature 

to endure. 

Evaluation of Manageability and Minimum Requirements/Tools Analysis 

Originally administered by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Territorial Affairs, the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), on June 27, 1974, designated Howland Island and its 

territorial sea extending to the 3 nautical mile (nmi) limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers all units of the system pursuant to the 

Administration Act. The acquisition authority for establishing the refuge is found in the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). It states the general purpose for establishing the 

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

fish and wildlife resources ...”, and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in performing its activities and services” (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)). The specific purpose 

for establishing Howland is (USFWS 1973): “...the restoration and preservation of the complete 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-11 

ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Special consideration must be given to the protection of 

nesting seabird populations.” There are no valid existing private rights, including mineral rights, 

associated with any of these WSAs. 

Several management activities are required for the Service to meet responsibilities for managing 

Howland 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 Howland CCP/EA. The following is a brief description of management 

activities as they relate to minimum requirement determinations of activities occurring within 

designated wilderness. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 lists several generally prohibited uses including no 

temporary roads, no use of motor vehicles, no motorized equipment or motorboats, no aircraft 

landings, no other forms of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation. However, 

Section 4(c) also states an exception to these general prohibitions: “...as necessary to meet 

minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...” 

Examples of actions that may satisfy this exception include recreational developments such as 

trails, bridges, and signs. 

 

Each WSA on Howland can be managed to preserve its wilderness character in perpetuity, 

recognizing that using a “minimum requirements” approach would be required for all activities. 

Existing refuge management activities within the WSAs are consistent with management 

direction in the Wilderness Act and current Service wilderness stewardship policy in the Refuge 

Manual (6 RM 8). These management activities include: motorized marine vessel 

transportation to and from Howland; establishing temporary field camps (typically 2 days every 

other year); small motorboat operations used in deployment and demobilization of field camp 

operations; survey and monitoring of habitat, seabird and other wildlife monitoring activities; 

control of invasive species using hand pulling or hand spraying; use of solar powered electronic 

calling devices to encourage nesting by extirpated seabird species; use of portable generators and 

solar power to operate communications and other equipment; and monitoring the marine 

ecosystem with the use of SCUBA equipment. None of the current or expected refuge 

management activities would permanently diminish the wilderness character of Howland. 

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

F-12 Appendix F 

 

 

Field camps themselves are temporary, consisting of tents, portable tables, chairs, cooking gear, 

and scientific equipment. Most field camps are set up for a period of 1 to 2 days. No permanent 

structures are established, and no motorized equipment is used to transport equipment around the 

island. Field camp activities consist of monitoring habitat and nesting seabird populations, 

inventorying the condition of known historic resources, and collecting and stockpiling of marine 

debris. Portable diesel powered generators are components of field camp equipment and are 

typically used to operate two-way radio communication equipment. 

Wildlife managers often use electronic calling devices to attract nesting seabird species to 

suitable nesting locations. Powered by small solar panels, these devices can be placed in 

inconspicuous locations and produce only sounds that occur naturally on the island. Once a 

species is attracted to the island, the calling devise can then be removed. Monitoring of the 

marine ecosystem occurs from scientists based aboard the marine transportation vessel. Small 

motorboats often provide safe transportation to specific research sites near Howland. SCUBA 

equipment is often used to complete marine surveys and is the only safe and practical method of 

conducting underwater marine surveys. 

In summary, safety, practicality, and effectiveness require the occasional use of management 

programs and associated tools (some of which are generally prohibited by the Wilderness Act) to 

pursue achievement of refuge purposes, goals and objectives. Current and proposed refuge 

management would be consistent with wilderness designation and management of both WSAs. 

Although occasionally diminished, none of the resource values identified above would be 

permanently impacted because of wilderness designation and the management described herein. 

IV. Development of Alternatives 

 

After evaluating the quality of wilderness values, manageability, minimum management 

requirements, the following alternatives were developed and analyzed for wilderness 

designation. 

Alternative A (No Action). 

Under this alternative, no WSAs would be recommended as suitable for wilderness 

designation. The refuge lands and waters would be managed as they have been in the past 

to accomplish refuge purposes in accordance with legal and policy guidance for the 

System. 

Alternative B 

Only the emergent lands, WSA-A, would be recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

Alternative C

Both WSA-A and WSA-B, which includes the emergent lands and the submerged lands 

and associated water column would be immediately recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Selection of this alternative would 

require the completion of an EIS. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F F-13 

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)

Both WSA-A and WSA-B, which includes the emergent lands and the submerged lands 

and associated water column of Howland would be recommended for inclusion in the 

NWPS. Both wilderness study areas would be managed to ensure their wilderness 

character was not adversely impacted. However, the recommendation to include these 

areas in the NWPS would be postponed until such time that CCPs and their associated 

wilderness inventories and studies for remote Pacific Island NWRs were completed. At 

such a time, a wilderness study report and associated Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement that encompasses remote Pacific Island refuges would be prepared. Alternative 

D is identified here as the Preferred Alternative for the Wilderness Review of Howland, 

and is a component of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Howland CCP/EA. 

 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). It was determined that there was no 

benefit in analyzing partial wilderness alternatives. There are no feasible or practical 

boundary adjustments that would improve the manageability of an individual WSA. 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-14 Appendix F 

 

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

Appendix G G-1 

Appendix G 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

for Implementation of the 

Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Howland Island National 

Wildlife Refuge (Howland). 

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 the Interior and Service procedures, and is performed in 

coordination with the affected public. Procedures used to reach this decision meet the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations in 

40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. These procedures include: the development of a range of 

alternatives for the Howland CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and 

public involvement throughout the planning process. 

The CCP management objectives and alternatives are integrated into an environmental 

assessment document and process, including the release of a draft CCP/EA for a 30-day 

public comment period. Public notices of availability of the draft CCP/EA include a Federal 

Register notice, news releases to local media outlets, the Service’s refuge planning website, 

and planning updates. Copies of the CCP/EA and planning updates were distributed to an 

extensive mailing list. In addition, the Service met with staff from the Hawaii Department of 

Land and Natural Resources and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Revisions to the Final CCP are based on public comments received from the draft CCP/EA. 

Comment letters and Service response to comments can be found as an Appendix in the Final 

CCP. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S. C.470 et seq.). This act requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), State or Territorial Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Park Service 

(NPS) for any proposed actions that may affect cultural resources eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Consultation has occurred with the ACHP and NPS for their 

input. Consultation with a State Historic Preservation Officer is not required for this 

proposal because Howland lies outside any state jurisdiction. No Territorial Historic 

Preservation Officer is assigned to Howland. Rather territories/possessions lie in the 

jurisdiction of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

The management of archaeological and cultural resources of Howland 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 Howland. 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 
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-2 Appendix G 

Service Manual 614 FW 2. Determining whether a particular action has a potential to affect 

cultural resources is an ongoing process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project 

plans are developed. Should historic properties be identified in the future, the Service will 

comply with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the 

potential to affect any these properties. 

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

Secretarial Order 3127, and Section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (10 U.S.C. 2701-2706, 2810-2811). Contamination 

resulting from military occupation is required to be mitigated as a Formerly Used Defense 

Site (FUDS). Any FUDS is part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

(DERP), administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The DERP is responsible 

for the identification, investigation, research and development, and cleanup of contamination 

from hazardous substances, and pollutants and contaminants; correction of environmental 

damage such as detection and disposal of unexploded ordnance; and demolition and removal 

of unsafe buildings and structures at former Department of Defense sites. In 1986, the ACOE 

completed their responsibilities under DERP. No contaminant or hazardous waste materials 

are currently known to exist on Howland. 

 

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 Howland. 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 Howland. 

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

Appendix G G-3 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds. This Order directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further 

implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A provision of the Order directs Federal agencies 

to consider the impacts of their activities, especially in reference to birds on the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of Conservation (Management) Concern (BCC). It also 

directs agencies to incorporate conservation recommendations and objectives found within 

the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by 

Partners in Flight (PIF) into agency planning. Species selected as focal conservation targets 

in the CCP were identified from multiple sources including pertinent BCC lists, applicable 

Flyway Management Plans, and regional seabird and shorebird conservation plans. The 

effects of all alternatives on focal conservation targets were assessed during this planning 

process. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) The ESA provides for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal 

action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for the 

determination and listing of endangered and threatened species and the designation of critical 

habitats. Section 7 of the ESA requires refuge managers to perform consultation before 

initiating projects that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Howland provides feeding and potentially nesting habitats for two species of endangered sea 

turtle: the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata and the green turtle Chelonia mydas. In 

accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et. Seq.), the Service, as a component of this CCP/EA, evaluated potential impacts to 

the two listed turtle species. It was determined that undertaking any action as part of any 

alternative in this CCP will have no affect on either of the two turtle species. Therefore, 

formal consultation with NOAA-NMFS is not required and will not be initiated. 

 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires the Service to develop and implement a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. These conservation plans identify and 

describe a refuge purpose; refuge vision and goals; fish, wildlife, and plant populations and 

related habitats; archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; issues that may affect 

populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and 

improve biological diversity of the refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). The Wilderness Act requires the 

Service to evaluate the suitability of Howland for wilderness designation (Appendix F) and 

has found that both wilderness study areas meet wilderness criteria. Recommendation for 

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

G-4 Appendix G 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882)

This act provides the guidance for sustainable management of commercial fisheries in 

Federal waters by NOAA in consultation with Regional Fisheries Management Councils that 

develop fisheries management plans (FMPS) subject to NOAA approval, monitoring and 

implementation. The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WESPAC) 

and NOAA have implemented and approved several FMPS that apply to U.S. insular Pacific 

island waters. The FMPS were all implemented after Howland was established in 1974 and 

include plans for: 1) pelagic fish; 2) bottom fish including some reef species; 3) crustaceans 

including lobsters; and, 4) precious corals. Commercial activities including commercial 

fishing are prohibited in surrounding marine water and benthic habitat out to the 3 nmi limit 

because Howland Island is established as a no-take marine protected area and a National 

Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, the Service retains jurisdiction and management for any 

fisheries within the refuge. Available information indicates commercial fishing under the 

auspices of any of the FMPS is not being pursued outside the 3 nmi boundary of the refuge. 

Informal consultation also indicates that WESPAC continues to honor Service jurisdiction 

and authorities within the 3 nmi offshore boundary of the refuge (K. Simonds, per. comm. 

with J. Maragos 2006). 

Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection (June 11, 1998) The purpose of this 

Executive order is “...to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and 

economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment...” It directs all 

Federal agencies to identify actions that may affect U.S. coral reefs; utilize their programs 

and authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and assure their actions would 

not degrade those ecosystems. Federal agencies whose actions affect U.S. coral reef 

ecosystems are further directed to implement measures needed to research, monitor, manage, 

and restore affected ecosystems, including, but not limited to, measures reducing impacts 

from pollution, sedimentation, and fishing. This Executive Order also initially established 

the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, 

through the Administrator of NOAA. The Task Force has oversight responsibility for 

implementation of policy and Federal agency responsibilities found in this order, and support 

activities under the U.S. Coral Reef Initiative. In addition, this order directs the Task Force 

to work cooperatively with State, territory, commonwealth, and local government partners to 

map, monitor, conserve, mitigate, and restore coral reef ecosystems. 

The Proposed Action and other alternatives are fully consistent with the spirit and intent of 

the Executive order. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA would be provided to the Directorate of 

the Coral Reef Task Force for coordination. 

Coral Reef Conservation Act and Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas (16 

U.S.C. 6401-6409)(May 26, 2000). These statutes collectively direct Federal agencies to 

coordinate among themselves and State and Territorial governments via the Coral Reef Task 

Force to protect and enhance coral reefs and avoid actions that degrade reefs, promote marine 

protected area development and reef restoration, and provide conservation grants and 

cooperative agreements (including States and institutions) to conduct research and 

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. 
Howland 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. Howland 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