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

              Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Box 50167
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
(800) 792-9550
August 2007
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents i
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and
Environmental Assessment
Unincorporated U.S. territory, Central Pacific Ocean
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director
For Further Information: Donald Palawski, Refuge Manager
Pacific and Remote Islands NWR Complex
Box 50167
Honolulu, HI 96850
(808) 792-9550
Abstract: Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker) is located in an extremely remote area
of the equatorial Central Pacific Ocean. This remote location creates extreme planning and
management bottlenecks in terms of ship transportation availability to access Baker and the
operational support needed to conduct comprehensive conservation. Four conservation plan
alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are described,
compared, and assessed for Baker. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as required by
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The selection of Alternative A would adopt and
continue current refuge management practices conducted during short staff visits (i.e., 1 to 2
days) at approximately 2-year intervals. Management activities described in Alternatives B, C,
and D progressively increase the scale and scope of management activities described in the No
Action Alternative. Alternatives C and D describe desired improvements over current
management that enhances protection of wildlife through increased surveillance, enforcement,
monitoring, restoration, and other measures. While Alternatives C and D outline measures that
would be desirable from a comprehensive conservation perspective, it is beyond the current
logistical realm of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and financially unachievable
during the lifespan of this plan (15 years). Therefore, Alternative B is the preferred alternative
and describes improvements over current management that could be implemented until such time
that management activities described in Alternatives C or D can be implemented. The four
alternatives are summarized below:
Alternative A – No Action – This alternative assumes continuation of current management
programs and is considered the base from which to compare the action alternatives.
Alternative B – Preferred Alternative -This alternative describes a modest increase in the
frequency of staff visits to Baker but does not alter the scale or scope of the management
activities.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
ii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents
Alternative C – This alternative provides increased frequency and duration of staff visits to
Baker, and moderately increases scale and scope of management activities conducted during
staff visits.
Alternative D – This alternative describes substantial increases to the scale, scope, and duration
of management activities conducted during staff visits.
Public access to Baker will remain closed under all CCP alternatives. Specific requests to access
Baker will regulated on a case-by-case basis through issuance of Special Use Permits. There are
no proposed changes to the refuge boundary under any of the alternatives. The selected
alternative would be used to guide refuge management throughout the life of the CCP (15–year
period).
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents iii
Reader’s Guide
Consistent with requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would manage
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker) in accordance with an approved Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides long-range guidance for refuge management
through its vision, goals, and objectives. No change in refuge size, boundaries, or public access
and use is proposed for any alternative. The CCP also provides a basis for a long-term adaptive
management process including implementation, monitoring progress, evaluating, adjusting and
revising the CCP accordingly.
This document combines a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and an Environmental
Assessment (CCP/EA). The following summaries are provided to assist readers in locating and
understanding the various components of this combined document.
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need for Action includes the regional context;
establishment of and purposes for Baker; vision and goals for future management; major
planning issues, concerns and opportunities identified by refuge staff, Federal, State and local
agencies, and the general public; and policy for, guidance for, purpose of, and need for a CCP.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies describe four management alternatives
including the Preferred Alternative. Each alternative represents a potential comprehensive
conservation plan for the refuge. Alternative A (No Action) describes the current management
of the refuge. Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed Draft CCP for Baker.
Alternatives C and D describe progressively more intensive management activities if
substantially greater financial resources were available for future implementation. This chapter
identifies the objectives and strategies the refuge will use to meet overall goals. It also compares
all alternatives and identifies those eliminated from detailed consideration.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes the existing physical and biological environment,
public use, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions. This chapter represents the current
baseline conditions for the comparisons and 15-year projections made in Chapters 2 and 4.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences assesses and projects, over the 15-year period, the
effect of each alternative on the resources, programs, and conditions outlined in Chapter 3 at
Baker. Most impacts would have a positive effect on refuge fish and wildlife populations and
their habitats. Mitigation and other measures are evaluated for all other unavoidable
consequences.
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others provides details on public
involvement and interagency coordination during the planning process.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms contains a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and
terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader.
Appendix B: Species Lists of Corals, Fish, Vegetation, and Birds lists wildlife observed in
the refuge.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
iv Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents
Appendix C: List of Cited References provides complete bibliographic references for the
citations in this document.
Appendix D: Quarantine Protocol for Baker Island describes mandatory precautions for
visitors to protect island and marine habitats from inadvertent introduction of alien and invasive
species.
Appendix E: Plan Implementation and Costs includes the Refuge Operations Needs Summary
(RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS), which briefly
describes projects and costs associated with the Preferred Alternative.
Appendix F: Wilderness Review for Baker Island NWR is required as part of this CCP. This
appendix lists the criteria used in conducting the wilderness review. Portions of Baker appear to
meet the criteria for wilderness designation as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Appendix G: Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Baker Island National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes the Executive orders and
legislative acts that apply to this CCP.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents v
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need for Action....................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ......................................... 1-1
1.2.1 Proposed Action......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Description of Planning Process ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................................... 1-2
1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................... 1-2
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................. 1-3
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific ................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1.1 ............................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4.4 Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary......................................................... 1-9
Figure 1.2 ........................................................................................................................... 1-11
1.4.5 Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans .......................................................... 1-13
1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities................................................................. 1-14
1.6 Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................ 1-16
1.7 Refuge Goals................................................................................................................... 1-17
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies.............................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 Development of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Similarities among Alternatives........................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D)............................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D)................................................. 2-4
2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives........................................................................... 2-4
2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) ................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Alternative B – (Preferred Alternative) ..................................................................... 2-6
2.3.3 Alternative C.............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.4 Alternative D.............................................................................................................. 2-8
2.3.5 Summary.................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ....................................... 2-10
Table 2.1 ............................................................................................................................ 2-11
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements .............................................. 2-16
Table 2.2 ............................................................................................................................ 2-16
2.6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale...................................................... 2-17
Chapter 3: Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Climate............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Global Climate Change..................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 3-5
3.5 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6 Air and Water Quality....................................................................................................... 3-7
3.7 Environmental Contaminants............................................................................................ 3-7
3.8 Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats .................................................................................. 3-8
3.9 Terrestrial Wildlife............................................................................................................ 3-9
3.9.1 Seabirds and Land Mammals..................................................................................... 3-9
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
vi Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents
3.9.2 Shorebirds ................................................................................................................ 3-10
3.9.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.9.4 Invertebrates............................................................................................................. 3-10
3.10 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife.............................................................................. 3-10
3.10.1 Previous Surveys.................................................................................................... 3-10
3.10.2 Submergent Habitats.............................................................................................. 3-11
3.10.3 Reef Life ................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.10.4 Corals ..................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.10.5 Nearshore Fish ....................................................................................................... 3-12
3.10.6 Marine Mammals ................................................................................................... 3-13
3.10.7 Pelagic Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 3-13
3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 3-14
3.12 Invasive Species............................................................................................................ 3-14
3.13 Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................... 3-14
3.14 Archaeology and Paleontology ..................................................................................... 3-14
3.15 Recent Cultural History ................................................................................................ 3-15
3.16 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................ 3-17
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3 Air and Water Quality....................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3.2 Water Quality and Ocean Environment..................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-3
4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife ............................................................................... 4-3
4.4.2 Marine Habitats, Fish, and Wildlife........................................................................... 4-5
4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Wilderness Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-7
4.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 4-7
4.7 Economic Effects .............................................................................................................. 4-7
4.8 Environmental Justice....................................................................................................... 4-8
4.9 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 4-8
Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives ...................................................... 4-9
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination with Others ...................................................... 5-1
5.1 Consultation and Coordination with Others ..................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A...............................................................................................................................A-1
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .......................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... B-1
Species Lists of Corals, Fish, Vegetation, and Birds.............................................................. B-1
Table B-1 ............................................................................................................................ B-1
Table B-2 ............................................................................................................................ B-3
Table B-3 .......................................................................................................................... B-12
Table B-4 .......................................................................................................................... B-13
Appendix C............................................................................................................................... C-1
List of Cited References.......................................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D...............................................................................................................................D-1
Quarantine Protocol for Baker Island NWR........................................................................... D-1
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................E-1
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents vii
Plan Implementation and Costs ...............................................................................................E-1
Appendix F ................................................................................................................................F-1
Wilderness Review for Baker Island NWR .............................................................................F-1
Figure F-1. Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................F-7
Table F-1 Wilderness Inventory Summary..........................................................................F-8
Appendix G G-1
Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the Baker Island National Wildlife
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............................................................................ G-1
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific............................................................... 1-7
Figure 1.2 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary... 1-11
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of CCP Actions by Alternatives ........................................................... 2-11
Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Cost Comparison of Various Field Camp Configurations ...... 2-16
Table 4.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives ......................................................... 4-9
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
viii Abstract, Reader’s Guide, Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Need for Action
1.1 Introduction
This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental
Assessment (CCP/EA) for Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). Once approved, the
CCP will guide management of refuge operations, site visitation, and habitat restoration for the
15-year life of the plan. Guidance within the CCP will be in the form of goals, objectives,
strategies (Chapter 1.7 and 2.6), and wilderness study findings (Appendix F). An appropriate
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document will accompany the CCP. The Final CCP
will incorporate appropriate public comments. The proposed action can be one of the
alternatives in this Draft CCP/EA, a combination of the identified alternatives, or a new
alternative derived from substantive public comment. This Draft CCP/EA evaluates and
compares four alternatives containing programs for habitat management and restoration,
ecological monitoring and research, and environmental education. It also identifies the effects of
restoration and visitor use on key physical, biological, social, and cultural resources. The refuge
manager of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Remotes Complex)
in Honolulu, Hawaii, is responsible for implementing the approved CCP.
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1.2.1 Proposed Action
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to adopt and implement a CCP for Baker.
This Draft CCP/EA evaluates and compares four alternatives and their effects on key physical,
biological, social, and cultural resources. The Service has identified Alternative B as the
Preferred Alternative because it achieves refuge purposes, vision, goals, and objectives;
contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) mission; addresses issues and
relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
The alternative ultimately selected and described in the Final CCP will be determined, in part, by
the comments received on the Draft CCP/EA. The proposed action in the Final CCP may or may
not modify the proposed action presented in this Draft CCP/EA.
1.2.2 Purpose and Need
All refuges must comply with the System mission, goals, and policies, as described in or
promulgated under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Act). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 amended the Act. According to the Act, a CCP is required to identify and describe
refuge purpose(s), habitats and wildlife, archaeological and cultural values, administrative and
visitor facilities, management challenges and their solutions, and opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation. The recreational activities referenced in the Act as receiving
special consideration during planning efforts include compatible hunting, recreational fishing,
wildlife observation, interpretation, environmental education, and photography.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
The purpose of this CCP is to develop a vision, goals, and objectives for Baker, which in turn
provides guidance to identify and implement management activities, or strategies, during the
next 15 years. Specifically, the CCP:
• sets a long term vision;
• establishes wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives;
• establishes goals and objectives for compatible wildlife-dependent uses;
• identifies strategies for habitat enhancement and restoration projects;
• describes the highest monitoring and research priorities; and
• describes and evaluates wilderness values.
1.3 Description of Planning Process
The CCP development process follows applicable policies contained within the Service’s Fish
and Wildlife Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, November 1996; Part 601 FW1, Part 603 FW1, and Part
605 FW1, June 2006), and the Wilderness Act of 1964 with respect to wilderness study and
review. This Draft CCP/EA is intended to meet the dual requirements of compliance with the
Act and NEPA. Both the Act and NEPA require the Service to actively seek public involvement
in the preparation and adoption of environmental and conservation documents and policies.
Furthermore, NEPA also requires the Service to consider a reasonable range of alternatives
including its Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative; the latter defined as
continuation of current management practices.
1.4 Legal and Policy Guidance
Baker and its management and administrative activities are managed as part of the System within
a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines. The refuge is guided by the System
mission and goals, the purpose(s) of the refuge as described in its acquisition authority, Service
policy, Federal laws and Executive orders, and international treaties.
Supplemental guidance documents (e.g., resource plans) are also included in making
management decisions but cannot replace or be in conflict with the purposes for which the refuge
was established or the System mission. Following is a discussion of concepts and guidance for
the System covered in the Act, Service policies, and relevant supplemental guidance documents.
1.4.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Baker is managed by the Service, within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Service is the
primary Federal entity responsible for conserving and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife
populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other
Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust resource
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain anadromous fish,
certain marine mammals, coral reef ecosystems, wetlands, and other special aquatic habitats.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-3
The Service also has similar trust responsibilities for the lands and waters it administers to
support the conservation and enhancement of all fish and wildlife and their associated habitats.
1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System
President Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island, Florida as the first national wildlife
refuge in 1903. Since that time, the number of refuges has expanded to include 547, totaling
approximately 100 million acres. These refuges, found in every State and several U.S.
Territories, are administered collectively as a national system of lands with the specific mandate
of managing for “wildlife first”. This System is the largest collection of lands specifically
managed for fish and wildlife conservation in the Nation and perhaps the world. The “wildlife
first” mandate of the System means the needs of wildlife and their habitats take priority on
refuges, in contrast to other public lands that are managed for multiple uses. The following is a
description of some of the most relevant acts and policies that guide the management of the
System.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended
This Act defines a unifying mission for all refuges, including a process for determining
compatible uses on refuges, and requiring that each refuge be managed according to a CCP. The
Act expressly states that wildlife conservation is the priority of System lands and that the
Secretary shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge
lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the specific purposes for which the
refuge was established and the System mission. The first priority of each refuge is to conserve,
manage, and if needed, restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats according to its
purpose. The Service has statutory authority under the Act to regulate activities that occur on
water bodies ���within” a refuge. The Act requires a CCP be completed for each refuge and that
the public has an opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision in an open
public process.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Purposes (601 FW1)
In July 2006, the Service issued a policy (601 FW 1) which included the System mission
statement and goals, and described how refuge purposes are determined.
The Act established the following statutory mission for the System:
“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for
the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans.”
The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals
(601 FW 1, July 2006):
• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-4 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
Lastly, the Act describes refuge purposes and how these guiding principals for the refuge are
located and documented.
Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW1)
This policy (603 FW 1), published in July 2006, provides a national framework for determining
appropriate refuge uses. Serving as a “prescreening” for proposed uses of a national wildlife
refuge prior to a compatibility determination (see below); this policy requires, for most uses, a
written finding of appropriateness by the refuge manager based on 11 criteria. Findings of
appropriateness require concurrence by the State for refuges located within state boundaries.
These criteria include:
• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities.
• Promotes compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and responsible behavior.
• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife populations or habitat goals or
objectives in a plan approved after 1997.
• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners.
• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people.
• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation.
• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural
resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources.
• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife.
• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting.
• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-5
Compatibility (603 FW2)
Lands within the System are different from other, multiple-use public lands in that, with few
exceptions, they are closed to all public access and use unless specifically and legally opened
(603 FW 2). No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A
compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, would not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the
purpose of the refuge. The Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
When compatible, these six uses become priority uses of the System. As priority public uses,
they receive special consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning and
management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (601 FW3)
The Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans….” This policy (601 FW 3) is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow
while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat resources found on
refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for
refuges, refuge managers use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’
contribution to maintenance and, where possible, restoration of biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health) at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment
incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge functions within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both
inside and outside the Service.
Wilderness (6 RM 8)
Service planning policy (602 FW 3) requires the conduct of a wilderness review in association
with the development of a refuge CCP. The wilderness review process has three phases:
inventory, study, and recommendation. After first identifying lands and waters that meet the
minimum criteria for wilderness during the inventory phase, the resulting wilderness study areas
are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation from the Service to the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System. A more complete discussion of wilderness inventory, study, and recommendation is
included in Appendix F.
General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (605 FW1)
This set of policies (605 FW 1-7), published in July 2006, defines the System’s wildlife-dependent
recreation policy, provides guidelines used to manage wildlife-dependent recreation
on refuge lands and identifies visitor service standards.
1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific
Nineteen individual national wildlife refuges (NWRs) are scattered across the central and
western Pacific Ocean, with 10 refuges located on the main Hawaiian Islands and 9 found from
Guam to American Samoa (Figure 1.1). The Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-6 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
office, which provides administrative guidance and oversight for these 19 refuges, is located in
Honolulu, Hawaii. This Complex also co-manages the newly established Papahānaumokuākea
Marine National Monument along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the State of Hawaii.
Within this administrative structure is a subset of seven refuges known as the Remotes Complex.
The Remotes Complex straddles the Equator near the center of the Pacific Ocean. They are
farther from human population centers than any other U.S. area and represent one of the last
frontiers and havens for fish and wildlife in the World. These remote refuges are the most
widespread collection of coral reef and seabird/shorebird protected areas on the planet under a
single country’s jurisdiction. Only one of these seven refuges, Palmyra Atoll NWR has on-island
dedicated staff members. Remotes Complex staff, located within the complex office in
Honolulu, manage all the remaining refuges, including Baker. Staff, funding, and logistical
support are often shared among these remote refuges to help defray operational costs.
The Preferred Alternative for the Baker CCP identifies several management strategies that are
dependent upon activities and staff support from the Remotes Complex office, ship
transportation support from other Federal agencies, and the establishment of partnerships with
other organizations. Because of the great distances involved in traveling to these remote refuges,
most management activities, including the simple act of visiting a refuge, are sometimes planned
to occur concurrently during the same voyage. For this reason, cost estimates for management
activities at Baker are pro-rated amongst the seven Remotes Complex refuges in the analysis of
the alternatives.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-7
Figure 1.1 Map of National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-8 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
This page left intentionally blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-9
1.4.4 Refuge Establishment, Purpose, and Boundary
Refuge Establishment
Prior to refuge establishment, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7368 on
May 13, 1936, placing control and jurisdiction of Baker Island with the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary). Originally administered by the Office of Territorial Affairs, the Secretary, on June
27, 1974, designated Baker Island and its territorial sea extending to the 3 nautical mile (nmi)
limit as a unit of the System (39 FR 27930).
Refuge Purpose
Refuge purposes are often times are based upon land acquisition documents and authorities.
These statements give indications for the biological reason or justification for the acquisition or
land transfer. Purposes listed in acquisition authorities, or legislative acts, are often general in
scope. For Baker, this general purpose is:
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources ...” (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)), and “... for the benefit of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be
subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...”
(16 U.S.C. 742f (b) (1)) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
Acquisition documents often contain more specific purpose statements. The specific purpose
statement for establishment of Baker identified in the biological ascertainment report at the time
of transfer to the Service is (USFWS 1973):
“…the restoration and preservation of the complete ecosystem, terrestrial and marine.
Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to reestablish themselves on
Baker so eventually they would eventually reach the great numbers which were present
there prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.”
Refuge Boundary
Baker is located in the central equatorial Pacific Ocean (Figure 1.2). The boundary for Baker
includes:
“...all of Baker island … together with its territorial sea extending outward to the three-mile
limit.” (39 F R 27930).
The emergent land area for Baker encompasses 531 acres and submerged lands and waters
within the 3-mile limit encompass 31,378 acres, for a total of 31,909 acres.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-10 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
This page left intentionally blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11
Figure 1.2 Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge: Geographic Location and Boundary.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-12 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
This page left intentionally blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-13
1.4.5 Regional and Ecosystem Conservation Plans
Regional and ecosystem conservation plans and initiatives are also important to evaluate and
incorporate into developing each CCP. These plans typically address issues or concerns that are
site specific or of regional concern, and address needs more current than when the refuge was
established.
Remote Islands Ecosystem Plan: Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National
Wildlife Refuges
The ecosystem plan for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis identifies Baker as “…a model of both the
sensitivity of insular ecosystems and mechanisms by which they can recover following
disturbance.” (USFWS 1998b). The plan further describes the refuge as being important to
nesting seabirds due to the fact that other nearby islands have introduced mammals or human
colonists present, thereby precluding survival of some vulnerable seabird species.
Coral Reef Initiative in the Pacific: Howland Island, Baker Island, and Jarvis Island National
Wildlife Refuges
The Coral Reef Initiative for Howland, Baker, and Jarvis restates the wildlife and ecological
values identified in the ecosystem plan (USFWS 1998a). This document identifies three
important components of the three ecosystems: “They provide a breeding platform for pelagic
birds using large areas of ocean surface, offer a migratory stopover for long distance migrating
shorebirds, and furnish reef habitat for shallow water organisms.”
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
Although theoretically within the range for hawksbill turtle, little is known about their biology,
foraging and nesting behavior, threats, and distribution surrounding Baker Island (NMFS and
USFWS 1998a). Both the NOAA – National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) and the Service
share responsibility at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific
marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction.
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Celonia mydas)
Few green turtles are known to forage in the waters surrounding Baker Island and nesting is not
known to occur. However, data from the area are limited and use of Baker may be greater than
currently documented (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). Both NMFS and the Service share
responsibility at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific marine
turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction.
U.S. Pacific Island Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
This regional shorebird plan identifies Baker as being within the Central Pacific Islands
Subregion (Engilis and Naughton 2004). No natural wetlands are known from this subregion;
however, not only the beaches on uninhabited islands are important for shorebirds, but the entire
island. Population and habitat goals for this subregion state that determining population size and
trends for bristle-thighed curlews and other shorebirds, and their habitats is a management
priority.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-14 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
This nationwide shorebird plan identifies the U.S. Pacific islands being of “...critical importance
for two species of Holartic breeders, bristle-thighed curlew and Pacific golden-plover.” (Brown
et al. 2000). Further, this plan notes that these islands provide wintering habitat essential to the
maintenance of these species as well as several other migratory shorebird species.
Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region
This plan provides an overarching review, discussion, and identification of conservation
priorities for seabirds in the U.S Pacific islands; ranks seabirds for conservation priority; and
includes specific species accounts including their conservation needs (USFWS 2005).
Central Pacific World Heritage Project
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) organized and
convened meetings in Honolulu in June 2003, and Kiritimati Atoll in October 2004, to seek input
for a proposed multi-national World Heritage project now referred to as the Central Pacific
World Heritage Project (CPWHP) (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2003; 2004). Additional
meetings and evaluations in the U.S. and Republic of Kiribati resulted in a total of 29 atolls,
islands, and reefs belonging to four nations (United States, Cook Islands, Republic of Kiribati,
and French Polynesia) being proposed for the multi-site, multi-jurisdictional CPWHP. To date,
the Service has not acted on this proposal, but intends to do so in the future.
Regional and ecosystem conservation plans and initiatives are also important to evaluate and
incorporate into developing each CCP. These plans typically address issues or concerns that are
site specific or of regional concern, and address needs more current than when the refuge was
established.
1.5 Planning Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions with key contacts,
workshop participants, core team members, other refuge staff, and through the public scoping
process. The following section summarizes issues, concerns, and opportunities from all public
input received throughout the planning efforts. Six issues were identified and are described
below.
Issue 1: Operational Limitations
Baker is located approximately 1,690 nmi from the management staff located in Honolulu,
Hawaii. On average, it takes 6-7 days to reach Baker by ship, the only method of visiting the
island. The key issues and concerns affecting planning and management implementation are:
• distance from refuge headquarters;
• lack of affordable and reliable transportation;
• lack of infrastructure to support field operations;
• extreme environmental conditions; and
• safety concerns and logistical capacity to land people and equipment on island from
small boats.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-15
Issue 2: Biological and Ecological Resources
Biological and ecological information sufficient for management or conservation purposes is
lacking. Due to the infrequency and limited staff time spent on Baker, biological and ecological
information is not sufficient to allow for a detailed assessment of resources. The collection of
baseline and long-term monitoring information should be a primary concern and the focus of
management objectives.
Issue 3: External Forces
The threat of the introduction of invasive species from unauthorized visits, marine debris
washing ashore and onto coral reefs, and vessel groundings are beyond current management
control. Distance, lack of funds and staff, and the inability to have a more consistent presence on
this refuge opens the opportunity for invasive species introductions, limits the ability to remove
marine debris, and delays in the response to vessel groundings.
While it is known that past human use of the island has led to contaminants and debris being left
on the island and in the surrounding surf, the extent and impact of the contamination and debris
are largely unknown.
Global climate change (see Chapter 3.3) may also affect refuge resources, but is beyond control
of refuge management staff. It is anticipated that changes in the chemical composition of the
atmosphere and oceans; surface temperatures of air, land, and sea; intensity and frequency of
rainfall and storm waves; and changes in sea level would have impacts on refuge resources.
However, the extent and nature of these impacts is being studied and the subject of considerable
academic debate.
Issue 4: Public Use Resources
The key issues related to public use are:
• adverse ecological impacts (invasive species introductions, pollution, fuel spills, trash
disposal, harassment of wildlife, damage to sensitive habitats such as coral reefs);
• whether any on-site public use should be allowed;
• to what extent the use should occur; and
• how the use should be managed.
Baker has never been formally opened to public access and use. Administratively, public access
to Baker is managed through use of a refuge-issued Special Use Permits (SUP). Several
recreational user groups such as amateur radio operators, bird watchers, history enthusiasts,
destination tourists, and commercial cruise vessels have expressed interest in visiting various
remote Pacific island refuges. However, only amateur radio operators have pursued and
obtained a SUP after an initial inquiry.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-16 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
Issue 5: Education and Outreach
In general, Pacific island refuges are poorly recognized by the public and our partner agencies.
There are few entrance signs, no boundary signs, and little published information in popular
literature. Refuge boundaries are rarely portrayed on nautical charts and other maps.
The remote location and isolation of Baker and other Pacific island refuges make it difficult to
conduct on-site visits for educational or interpretative purposes. Thus, most educational and
interpretative opportunities are necessarily delivered remotely through various media.
In addition, general interest by the public and requests to visit remote Pacific island refuges by a
growing recreational yachting community has increased recently. This interest requires the
public to be better informed regarding sensitive refuge habitats, species, and regulations.
Issue 6: Communication and Cooperation
Baker’s remoteness compels a growing list of partners and cooperators to be kept informed of
and included in planning and management activities at Baker. Activities that staff and partner
agencies/organizations share include:
• expedition planning;
• collaborative research projects; and
• protection of trust resources.
Most access for refuge staff to Baker has only been possible through the cooperation and
participation with partner agencies such as NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Many research
interests are shared between Service and NOAA scientists, and collaborative research projects
have been conducted in the past. Additionally, NOAA and the Service share trust resource
responsibilities for marine turtles.
1.6 Refuge Vision Statement
The refuge vision statement is a broad general statement that describes what the refuge staff
perceives as Baker’s fundamental attributes and contributions to a healthy world environment.
This statement will guide management activities for the lifespan of this plan, as well into the near
future. The draft vision statement for Baker is as follows.
Baker is one of the only places in the world where the terrestrial and marine tropical
island ecosystems have been restored, conserved, and protected. Although signs of past
human activities are still visible on the landscape, the island now offers the opportunity
to serve as a living laboratory for measuring past human impacts and the ability of
nature to recover. Natural, physical, and ecological processes unfold with limited human
interference and support a diverse community of native marine organisms including
seabirds, marine mammals, turtles, fish, plants, corals, and other invertebrates. Nesting
and foraging seabirds dominate the landscape and seascape while sheer isolation and
solitude help us see our place in the natural world.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-17
1.7 Refuge Goals
Goal statements are succinct statements of a desired future condition of refuge resources. Goals
comprise the whole of a refuge’s effort in pursuit of its vision and lay the foundation from which
all refuge activities arise. The goals for Baker are as follows, and will again be presented along
with objectives and strategies in Chapter 2.6.
1. Conserve, restore, manage, and protect native terrestrial habitats that are representative of
remote tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit of seabirds.
2. Conserve, manage, and protect native marine communities that are representative of
remote tropical Pacific islands.
3. Contribute to the recovery, protection, and management efforts for all native species with
special consideration for seabirds, migratory shorebirds, federally listed threatened and
endangered species, and species of management concern.
4. Restore the wilderness character of Baker’s terrestrial community, and protect, maintain,
enhance, and preserve the wilderness character of Baker’s marine community.
5. Preserve Baker’s cultural and historic resources.
6. Inform and educate the public to increase their understanding of remote Pacific island
NWRs wilderness values, cultural and historical resources, and their ecosystems, with
special emphasis on seabirds.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-18 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose, and Need
This page left intentionally blank.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives
This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives, including a no action alternative
that describes the current condition and three action alternatives that describe various proposed
changes to current management programs. A preferred alternative is identified; however, the
preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final documents depending upon
comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. Similarities and
differences among the alternatives are presented, as are detailed descriptions of each alternative.
Summary tables comparing all alternatives are also included. Goals, objectives, strategies, and
the rationale for these are presented following the description of alternatives.
2.1.1 Development of Alternatives
Comments received on the preliminary set of alternatives and throughout the public scoping
process ultimately resulted in the four draft management alternatives presented in this Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for Baker
Island National Wildlife Refuge (Baker). These include a no action alternative (as required
under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)) and three “action” alternatives, each
of which describes strategies for managing Baker over the 15-year life time of the plan that is
intended to ultimately improve future conditions at the refuge. Each alternative describes a
combination of wildlife and habitat management strategies designed to achieve the refuge goals
and objectives. These alternatives provide different ways to address and respond to major issues,
management concerns, and opportunities identified during the planning process. All of the major
issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative.
The four alternatives are summarized below:
• Alternative A - No Action. This alternative assumes no change from current
management programs and is considered the baseline from which to compare the other
alternatives. Specifically, the refuge would remain closed to public access, with
compatible activities being allowed and administered through the refuge’s Special Use
Permit (SUP) process. Wildlife and habitat management activities such as monitoring
seabird populations, documenting the presence of invasive plant species, and monitoring
and investigating contaminated sites would be restricted to the 1 to 2 day period that
occur once every 2 years. Transportation to and from Baker would be provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or other partners, at the
discretion and capability of the partner.
• Alternative B – Preferred Alternative. This alternative describes an increase in the
frequency of staff visits from once every 2 years to annually. Overall, wildlife and
habitat management activities would be identical as those described in the No Action
Alternative. The use of solar powered electronic calling devices to encourage seabird
nesting activity would be implemented. Increased monitoring in the marine environment
would be dependent upon partnership opportunities developed with NOAA, University of
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Hawaii, or other partners. Transportation to and from the island would rely upon NOAA,
or other partners providing arrangements similar to those provided in the No Action
Alternative. Project funding proposals would be developed for transportation to the
refuge and contaminants monitoring and remediation. Public use and access would
remain closed and be administered as described in the No Action Alternative.
• Alternative C. This alternative describes an increase in the frequency and duration of
staff visits, and increases the scale and scope of management activities conducted during
those visits. Concurrently staffed seasonal field camps (approximately 4 months
duration) would be established on Baker and two other nearby refuges. Increased
monitoring of seabird populations would create greater understanding of migration and
nesting chronologies of various seabird species. Seasonal field camps would allow
adequate time to control invasive species, monitor and investigate contaminated sites, and
provide basic maintenance of cultural and historical resources. Removal of marine debris
from the island to protect seabirds and turtles from entanglement would also occur.
Contaminant investigation and clean-up would also occur. Transportation to and from
seasonal field camps would be provided by contract vessel. Public use and access would
remain closed and be administered as described in the No Action Alternative.
• Alternative D. Management activities under this alternative are similar to those described
in Alternative C. However, a greater level of detail and understanding of Baker’s wildlife
resources would be possible. The primary difference between these two alternatives is
that a single field camp would be established on only one mid-Pacific island refuge in a
given year. Field camps would be rotated annually between these island refuges, and
transportation would be provided by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)-owned
vessel. Public use and access would remain closed and be administered as described in
the No Action Alternative.
These four alternatives are described in more detail below starting with the similarities among
the alternatives, followed by a detailed description of each alternative, and finally a summary
that defines the rationale for selecting the Preferred Alternative.
2.2 Similarities among Alternatives
Although the alternatives differ in several ways, there are similarities (i.e., shared features or
management components) among them as well. Following is a description of the features
common to all the alternatives (A-D); and features common to all action alternatives (B-D).
2.2.1 Features Common to All Alternatives (A-D)
All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length
and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions.
��� Baseline Monitoring of Wildlife Populations and Habitats. At a minimum, staff visits to
Baker requires baseline monitoring efforts to document species presence or absence,
abundance, habitat condition, presence of invasive species and various other physical
variables such as temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. This basic biophysical monitoring
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
would be constant throughout the alternatives. However, some alternatives would build
upon this minimum level of visitation and monitoring.
• Voyage Preparation. The logistics of providing adequate field camp supplies such as
water, food, first aid, and communications would also remain constant. However, some
alternatives would require an additional volume or frequency of subsistence supplies to
support greater numbers or staff-days on the refuge.
• Use of extraneous unnatural lighting. Nighttime operations of the support vessel and the
use of light sources by staff in the camp would be carried out in order to minimize
collision and disorientation of wildlife that can be caused by light hazards. This would
include minimizing lighting on the vessel and in camp, shading windows, and limiting
use of hand held lights.
• Use of stringent quarantine protocols and when invasive species are discovered, use of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to eradicate or control them. Visitors to Baker
would be required to wear new and frozen clothing and other quarantine precautions as
outlined in quarantine protocols (Appendix D). Time permitting; the hand pulling of
weeds would occur. The selective hand spray application of herbicides or pesticides,
where appropriate, may also occur.
• Scientific Information Exchange. Refuge staff currently attends various professional
meetings and conferences related to Pacific island and marine resources. Additionally, a
minimal amount of staff time is devoted to the development of peer reviewed journal
articles and contributing to NOAA and Service-sponsored Web sites. These activities
would remain constant, although there may be opportunities to increase this involvement
with some alternatives.
• Preservation of Wilderness Values. Since its establishment, Baker has been managed to
preserve its wilderness values and characteristics even though it has never been proposed
for wilderness designation. These values are intrinsic at this remote, uninhabited island
and coral reef ecosystem. Management activities across all alternatives would not
impinge on these values.
• Public Access. Since establishment, Baker has never been formally opened to public
access and use. Access and public use remains closed across all alternatives. All
individual opportunities for compatible use such as specific research projects would
continue to be administered using individual SUPs.
• Interpretation, Education, and Outreach. Current opportunities for off-site education
exist at the Maritime Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. A hands-on exhibit representing a
Pacific island refuge is maintained to educate school-aged students about seabirds,
invasive species, marine debris, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (System).
Interpretative displays are also used periodically at conventions and professional
meetings.
• Protection and Preservation of Cultural Resources. Cultural resources remain intact and
in situ across all alternatives. Field camps would be situated to avoid impacts to cultural
resource sites. Archaeological reconnaissance and possible testing to avoid impacts to
cultural resources would be required prior to management activity that would potentially
disturb surface or subsurface resources.
• Waste Disposal at Sea. Disposal of waste in refuge waters is prohibited under all
alternatives.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-4 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
• Waste Disposal on Island. All waste from food products, equipment, and containers that
is brought onto the island will be removed during demobilization. Depending upon the
duration of the site visit, human excrement will be either bagged, stored in a chemical
toilet, or decomposed using portable biodegradable toilets, all of which will subsequently
be removed during field camp demobilization.
• Refuge Boundary. There are no changes being proposed to the refuge boundary under any
alternative.
• Baseline Contaminant Monitoring. Refuge staff conduct baseline observations of known
contaminated sites and record changes in condition since last site visit.
2.2.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B-D)
These features are common to Alternatives B, C, and D but would not be implemented as part of
the No Action Alternative.
• Cultural Resources Inventory. Baker would be re-evaluated for the presence and
condition of cultural resources. Visits that are more frequent would provide the
opportunity for on-site review and documentation of cultural resources. However, the
duration of the site visit across the alternatives would determine the level of review.
• Wilderness Study Area. A recommendation for Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
designation would apply to all action alternatives. However, wilderness recommendation
would be postponed until a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) and
wilderness proposal are developed for all other remote Pacific island national wildlife
refuges (NWRs) as part of their CCP processes.
• Marine ecosystem monitoring. Funding will be sought for additional exploration of deep
slope resources. Use of a ship equipped with a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to
operate at depths between 150 -300 feet may be possible across all action alternatives.
• Seabird Nesting Restoration. Electronic calls would be deployed and used as seabird
nesting attraction devices designed to attract Phoenix petrels (Pterodroma alba) and
Polynesian storm petrels (Nesofregetta fuliginosa). These electronic call devices consist
of solar powered speakers broadcasting calls of both species in suitable areas of the
island. Both of these small ground-nesting Procellariforms are severely depleted or
extirpated throughout much of their range. The mammal-free status of Baker Island
makes it an ideal site within the species’ original range to restore a breeding population
of each species.
• Contaminant Investigation Proposal. Refuge staff would work cooperatively with
Regional Office staff to develop funding and operational proposals to quantify
contaminant concerns on Baker in preparation for remediation activities.
2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives
A narrative description outlining each alternative follows. Additionally, Table 2.1 contrasts how
various themes/issues identified in this CCP are addressed by the alternatives. Table 2.2
compares the cost estimates for each alternative.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management)
This alternative assumes no change from present management programs and is considered the
base from which to compare the action alternatives (Table 2-1). The Service’s Remotes
Complex office would continue to maintain jurisdiction and management of Baker Island and the
associated coral reefs and marine habitats out to 3 nautical miles (nmi) as a NWR. Site visits to
Baker would occur approximately once every 2 years as they have for the past 6 years. Staff
visits would be arranged through the cooperation of partner agencies such as NOAA, U.S. Coast
Guard (Coast Guard), and other organizations providing berths for refuge staff. During these
staff visits, two refuge staff would spend approximately 1 to 2 days on the island conducting
baseline scientific data collection, inspecting boundary signs, inventorying for the presence of
invasive species, visiting cultural resources, monitor and investigate contaminated sites, and
collecting and destruction of bird entrapments caused by rusting drums and other debris. The
brief and infrequent visits in this alternative preclude any habitat management other than
monitoring and investigation of contaminated sites, and that may wash ashore or remain because
of human habitation during the guano mining and military eras.
Marine vessels capable of traveling the open ocean for extended periods are the only opportunity
for transportation to Baker. In the recent years, NOAA, Coast Guard, and private charter vessels
have all provided transportation. A typical voyage originating from Honolulu, Hawaii will take
approximately 6 to 7 days to arrive at Baker with intermediate stops at Rose or Palmyra Atoll
NWRs, or Johnston, Howland, or Jarvis Island NWRs. Once on site, if wind and wave
conditions warrant the launch of a landing vessel (typically a small outboard type inflatable
boat), the marine vessel will anchor or remain stationary during the deployment of the field
camp, only venturing away from the island to complete marine surveys. Conditions that allow
biologists to land on the island occur during approximately 50% of the voyages to the island.
The field camp itself generally consists of two individuals, typically biologists to carry out
biological surveys and other duties, and camping gear consisting of tents, sleeping equipment,
food, water, and needed survey equipment. Cooking gear is rarely deployed since staff are only
on-island for 1 to 2 days with most of that time being engaged in work activities.
While on-island, the biologists will document all bird species present, count individuals,
determine if any and the extent of nesting, casually observe vegetation and record species
presence or absence, or the presence of any invasive species. Cultural sites will be visited with
observations made about condition and deterioration. The only active management that occurs
during these site visits is the monitoring of contaminated sites, collection and on-island stockpile
of marine debris that washes ashore and poses a threat to seabirds and other wildlife that utilize
Baker. Any evidence of illegal activity such as unauthorized access will also be documented.
Photographs will record general habitat conditions; however, further habitat assessments do not
occur. Although no specific activities occur with respect to wilderness values, the simple fact
that a 1 to 2 day field camp consisting of temporary lodging arrangements and minimal activity
is consistent with maintaining the wilderness values of the area.
During the period that the biologists are on Baker, marine scientists from NOAA, the Service,
and other partner organizations such as the University of Hawaii conduct surveys and monitoring
activities of the marine environment. Some monitoring activities occur on-board the vessel,
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-6 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
while others require the use of SCUBA equipment. All of the marine scientists, however, are
based on the vessel awaiting the conclusion of terrestrial surveys and thus do not come ashore.
Marine scientists typically collect information on currents, weather, temperature, chemical
composition of the water, and the abundance and distribution of coral and fish species. Specific
marine-based surveys known as Rapid Ecological Assessments (REA) are conducted and collect
ecological data such as fish species, abundance, and predator prey relationships. Data are also
collected from permanently marked coral transects which document coral species, age class, and
percent coral cover. These data are collected over a 2-day period (six 1-hour dives). Following
the voyage, data from marine scientists are provided to the Service and include a full range of
oceanographic, bathymetric, and marine biological data.
Once field operations are complete, or the weather becomes increasingly inclement, the field
camp is demobilized and all equipment and personnel are transported back to the research vessel.
Typically, the other two equatorial refuges (Howland and Jarvis) are also visited in this same
manner. Travel time between Howland and Baker is 5 hours, and Baker and Jarvis is 2 days.
Once the three surveys are completed, or at least attempted, the voyage continues with
approximately 6 to 7 days to travel back to Honolulu, again with intermediate stops at Palmyra
Atoll or Johnston Island NWRs, or continuing on for 4 days to Rose Atoll NWR and American
Samoa where voyage scientists and biologists can be exchanged and then fly back to Honolulu.
In total, it is expected that in order to visit Baker, Howland, and Jarvis, for 1 to 2 days per refuge,
a biologist or marine scientist needs to devote 20 to 26 days total travel. Trip reports are
completed, distributed, and filed once field staff return to the Honolulu office.
2.3.2 Alternative B - (Preferred Alternative)
Management under Alternative B would increase the frequency of staff visits to Baker and would
only alter the current management regime to incorporate the use of solar powered electronic
calling devices to encourage additional seabird species to nest, and develop funding proposals for
island transportation and contamination monitoring and remediation. Habitat assessments and
wildlife and contaminant monitoring data would continue to be collected as described in the No
Action Alternative. The travel to, establishment of, and conduct of field camps would also
remain the same. The primary difference between Alternative A and Alternative B is the
frequency of visitation from once every 2 years to annually respectively. Thus, at the end of the
15-year lifespan of the plan, it is anticipated that there will have been 15 visits to Baker. In order
to meet the increase in the number of site visits, refuge staff in Honolulu would be
administratively burdened to seek additional funding sources and develop partnerships for
additional site visits and project proposals for contaminant monitoring and clean-up. This may
take the form of producing internal project proposals, or seeking funding support through grants
or partnerships with other agencies, research institutions, and non-government organizations.
The scale and scope of marine surveys would also be maintained. At a minimum, marine
scientists would resurvey REAs and other transects described in Alternative A.
2.3.3 Alternative C
Management activity on Baker would increase under this alternative. Seasonal field camps
lasting approximately 4 months would be established concurrently on Baker and two other
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
remote Pacific Ocean refuges (Howland and Jarvis). Subsequent years would find the seasonal
field camps deployed during alternating 4 month periods. Thus, the field camp would return to
Baker annually during a different 4 month period. At the end of 3 years, it is expected that field
camp staff would have spent 12 months on the island and have been present on the island during
each month of the year. Due to the relatively short duration of each field camp, it would be
possible to deploy and demobilize without any resupply trips. Thus, a contract vessel for two
charter periods (deployment and demobilization) would be required. Yearly funding to charter a
vessel would be required to implement this alternative. Aside from deployment and
demobilization, no small vessels would be required during field camp operations.
Access provided by a charter vessel would substantially increase Service presence and ability to
monitor, survey, restore, and otherwise manage refuge resources. Seabird species nesting at
latitudes near the equator are extremely asynchronous and vary between years in their schedule
of breeding. Longer periods of residency at Baker would foster a better understanding of
breeding chronology of seabirds. Longer visits would enable the staff to map vegetation and
detect rare species of all taxa that may be missed on shorter trips. Surveys of shorebirds and
terrestrial invertebrates would also be conducted. By concurrently operating field camps on
these three refuges it would be possible to compare wildlife use among the refuges, but it would
not be able to provide a complete assessment of annual use on any one individual refuge.
Nearshore surveys of the marine environment not requiring SCUBA could be increased, but due
to safety concerns, most marine surveys would only occur during the period when the transport
vessel was near the island during deployment and demobilization.
Terrestrial and marine invasive plant and invertebrate species and contaminants have the
capacity to alter plant and animal communities, specifically posing a threat to seabird nesting
habitat and coral reefs. Staff being present on the island each year would provide the
opportunity to complete comprehensive surveys for both native and exotic species and effects of
contamination. The extended duration of site visits will allow for the early detection of any
exotic or invasive species, and provide for the rapid response and control before any invasive
species has the ability to negatively affect refuge resources. Invasive species control would be in
the form of hand-pulling plants and algae, hand spray applications of herbicide or insecticide or
physical removal of invertebrates such as crown-of-thorns starfish. It should be noted again,
however, that concerns for ocean safety during extended field camps without nearby vessel
support would severely limit marine surveys and activities.
Marine debris poses an entanglement threat to seabirds and turtles. The extended field camp
operations proposed in Alternative C would provide refuge staff the opportunity to not only
collect and stockpile marine debris such as discarded fishing nets and plastic waste, but prepare
the debris for off-site removal during demobilization activities.
Contamination and trash remaining from past human occupation will be quantified. The
extended field camp operations would provide refuge staff and contaminant experts the
opportunity to collect samples of soils and other suspect materials in order to quantify the extent
and type of contamination. Baker is being evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (EPA ID HI6143690075) for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) as
directed by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-8 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
(CERCLA). If so designated, the Service will work cooperatively with the responsible parties
such as the U.S. Navy (Navy), U.S. Army (Army), and the Coast Guard to remediate the area.
Alternative C will provide the opportunity to remediate contamination at Baker.
Additional time on the island would allow field camp staff to conduct visual surveys for sea
turtle use of nearshore waters. Turtles are often found basking on shorelines, or foraging in
shallow nearshore waters where they find plant growth to graze. Habitat use and behaviors of
turtles found in the area would be documented in this alternative. While surveys could be
conducted to document turtle use in the nearshore waters, the availability of a contract vessel
only during deployment and demobilization would limit the ability to search for other sites of
turtle or marine mammal use outside of nearshore waters.
Remotely operated cameras, hydrophones, listening devices, and satellite linkages may also be
used to collect data and imagery primarily on seabird use, breeding chronology, habitat selection,
seabird productivity, and other ecological attributes. These biotic and abiotic characteristics
could be monitored during periods when field camps are not present on the island. These data
would also be used for law enforcement purposes to detect trespass and for monitoring condition
of vegetation, presence or absence of all avian species using the refuge, monitoring of
invertebrate (land crab) population indices, and to detect invasive species. However, the level of
implementation and the use of this technology would be dependent upon available funding.
A limited amount of time would be available for the maintenance of existing cultural and
historical resources. For instance, it would be reasonable to assume that minor masonry repair or
repainting of the Baker day beacon could be accomplished during one of the 4-month periods.
Cultural resource surveys would need to be completed prior to any cultural resource restoration
and maintenance, establishment of the field camp, or contaminant remediation.
Additional research opportunities would present themselves with a 4-month field camp. The
primary increase would be in documenting the effects of a changing global environment. While
it is certain that our climate is changing, it is uncertain how this change will affect mid-Pacific
Ocean islands and their wildlife resources. Changes in sea level, current patterns, temperature,
nutrients, and storm intensities could all have impacts on these areas, or the distribution of
seabird food resources. Without the opportunity to monitor these parameters, it will be
impossible to discuss their impacts, and ultimately to make any changes to management
activities to minimize the impacts.
A regularly chartered vessel would also provide the opportunity to provide a law enforcement
presence, better understand the equatorial Pacific island ecosystems, and increase opportunities
for cooperation with partner institutions, organizations and agencies. A chartered vessel would
allow refuge staff be more time efficient and independent of schedules and availability of other
agencies and organizations for access to Baker and other refuges.
2.3.4 Alternative D
Alternative D proposes to establish a year-round field camp on Baker, with provisions to rotate
the camp among Howland, Jarvis, Johnston Island NWRs and Rose Atoll NWR in subsequent
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
and alternating years. The purchase of a Service vessel for field camp safety and support, and to
increase the ability to monitor and manage refuge resources of all remote Pacific island refuges
is an integral component of this alternative. Interim staff change and resupply trips for a 12-
month field camp would occur a minimum of three times per year. A Service-owned vessel
could also be stationed and available on-site to complete additional surveys, especially of the
marine system.
All wildlife populations, particularly seabirds, could be monitored in greater detail. Annual
nesting chronology, seabird recruitment by species, nest site selection, and other biological and
ecological parameters could be documented. Any invasive species that are detected could be
controlled and eradicated in the same manner as described in Alternative C. Contaminant and
debris remediation and removal would be similar to that described in Alternative C. A rotation
among Pacific island refuges, also including Johnston Island, and Rose Atoll NWRs, would
allow each island to host an annual field camp once every 5 years. Coordination with other
agencies sponsoring vessel access and affording berths for Service personnel would continue
under this alternative, including possible re-supply and staff change-outs. In addition, the
Service would also be able to provide access to Baker and other refuges for visiting researchers,
archeologists, and cultural resource specialists. The use and benefit of remotely operated
cameras, hydrophones, listening devices, and satellite linkages are identical to those described in
Alternative C.
Surveys and monitoring efforts under this alternative would provide the greatest understanding
and most biologically effective management of refuge resources. Research and documentation
beyond basic qualitative surveys and monitoring would be encouraged and enhanced, with the
opportunity for Baker and other Pacific island refuges to serve as baseline sites for monitoring
global climate change and locations where seabird foraging ecology as it relates to changing
oceanographic conditions near the equator could be investigated.
2.3.5 Summary
The ability of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to contribute to meeting the System
mission, “…to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” is limited. Likewise, the No Action and the Preferred Action provide a minimal
benefit to meeting the refuge purpose of, “…the restoration and preservation of the complete
ecosystem, terrestrial and marine. Priority must be given to allowing seabird nesting colonies to
reestablish on Baker so eventually they would reach the great numbers which were present there
prior to human occupancy and abuse of the island during the past 125 years.” There would be no
opportunity to remediate contaminated sites. A 1 to 2 day visit to the island once every 2 years
or annually respectively does not provide the opportunity for refuge staff to complete anything
other than basic biological surveys of species presence or absence. With the exception of
establishing electronic calling devices in the Preferred Alternative, restoration, preservation, or
protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, or nesting seabirds is not possible with the No
Action or Preferred Alternative.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-10 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Alternative C and Alternative D both contribute to meeting the refuge purpose and System
mission by providing the opportunity to actively work toward restoration of nesting seabird
populations, potentially controlling invasive species (early detection, rapid response), removing
entrapment hazards caused by debris, monitoring and remediating contaminated sites, and
contributing to our general understanding of the implications and impacts of global climate
change on seabird populations.
However, lack of projected budget and staffing preclude management staff from looking for
increased management activity beyond Alternative B. It is for this reason that Alternative B has
been selected as the Preferred Alternative. If, during the lifetime of this plan, budget and staffing
become available to pursue Alternative C or D, then the CCP will be reevaluated with the
potential selection of a new Preferred Alternative. Until that time, the Service is proposing
Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative.
2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
The concept of placing Baker in custodial status, or in other words doing less than the No Action
Alternative was considered but eliminated from further study. At present, refuge staff visit
Baker once every 2 years, thereby managing the refuge just above a custodial or bare minimum
level. Reducing the frequency of current staff visitation would not be sufficient to meet the
purposes for which the refuge was established, or the obligations of several laws such as the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, CERCLA, or the Act. Custodial status for
Baker – not visiting – would reduce or eliminate any management activity to meet these
obligations. In addition, the current limited visitation to the island ensures U.S. sovereignty.
Eliminating visitation by placing the refuge in custodial status may jeopardize the U.S. claim of
territorial ownership. Thus, custodial status as an alternative was not further evaluated.
Two Wilderness Study Areas were evaluated and one was determined to meet the minimum
criteria for wilderness recommendation (Appendix F). Recommendation for wilderness
designation as a component of any alternative was not considered at this time, but will be
included in a LEIS at the completion of the CCP process for all other remote Pacific island
refuges.
No other alternatives or components of alternatives were considered beyond those mentioned
above.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-11 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Table 2.1 Summary of CCP Actions, by Alternative
Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action
(Current Management)
Alternative B Preferred
Alternative
Alternative C Alternative D
Access to Refuge
Voyage Preparation and
Administration
Logistic planning
required for 1- to 2-day
visit and a 20- to 26-day
voyage. Funding
required for passenger
aboard partner vessel,
one trip every 2 years.
Logistic planning
required for 1 to 2 day
visit and a 20- to 26-day
voyage. Funding
required for passenger
aboard partner or charter
vessel, one trip every
year.
Logistic planning
required for 4-month
field camp. Funding
required for two contract
vessel trips per year, but
is cost-shared with other
NWRs.
Logistic planning for
year long field camp.
Funding required
annually for vessel
operation, but is cost-shared
with other
NWRs.
Method/Cost of Voyage
Transportation
Transportation provided
aboard partner vessels.
No transportation cost to
Service incurred. Least
expensive of all
alternatives.
Transportation provided
aboard partner vessels
with additional effort to
charter and partner. No
cost on partner vessel.
Charter vessel would
incur cost of one charter
per year. Least
expensive of all action
alternatives.
Transportation provided
aboard partner vessels
on irregular basis.
Chartered vessel
required on regular basis
would incur cost of two
charters per year, pro-rated
among 3 refuges.
Most expensive of all
alternatives.
Transportation provided
aboard partner vessels.
Service-owned vessel
required would incur
annual cost, with cost
pro-rated among 7
refuges. Second most
expensive alternative.
Frequency of Site Visit 1- to 2-day visit every 2
years.
1- to 2-day visit every
year.
Annually host a 4-month
per year field camp.
A 12-month long field
camp hosted every 5
years.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-12
Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action
(Current Management)
Alternative B Preferred
Alternative
Alternative C Alternative D
Field Camp Duration
and Staff Required
1- to 2- persons
overnight for 1 to 2
days.
1- to 2-persons
overnight for 1 to 2
days.
2- to 3- person seasonal
field camp established
concurrently on Baker
and 2 other nearby
refuge islands.
2- to 3- person year-round
field camp
established on Baker and
rotated annually with 4
other nearby refuge
islands.
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.
Same as Alternative A.
Seabirds, Other Wildlife, and Habitats
Seabird Monitoring Basic monitoring of
seabird species,
abundance, and nesting
status occurs every other
year with a 1- to 2-day
monitoring period.
Basic monitoring of
seabird species,
abundance, and nesting
status occurs annually
with a 1- to 2-day
monitoring period.
Fundamental monitoring
of nesting chronology,
seasonality as well as
species presence and
abundance occurs once
every 8 months with up
to a 4-month duration
monitoring period.
Fundamental monitoring
of nesting chronology,
seasonality as well as
species presence and
abundance occurs once
every 5 years with a 12-
month duration
monitoring period.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-13 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action
(Current Management)
Alternative B Preferred
Alternative
Alternative C Alternative D
Seabird Nesting
Restoration
Seabird nest attraction
devices (electronic bird
calls) not currently on-island.
Seabird nest attraction
devices (electronic bird
calls) placed on-island.
Maintenance of
equipment occurs
annually. Monitoring
for seabird response
occurs annually with a
1- to 2-day monitoring
period.
Use of remote cameras,
in addition to playback
of recorded calls
increases monitoring
activity. Maintenance of
equipment occurs
annually. Monitoring
for seabird response
occurs once every 8
months during a 4-
month monitoring
period. Remote cameras
allow continuous
monitoring.
Use of remote cameras,
in addition to playback
of bird calls increases
monitoring activity.
Maintenance of
equipment occurs
annually. Monitoring
for seabird response
occurs once every 5
years during a 12-month
monitoring period.
Remote cameras allow
continuous monitoring.
Other Wildlife and
Habitat Monitoring
Each visit documents
species presence or
absence, presence of
invasive species, and
abiotic variables (e.g.,
temperature, wind
speed).
Each visit documents
species presence or
absence, presence of
invasive species, and
abiotic variables (e.g.,
temperature, wind
speed).
Each visit documents
species presence or
absence, abundance,
habitat condition,
presence and distribution
of invasive species, and
abiotic variables (e.g.,
temperature, wind
speed).
Each visit documents
species presence or
absence, abundance,
habitat condition,
presence and distribution
of invasive species, and
abiotic variables (e.g.,
temperature, wind
speed).
Vegetation Mapping None. None. Mapping of vegetation
will occur seasonally
during field camps, but
will only be capable of
documenting seasonal
growth patterns.
Mapping of vegetation
will occur during field
camps. Annual growth
patterns documented, but
not repeated for 5 years.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-14
Key Themes/Issues Alternative A No Action
(Current Management)
Alternative B Preferred
Alternative
Alternative C Alternative D
Habitat Management
Activities
No habitat management
activities occur other
than destruction of bird
entrapments due to
debris.
No habitat management
activities occur other
than collection and
stockpile of marine and
other debris.
Control invasive species
as detected.
Control invasive species
as detected.
Contaminants Monitoring activities
would occur.
Monitoring activities
would occur. No
remediation activities
would occur. However,
funding proposals to
monitor/evaluate
contaminants would be
developed.
Monitoring activities
would occur. Funding
level may allow for
remediation.
Monitoring activities
would occur. Funding
level may allow for
remediation.
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.
Management activities
will continue to preserve
wilderness resource
values.
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.
WSA identified.
Wilderness
recommendation delayed
until all Pacific island
CCPs are complete.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-15 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
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.
Deep slope monitoring
by ROV proposed, but
dependent upon funding.
Marine Monitoring Marine ecosystem
monitored. REA and
established surveys
completed once every 2
years.
Marine ecosystem
monitored. REA and
established surveys
completed annually. No
new surveys.
Marine ecosystem
monitored. REA and
established surveys
completed semiannually.
No new surveys
proposed.
Marine ecosystem
monitored. REA and
established surveys
completed semiannually.
Additional survey sites
possible.
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.
Cultural resources
preserved. On-site
cultural resource survey
required prior to
establishment of year-long
field camp.
Recreational, Educational and Research Use
Recreational,
Educational, and
Research Use
Public access would
remain closed. Proposed
uses by researchers and
other visitors managed
by issuance of SUPs on
a case-by-case basis.
Opportunities for
environmental education
exist off-site.
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-16 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives A-D Funding Requirements
The costs associated with implementing each Alternative are shown in Table 2-2. For
Alternative A (No Action), the costs incurred by the Service are associated with staff working on
the island for 1 to 2 days once every 2 years and relies on the ability of refuge staff to be
transported on a NOAA research or partner vessel to Baker. The costs associated with
Alternative B include staff working on the island for 1 to 2 days and relies on the ability of
refuge staff to be transported on a NOAA research vessel or another vessel provided through
other partnerships, grant funding, or charter to facilitate yearly staff visits. Alternative C
includes costs for two vessel charters per year to deploy and demobilize a seasonal field camp (4-
month deployment of 2 personnel) to survey, restore and otherwise manage refuge resources.
The adjusted annual personnel and operating costs for Alternative C reflect the prorated amount
for the Baker portion of establishing concurrent field camps on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis.
Alternative D includes the cost of acquiring and maintaining a vessel to facilitate the
establishment of a year-round field camp that would be deployed once every 5 years in a
rotational schedule that would include deployments at Howland, Baker, and Jarvis as well as
Johnston Atoll and Rose Atoll, in the other years. The vessel purchase and operational costs in
Alternative D represents costs that are distributed among all remote island refuges that would
utilize this vessel to accomplish management activities throughout these central Pacific Ocean
locations. The adjusted annual cost for Alternative D reflects the pro-rated amount it would cost
to implement the alternative at Baker. Use of this vessel to support the two national wildlife
refuges in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands would further decrease these prorated costs. Until
such time that contaminant surveys occur, cost estimates for remediation will not be possible and
are not part of this comparison.
Table 2.2 Estimated Annual Cost Comparison of Various Field Camp Configurations.
Field Camp Budget
for Baker
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Staff $17,000 (0.3
FTE every 2
years)
$34,000 (0.3
FTE per year)
$66,000 (0.66
FTE per year)
$200,000 (2 FTE
once every 5
years)
Supplies $5,000 $7,000 $100,000 $200,000
Remote Sensing
equipment
N/A N/A $100,000 N/A
Remote Sensing
operations
N/A N/A $20,000 $20,000
Deep sea exploration N/A $25,000 per
submersible
vessel dive
$25,000 per
submersible
vessel dive
$25,000 per
submersible
vessel dive
Seabird recolonization
initiative
N/A $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Vessel Charter N/A N/A $12,000/day
for 50 days =
$600,000 per
N/A
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17
Field Camp Budget
for Baker
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
year
Vessel Purchase (one
time cost)
N/A N/A N/A $ 8 million
Vessel operation N/A N/A N/A $200,000 once
every 5 years
Adjusted annual
personnel, supplies
and equipment costs
$22,000/yr $76,000/yr $256,000/yr $210,000/yr
2.6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify
and focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and
the System mission.
A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision
broadly reflects the refuge purposes, the System mission and goals, other statutory requirements,
and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision,
followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving
those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives.
In the development of this CCP, the Service prepared an environmental assessment. The
environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a
variety of management goals, objectives and implementation strategies.
The goals for Baker over the next 15 years under the CCP are presented on the following pages.
Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. The goal order does not imply
any priority in this CCP. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed
in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. Following
the goals, objectives, and strategies is a brief rationale intended to provide further background
information pertaining to importance of an objective relative to legal mandates for managing
units of the System including refuge purpose, trust resource responsibilities (federally listed
threatened and endangered species and migratory birds), and maintaining/restoring biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
Readers, please note the following:
The objective statement as written is the same that applies to the Service’s Preferred Alternative,
Alternative B. If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is used to indicate that this
objective is not addressed in that alternative. Below each objective statement are the strategies
that could be employed in order to accomplish the objectives. Check marks alongside each
strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. If a column for a particular alternative
does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it means that strategy will not be used in that
alternative.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-18 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Goal 1: Conserve, restore, manage, and protect native terrestrial habitats that
are representative of remote tropical Pacific islands, primarily for the benefit
of seabirds.
Objective 1a: Conserve, manage, and protect habitat for nesting seabirds.
Upon CCP approval and throughout the life of the CCP, conserve, manage, and protect a
mosaic of approximately 531 acres of terrestrial habitat consisting of 31 acres of beach and
beach strand, 300 acres as short grass and forbs, and 200 acres as bare ground on Baker
Island as nesting habitat for 11 seabird species.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Conduct and record incidental observations
of invasive species.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Control and where possible, eradicate
invasive species using IPM tools including
hand pulling and selective application of
pesticides.
✓ ✓
Eradicate mammalian pests (e.g., mice)
using IPM tools as needed to protect nesting
seabirds.
✓ ✓
Adhere to strict quarantine protocols for all
island visitors (see Appendix D).
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Monitor contaminated areas. Remove
entrapment hazards due to marine and other
human debris not considered to be
historically important.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Remove stockpiled marine and other debris. ✓ ✓
Rationale:
The 11 nesting seabird species on Baker use all island habitats (see Chapter 3.9.1 and
Appendix B). Masked and brown boobies prefer to nest on bare, open ground. Gray-backed,
sooty, and white tern; and brown and blue-grey noddy also nest on the surface, but
are tolerant of vegetated areas. Lesser frigatebirds, typically known as a shrub nesting
species, are found exclusively on the ground at Baker. Red-tailed tropicbirds prefer shaded
areas and can be found nesting on the surface, under coral slabs, or in shrubs. Red-footed
booby and great frigatebird are the only two exclusive shrub nesting species. However,
due to the few shrubs on Baker, red-footed boobies have been seen to nest on the ground.
The Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005) recognizes remote Pacific islands as
providing important and varied breeding habitat, specifically Baker as being important for
ground nesting species. Additionally, the plan recognizes that near-shore waters provide
areas of upwelling currents with important food resources for seabirds.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19
Maintaining the island free of mammalian predators, invasive insects, and invasive plants
is critical for seabird survival (USFWS 2005). Strict quarantine protocols have been
previously established for all island visitors in order to eliminate the threat of introducing
invasive plants, insects, and animals (see Appendix D).
Marine and other human generated debris poses an entrapment and entanglement threat for
multiple wildlife species. Destruction of rusting drums and stockpiling debris can reduce
the overall area impacted, thereby reducing the threat.
Objective 1b: Increase baseline information on terrestrial habitat.
Within 15 years of the CCP approval, conduct monitoring to determine vegetation species
presence/absence and distribution on Baker Island.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Document presence/absence island
vegetation.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Conduct inventory of plant species
distribution, including use of GPS and
vegetation transects.
✓ ✓
Coordinate with Regional Office GIS staff to
assess and/or develop remote sensing
capability to map and monitor island habitats.
✓ ✓ ✓
Rationale:
In general, insufficient time has been spent on Baker to adequately quantify the habitat,
and how this habitat relates to seabird biology. Collection of baseline biological
information is essential to adequately understand and manage the refuge. Although it is
known that the 11 nesting seabird species use all habitats on Baker, this information has
only been obtained from the short duration, infrequent visits (1 to 2 days every 2 years) to
the island. There has been no quantitative assessment of breeding species habitat
associations. The distribution and delineation of habitats itself has been estimated, but
never been quantified. Remotely collected data may provide an option for data collection
in the absence of being capable of visiting Baker.
Objective 1c: Survey and monitor refuge to document contamination.
Within 10 years of the CCP approval, monitor approximately 100 acres of known
contamination and survey remainder of island to determine if contamination level is above
the EPA threshold value for designation on the NPL under CERCLA.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Document presence and extent of known
contamination.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-20 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Conduct contaminant survey of entire island
as a follow-up site investigation to address
deficiencies listed by EPA in the Foster
Wheeler 1998 report to determine if Baker
meets criteria for EPA Superfund Site
designation.
✓ ✓
Coordinate with the responsible parties such
as the Coast Guard to conduct the Site
Investigation.
✓ ✓ ✓
If the responsible parties are not willing to
conduct the Site Investigation, obtain Service
funding through the Refuge Cleanup Fund.
✓ ��� ✓
Coordinate with regional office contaminants
staff to develop funding/operational package
to conduct monitoring activity.
✓ ✓ ✓ ���
Coordinate and consult with EPA in design
and conduct of follow-up Site Investigation.
✓ ✓ ✓
Rationale:
In general, insufficient time has been spent on Baker to adequately quantify the extent of
contamination on Baker. A Site Investigation is used by EPA to determine if areas of the
island or surrounding waters are unacceptably contaminated. If so, the responsible parties
for the contamination, i.e., Navy, Army, and the Coast Guard will have the responsibility
to clean up the site. To date, the Site Investigation conducted by Foster Wheeler in 1998
was inconclusive and unacceptable to EPA and the Service. The Service now has the
responsibility to determine if Baker meets CERCLA criteria. Further and follow up
monitoring is required by the Service before NPL determination can be made.
Objective 1d: Remediate contaminated areas of Baker
Within 15 years of the CCP approval, begin remediation activities on all contaminated
areas of Baker.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Cooperate and coordinate with the Coast
Guard or Navy to remediate contaminated
areas of Baker.
✓ ✓
Institute long monitoring program of the
remediation.
✓ ✓
If required, develop Service funding request
for cleanup through the Refuge Cleanup
Fund.
✓ ✓
Rationale:
A Site Investigation is used by EPA to determine if areas of the island or waters are
unacceptably contaminated. If so, the responsible parties for the contamination, i.e., the
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21
Navy, Army, and the Coast Guard have the responsibility to clean up the site. To date, the
Site Investigation conducted by Foster Wheeler in 1998 was inconclusive and unacceptable
to EPA and the Service to determine if Baker meets NPL criteria. If these criteria are met,
then it will increase the priority for remediation by the responsible parties. For the Navy
and Army, responsibility for Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) has been delegated
through the Defense Environmental Restoration Act (DERA) to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE). Unfortunately, Baker can not meet the criteria used by FUDS to
become a priority site. Therefore, the ACOE through FUDS will not be able to remediate
contaminated lands or waters at Baker. Remediation will only be possible through the
Coast Guard environmental program or if funding becomes available through the Service’s
Refuge Cleanup Funds. It will be incumbent upon Service staff to work cooperatively with
the responsible parties or their delegates and the EPA to coordinate and complete
remediation activities.
Goal 2: Conserve, manage, and protect native marine communities that are
representative of remote tropical Pacific islands.
Objective 2a: Conserve, manage, and protect marine habitat.
Upon CCP approval, conserve, manage, and protect approximately 31,378 acres of
submerged lands consisting of an estimated 3,000 acres coral reef and 28,378 acres of deep
water/pelagic habitat on Baker.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Use IPM tools to control and where possible,
eradicate invasive marine species (e.g.,
crown-of-thorns starfish).
✓
Collect, remove, and stockpile marine debris
from shallow coral reefs.
✓
Continue and expand partnership with NOAA
to manage coral reef ecosystems.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Rationale:
The conservation and protection of the Nation’s coral reefs is becoming increasingly
important for agencies with responsibility to manage and conserve those (Executive Orders
13089 and 13158). Because the refuge boundary for Baker extends to 3 nmi from the
island shoreline, all coral reefs are contained within the refuge boundary. Threats to the
coral reef system include invasive species such as crown-of-thorns starfish and marine
debris (e.g., abandoned fishing gear, sunken landing craft) that collects on corals,
smothering or breaking them. The responsibility for protecting, managing, and conserving
coral reef ecosystems is shared with NOAA. The Service and NOAA often participate in
joint management activities throughout the Pacific, however, no active management
activities have occurred at Baker.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-22 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
Objective 2b: Increase baseline information on marine community.
Within 15 years of CCP approval, monitor: coral species density, diversity, and
distribution; fish species presence/absence and habitat associations; sea turtle species
presence/absence; and marine mammal species presence/absence.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Conduct and record incidental observations of
corals, fish, sea turtles, marine mammals, and
their habitats.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Accompany NOAA or other scientific
partners on marine surveys.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Conduct REA on all existing survey routes to
document coral, fish and turtle density,
diversity, distribution, and habitat
associations.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Develop proposals and conduct deep slope
marine surveys by ROV to document
presence/absence of deep slope coral and fish
species.
✓ ✓ ✓
Conduct comprehensive survey for invasive
species.
✓
Increase level of REA and other marine
habitat surveys by 20%.
✓
Conduct specific surveys for marine mammal
presence/absence.
✓
Rationale:
Responsibility for managing marine resources is shared with NOAA, and has led to many
cooperative studies. Unlike the logistic constraints of completing terrestrial surveys,
marine surveys are conducted throughout the entire time that the marine transport vessel is
at Baker. Additionally, since most site visits to Baker are aboard NOAA research vessels,
the purpose of these voyages is to conduct marine surveys and studies. Consequently, a
full compliment of up to 20 marine researchers and 40 support staff contribute to
conducting marine surveys across all alternatives. As a result, marine surveys are more
comprehensive than terrestrial surveys on Baker.
REAs constitute baseline monitoring of the marine ecosystem, and are one component of
all alternative strategies. Further expansion of REAs could be accomplished only as a
component of Alternative D.
Additional surveys (e.g., marine mammals, deep slope), as described beginning with
Alternative B can be achieved as components of cooperative efforts with other agencies or
research organizations. As an example, little is known of marine mammal use surrounding
Baker, although it is known that some species are found in the vicinity.
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-23
The Marine Mammal Commission has encouraged the Service to generate partnerships
with NOAA to help document baseline information. Developing additional partnerships
with NOAA or other organizations may also assist in meeting terrestrial objectives by
providing the opportunity for additional trips to Baker.
Goal 3: Contribute to the recovery, protection, and management efforts for all
native species with special consideration for seabirds, migratory shorebirds,
federally listed threatened and endangered species, and species of
management concern.
Objective 3a: Develop baseline migratory bird and other species information.
Within 10 years of CCP approval, conduct monitoring (in rank order) to determine: seabird
species presence/absence, relative abundance, breeding chronology, distribution, and
habitat use; presence/absence of shorebirds; presence/absence and distribution of sea
turtles; and presence/absence of terrestrial invertebrates on Baker Island. The desired
conditions by which this will be met is understanding of the complete annual chronology
for 5 of 11 nesting seabird species; population trend data over the 10-year period for all 11
nesting seabird species; and the presence/absence and distribution of shorebirds, turtles and
other terrestrial invertebrates.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Record incidental observations of all species
presence/absence, relative abundance, and
distribution.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Conduct seabird monitoring activities for
breeding chronology, and habitat use.
✓ ✓
Coordinate with Migratory Bird Office and
Office of Refuge Biology, Region 1 Regional
Office to develop specific monitoring needs
and data collection protocols.
✓ ✓
Rationale:
The Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005) repeatedly recognizes the importance of
the U.S. Pacific Islands in providing predator-free seabird nesting and roosting
environments. Their protected status, in concert with nearby marine forage resources
contribute to their importance. The Seabird Conservation Plan further identifies
population monitoring inventories as insufficient to accurately detect or monitor
populations, suggesting instead that a rigorous collection of population data is needed.
In addition to Baker being recognized as important habitat for seabirds, the U.S. Pacific
Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004) lists
determining baseline information for bristle-thighed curlews, and other species, as the goal
of the Central Pacific Islands Subregion. The endangered species recovery plans for both
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-24 Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies
species of sea turtles indicate that little is known about their biology in the central Pacific.
Data on other terrestrial wildlife species found on Baker Island are lacking.
Objective 3b: Restore breeding populations for 2 seabird species.
Within 10 years of CCP approval, establish up to 5 nesting pairs each of Phoenix petrel
(Pterodroma alba) and Polynesian storm-petrel (Nesofregetta fuliginosa) during a
minimum of 3 consecutive years on Baker Island.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Implement and maintain electronic calling
devices to promote nesting.
✓ ✓ ✓
Coordinate with RO and develop capabilities
for remote surveillance equipment.
✓ ✓
Rationale:
The Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005) recognizes the Polynesian storm-petrel
may flourish on Baker, as well as Jarvis and Howland, due to the removal of predators
from the islands. The Phoenix petrel is known from the Phoenix Islands, but does not
currently inhabit Baker, though it is thought that they did historically. A recommendation
of the Plan is expand efforts to assess habitat suitability and restore populations through
translocation to predator-free U.S. islands such as Baker. While the physical translocation
of species to Baker is not being suggested, electronic calling devices are designed and have
been successful in attracting and establishing nesting seabird colonies to other islands.
Objective 3c: Develop baseline data and understand sea turtle use of Baker.
Upon CCP approval, monitor hawksbill and green sea turtles to document any nesting
sites, all adjacent coral reef and nearshore water foraging sites, and overall population
density and distributions.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Record incidental observations of nearshore
turtle use.
��� ✓ ✓ ✓
Develop and conduct survey of nearshore
turtle use.
✓ ✓
Develop and conduct survey of other marine
areas for turtle use.
✓
Develop partnership with NOAA for study of
turtles at Baker.
✓ ✓ ✓
Rationale:
There is currently little information related to use of Baker resources by sea turtles, though
it is known that they do use refuge habitats. Sea turtles have been photographed in the
water during joint Service/NOAA expeditions since 2000. Data collected over the life of
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25
this plan would help to establish a baseline understanding of sea turtle populations in the
central Pacific.
Objective 3d: Expand baseline information on marine community.
Upon CCP approval, monitor globally-depleted marine species populations such as giant
clams (Tridacna sp.), bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometapon muricatum), Napoleon wrasses
(Cheilinus undulatus), large groupers (e.g., Cephalopholis sp., Epinephelus sp., Variola
sp.), sharks (e.g., Carcharhinus sp., Triaenodon sp., Negaprion sp., Galeocerdo sp.), and
corals (Anthozoa, Hydrozoa) to document presence/absence and relative abundance on
Baker.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Conduct marine surveys such as REA. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Solicit partnership for survey of deep slope
habitat.
✓ ✓ ✓
Expand marine surveys (REA) efforts to other
reef areas surrounding the island.
✓
Rationale:
Many marine species of commercial importance have been globally depleted. Protected
areas such as Baker still provide refugia. However, illegal fishing activity has been noted
surrounding several Remotes refuges. Baker, as well as other remote island refuges
provide the opportunity to study and protect the marine ecosystem.
Objective 3e: Develop baseline scientific information on marine mammal use of Baker.
Within 10 years of CCP approval, increase scientific understanding of marine mammal
presence and use of Baker marine waters. The desired conditions by which this will be met
will be to document all marine mammal use of nearshore waters.
Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
Objective as written above applies to
Alternatives (✓)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt A Alt