U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Environmental Assessment

Proposed Kingman National Wildlife Refuge , Central Pacifi c Ocean

I I I

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this proposal, and we would like to acknowledge the professional administrative and technical support we received from our colleagues in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in the Department ofthe Interior.

The ongoing cooperation of the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service in providing logistical support to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for our Pacific Remote Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex management programs is very much appreciated. The National Marine Fisheries Service, in particular the crew of the Research Vessel Townsend Cromwell and other fisheries staff, provided substantial logistics and technical support during field site surveys of Kingman Reef, which we gratefully acknowledge.

Environmental Assessment:

Cover photographs (clockwise from top left): Underwater view of reef at Kingman Reef showing lobe (Porites spp.), rose coral (Pocillopora), leather coral (order: Alcyonaria), and two butterflyfish (Chaetodon quadrimaculatus) [Photograph by J Maragos]; Giant clam (Tridacna maxima), anemones, and substrate in shallow waters of Kingman Reef [Photograph by D. Aycock]; View from the emergent coral spit at Kingman Reef [Photograph by D. Aycock]; Aerial photograph of the eastern portion ofKingman Reef showing the shallow reefs and emergent land spits [Photgraph by R. J Shallenberger].

Cover graphics by B. Maxfield. U.S. Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Region 1, Portland,

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge Line Islands, Central

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The EA describes the Service's proposal and the affected environment and evaluates the effects of two alternatives (including the No-Action alternative) on the environment. A Conceptual Management Plan (C:MP) complements the EA and provides information on management programs that may be implemented on the Refuge during the interim period, between Refuge establishment and completion of a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The analysis in the EA documents the Service's evaluation of the environmental consequences of establishing an approved Refuge boundary and implementing Refuge management according to guidelines in the C:MP, and is the basis for this Finding of No Significant Impact.

The proposed Refuge will allow the Service to protect and manage outstanding resources of Kingman Reef in perpetuity as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The affected environment at Kingman Reef is a remote oceanic coral reef ecosystem that supports migratory seabirds and shorebirds, and a rich diversity of coral reef and other marine species including giant clams, more than 100 species of corals, a variety of other marine invertebrates, algae, hundreds of species of fish, endangered and threatened sea turtles, and marine mammals.

The long term, short term direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives were evaluated in the EA.

Under Alternative A, the No-Action alternative, the Service would not establish a Refuge at Kingman Reef, and the lagoon, reef, and associated waters would not have a protected boundary -.I or receive active management by the Service under the auspices of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Under Alternative B, the Service's selected alternative, a Refuge boundary will be approved that would include emergent lands, submerged lands' and associated waters extending seaward 12- nautical miles from reefs exposed at low water, the extent of the territorial sea. This will protect the entire lagoon and reef complex and provide for conservation and management of the coral reef atoll ecosystem and other natural resources by the Service under the auspices of the National Wildlife Refuge System, in perpetuity. Alternative B will protect a total of approximately 483,702 acres including approximately 3.2 acres of emergent land and approximately 25,874 acres of coral reef habitat. This alternative was selected for implementation because it provides the highest level of protection and management for the outstanding marine resources of Kingman Reef.

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 I~

The Service is not proposing to open the Refuge to public visitation during the interim period. Opportunities for a Refuge public visitation program will be considered during the future development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

With the exception of mooring buoys, the Service does not envision any facilities development at Kingman Reef. The design, construction, and operation of the buoys will undergo additional planning and environmental review prior to installation.

The Service would not open the waters of the Refuge to commercial fishing, and plans to establish guidelines for mariners that would include voluntary routing measures, such as areas-to­ be-avoided. The guidelines would not be intended to infringe on international rights of innocent passage through the waters of the Refuge.

Public Review

As part of the public notice and review process, the EA and associated documents were made available for a 30-day public review and comment period that was open from December 11, 2000, through January 11, 2001. Newspaper articles, and an abstract in the State of 's Office ofEnvironmental Quality Control newsletter, the Environmental Notice, informed the public of the project and the availability of the draft EA. During the public comment period, we received IS letters from individuals, government agencies, and conservation and fishing groups. Conservation organizations strongly supported the proposed Refuge, while fishing interests opposed the proposed Refuge. The comments were considered in finalizing our decision document and environmental assessment.

Effects of the Selected Alternative on the Social and Economic Environment

A private entity claimed to own title at Kingman Reef. The Service requested that the Office of Solicitor, Department of the Interior, review the documents provided by the legal firm representing the claimants. The Solicitor believes the claim is not legally valid. Therefore, the proposed Refuge would not result in a significant adverse economic or regulatory taking on the private entity.

Because of its remote location and reservation as a Naval Defensive Sea Area (NDSA), access to and use of Kingman Reef for economic purposes has been restricted by proclamation, although Naval regulations do not preclude the right of foreign flag vessels exercising their right of innocent passage under international law.

Some comment letters stated a certain level of commercial fishing occurs nearby Kingman Reef. When considering the remote location of the atoll, the relatively low reported commercial harvests from within the Kingman Reef (EEZ), current access and use restrictions by the Navy, and the opportunity for commercial fishing ventures to fish in the waters of the EEZ outside the 12-NM Refuge boundary, the Service concluded that there would be no significant adverse economic effects associated with Refuge establishment.

Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Finding of No Significant Impact Page2 Effects of the Selected Alternative on the Physical and Biological Environment

The Refuge will enable the Service to protect and manage the atoll ecosystem at Kingman Reef in perpetuity. Refuge management will help to protect the coral reef ecosystem by controlling maritime access and uses within the 12-nautical mile Refuge boundary. Natural resources management programs such as marine debris removal, monitoring, research, and other actions will promote the long-term conservation of the coral reefs and other for the benefit of the wildlife that live on the lands and in the waters of the Refuge. These actions are an enhancement over existing management of the area, and are expected to protect the high quality of existing resources and slightly enhance the atoll natural resources over time. Thus, establishment and management of the Refuge will not result in significant impact to the physical and biological environment.

Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species, Migratory Birds, and other Federal Trust Species

The Refuge will protect listed species and other Federal trust species and their essential habitats at Kingman Reef in perpetuity. Therefore, there is no significant impact to Federal trust species.

Effects on Historic and Cultural Resources

There is no evidence of permanent prehistoric human settlement on Kingman Reef, and there are no sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Sites at Kingman Reef. If significant historic and cultural resources are found on the Refuge in the future, the Service will protect and manage them as required by the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, establishment and management of the Refuge will not have a significant effect on any historic and cultural resources that may be found on the Refuge.

Other Effects

The establishment and management of the Refuge will not significantly affect ambient noise, air quality, water quality, or public health and safety. Establishment and management of the Refuge will not change the unique characteristics of the geographic area, will not result in scientific controversy over effects, will not result in uncertain or unknown risks, and will not result in disproportionately high adverse environmental effects to a low-income population, minority population, or tribal group. The action will not be a precedent for establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge in a remote atoll area; or for the inclusion of submerged lands, coral reef resources, and pelagic marine species within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge or under the management responsibilities of the Service. Because the Refuge is designed to conserve the natural environment of the atoll, and because of the current low level of use of the atoll and opportunities for commercial enterprises in nearby areas, there will be no significant long term, short term, or cumulative effects due to establishment and management of the Refuge.

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Finding of No Significant Impact Page3 a~

Supporting References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge. , HI.

Public Availability of this Finding of No Significant Impact

This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting reference will be on file at the following office and will be available for public inspection. Interested and affected parties are being notified of this decision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Refuge Planning Office Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Phone: (808) 541-2749 I Fax: (808) 541-2756

Determination

Based upon my review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting reference, I have determined that the action of approving a Refuge boundary that includes emergent lands, coral reefs, other submerged lands, and associated waters to the limit of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles from reefs awash at low water), and establishing a National Wildlife Refuge at Kingman Reef to be managed in accordance with a Conceptual Management Plan, is not a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Accordingly, the Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Issued in Portland, Oregon, Veoua-u /7 '2001. v' l 7

Regional Director, Regi 1 Da~

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Finding of No Significant Impact Page4 Project Summary

Proposed action: Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Stage of process: Environmental Assessment

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

Responsible official: Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 911 N.E. 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232

Publication Date: January 2001

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed an environmental assessment evaluating the effects of establishing a National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) at Kingman Reef, the northernmost atoll in the Line Islands. Located in the central Pacific Ocean approximately 900 miles south of Hawaii, Kingman Reef is situated north of the equator at 6°23 N latitude and 162°25W longitude. Kingman Reef is a unincorporated territory without an · , and the protection and management of its coral reef and other for their outstanding ecological values are consistent with the national trust conservation responsibilities of the Service.

Kingman Reef is one of the most pristine coral reef atoll ecosystems in the Pacific. Crystal clear oceanic waters and vibrant coral reefs support a spectacular diversity of corals and other marine invertebrates, algae, fishes, marine mammals, sea turtles, and migratory seabirds. Submerged and partially exposed coral reefs form the shape of a triangle and surround a central lagoon. The outer reef is approximately 12.4 miles long on the southern face, 7.5 miles long on the northeastern face, and 8.7 miles long on the northwestern face. Lagoon depths range from approximately 50 to 250 feet. Three coral rubble land spits are found atop the eastern reefs providing resting sites for migratory shorebirds and seabirds.

The Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kingman ReefNational Wildlife Refuge (EA) describes the proposed Refuge and evaluates the environmental effects of two alternatives on the environment. Alternative A is the No-Action alternative, under which a National Wildlife Refuge would not be established at Kingman Reef, and the current administrator would keep the area in a custodial status, with no active natural resources management by the Service.

Alternative B, the Service's preferred alternative, is an approved Refuge boundary that includes the lagoon, emergent lands, coral reefs, and other submerged lands and associated waters seaward to 12 nautical miles from reefs exposed at mean low tide. The Refuge would enable the Service to take an active role in implementing natural resource management programs to protect and conserve the coral atoll ecosystem and adjacent marine waters and the wildlife these areas support in perpetuity.

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR: Project Summary Page 1 a- Page2

Potential interim Refuge management programs are described in the Conceptual Management Plan for the Kingman ReefNational Wildlife Refuge that is appended to the EA. If a Refuge were to be established, natural resource management programs would include biological monitoring surveys, habitat enhancement projects, actions to promote the recovery of endangered and threatened species in the Refuge, and other long-term conservation actions. The Service is not proposing to develop public use programs during the interim period, the period of time between Refuge establishment and the completion of an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Opportunities for public uses would be evaluated during the development of the Refuge CCP. Limited access for compatible uses would be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Refuge Manager during the interim period.

The Service considered public comments on the documents, that were received during a 30-day review and comment period that was open from December 11, 2000, through January 11, 2001. Although we received strong support for the proposal from conservation groups, three special interest groups objected to the proposed Refuge.

Commercial fishing operators, and agencies representing commercial fishing interests, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, were opposed to the Refuge because the Service is not proposing to open the Refuge to commercial fishing within the 12-NM boundary. Commercial fishermen objected to the perceived closure of the nearshore waters of the atoll to the public in order to fish at Kingman Reef. Several commyrcial fishermen requested the Service reconsider our decision as it pertained to commercial fishing outside of the 100-fathom (300-foot) depth contour.

Our fish and wildlife managers, biologists, and coral reef ecologists reviewed the bathymetric measurements on navigation charts and found that the 100-fathom contour is very close to the shallow reefs. We also noted that listed sea turtles forage in the coral reef and other nearshore waters along with migratory birds. The Service believes that in order to protect the marine resources associated with the atoll, it will be necessary to restrict harmful activities from occurring within the entire Refuge boundary. The Service also notes that access to the nearshore waters is currently prohibited under the existing Naval Defensive Sea Area. The Refuge would not affect the opportunity for commercial ventures to harvest fish in the seas beyond the Refuge boundary.

The Service received letters from a private company claiming that Kingman Reef is privately owned and requested the Service cease and desist with further planning for the proposed Refuge. The Department legal review concluded that despite the long history of ownership claims by a private family, and actions based on their belief of sole ownership, the government is the owner of record. The Service believes that Kingman Reef is owned by the United States, with jurisdiction and control currently being held by the Office of Insular Affairs, and subject to a Naval Defensive Sea Area (NDSA) reservation.·

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR: Project Summary Page2 The National Marine Fisheries Service also objected to the proposed Refuge on the grounds that it would infringe on their right to manage commercial fisheries in the remote Pacific Island areas. The Service clearly understands that NMFS objects to the in~lusion of marine ecosystems in the boundaries of National Wildlife Refuges because they believe it is a diminishment of their management authority. Our response is that the Service has the right and responsibility to protect and manage the nation's significant fish and wildlife resources including aquatic and coral reef resources, and that the NMFS administrative authority is not an exclusive mandate. The high quality of the coral reef and other marine and wildlife resources at Kingman Reef call for long­ term protection and management. We also recognize that while NMFS has proposed to establish no-take marine preserve areas in waters shallower than 50 fathoms (300 feet) around Kingman Reef, the proposed area, is very close to shallow reefs, and would result in continued interactions between commercial fishing operations and listed sea turtles and migratory birds and would not implement a perpetual management program that would ensure the long-term preservation and management of the high quality nationally significant coral reef resources at Kingman Reef.

Alternative B was selected for implementation by the Service because it would provide for the long-term conservation of the atoll ecosystem through protection as a National Wildlife Refuge. Based on the analysis in this Environmental Assessment, the Service determined that the establishment of an approved Refuge boundary and management of natural resow;ces would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Finding of No Significant hnpact has been prepared and is attached to the Environmental Assessment.

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR: Project Summary Page3 .,

Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed

Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Refuge Planning Office Honolulu, Hawaii

January 2001 I Table of Contents Page No.:

1 CHAPTER 1. NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE ACTION ...... 1-1 1.1 The Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.4 Related Agency Actions ...... 1-2 1.4.1 Service Refuge management activities in the equatorial Pacific area ...... 1-2 1.4.2 Natural resources management in the northern Line Islands by other agencies ...... 1-3 1.5 Decisions to be Made Based on the Analysis in this Environmental Assessmentl-4 1.6 Public Involvement ...... 1-4 1.7 Land Acquisition Planning Policies, Authorities, and Regulatory Compliance 1-4 1.8 Document Organization ...... 1-5 1.9 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...... 1-5

2 CHAPTER 2. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 2-1 2.1 Overview of Kingman Reef ...... 2-1 2.2 Affected Physical Environment ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Air and water quality ...... 2-2 2.3 Affected Social and Economic Environment ...... 2-2 2.3.1 Ownership ...... 2-2 2.3.2 Land use and the local economy ...... 2-3 2.3.3 Current management of marine resources at Kingman Reef ...... 2-3 2.3.4 Public use and visitation ...... 2-4 2.3.5 Historic resources ...... 2-4 2.4 Biological Environment ...... 2-4 2.4.1 Natural communities ...... 2-4 2.4.2 Wildlife of Kingman Reef ...... _ ...... 2-4

3 CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION . _.... 3-1 3.1 Background ...... 3-1 3.2 Boundary Selection ...... 3-1 3.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 3-1 3.3.1 Alternative A. No Action ...... 3-1 3.3.2 Alternative B. (the Service's preferred alternative) ...... 3-2 3.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ...... _... _.. __ ... _... 3-2 3.5 Comparison of the Alternatives ...... _..... _.... 3-2

4 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 4-1 4.1 Effects of the Alternatives on the Physical Environment ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Effects of the alternatives on air and water quality ...... _.. 4-1 4.2 Effects of the Alternatives on the Social and Economic Environment ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Effects of the alternatives on ownership ...... _...... _... 4-1 4.2.2 Effects of the alternatives on land use and the local economy ...... 4-1

-1- 4.2.3 Effects of the alternatives on management of marine resources at Kingman Reef ...... 4-2 4.2.4 Effects of the alternatives on public use and visitation ...... 4-2 4.2.5 Effects of the alternatives on historic resources ...... 4-2 4.3 Effects of the Alternatives on the Biological Environment ...... 4-3 4.4 Other Considerations ...... 4-3 4.4.1 Cumulative effects ...... 4-3 4.4.2 Relationship between short-term uses of the environment and enhancement of long-term productivity ...... 4-3 4.4.3 Environmental justice ...... 4-3 4.4.4 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources ...... 4-3

5 CHAPTER 5. PREPARER, INTERDISCIPLJNARY TEAM, AND CONSULTED PARTIES .... ·...... 5-1 5.1 Preparer ...... " ...... 5-1 5.2 Interdisciplinary Team ...... 5-1 5.3 Consulted Parties ...... 5-2 5.3.1 Federal agencies ...... 5-2 5.3.2 State agencies ...... 5-2 5.3.3 Congressional Delegation ...... 5-3 5.3.4 Other interested organizations and individuals ...... 5-3 5.4 Summary of Public Review and Comments ...... 5-3

6 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES CITED ...... 6-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. The location of Kingman Reef in the northern Line Islands, central Pacific Ocean 1-6 Figure 1-2. Generalized physical features of Kingman Reef ...... 1-7 List of Tables I Table 3-1. Comparison of the Alternatives...... 3-4 Table 4-1. Summary of the Effects of the Alternatives on the Environment...... 4-4

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Protected Wildlife Species Recently Reported from Kingman Reef. Appendix B. Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix C. Glossary. Appendix D. Executive Orders for Coral Reef Protection and Marine Protected Areas. Appendix E. Other Executive Orders. I

-ii- Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean

1 CHAPTER 1. NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE ACTION

1.1 The Proposed Action

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to establish a National Wildlife Refuge at Kingman Reef, a remote United States' possession in the Line Islands (figure 1-1). Located in the central Pacific Ocean approximately 900 miles south of Hawaii, Kingman Reef lies just above the equator at 6°23'N latitude, 162°25W longitude. The Service would acquire jurisdiction and authority for Kingman Reef through a Department of the Interior Secretarial Order.

Kingman Reef is a triangular-shaped atoll that features one of the most pristine coral reef ecosystems in the Pacific (Maragos 2000). Submerged and partially exposed coral reefs surround a central lagoon (figure 1-2). The outer reef measures approximately 12.4 miles long on the southern face, 7.5 miles long on the northeastern face, and 8.6 miles long on the northwestern face. The large central lagoon ranges from 50 to 250 feet deep. Emergent land consists of three coral rubble spits that have formed atop the eastern reef, providing resting and foraging sites for migratory birds and possible basking areas for threatened green sea turtles. The extensive coral reefs and other marine habitats at Kingman Reef support a diversity of marine invertebrates, algae, fishes, marine mammals, and sea turtles and are an important foraging ground for Pacific migratory seabirds.

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed Refuge is needed to ensure the long-term conservation and management of the outstanding natural resources of the atolL Kingman Reef's remote location and reservation as a U.S. Naval Defensive Sea Area have protected the atoll from the heavy exploitation pressures most Pacific have experienced. The low-lying coral reef atoll is a navigational hazard that is vulnerable to shipwrecks and oil spills. Other threats to the fragile marine ecosystem that could be managed by the Service, include marine debris, over-exploitation of marine resources, and elimination of adverse effects of commercial fishing on sea turtles, marine mammals and migratory seabirds.

1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to protect the lands, waters, coral reefs, and other fish and wildlife of the atoll ecosystem at Kingman Reef in perpetuity, through active conservation and management programs.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1-1 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION I

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is

"... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration ofthefish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit ofpresent and future generations ofAmericans." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

Consistent with this mission, the purposes of the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge are: o To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) all species of animals and plants that occur at Kingman Reef, including those that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; and o To conserve the migratory bird resources and coral reef ecosystem at Kingman Reef.

The establishment and management of the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge would be consistent with recent Presidential Executive Orders directing government agencies with natural resources management responsibilities to provide for the protection and management of coral reefs (Executive Order 13089 "Coral Reef Protection," dated June 11, 1998), and to designate and manage a network of marine protected areas (Executive Order 1315 8 "Marine Protected Areas," dated May 26, 2000). Copies may be found in Appendix D at the end of this document. 1.4 Related Agency Actions I 1.4.1 Service Refuge management activities in the equatorial Pacific area

The Service administers , , and (three unincorporated U.S. possessions near the equator) as National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). Jarvis Island NWR is located in the Line Islands approximately 400 nautical miles southeast of Kingman Reef (figure 1-1). The Service manages a total of36,483 acres within the Jarvis NWR boundary which 1 includes submerged lands and associated waters • Jarvis NWR has approximately 1,086 acres of emergent land and 1,823 acres of coral reef. The remainder is submerged lands and associated waters. Howland Island NWR and Baker Island NWR are in the Phoenix Island group and are located close to the equator approximately 1,000 miles southwest of Kingman Reef. The Service manages 32,529 acres within the Howland Island NWR. This includes approximately 455 acres of emergent land and 2,083 acres of submerged coral reefs. At Baker Island NWR, the Service manages a total of 30,504 acres including approximately 405 acres of emergent land and an estimated 2,859 acres of coral reefs. The environment and natural resources of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands are distinctly different from those of Kingman Reef due to climatic, geographic, oceanographic, and other differences. Management activities at these remote island National Wildlife Refuges include periodic monitoring surveys, habitat enhancement, and law

1 Acreage figures for established Refuge areas are from published reports from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). Coral reef and emergent land acreage figures are derived from digitized navigation charts.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1-2 I CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

enforcement patrols. Visitor use is currently limited to authorized scientific research visits that are conducted under Special Use Permits issued by the Service.

In a separate action, the Service is developing a final proposal to establish a National Wildlife Refuge at , located approximately 33 miles south of Kingman Reef. If a Refuge were to be established at Palmyra Atoll, it would contribute to the management of the proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge. However, the proposal to establish a Refuge at Kingman Reef is independent of the proposal to establish the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.

1.4.2 Natural resources management in the northern Line Islands by other agencies

I The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce and its advisory council, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC), have marine resource management responsibilities in the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) that surround United States' possessions in the Line Islands (Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll). At Kingman Reef, NMFS has the authority to manage commercial fisheries in the EEZ. NMFS is currently evaluating alternatives regarding new and updated commercial fishing regulations in the EEZs it oversees. Fishery management plans for coral reef ecosystems and pelagic fisheries have been distributed to the public for review (WPRFMC 2001,URS 2000). It is believed that the provisions of other Western Pacific Region fishery management plans (e.g., bottomfish, precious corals) will be extended to include remote Pacific Islands in the future.

According to the Draft Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan (Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP, WPRFMC 2001), NMFS is presently considering establishing a no-take for a variety of coral reef species (e.g., reef fishes, corals, sponges, etc.) in waters shallower than 50 fathoms around Kingman Reef. Other proposed regulations are a logbook reporting requirement for permit holders in coral reef management areas, and bottom fish, crustacean, precious corals and pelagic species no-take areas in waters shallower than 50 fathoms at Kingman Reef.

Current fishing regulations inciude: the exclusion of foreign fishing vessels unless through a foreign fishing agreement; a ban on gillnets, trawls, explosives, and poisons; and a requirement for registering vessels for use under a general Federal permit for longline fishing in the boundary of the EEZ at Kingman Reef (WPRFMC 2001). Logbooks are required for longline fishing activities. NMFS may be assisted in the enforcement of fishery and other U.S.laws by the U.S. Coast Guard.

In addition to its involvement in commercial fishing, NMFS is authorized to administer the Endangered Species Act in waters of the United States with respect to endangered and threatened sea turtles at sea and the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. NMFS is the primary Federal agency responsible for administering the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Republic of has designated wildlife sanctuaries on (also known as Christmas Island), Malden, Starbuck, and Vostok Islands in the Line Islands archipelago (Perry

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1-3 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1980). Kiritimati is inhabited and selected areas are designated as closed areas in order to protect wildlife. The Republic of Kiribati has promulgated a Wildlife Conservation Ordinance that protects all bird species that occur in the country. It also protects marine turtles on land, allows for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, and provides wildlife wardens with powers of search and arrest. The government division responsible for conservation management is the Wildlife Conservation Unit located at Kiritimati. The Wildlife Conservation Unit lacks resources and does most of its work locally at Kiritimati, relying on the remoteness of the other sanctuary sites for their protection (IUCN 1991).

1.5 Decisions to be Made Based on the Analysis in this Environmental Assessment

The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Pacific Region will select an alternative for implementation and determine whether or not the selected alternative would be a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would approve the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge at Kingman Reef.

1.6 Public Involvement

The documents were available for public review and comment during a 30-day public comment period that ran from December 11, 2000, to January 11, 2001. A news release on the availability of the documents was issued to media representatives in Hawaii and a notice was published in the State of Hawaii's Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) newsletter, The 1· Environmental Notice. Public comments were considered in the finalization of the - environmental assessment and conceptual management plan.

1.7 Land Acquisition Planning Policies, Authorities, and Regulatory Compliance

This environmental assessment is part of the detailed land protection planning process for the proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge. It describes the proposed Refuge and informs and involves the public.

The Service acquires land for National Wildlife Refuges in a manner that is consistent with legislation, other Congressional guidelines, and Executive Orders. The Service will acquire land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. At Kingman Reef, the interest necessary ·to ensure the ability to properly manage the resources is Service ownership of the reef and associated submerged lands and waters within the proposed Refuge boundary.

The authority for the Service to acquire and manage Kingman Reef as a National Wildlife Refuge is provided by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, not including 742 d-1; 70 Stat. 1119). If Kingman Reef is acquired by the Service, it would become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be administered and managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668dd-668jj), as

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1-4 I CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. Section 668dd et seq.) and other applicable laws.

Planning for the establishment of the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge will be completed in compliance with Service policies and the following laws and regulations: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997; Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs); Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;. the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended; Secretarial Order 3127 (Contaminants and Hazardous Waste); Executive Order 13089 (Coral Reef Protection); and Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas).

1.8 Document Organization

This document was developed in compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Chapter 1 describes the proposed action, purpose of and need for the proposed action, applicable regulatory requirements and coordination, and the scope of the environmental assessment. Chapter 2 describes the affected environment. Chapter 3 describes and compares the alternatives. Chapter 4 assesses the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Chapter 5 lists preparers, reviewers, and agencies and persons contacted, and provides a summary of public comments and the Service's response to comments. Chapter 6 I provides a Jist of references cited. Appendix A is a list of trust wildlife species recently observed at Kingman Reef. Appendix B is the Conceptual Management Plan. Appendix C is a glossary. Appendix D provides informational copies of Executive Orders relating to the protection and management of coral reefs and the establishment, protection, and management of Marine Protected Areas. Appendix E provides informational copies of other Executive Orders relevant to the proposed project.

1.9 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

This environmental assessment evaluates the environmental effects of establishing an approved boundary for the proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge and initiating interim management activities during the initial stage of the Refuge. The Conceptual Management Plan for Kingman ReefNational Wildlife Refuge complements this environmental assessment and provides a description of potential Refuge management programs. Changes to Refuge management programs and future Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans would be coordinated with the public as they are developed.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1-5 )?~ I I 1 ~ Pacific Islands Ecoregion National Wildlife Refuges (exclusive ofMain Hawaiian islands)

30' N ~---- N Mid war. 0 250 500 Kilomcten; AtollNWR • • ~ '' W~B Hawaiian 0 250 500 Miles . . . JslandsNWR ~~ I s . 0 250 500 Nautical Miles . ~ :::J • "/ Kauai 0 ~ . .,. Oahu ~Maui 20' N : \?Hawaii Johnston • AtollNWR I i GuamNWR : Kingman 10' N . I Reef\ " ... .. ~--.. . ' . Palmyra Atoll ~ Howland Line r IslandNWR. .. Islands 0' ' I ''·,·· Baker ' ~ Jarvis IslandNWR •. · IslandNWR ~-.·. . )t \. .. ~·)=-- -~~'.( 10' s ~\. ~ ~·--:::.....~ ~ :.' . '·r. '()~ • • Rose .. ,.. "AtollNWR • .' •. :,\::::}-...: r. ~- \t •\.,, j~ "' h?J '.!<. "" . . . . 140' E 150' E 160' E 170' E 180' 170'W 160'W 150'W

Figure 1-1. The location of Kingman Reef in the northern Line Islands, central Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages seven other remote islands and atolls in the Pacific as National Wildlife Refuges including Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Island NWRs in the central equatorial Pacific Ocean; the Hawaiian Islands NWR and NWR in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands; NWR; and Rose Atoll NWR in the south Pacific Ocean. Palmyra Atoll, 33 miles south ofKingman Reef, is currently proposed as a National Wildlife Refuge.

EA for the Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page 1-6 .. -- -

----1 1-- --1----1--- Generalized waters deeper than 100 fathoms Physical Features of Kingman Reef 6' 28' N ----1---\ 1-----1---

Exposed reefs

6' 26' N-1----1 1--~-1----1- ,...;r;r,;r,;_, Emergent land rnrn Exposed reef - Submerged reef (0-1 0 fathom depth) -rmJ 10-100 fathom depth 6' 24' N --l---(~;1~;J

1 fathom = 6 feel

0 1 2 6'22'N-I I I ~---! I \ I 1------+- E""'"'3 I Kilometers 0 1 2 Miles 1 2 Nautical Miles W~E 162' 30' w 162' 28' w 162' 26' w 162' 24' w 162' 22'W 162' 20' w '

Figure 1-2. Generalized physical features of Kingman Reef. (Base Map Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chart dated 4/13/85 rev. 1/26/91.)

EA for the Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page 1-7 I 2 CHAPTER 2. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Overview of Kingman Reef

Kingman Reef is a low-lying coral reef atoll located in the Line Islands in the central Pacific Ocean. It features outstanding marine communities including the deep central lagoon, an I extensive and diverse coral reef complex, emergent lands, and surrounding pelagic waters of the atoll, all of which support migratory birds, threatened green sea turtles, and other native fish and wildlife species.

The first recorded western contact at Kingman Reef was by an American seaman, Captain Fanning, in 1798 (Stanley 1991). The reef was named after Captain Kingman, who visited in 1853. The U.S. annexed the reef in 1922, and in 1934 delegated jurisdiction to the Navy. Pan American Airways "Clipper" planes bound from Honolulu to landed in the lagoon several times during a trial period for a trans-Pacific airline route in 1937 and 1938. The route was unsuccessful and was subsequently abandoned (Davies 1987, Krupnick 1997).

The atoll is unsuitable for human habitation, due to the small size of emergent land spits and lack of fresh water. The airspace and waters at Kingman Reef have been reserved by the Department of the Navy for military purposes (see appendix E).

A scientific resource assessment was recently conducted by the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Flint and Aycock 2000; Maragos 2000; Newbold 2000; Wass and DeMartini 2000). Working from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Research Vessel, Townsend Cromwell, three Service biologists conducted SCUBA dives at four sites and snorkeled at two other sites recording fishes, corals, and other invertebrates. Six NOAA divers participated in several miles of towed underwater SCUBA surveys. Two Service biologists were detailed to land spits to survey migratory birds. Reports and species lists from the site visit are on file with the Service and the NMFS. Divers reported that the coral reefs at Kingman Reef are among the most pristine in the Pacific (Maragos 2000).

2.2 Affected Physical Environment

Kingman Reef is located in the equatorial central Pacific Ocean in the Line Islands at 6°23'N latitude, 162°25'W longitude. (figure 1-1). Low-lying, partially exposed and submerged coral reefs surround a deep central lagoon (figure 1-2). The outer reef is approximately 12.4 miles long on the southern face, 7.5 miles long on the northeastern face, and 8.7 miles long on the northwestern face. The lagoon ranges in depth from 50 to 250 feet. Three barren coral rubble land spits are found on the eastern reefs and provide resting sites for migratory seabirds, foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds, and may serve as basking areas for threatened green sea turtles.

Climatic conditions are not well documented, however, the atoll's location just 33 nautical miles north of Palmyra Atoll means they are likely influenced by the same major climatic and oceanic systems. Kingman Reef lies within the northern hemisphere convergence zone (Sadler 1959). This zone, known as the "Intertropical Convergence Zone", or ITCZ, is an area of weak and variable winds between the northeast and southeast tradewind systems (Drake et al. 1978). As the two air masses meet, the air rises, becomes cooled, and drops its moisture in the form of rain. The ITCZ is responsible for the high rainfall and frequent cloud cover reported for Palmyra Atoll, and although rainfall data are not available for Kingman Reef, it is likely affected by the

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 2-1 CHAP1ER 2. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT I high cloud cover associated with the ITCZ. Average temperatures at Palmyra are reported to range from 7SO to 85°F and can be extrapolated to Kingman Reef, although Kingman Reef Jacks the tropical rainforest of Palmyra Atoll that, together with a larger emergent land base, may contribute to localized warming. Kingman Reef is subject to tropical storms that occasionally batter the atoll with high winds and storm waves. I

The project area is affected by the eastward-flowing North Equatorial Countercurrent, a relatively narrow current located between latitudes 5 degrees and 10 degrees North, that flows eastward, in the opposite direction from the major westward-flowing currents of the northern and southern hemispheres (Drake et al. 1978). The northern boundary of this current is an area of upwelling that brings nutrient rich waters to the surface, and is an important foraging ground for several marine species including seabirds.

2.2.1 Air and water quality

Air quality is excellent at Kingman Reef, as there are no sources of airborne pollutants. The waters of the atoll are remarkably clear, with more than 300-foot visibility reported from recent diving surveys (Maragos 2000). The water clarity is believed to be due to both a lack of land­ based sediment inputs and the exposure of the reef and lagoon to oceanic waters.

2.3 Affected Social and Economic Environment

2.3.1 Ownership

Kingman Reef is not part of any state (U.S. GAO 1997). The atoll is a United States unincorporated territory without an organic act, which is currently subject to control by the U.S. Navy. For the past 59 years, the reefs and waters of the territorial sea2 (within 12 nautical miles of the extreme high tide mark) have been reserved as a Naval Defensive Sea Area for the purpose ofnational defense (E.O. 8682 dated February 14, 1941).

At such time as Kingman Reef is no longer needed for military purposes and the Navy terminates its military use, the Department of the Interior would regain full jurisdiction. The Service would subsequently establish the Refuge through a Secretarial Order transferring jurisdiction and control from the Office of Insular Affairs to the Service.

A private entity challenged the government's claim to title at Kingman Reef. Although the Service is aware of previous claims of ownership by a private party, the Navy's title research in the past (reported in GAO 1997) and our own title research did not find evidence to substantiate the claim. During the public comment period, the private party provided documentation regarding their ownership claim. The documents were reviewed by the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor. The Solicitor believes that the legal title holder of record is the Department of the Interior, with a reservation in favor of the U.S. Navy.

2 The territorial sea of the United States, as defined by Proclamation No. 5928 of the President of the United States of America (54 F.R. 777), extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page2-2 I CHAPTER 2. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.3.2 Land use and the local economy

Kingman Reef is a military defensive area. The reefs and waters of Kingman Reef are held in a custodial status by the Navy.

Fishing has not been authorized by the Navy within the Naval Defensive Sea Area. However, a relatively low-level of fishing is reported to occur within the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, according to a report by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (1999) and comments received during the public comment period. Shark fishing for the shark-fin trade, and fishing for big-eye and yellow-fin tuna characterize the known commercial fishery in the EEZ.

During the public comment period, the Service was informed by a commercial fishing operator that a few fishermen :fish for bottomfish near or on Kingman Reef and troll near the reef for ono, mahimahi and other pelagic fishes. According to the respondent, the waters outside of the 500 fathom depth (2,000 feet), support an active tuna longline fleet based in Honolulu. Another respondent notified us that a commercial operation based out of Palmyra Atoll on a temporary license agreement, fishes in the EEZ of Kingman Reef, including nearshore waters that are proposed for inclusion in the Refuge boundary.

2.3.3 Current management of marine resources at Kingman Reef

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) have fishery resource management responsibilities in the 200-NM EEZ that surrounds United States' possessions. Their fishery resource management responsibilities include regulating commercial fish harvests in the waters of the United States.

The WPRFMC is an advisory council and assists NMFS with developing policies regarding the management of fisheries in the EEZ around American , , Hawaii, the , and other United States' possessions in the Pacific, an area of nearly 1.5 million square miles.

Current fishing regulations in the region address provisions for longline and other pelagic fisheries. The NMFS is in the process of developing other fishery management plans for the Western Pacific that will include provisions for the management of commercial harvest of coral reef resources, precious corals, and an extension of bottom fishery and lobster fishery management regulations to include the EEZ at Kingman Reef. The plans have not been finalized for public release at this time.

The NMFS also has a regulatory review role for those Federal activities that may affect endangered and threatened sea turtles at sea, and monk seals, and has Federal trust responsibilities for marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

At Kingman Reef, the Service has Federal trust responsibilities for migratory birds, endangered and threatened sea turtles on land (e.g., breeding and basking areas), and certain species of other

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page2-3 CHAPTER 2. TIIE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

aquatic wildlife (such as giant clams) that are protected by the Convention_on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or CITES.

2.3.4 Public use and visitation

No permits have been recently issued by the Navy for members of the public to visit or fish within the Naval Defensive Sea Area at Kingman Reef.

2.3.5 Historic resources

There is no evidence of permanent human settlement on Kingman Reef, and there are no sites that are listed or that are known to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Sites.

2.4 Biological Environment

2.4.1 Natural communities

· Kingman Reef is classified as an oceanic atoll (Holthus and Maragos 1995). At the present time, emergent land at consists of three coral rubble spits that have formed atop the eastern portion of the reef. These islets are approximately 50 feet by 300 feet long (Flint and Aycock 2000). These islets provide foraging and resting habitat for migratory shorebirds and seabirds including Brown Boobies and Wandering Tattlers.

The coral reefs at Kingman Reef are reported to be among the most pristine in the Pacific (Maragos 2000). A variety of reef formations are present at Kingman Reef including lagoon patch reefs, pinnacle reefs, ribbon reefs, intertidal reefs, reef slopes, reef terraces, and reef spur formations, each with distinctive natural communities and supporting an outstanding diversity of forms.

The boundary areas between the North Equatorial Countercurrent and other ocean currents in the vicinity of Kingman Reef are areas of upwelling. The nutrient rich waters form important marine feeding grounds for seabirds and contribute to the biological diversity of the atoll.

2.4.2 Wildlife of Kingman Reef

The reefs and waters of Kingman Reef support a spectacularly diverse and healthy marine. community. Coral reef ecologists reported 168 species of fishes including sharks, rays, eels, groupers, jacks, goatfishes, butterflyfishes, damselfishes, mullets, wrasses, parrotfishes, · surgeonfishes, and tuna (Wass and DeMartini 2000). Also recorded were 102 species of corals, including an undescribed species of fingercoral (Porites) and spectacular assemblages of mushroom corals, , table coral, and plate coral, among other species (Maragos 2000). Other species noted were several giant clams (Tridacna maxima, T. crocea), and several species of other bivalves, anemones, octopus, crabs, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and tunicates (Newbold 2000). Several species of giant clams (Tridacna spp.) are protected by CITES and can be found in relatively large numbers in waters of Kingman Reef.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 2-4 I CHAPTER 2. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Appendix A provides a list of national trust species of wildlife recently reported at Kingman Reef. Threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) were observed foraging at Kingman Reef and the coral islets may serve as basking sites for this species. The atoll may support endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), although none were observed on recent dive I surveys.

The waters of Kingman Reef are a rich foraging ground for Pacific migratory seabirds that feed on nearshore coral reef and other fish species. Seabirds observed during recent visits included Brown Boobies, Great Frigatebirds, Wandering Tattlers, and Sooty Terns. Brown Boobies were observed resting on the coral islets.

I

I

I

I

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page2-5 I 3 CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

3.1 Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in protecting and managing remote Pacific islands and coral atolls since the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1909. Kingman Reef has long been noted by Service biologists for its importance to migratory birds and coral reef natural resources, and preliminary scoping of options for the Service to protect the area began in 1991. In October of 1997, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave her approval for the Service to proceed with detailed planning to study the establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge at Kingman Reef.

The Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge proposal was developed using an interdisciplinary I approach that included input from people with special expertise in remote islands Refuge management and Pacific islands and atoll conservation, as well as ornithologists, botanists, and marine biologists.

3.2 Boundary Selection

I The proposed Refuge boundary was designed to enable the Service to protect coral reefs, . migratory birds, and other marine resources of Kingman Reef in perpetuity. The Refuge boundary would protect the coral reef ecosystem (which extends to at least the 100 fathom depth) and includes open waters that are important for marine mammals, pelagic fishes, deep water invertebrates, sea turtles, and migratory seabirds. The open waters would also serve as a I management buffer around the coral reefs. 3.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail

3.3.1 Alternative A. No Action I Under the No-Action alternative, a National Wildlife Refuge would not be established at Kingm~ Reef. Public funds would not be expended annually for Refuge operations and maintenance. The No-Action alternative represents a continuation of the status quo in which the atoll would continue to be used for military purposes by the U.S. Navy. Except for otherwise authorized officers or employees of the United States, access to Kingman Reef and its surrounding waters would continue to be restricted to access by the Navy. There would be no I long-term comprehensive management actions implemented by the Service to conserve the marine wildlife and coral reef ecosystem at Kingman Reef under the No-Action alternative.

Under proposed regulations, the National Marine Fisheries Service would potentially designate a no-take marine protected area in waters shallower than 50-fathoms around Kingman Reef (see WPRFMC 2001). There would be no commercial fishing allowed for coral reef species, bottom fishes, precious corals, crustaceans, or pelagic fish managed by NMFS within this area.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 3-1 I CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

3.3.2 Alternative B. (the Service's preferred alternative). Establish the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge with a boundary extending to 12 nautical miles from reefs exposed at mean low tide.

Under Alternative B (shown in figure 3-1), the Service would establish the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The approved Refuge boundary would include the lagoon, emergent land, coral reefs, and other submerged lands and associated waters extending seaward 12 NM from reefs exposed at mean low tide. Under Alternative B, the approved Refuge -~- boundary would protect a total of 483,702 acres including approximately 3 acres of emergent _ land and 25,874 acres of coral reef habitat. The Service would expend public funds for Refuge operations and management. The Service would implement long-term comprehensive management actions to conserve the coral reef ecosystem of Kingman Reef, implement endangered and threatened species recovery programs, and actively manage migratory birds and other native species.

3.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The Service initially considered establishing a Refuge only to within 3 nautical miles from reefs exposed at low tide. This alternative was not included in the environmental assessment because ththe Servalice bfelievedtin wthoutld nott ~ee: the rtprojtefict phurpdose~lbdl~~ause it wouldwnot protect all of d I e cor ree ecosys em a con runs 1mpo an 1s an w1 11e resources. e were concerne that such a boundary would have been too small to adequately prevent ships from accidentally grounding on shallow reefs. The Service desired a larger buffer area in which to manage maritime traffic, and in which to protect sea turtles, migratory birds, and marine mammals from interactions with commercial fishing operations.

3.5 Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 3-1 summarizes the attributes of the alternatives for the purpose of comparison. Effects of I the alternatives on the environment are discussed in Chapter 4.

Alternative A, the No-Action alternative, would not result in an active natural resources conservation program at Kingman Reef under the auspices of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Protection of the fish and wildlife of Kingman Reef would be only through passive control of access and proposed NMFS provisions for a marine no-take area in waters shallower than 50-fathoms (300 feet). There would be no active programs to study and monitor the area, enforce Refuge system laws, enhance fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and no public I educational programs implemented by the Service. Commercial fishing would likely be permitted - in waters deeper than 50-fathoms, and managed by NMFS under various new and revised fisheries plans.

A Refuge (Alternative B) would allow the Service to provide long-term conservation and management of coral reef and other marine anci terrestrial resources at Kingman Reef in perpetuity. This alternative would provide active habitat and fish and wildlife monitoring and enhancement programs, Refuge law enforcement, and public educational programs. The Refuge would not be open to commercial fishing.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 3-2 I

CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

I - .L ' r \ Proposed Kingman Reef ~- .. ...State of Hawaii National Wildlife Refuge :/ I ~ ..... \~ ..: I . '\ . Kingman Reef I .. - ~ 12-Nauticall\1ile Boundary Palmyra Atoll ; GJ. I ·...... t ~, ~ ·~¥ '~\. ~ :-.. \J, - "" ·;·;!:~~·,· · .. Q .. s· 45' N ' .. I ~- :;. - ,. I 7 I v -......

I s· 30' N I ~ I \ NProposed I Ln ' 12-nautical mile boundary ~ -~ 1--- /V 100 fathom depth Ii Kingman Reef i (approximate) I ) Ill Emergent Land s·1s N \ - and Reefs Awash ! ...... _ _.;" / I ' N I "' 0 10 20 ! Kilometers w-<(-• i - 0 10 20 I Nautical Miles I i SON I I r ...... ~I D .. T. I .f_ u-UI':)'I U Atoll I I s· 45' N ~ ' I I I ! I I 162.30'W 162.15'W I 1sz·w 161. 45'W I Figure 3-1. The boundary of the proposed Kingman ReefNational Wildlife Refuge. The approved boundary would include emergent land, and submerged lands and associated waters seawardfrom reefs exposed at low water to the 12-nautical mile extent ofthe territorial sea.

EA for the Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page3-3 CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Table 3-1. Comparison of the Alternatives.

Altejj}ative A: No Actimi .. J\. Refuge would nofb~: :Alternative it Establi~h. a Refuge at Kingman· Reef establish~d atkingmari Reef. . .. to 12..:NM frotfi reefs exposed attfieanlow tide.. _:: .. :...... ::...... ':1...... __ --·- ::,·.::::···· . ...._:______~ _;.,.. .._...... ~~_.,..,,,:·· ·___;_.__·. This alternative is the status quo. A National Wildlife The Service's Preferred Alternative. The Service Refuge (Refuge) would not be established at Kingman would establish a Refuge at Kingman Reef with a Reef. The Navy would retain jurisdiction and control boundary of 12 NM from reefs awash at mean low Description: of the area. tide.

Size of Refuge: 0 acres 483,702 acres Area of coral reef 0 acres 25,874 acres habitat protected in an approved Refuge boundary:

Conservation of Conservation would be primarily through control of Alternative B would result in active. natural atoll fish and access and provisions to regulate commercial fishing resources conservation and management by the wildlife resources: including a no-take marine area in waters shallower Service through Refuge management programs that than 50-fathoms (300 feet). Commercial fishing are described in the Conceptual Management Plan. would potentially result in interactions with listed These include control of access and uses of the species, marine mammals, and seabirds. Refuge, monitoring, research, habitat and fish and wildlife enhancement actions, public education, and law enforcement.

Protection/recovery Commercial fishing would likely impact listed species Endangered and threatened species would be of endangered and to some degree under the no-action alternative. actively protected and managed to promote recovery threatened species in waters of the Refuge. Public Access to The Navy would continue to regulate the waters of the The Service would regulate access to the Refuge. Kingman Reef. atoll. Commercial fishing would be regulated by Future opportunities for compatible public visitation NMFS and with approval by the Navy. at the Refuge would be evaluated during the development of a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan EA for the Proposed Kingman.. Reef NWR - Page 3--4 -' -' - I 4 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the potential environmen~al consequences of the alternatives. The No­ Action alternative assumes a continuation of the current status and serves as the baseline for comparison of the effects of the action alternative. Table 4-1 summarizes the findings of this I chapter. 4.1 Effects of the Alternatives on the Physical Environment

4.1.1 Effects of the alternatives on air and water quality

The present access restrictions help to protect water quality of the atoll by reducing the likelihood of accidental ship groundings.

I Under Alternative B, the Service would provide mariners with guidelines for access which would help prevent accidental ship groundings. The protection of air and water quality is consistent with the Service's goals for protecting the pristine marine environment at Kingman Reef. Access to the Refuge by approved vessels would be at relatively low levels, so there would not be a significant reduction in air or water quality. Refuge safety plans, navigation protocols, and the installation of mooring buoys would help to minimize the risk of accidental groundings by I vessels used by the Service for Refuge natural resources management activities.

4.2 Effects of the Alternatives on the Social and Economic Environment

4.2.1 Effects of the alternatives on ownership

Both alternatives would continue the Federal ownership at Kingman Reef, and waters of the territorial seas.

If the Navy extinguishes its use reservation, under Alternative A, jurisdiction and control would revert to the Office of Insular Affairs. This alternative assumes that OIA would maintain the area I in custodial status (would not implement active natural resources management). If the Navy extinguishes its use reservation, under Alternative B, Kingman Reef and the waters of the territorial sea would be transferred to the Service for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

I 4.2.2 Effects of the alternatives on land use and the local economy

Under the No-Action alternative, access to and use of Kingman Reef and its surrounding waters would continue to be regulated by the Navy and reserved for military use.

Under Alternative B, the use of the area would change from custodial military reserve to active natural resource conservation and management in the National Wildlife Refuge System. While we received reports that limited fishing occurs in the waters surrounding Kingman Reef, the reported levels are comparatively low. Commercial fishing operations would continue to be able to fish in the EEZ beyond the 12 NM Refuge boundary. Therefore, the proposed Refuge fishing would not have a significant adverse economic effect on commercial fishing operations.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page4-1 CHAPTER 4. ENVJRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES I

4.2.3 Effects of the alternatives on management of marine resources at Kingman Reef

Under the No-Action alternative, NMFS would continue to have the authority for managing commercial fisheries in waters of the 200-NM Exclusive Economic Zone that are open for commercial fishing. At present, there is no commercial fishing authorized by the Navy at Kingman Reef, although it has been reported to the Service that a low level of fishing does occur.

Under the No-Action Alternative, NMFS would continue its regulatory role in the protection and recovery of endangered and threatened sea turtles at sea and monk seals under the Endangered I Species Act, and in the conservation of marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Service would continue its regulatory role in the protection and recovery of endangered and threatened sea turtles on land, and in its wildlife law enforcement role.

Under Alternative B, NMFS would no long have the authority to manage commercial fishing in the Refuge boundary, because the Refuge would not be opened to commercial fishing. This is a I relatively small area compared to the large areas of ocean that NMFS manages, so it would not be a significant change in their management authority. Alternative B would not affect NMFS's or the Service's respective regulatory roles related to endangered and threatened species, and I other national trust wildlife. -

Under Alternative B, the Service would continue to coordinate management activities with I NMFS to comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Service would invite NMFS to cooperate with specific atoll management activities including baseline surveys, habitat enhancement such as the removal of marine debris, research on listed sea turtles or marine I mammals, and research on other marine species.

4.2.4 Effects of the alternatives on public use and visitation

Under the No-Action alternative, access to Kingman Reef would continue to be restricted by the Navy within the territorial sea The Navy does not currently have the ability to prevent innocent passage within the territorial sea according to international regulations, so far as those are incidental to ordinary navigation, or rendered necessary by major forces including distress, or to render assistance.

Alternative B would result in no change to public access. However, in the future, the Service may develop opportunities for low levels of compatible public visitation. Proposals for public use would be considered during future Comprehensive Conservation Planning efforts and coordinated with the public. As is currently true, Service Refuge regulations would not be intended to limit innocent passage according to international laws.

4.2.5 Effects of the alternatives on historic resources

Although there are no known historic resources or sites at Kingman Reef, under the No-Action alternative, the Federal administrator would continue to be responsible for complying with the National Historic Preservation Act.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page4-2 I CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

If a Refuge were to be established under Alternative B, the Service would assume responsibility for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act There would be no change, therefore, in the degree of protection and management to historic resources that may be found in I the future. 4.3 Effects of the Alternatives on the Biological Environment

Under the No-Action alternative, Navy controls over access to Kingman Reef would provide limited passive protection to the natural resources of the atoll. Natural reef processes would continue. Endangered and threatened sea turtles and migratory sea birds would be protected from the effects of commercial fishing. There would be no active management programs to control marine debris, implement monitoring programs, provide public education about the area, and no law enforcement patrols under the No-Action alternative.

Refuge establishment would enable the Service to protect the coral reef ecosystem and associated waters of Kingman Reef in perpetuity. Refuge management programs (described in the Conceptual Management Plan, Appendix B) would help to conserve the native fish and wildlife resources, including marine and terrestrial habitats, migratory birds, marine mammals, I endangered and threatened species, and the rich diversity of wildlife found in the land and waters of the atoll. The Service would implement active management programs to control marine debris, implement monitoring programs, provide public education about the area, and would also I provide an active law enforcement presence. I 4.4 Other Considerations 4.4.1 Cumulative effects

Under the No-Action alternative, over time, the lack of active natural resources management could result in a decline in the quality of the reef ecosystem. Establishment and management of the Refuge would maintain the high quality marine resources which presently exist and result in I the long-term conservation of resources through proactive Refuge management programs.

4.4.2 Relationship between short-term uses of the environment and enhancement of long-term productivity

Both alternatives would maintain the lands, reefs and waters of Kingman Reef in a natural state. This would provide for the continued productivity of the natural ecosystem.

4.4.3 Environmental justice

Neither alternative would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority populations and low-income populations.

4.4.4 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

Neither alternative would result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page4-3 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Table 4-1. Summary of the Effects of the Alternatives on the Environment.

·"'' ' '• ,' ' '" ' ' -:'' ' '··. "'•, . ' . ' ' ·: ··:--: ',: ' ,', } '\ ' : ' ::--: .,. ·:' .,· ':- ,, ' ., Alternative: Alt. A. No ActiotC ·A Natiol1al Wildlife Refuge w¢uld tidt · --A-It 1l (Th.e Servic~'s,Pt~f~rt¢0 Altetrtatlv~)~ A Nati()nal be esbibli~hed ai KingmahReef. · _·· 'W)ldHfe Refuge would })e_.esta~lished at Kingman Reef. ' ,, ' ' ~ '' Issue: ,, ... ·.- ,,''<,_ ,: ... :,,.,.' ._,.-·.: ' : .· Effects on the Physical Environment

Effects on air and Navy control of access helps to protect water quality of The Service would work to protect air and water water quality the atoll by reducing the likelihood of accidental ship quality on the Refuge. ·The Refuge boundary and groundings. navigation guidelines would help reduce the potential for accidental vessel groundings. The limited, controlled use of vessels on the Refuge for Refuge management would not have a significant adverse effect on water or air quality. . Effects on the Social and Economic Environment - Effects on Kingman Reef would remain under the control of the Kingman Reef would remain under Federal ownership U.S. Navy. If the Navy extinguished its use jurisdiction. If the Navy extinguished its use reservation, the Office of Insular Affairs would acquire reservation, the Service would acquire jurisdiction. jurisdiction. Effects on land use The area would continue in the status quo as a military The area would be maintained in a natural state and and local economy reserve area. No economic activity is currently actively managed to conserve natural resources. authorized by the Navy in the Naval Defensive Sea The Refuge would be closed to commercial fishing, Area. A low level of commercial fishing was reported although commercial fishing vessels could fish to the Service from waters surrounding Kingman Reef. within the EEZ outside of the proposed Refuge boundary. Given the low levels of current fishing, and ongoing military access restrictions, the economic effects of the proposed Refuge would not be significant. -----

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page4-4 - ~- -·- ·- ~-: CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES -

Alternative: Alt. A· No Acti~n; ANational Wildlife R~fugb would ~or :Alt. B (TheSetvicets Preferred Alternative): A National· be established at KlrigmanReef. · · .Wildlife Refuge woUld be established at Kingman Reef, Issue:

Effects on NMFS would continue to have a regulatory role NMFS wo~ld no longer have · management of regarding the protection and recovery of threatened jurisdiction in the waters of the Refuge. The change marine resources green sea turtles and endangered hawksbill sea turtles in the area over which they have the authority and at sea, as well as for the protection of marine right to manage fisheries would not be significant. mammals. There would be no change to NMFS's or the NMFS would manage and regulate commercial fishing Service's regulatory or enforcement roles and in the waters of the EEZ with the Navy's permission. responsibilities.

The Service would continue to have a regulatory and enforcement role in the protection and recovery of threatened and endangered sea turtles on land, and the protection of migratory birds and other resources.

Effects on public IThe waters of the NDSA are closed to general public The Service would not open the Refuge to public access access. access during the interim period-except by Special Use Permit considered on a case by case basis. In the future, the Service would consider the potential for low levels of compatible public use during Comprehensive Conservation Planning for the Refuge.

Effects on historic IThere are no sites listed on or known to be eligible for No change to the level of protection that would be resources listing on the National Register of Historical Sites. required. The only change would be that the Service Any cultural or historical resources that may be found would become the responsible agency for at Kingman Reef in the future would be protected by compliance with laws protecting historical resources the Navy as required by law. that may be found in the future.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 4-5 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

><'· ::··.-· ., ,, ":: ,.... ' ··.· ..•••... ··.·· ·.. . ..' . :·· ;· ·, ...... • Alternative: . Alt: A.. No Action. A NatibnafWildlite Refuge whuid ~bt.: .t\.It:.nJTlieService~sPrefett&lAltetrl~tive): A National be established at Kingman Reef.· .· · ·· . Wildlife R~fuge wotild be established at KJngman Reef. ~-' ·::·:·' '. ' . . . ' " ,...... , Issue: ...... , .·· .· ... Effects on the Biological Environment

Effects on coral Fish and wildlife and their habitats would be passively Coral reef ecosystems, other habitats, and wildlife of reefs, migratory protected through the Navy's control of access and the atoll would be protected and actively managed birds, and other uses within the Naval Defensive Sea Area. A no-take by the Refuge through programs including monitor- habitats and marine preserve may be established to the 50-fathom ing surveys, research, habitat and wildlife manage- wildlife depth around the atoll by NMFS. ment and enhancement, public education, and law enforcement. A no-take marine preserve would be established to the 12-NM Refuge boundary.

Endangered and Endangered and threatened species would be passively Endangered and threatened species and their habitats threatened species protected through the Navy's control of access and would be protected and actively managed on the uses within the Naval Defensive Sea Area. Future Refuge in perpetuity. Protection of nearshore and commercial fishing operations would likely have surrounding waters from commercial fishing interactions with listed species. activities would benefit listed species.

Other Considerations Cumulative effects A lack of proactive management could lead to a decline Long-term conservation of resources would occur in the quality of the reef ecosystem over time. through proactive Refuge management programs.

Short-term uses At present, the low levels of commercial fishing that The natural environment and productivity would be vs. long-term are reported are not believed to be affecting long-term conserved. productivity productivity.

Environmental No minority or low-income populations would be No minority or low-income populations would be justice affected. affected. frreversible or None. None. irretrievable commitments of resources

-. ----~-

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 4-6 ~- - ~ ·- I CHAP1ER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

5 CHAPTER 5. PREPARER, INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM, AND CONSULTED PARTIES

5.1 Preparer

Phyllis Y. Ha, Senior Staff Ecologist, Pacific Islands Refuge Planning Office, Honolulu, Hawaii

5.2 Interdisciplinary Team

Carolyn Bohan, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Forrest Cameron, Refuge Supervisor, National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Elizabeth N. Flint, Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii Ben Harrison, Chief, Land Protection Planning Branch, Region 1, Portland, Oregon A. Eugene Hester, Senior Resident Agent, Division of Law Enforcement, Honolulu, Hawaii Charles J. Houghten, Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Kay Kier-Haggenjos, Writer/Editor, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon David N. Johnson, Refuge Manager, Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii Jerry F. Leinecke, Project Leader, Hawaiian and Pacific Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii James E. Maragos, Coral Reef Biologist, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Barbara Maxfield, Public Information Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands I Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Stephen B. Moore, Chief, Division of Refuge Operations Support, Region 1, Portland Oregon Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Catherine B. Sheppard, Chief, Division of Realty, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Robert P. Smith, former Pacific Islands Manager, Honolulu Hawaii (assisted with project conception and preliminary drafts)

Cartography:

Rodman Low, Geographer, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Susan Machida, Geographer, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii

Other reviewers:

Kevin B. Foster, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Joseph McDermott, Office of the Solicitor, Dept. of the Interior, , DC Don Palawski, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Karen Rosa, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Francesca R. Ryan, Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, Washington, DC

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-1 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS I

Karen Sprecher-Keating, Office of the Solicitor, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC Chris Swenson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Ronald Walker, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii David J. Wesley, former Geographic Assistant Regional Director, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Portland, Oregon David Woodside, Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii

5.3 Consulted Parties

The following agencies and interested individuals were provided with a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Conceptual Management Plan. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies or individuals who provided responses.

5.3 .1 Federal agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, Ft. Shafter, Hawaii U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwestern Regional Office, * U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC Office of the UnderSecretary of Defense, Assistant for Ocean Policy, Washington, DC * U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Honolulu, Hawaii U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. (Director; Policy Division) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Honolulu, Hawaii*

5.3.2 State agencies

The State of Hawaii, while not having jurisdiction at Kingman Reef, has been interested in the Service's Refuge proposals in the Pacific. As a courtesy, the Service coordinated its proposal with the.following State offices:

Governor, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii State of Hawaii, Department of Education, Main Library, Honolulu, Hawaii State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, Hawaii State of Hawaii, Historic Preservation Office, Honolulu, Hawaii State ofHawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, Hawaii*

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-2 CHAP1ER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

State of Hawaii, Office of Environmental Quality Control, Honolulu, Hawaii State of Hawaii, University of Hawaii at Manoa Environmental Center, Hamilton Library, Marine Option Program, Honolulu, Hawaii State of Hawaii, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hawaii

5.3.3 Congressional Delegation

The Hawaii Congressional delegation was provided with a courtesy copy of the documents. I Senator Daniel K. Akaka * 5.3.4 Other interested organizations and individuals

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii Brooks Tom Porter & Quitquit, Honolulu, Hawaii * Conservation Council for Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Honolulu, Hawaii M.A. Fullard-Leo, Vancouver, Washington * Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu, Hawaii * J. LaGrange, Solana Beach, California* Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, and Washington, D.C. National Audubon Society, Living Oceans Program, Honolulu, Hawaii * National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C. National Tropical Botanical Garden, Lawai, Hawaii Pacific Atoll Marine Preservation Society, Honolulu, Hawaii I Pacific Ocean Producers, Honolulu, Hawaii Pacific Whale Foundation, Kihei, Maui * Peregrine Fund, Boise, Short, Cressman & Burgess, PILC, Seattle, Washington* Sierra Club of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii * The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii Tradewind Fisheries, Kailua, Hawaii * Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, Hawaii * Wildlife Society, Hawaii Chapter, Honolulu, Hawaii

5.4 Summary of Public Review and Comments

The environmental assessment and conceptual management plan were distributed to the public for a 30-day comment period that was open from December 11,2000, through January 11, 2001. A press release and an abstract in the State of Hawaii's Office of Environmental Quality Control's newsletter, the Environmental Notice, helped inform the public of the project and of the availability of the documents.

Comments received from individuals on these documents will be held as part of the official public record. Requests for copies of the comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations [40

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-3 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS I

CFR 1506.6(±)]. and other Service and Departmental policies and procedures. When requested, the Service generally will provide copies of letters with names and addresses of the individuals who wrote the comments. However. telephone numbers will not be provided, to the extent permissible by law.

Eighteen letters were received during the public comment period from private individuals, private conservation organizations. commercial fishermen, government agencies, a legal firm, and a government advisory commission. Intergovernmental agencies provided additional input on the proposed Refuge and the Service's environmental analysis. The Service carefully considered all of the comments received and incorporated relevant comments into the final EA.

The public comments resulted in relatively minor changes to the EA and CMP, these were mostly updates on environmental information including reports from recent coral reef diving surveys that reported evidence that shark fishing had occurred in the recent past, and reporting abandoned fishing gear on the reef; and new information about commercial fishing activities that occur in waters around Kingman Reef. The public comments were summarized and generalized responses to certain topics were included in the final environmental assessment.

Conservation groups expressed strong support for the Refuge. We received letters from the I National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program, the Hawaii Audubon Society Aquatics Program, the Sierra Club, and the Pacific Whale Foundation in support of the proposed Refuge, conceptual management, and the establishment of a no-take marine preserve.

We also received letters expressing objections to or reservations about the proposed Refuge. We have grouped the concerns voiced in opposition to the proposed Refuge, and advisory comments I into general themes and provided our responses below.

Issue 1. Ownership claim by a private family

Comment. On behalf of their client. a law firm informed the Service that their client owns Kingman Reef and that they have substantial economic ventures or plans at Kingman Reef. The letter expressed the client's belief that if the Refuge is established, it would not have been done so in coordination with the rightful owner. and would, therefore constitute a private-lands taking. Because of economic ventures their client plans to implement, or has already developed, the proposed Refuge would result in significant economic harm to the private landowner and its business ventures. An individual wrote a similar letter to the Service regarding the same claim.

Response: Prior to release of the draft environmental assessment, the Service carefully evaluated the government's title at Kingman Reef. The Navy's title research in the past and the Service's more recent review found no documentation to support a claim by a private owner, although we were aware of such a claim in the past.

After the public comments were received, the Service and the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor reviewed the documentation that was provided to the Service by the claimant's lawyers. The legal review concluded that despite a long history of claiming title to Kingman

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-4 I CHAP1ER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Reef, including actions that are consistent with their belief in their ownership, the title holder of record is the Department of the Interior, with a reservation in favor of the U.S. Navy.

The claim to ownership and the Department of the Interior's findings was added to the Environmental Assessment in the Summary of Public Comments (Chapter 5, section 5. 4). To bring the issue to the forefront of our decision document, we have also included the claim and I our finding in the project summary that appears at the front of the Environmental Assessment. The Office of the Solicitors' belief that the private entity's claim is not legally valid, invalidates the assertion that the proposed Refuge would represent a private lands taking issue or that the proposed Refuge would result in a significant economic loss to private commercial ventures that have been authorized by the landowner. It is our understanding that no permits have been authorized by the Navy for commercial uses at Kingman Reef. Business ventures entered into by private parties remain subject to the review and approval of the U.S. government agency administering the area.

Issue 2. The authority of the Service to include marine ecosystems in the National Wildlife I Refuge System Comment. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) objected to the proposed Refuge boundary including marine waters, coral reefs, and other marine resources. NMFS objected to the Service providing protection or management in the marine environment and claimed that the proposed Refuge would represent a diminishment of NMFS' s authority under the Magnuson­ Stevens Act to regulate commercial fisheries in the Western Pacific area.

Response: The Service has extensive experience in protecting and managing fish and wildlife resources within and surrounding six remote island and atoll National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific. The inclusion of marine areas within a Refuge boundary, and the establishment of marine protected areas are within the authorities and conservation mandates of the Service. In light of our goals to protect migratory bird resources, listed sea turtles, and the environment of the coral reef resources at Kingman Reef, we do not believe it is appropriate in this case to abdicate our responsibility for wildlife protection and management to another agency. We believe that the most responsible strategy for the conservation of the spectacular reef ecosystem and the wildlife the atoll supports will involve a closure of the waters of the Refuge to commercial fishing. Neither NMFS or the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council share that view (WPRFMC 2000a).

We also believe that NlvfFS's administrative authority is not an exclusive mandate. The coral reefs and marine life at Kingman Reef are among the most pristine in the entire Pacific, according to expert coral reef ecologists, and call for long-term protection and management. We also recognize that while N11FS has proposed to establish no-take marine preserve areas in waters shallower than 50 fathoms (300 feet) around Kingman Reef, their proposed commercial fishing exclusion area is still very close to shallow reefs. There would continue to be interactions between commercial fishing operations and listed sea turtles and migratory birds, and would not implement a proactive management program that would ensure the long-term preservation and management of the nationally significant coral reef resources at Kingman Reef.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-5 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

The environmental assessment was amended to more clearly indicate our continued desire, as an agency to work cooperatively with NMFS to assure the protection and recovery of endangered I and threatened species that occur in the waters of the Refuge. NMFS' recent proposal to establish a no-take area in waters shallower than 50 fathoms (300 feet) at Kingman Reef was included in our introductory Chapter. NMFS' interest in having primary management for the coral reef ecosystem at Kingman Reef was included in the description of the No-Action alternative in Chapter 3 and was taken into account in the effects of the alternatives in Chapter 4. Issue 3 .. Objections to the Refuge being closed to commercial fishing I Comment. Three commercial fishermen, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC) expressed opposition to the Service's proposal not to open the waters of the Refuge to commercial fishing. To be responsive, we will address some of the points individually.

One fisherman claimed that the Refuge and associated off-limits restrictions would represent a reduction in freedom for American fishermen, and he pointed out that it is not the policy of the United States to withdraw access to 100% of the coral reefs in the Pacific. Along a similar theme, another fisherman responded that the reefs are currently protected under the status quo, and there is no need for a Refuge.

Response. After receiving the comments, Refuge managers and biologists reevaluated whether the waters could be opened to commercial fishing, but concluded that the conservation of high quality marine resources including listed sea turtles, migratory birds, and marine mammals, along with spectacular coral reefs, would require a restrictive management approach. The inclusion of the open water buffer area between the coral reef ecosystem and the boundary of the Refuge would provide additional protection to pelagic species while they were in the waters of the Refuge. The nearshore waters are not currently open for commercial fishing, although it has been reported that unauthorized access and fishing have occurred. Should the Navy no longer has military control of the area, there would likely be more access from persons interested in fishing at Kingman Reef. Therefore, while we believe that many potential adverse effects have been minimized due to current Naval access and use restrictions, we also believe Refuge establishment and proactive management is needed to maintain the high quality marine resources of the reef.

The protective Refuge boundary would enhance offshore fisheries stocks, and would permit research to be done on fish stocks and natural reef ecosystem processes. Finally, we wish to point out that the deep waters surrounding Kingman Reef at the boundary areas of the various oceanographic currents are productive fishery areas, so commercial enterprises will still have large areas to fish that are outside of the 12-NM Refuge boundary, and within the 200-NM Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Service does not intend, by this action, to withdraw fishing access to 100% of the nations' coral reef resources. Access to and management of coral reef areas in the main Hawaiian Islands, and, with the establishment of the recent Marine Preserve in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is managed by other agencies.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-6 I CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Comment: One fisherman commented that it would be unfair to restrict fishing in waters outside of the 100-fathom depth (600-feet) because other fishing areas, such as in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands have been closed to longline fishing because of conflicts with listed species. Service Refuge managers, biologists, and coral reef ecologists reviewed the bathymetric charts of Kingman Reef, and considered this request. We note that the 100-fathom depth is the general extent of the coral reef ecosystem. Thus, if longline fishing were permitted beyond 100-fathoms, wildlife including sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds could be harmed through I interactions with longline fishing. Additionally there would be a higher likelihood of discarded or lost gear adversely affecting the nearshore marine resources. Based on these concerns, the Service determined that the most effective means to maintain the high quality marine resources of the Refuge would be to not open the Refuge to commercial fishing.

Within the environmental assessment we updated the description of commercial fishing in Chapter 2 of the environmental assessment (the affected environment) to reflect new information we have received about commercial fishing in the waters of the atoll. Chapter 5, the Public I Comments Summary, indicates the interest by commercial fishermen to be able to fish in nearshore marine waters of Kingman Reef.

Issue 4. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act CNEPA)

Comment. Several respondents, all of whom took issue with the proposed Refuge, called into question the Service's compliance with the provisions of NEPA. One comment from a legal firm claimed that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required because of the private lands taking and economic issues.

Response. The issues of private lands taking and economic impact to private commercial venture have not been borne out by the legal review of ownership and authorization of uses in the waters of the atoll.

Comment. A letter claimed that the preparation of an EIS is necessary (as opposed to an I environmental assessment or EA), because the EA relied on incomplete information pertaining to ownership and economic uses, substantial new information has been developed since the issuance of the EA, and the Service's proposed actions conflict with Federal and State law. Additionally, it was asserted that the EA contained an inadequate range of alternatives and that the public was excluded from meaningful review of those proposed. Some comment letters requested the comment period be extended.

Response. The Service believes the above assertions are inaccurate. The EA thoroughly addressed the issue of ownership, current economic uses of the Kingman Reef resources, and potential economic effects of the Service proposal. The Service believes little new information has been developed since issuance of the EA. All new information that was provided by the respondent was addressed in revising the EA, and none affected the conclusions originally reported in the EA. We believe that our proposal is consistent with all applicable Federal and State laws as discussed in the EA and associated planning and compliance documents.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-7 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Regarding the range of alternatives, the Service believes that the two alternatives considered a range of management options and are responsive to public comments. Finally, by the range and breadth of comments, that often overlapped in their concerns, and by the number of responses, which was similar to the number we received for a similar project at nearby Palmyra Atoll, we believe that the public comment period associated with the EA provided the public adequate time to review the documents and provide meaningful comments on our proposal and documents.

Comment: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC or the Council) requested the EA include additional information documenting potential threats to Kingman Reef, requested the Service provide detailed conservation and management plans for Kingman Reef, requested detailed information be provided in support of the Service's conclusions on historic resources, requested the Service include an assessment of the social and economic impact that would accrue to fishermen presently operating within the proposed 12-NM Refuge boundary, requested the EA include a discussion of authority of the Department of Interior to establish a National Wildlife Refuge, and requested a discussion of how the Service complies with other applicable federal laws. WPRFMC questioned the need for the Refuge boundary to extend to 12 nautical miles, and requested that the EA acknowledge WPRFMC's authority to manage marine resources to the shoreline at Kingman Reef and acknowledge and preferably adopt the measures proposed in the WPRFMC' s Draft Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan. The Council also suggested the Service fully examine claims of ownership by a private family. They commented that the proposal for the Refuge to extend to12 nautical miles based on the Kingman Reef Naval Defensive Sea Area is incorrect.

Response: The Service disagrees that it is necessary to provide detailed documentation regarding potential threats to Kingman Reef in order to have a valid proposal to protect and manage the nationally significant coral reef habitats and wildlife resources of Kingman Reef. Threats to the resources are summarized in Chapter 1 of the EA (Need for the proposed action) and on page 9, of the Conceptual Management Plan (CMP.

As stated in the EA and CMP, if the Refuge is established, detailed management plans would be developed for the Refuge consistent with all applicable laws and regulations and public involvement requirements. For the purpose of the proposed Refuge establishment, a conceptual management plan was provided to inform members of the public about the National Wildlife Refuge System and provide a general description of future management programs.

Regarding the Council's request that detailed information be provided in support of the Service's conclusions on historic resources, the Service believes that the current level of detail is sufficient for the purposes of this environmental assessment. The information on which the EA historic resources analysis and conclusions are based are referenced in the EA. The EA was coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as noted in Chapter 5.

With respect to the potential economic impacts to fishermen, as stated in the EA, the proposed Refuge would be a continuation of the existing Navy restrictions on access and use within the

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-8 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Naval Defensive Sea Area. The area to 3 NM from reefs awash .is currently restricted to access, and the area within 3-12 nautical miles is included in the Naval military reservation. Therefore, there should be minor or negligible economic effects to fisherman who would have to abide by the similar restrictions as currently exist but can continue to fish in the areas outside the 12 nautical mile zone and within the 200-NM Exclusive Economic Zone that surrounds Kingman Reef.

The Department of Interior and the Service have a number of authorities under which to establish a National Wildlife Refuge including the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, and Migratory Bird Conservation Act to name a few. A comprehensive list of applicable Federal laws, regulations, Executive Order, and other pertinent items including our compliance with the applicable laws, are included in the Services administrative record and are available for public review upon request.

Regarding the need for the Refuge boundary to extend to 12 nautical miles, as stated in the EA, a Refuge of this size would allow the Service to protect coral reefs, conserve pelagic fishes while in the waters of the Refuge, and would protect marine mammals, endangered and threatened sea turtles, and migratory seabirds from the direct and indirect effects of fishing activities within the waters of the Refuge. The conservation of marine resources including fishery stocks is important because many species of wildlife that occur at Kingman Reef are depleted elsewhere in their ranges and would benefit from a closure to commercial fishing activities. It should be clarified I that the Service is not basing the proposed Refuge boundary on an area delineated by the Kingman Reef Naval Defensive Sea Area but, as described in the EA, on the area under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs and on a manageable ecological Refuge unit.

The EA has been revised to acknowledge NMFS' authority to manage commercial fisheries for marine resources to the shoreline at Kingman Reef. We believe that this management authority is not an exclusive mandate for that agency that would preclude the Service from managing lands and waters under its jurisdiction that are within the National Wildlife Refuge System and that are not open to commercial fishing.

The Service is proposing management measures which would be more protective than the measures proposed in the Council's Draft Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan.

Regarding claims of ownership, the Service has thoroughly examined the issue of ownership and will continue to work with individuals or groups over ownership claims. The Coast Guard expressed reservation of being able to enforce wildlife laws in an area so remote from Honolulu.

Issue 5. U.S. Coast Guard comments .

Comment. The U.S. Coast Guard responded that at current funding levels, it would be unable to assist the Service with law enforcement or logistics support in any meaningful measure. We clarified in the final EA and Conceptual Management Plan that our future coordination with the

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-9 I I CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

U.S. Coast Guard would be either administrative in nature, or on an as-available basis. The Service intends to be the primary agency responsible for enforcement of wildlife laws on the proposed Refuge, as we provide on other Refuges in the remote Pacific area. The Service has an established Division of Law Enforcement. Service visits to the Refuge would help to deter members of the public who act in violation of applicable laws, but we recognize that such a remote area would not ever be comprehensively protected by an off site manager. However, if a Refuge is established at Palmyra Atoll, regular Service management and law enforcement presence at Kingman Reef would be possible.

Comment. The Coast Guard letter suggested that the Service eliminate any ambiguity about resource management roles of the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The final documents clearly state that the proposed Refuge would be closed to commercial fishing to 12-NM, and that therefore, NMFS would not have an administrative purview over commercial fishing within the waters of the Refuge. We document in several sections that the NMFS would continue to have an administrative and regulatory role for actions that may affect listed sea turtles at sea, and marine mammals. We also commit to cooperating with NMFS on certain aspects of Refuge management.

Issue 6. Comments from the UnderSecretary of Defense

Comment: A letter from the Assistant for Ocean Policy to the UnderSecretary of Defense for Policy provided information about rights of international maritime passage, and provided some suggestions for implementing navigational improvements and warning mariners of hazards of the shallow coral reefs.

Comment: We made appropriate modifications to the documents to remove any implication that Refuge guidelines to mariners would prohibit international rights of innocent passage.

Comment. The letter expressed scepticism about the Service's ability to enforce laws on the Refuge from Honolulu.

Response: Refer to the Coast Guard comment and response above.

Comment: The letter expressed doubt that a Refuge would be an improvement over the status quo, and questioned the need to establish a Refuge suggesting existing authorities would be sufficient to address potential threats.

Response: The Service believes that active natural resources management within the National Wildlife Refuge System and management of a marine protected area to the extent of the territorial sea would be an improvement over custodial management as is currently practiced, or over the proposed management regime with a relatively narrow 50-fathom limit of the protected zone. The quality of the marine ecosystem and wildlife resources, the presence of essential

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page5-10 CHAPTER 5. PREP ARERS AND REVIEWERS

habitat of endangered and threatened sea turtles, and the importance of the marine and emergent areas for migratory birds are worthy of protection within the National Wildlife Refuge System.

We would like to thank those people and agencies who took the time to respond to our request for review and comments on the proposaL Copies of the comment letters are on file at the Service's Honolulu Office and available for review upon request.

I

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 5-11 6 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES CITED

Davies, R.E.G. 1987. : an airline and its aircraft. Orion Books, Crown Publishers, Inc. , NY. 90 pp.

Drake, C.L., J. Imbrie, J.A. Knauss, and K.K. Turekian. 1978. Oceanography. Holt, Rinehard and Winston. NY. 447 pp.

Flint, E. and D. Aycock. 2000. "Kingman Reef''. Trip report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Holthus, P.F. and J.E. Maragos. 1995. Marine Ecosystem Classification for the Tropical Island Pacific. Pp: 239-278. Chapter 13, In: Marine and Coastal in the Tropical Island Pacific Region, Vol. I: Species Systematics and Infonnation Management Priorities, Maragos, J.E., M.N.A. Peterson, L.G. Eldredge, J.E. Bardach, and H.F. Takeuchi (eds). East­ West Center, Honolulu, 424 pp.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1991. IUCN Directory ofProtected Areas in . Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiii + 447 pp.

Krupnick, J.E. 1997. Pan American's Pacific Pioneers: a pictoral history of Pan Am's Pacific first flights 1935-1946. Pictoral Histories Publishing Co., Missoula, MT. 319 pp.

Maragos, J.E. 2000. "Status of Coral Reefs at Kingman Reef, U.S. Line Islands." Summary reporting on the expedition to Kingman Reef on file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Newbold, R. 2000. Unpublished data listing invertebrates seen during dive surveys at the U.S. Line and , March-April, 2000. 3pp.

Perry, R. 1980. "Wildlife conservation in the Line Islands, Republic of Kiribati (formerly Gilbert Islands)." Environmental Conservation. 7: 311-318.

Sadler, J.C. 1959. "A Study of Some Recent Climatological Data of the Line Islands." Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress, pp: 12-16.

Stanley, D. 1991. Handbook. Moon Publications. Chico, CA. 238 pp.

URS Corporation. 2000. Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fishery Management Plan. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Volume I. December 4, 2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Report of Lands Under Control ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: as of September 30, 1999. 45 pp.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 6-1 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES U.S. General Accounting Office. 1997. U.S. Insular Areas: application ofthe U.S. Constitution. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives. November 1997. GAO/OGC-98-5.

W ass, R. and E. DeMartini. 2000. Unpublished data listing fishes seen during dive surveys at Kingman Reef, March-April, 2000. 10 pp.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 1998. Pelagic Fisheries ofthe Western Pacific Region 1997 Annual Report. Draft prepared by the Pelagics Plan Team and Council Staff.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2001. Draft Fishery ManagementPlan for Coral Reef Ecosystems of The Western Pacific Region. December 2000. Volume 1. 346 pp.

EA for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 6-2 APPENDICES I·

Appendix A.

Protected Wildlife Species

Recently Reported from Kingman Reef 11

Appendix A. Protected Wildlife Species Recently Reported from Kingman Reef.

Common Name: Scientific Name: Federal Status:

BIRDS:

Brown Booby Sula leucogaster Migratory

Gr.eat Frigatebird Fregata minor Migratory

Wandering Tattler H eteroscelus incanus Migratory

Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata Migratory

MARINE REPTILES:

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened

1 MARINE INVERTEBRATES :

Giant clam Tridacna crocea CITES2

Giant clam Tridacna maxima CITES2

Giant clam Tridacna spp. CITES2

1 Lists of corals, other invertebrates, and fish species that were seen on recent field ascertainment surveys are on file at the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 CITES =Wildlife species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES species are regulated with respect to import, export, and re-export.

Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page A-I Appendix B.

Conceptual Management Plan

for the

Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean I I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Conceptual Management Plan

Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge L ine Islands, Central Pacific Ocean I

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this proposal, and we would like to aclmowledge the professional administrative and technical support we received from our colleagues in the U.S. Fish and_ Wildlife Service and others in the Department of the Interior.

The ongoing cooperation of the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service in providing logistical support to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for our Pacific Remote Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex management programs is very much appreciated. The National Marine Fisheries Service, in particular the crew of the Research Vessel Townsend Cromwell and other fisheries staff, provided substantial logistics and technical support during field site surveys of Kingman Reef, which we gratefully aclmowledge.

Conceptual Management Plan

Cover photographs (top to bottom): Mushroom coral (Fungia sp.) and green seaweed (Halimeda sp.); Pink lace coral (flylaster sp.) and damselfish (Chromis sp.) beneath a coral ledge; Underwater view of coral reef habitat in the lagoon of Kingman Reef featuring a variety of corals including table corals ( spp.), finger corals (Pocillopora spp.), and fusilier fish (Caesio sp.) [Photographs by J. Maragos].

Cover graphics by B. Mayfield. Conceptual Management Plan

for the Proposed

Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Refuge Planning Office Honolulu, Hawaii

January 2001 Table of Contents Page No.:

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Overview ...... 1 B. The National Wildlife Refuge System ...... 1 I 1. Background and overview ...... 1 2. Mission, principles, and guidelines for natural resources management of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...... 2 3. Visitor uses on National Wildlife Refuges ...... 3 C. Refuge Purposes ...... 3

IT. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF KINGMAN REEF ...... 3 A. General ...... 3 B. Refuge Boundary ...... 4

III. INTERIM REFUGE MANAGEMENT AT THE PROPOSED KINGMAN REEF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ...... 4 A. Overview ...... 4 B. Administration and Staffing ...... 8 C. Facilities .... ·...... 8 D. Transportation ...... 8 E. Management Planning and Implementation ...... 8

N. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ...... 9 A. Summary of the Natural Resources of Kingman Reef ...... 9 B. Principal Threats to Natural Resources ...... 9 C. Interim Refuge Management Goals ...... 10 D. Natural Resources Management Activities ...... 10 1. Overview ...... 10 2. Monitoring surveys ...... 11 3. Endangered and threatened species recovery ...... 11 4. Other species of management concern ...... 11 5. Habitat and wildlife population monitoring ...... 12 6. Habitat management and enhancement ...... 12 7. Law enforcement ...... 12 8.c--~ Research ...... 12 E. Flistoric Resources ...... 13 F. Other Refuge Issues ...... 13 1. Access ...... 13 2. Navigation and safety ...... 13 3. Inspection and quarantine programs ...... 13 G. Public Use ...... 14

i V. POTENTIAL REFUGE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET ...... 14 A. Refuge Start-up Costs ...... 14 B. Estimated Refuge Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs ...... 14 C. Estimated Facilities Costs ...... 14

VI. PREPARER AND INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ...... 15 I, A. Preparer ...... 15 B. Interdisciplinary Team ...... 15

VII. REFERENCES ...... 16

List of Figures

Figure 1. The location of Kingman Reef in the northern Line Islands, central Pacific Ocean ... 5 Figure 2. Generalized physical features of Kingman Reef ...... 6 Figure 3. The boundary of the proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge ...... 7

11 Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge

Line Islands, Central Pacific Ocean

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview

Kingman Reef is a partially submerged coral reef atoll that lies approximately 6 degrees north of the equator in the Line Islands in the central Pacific Ocean (figure 1). A variety of different habitat types are present, including intertidal reefs, submerged coral terraces, lagoon patch reefs and pinnacle reefs, spur reefs, and emergent coral islets. Marine species include coral reef and pelagic fishes, corals, algae, and other marine invertebrates. The reefs and surrounding waters also support Pacific migratory seabirds, threatened green sea turtles, endangered hawksbill sea turtles, and marine mammals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to establish th~ Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) to conserve and manage the coral reef ecosystem, including national trust species, in perpetuity.

This Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) was developed using an interdisciplinary planning approach. It presents a general description of future Refuge management. As a conceptual document it does not provide extensive detail - such details would be included in a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that would be developed in the future with additional opportunities for public input and agency review. Following Refuge establishment at Kingman Reef, the CMP would serve as an interim management guide until a CCP is developed. The I CMP answers questions commonly posed by the general public and government agencies during the planning and public involvement phase of Refuge establishment.

B. The National Wildlife Refuge System

1. Background and overview

The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for the protection and management of migratory birds, endangered and threatened plants and animals, certain marine mammals, and anadromous fishes. As part of its responsibilities, the Service establishes and administers National Wildlife Refuges in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement I Act of 1997; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and other pertinent legislation, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 1 I

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is a national system of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation and management. The first National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1903, and the Refuge System now consists of more than 520 Refuges nationwide 1 including 16 Refuges in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands • Recently, Congress enacted the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), which is an organic ace for the Refuge System that codifies the System's mission, administration, conservation management, public use, conservation planning, interagency coordination, and public involvement.

2. Mission, principles, and guidelines for natural resources management of the National Wildlife Refuge System

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is

"... to administer a national network oflands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration ofthe fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit ofpresent and future generations ofAmericans." (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of I 1997)

Through its natural resources management programs on National Wildlife Refuges, the Service is required to maintain the Refuge System's biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, and monitor the status and trends of Refuge fish, wildlife, and plants. Partnerships with conservation organizations, other government agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged _as a means of increasing the effectiveness of Refuge management programs. The Service is directed to inform and involve the public in major decisions affecting National Wildlife Refuges.

Two recent Executive Orders provide enhanced protection for the nation's coral reef and other marine areas that fall under Federal jurisdiction. Presidential Executive Order Number 13089, entitled "Coral Reef Protection," dated June 11, 1998, calls for Federal agencies to provide for the protection of coral reefs that may be affected by their actions, and to utilize their authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems.

Presidential Executive Order Number 13158, entitled "Marine Protected Areas," dated May 26, 2000, calls for Federal agencies with jurisdiction over lands and waters with marine resources to

1 National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in the U.S. Pacific include Kilauea Point, Huleia, and Hanalei NWRs on Kauai; Pearl Harbor and James Campbell NWRs on Oahu; Kealia Pond NWR, Maui; Kakahaia NWR, Molokai; and Hakalau Forest NWR, on Hawaii Island. In the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the Service manages the Hawaiian Islands NWR that includes· Laysan Island, French Frigate Shoals, Gardner Pinnacles, Maro Reef, Nihoa Island, Necker Island, Lisianski Island, and Pearl and Hermes Reef. Midway Atoll NWR is also located in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The Service manages National Wildlife Refuges on other U.S. islands in the Pacific including Howland Island, Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, and Rose Atoll NWRs. The Guam NWR includes the Ritidian Unit, and overlay units on Navy and Air Force installations.

2 Essential organizing legislation.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page2 ensure protection of natural and cultural resources in those areas. Federal agencies are also called upon to take appropriate actions to enhance or expand protection of existing Marine Protected Areas or establish new Marine Protected Areas. 3

3. Visitor uses on National Wildlife Refuges

Certain wildlife-dependent visitor uses are considered legitimate and appropriate uses on some National Wildlife Refuges. However, all visitor uses must be compatible with (i.e., not materially detract from or interfere with) the primary purpose of the Refuge. Adequate staffing and funding must be available to properly administer a proposed visitor use program. Six priority wildlife dependent visitor uses on Refuges are denoted by the National Wildlife Refuge J Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, and include: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. During the development of the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Service would evaluate opportunities for compatible visitor uses for the proposed Refuge.

C. Refuge Purposes

J, The purposes of the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge would be:

o To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) all species of animals and plants that occur at Kingman Reef, including those that are endangered o~ threatened with becoming endangered; and

o To conserve the migratory bird resources and coral reef ecosystem at Kingman Reef.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIROmffiNT OF KINGMAN REEF

A. General

Kingman Reef is the northernmost atoll in the Line Islands. Located in the central Pacific Ocean approximately 900 miles south of Hawaii, Kingman Reef lies north of the equator at 6°23 N latitude, 162°25W longitude (figure 1). The reef is approximately 33 miles northwest of Palmyra Atoll, another United States' possession in the Line Islands. Geologically, Kingman Reef is a partially submerged table reef atoll. The reef is triangular in shape with its apex to the north, surrounding a large central lagoon (figure 2). Much of the eastern and southern portions of the reef are exposed during low tides, while the western portions are submerged. The outer reef measures approximately 12.4 miles long on the southern face, 7.5 miles long on the northeastern face, and 8.6 miles long on the northwestern face. The large central lagoon ranges in depth from 50 to 250 feet. Emergent land consists of three unvegetated coral spits that total approximately 3.2 acres (Flint and Aycock 2000).

3 Appendix E of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge provides the full text of both Executive Orders.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page3 Kingman Reef is within an area of high rainfall near the equator known as the "Intertropical I Convergence Zone" (also called "the Doldrums"). The project area is affected by the eastward­ flowing North Equatorial Countercurrent, a relatively narrow current located between latitudes 5 degrees and 10 degrees North, that flows eastward, in the opposite direction from the major westward-flowing currents of the northern and southern hemispheres (Drake et al. 1978). The northern boundary of this current is an area of upwelling that brings nutrient rich waters to the surface, and is an important foraging ground for several marine species including seabirds. The lagoon and offshore waters are habitats for coral reef and other marine fishes, marine mammals, sea turtles, and a variety of other species, and serve as important foraging areas for migratory seabirds. Emergent lands are important resting habitats for seabirds and may provide basking sites for threatened green sea turtles.

B. Refuge Boundary

The proposed Refuge boundary would include the lagoon, emergent lands, coral reefs, and other submerged lands and associated waters seaward to 12 nautical miles from reefs exposed at mean low tides. If the Refuge is established, it would include a total of approximately 483,702 acres including approximately 3.2 acres of emergent land and approximately 25,874 acres of coral reef 4 habitat •

III. INTERIM REFUGE MANAGEMENT AT THE PROPOSED KINGMAN REEF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

A. Overview

The operation and management of remote island National Wildlife Refuges pose unique challenges to Refuge Managers. Management strategies for remote island Refuges in Hawaii and the Pacific range from intermittent management visits, to temporary staffing of primitive field camps, permanent staffing at field stations with established support facilities, to year-round field stations such as are found at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Compared with most Refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, remote island management and operational costs are high because of the high cost of logistics support including transporting equipment, supplies, and personnel to remote stations, and maintaining operations in harsh marine climates. II - i I

4 Coral reef habitat acreage estimates were derived by digitally measuring areas on the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's navigation chart that are shallower than 100 fathoms (600 feet). This depth is based on the biological characteristics of coral reef organisms.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page4 Yf I I I 4 '• Pacific Islands Ecoregion National Wildlife Refuges (exclusive ofMain Hawaiian Islands) 30' N N Midwa~ 0 250 500 Kilometers AtollNWR • • : ~ Hawaiian 0 250 500 Miles w-

\ ..

Figure 1. The location of Kingman Reef in the northern Line Islands, central P aci:fic Ocean. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages seven other remote islands and atolls in the Pacific as National Wildlife Refuges including Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Island NW& in the central equatorial Pacific Ocean; the Hawaiian Islands NWR and Midway Atoll NWR in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands; Johnston Atoll NWR; and Rose Atoll NWR in the south Pacific Ocean. Palmyra Atoll, 33 miles south ofKingman Reef, is currently proposed as a National Wildlife Refuge.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman ReefNWR PageS .... --·------1 ~---1 1--1- Generalized Marine waters deeper than 100 fathoms Physical Features of Kingman Reef 6'2B'N-I 1------1- -- --1 1-·--1------1 1------1---t---J

Exposed reefs

6' 26' N 1--~-1 ?:'70:~;.,< Emergent Land - Emergent land - Exposed reef - Submerged reef (0-10 fathom depth) r:::-;;:j 10-100 fathom depth

6' 24' N-j-(.~~

1 fathom= 6 feet

0 I 2 s•22'N-I I 1- I I ~-/-1---1 I \--1------t---f--- E-""""""3 I Kilometers 0 I 2 Miles 1 2 Nautical Miles w~s 162' 30' w 162' 2B'W 162' 26'W 162' 24'W 162' 22'W 162' 20'W '

Figure 2. Generalized physical features of Kingman Reef. (Base Map Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chart dated 4/13/85 rev. 1/26/91 .) Conceptual Management Plan for the... Proposed Kingman ReefNWR .. Page6.. I

I I . I I

' Proposed Kingman Reef ~. ?;-; ... State of Hawaii ... National Wildlife Refuge ..., I ~-- \~'\ . ·. . Kingman Reef i - ~ 12-Nautical Mile Boundary GJ. Palmyra Atoll

'· 'r. . .. ~~' . ! ~~ '~\ . ~-.. ! - ... ·:·:~...... 0 .. • ·~ l ... s· 45' N ,·... .~\ ~ ' ;, ...•....•. _•...... •••••. ,& \ .. f. -! I i ; i l l ~ I ; -...... ; I v s· 30' N i / 1'\ ! \ ( /VProposed v 12-nautical mile boundary 1'1~ - ~ ' 1\1100 fathom depth i Kil~l:>. !Reef ' (approximate) ! - Emergent Land s· 15' N \ ' v 7 and Reefs Awash iI !'-.- ./ N I ; ' 0 10 20 ' I I Kilometers "'-Y-· - 0 10 20 I I I I I Nautical Miles I I 5•N i

r...... __

..,. 7 ~ 1ratmyn Atoll ' - i s· 45' N i I I I ! ! i I i i I : ' i 152• 30'W 162.15' w 15z·w 161• 45'W

Figure 3. The boundary of the proposed Kingman ReefNational Wildlife Refuge. The approved boundary would include emergent land, and submerged lands and associated waters seawardfrom reeft exposed at low water to the 12-nautical mile extent ofthe territorial sea.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page7 The Service is proposing to manage natural resources at Kingman Reef through regular ship­ a. based visits. In a separate action, the Service is working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a private conservation organization, to protect and manage natural resources at Palmyra Atoll located 33 miles to the south of Kingman Reef. If a National Wildlife Refuge were to be established at Palmyra Atoll in the future, the Service would make use of natural resources management staff and equipment that would be based there. If the Service does not have access to nearby logistics support facilities, the Refuge would be managed from the Honolulu Office of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This plan assumes that management staff would be based in Honolulu.

B. Administration and Staffing

Kingman Reef would be administered as part of the Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. Staffing levels and management visitation to Kingman Reef would be based on Refuge management needs and availability of funding. A Refuge at Palmyra Atoll would facilitate more visits to Kingman Reef by the Service for Refuge management than if a Refuge were not established at that nearby atoll. Other Refuge J management trips could be undertaken in conjunction with other scientific or Coast Guard - expeditions that become available. Existing Remote Island NWR Complex staff would be assigned to work at Kingman Reef, as required.

C. Facilities

The only facilities that may be installed at Kingman Reef in the future are permanent mooring buoys to prevent boat anchors from damaging corals. Details of the mooring stations would be developed at a later date, but the concept is to install buoys that are tethered by chains and fastened to a bolt in the substrate. We envision using the type of buoy that has been used by the State of Hawaii at Molokini Islet in Hawaii. Mooring buoys would need to withstand rough seas and should not present an .entanglement hazard to wildlife. Before deciding on a final design the I Service would consider a range of engineering options, evaluate the short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects of establishing permanent mooring sites, and coordinate its proposal with other agencies and the public.

D. Transportation

Transportation to and from the proposed Refuge would be by boat.

E. Management Planning and Implementation

During the start-up period, this CMP would serve as an interim Refuge management plan until a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan is developed. More detailed operational plans (for habitat and wildlife management, and Refuge safety) would be developed after the Refuge is established to provide detailed guidance for staff and allow for coordination with regulatory agencies.

Conceptual Management Pian for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 8 IV. NATURALRESOURCESMANAGEMENT

A. Summary of the Natural Resources of Kingman Reef

Kingman Reef is classified as an oceanic atoll (Holthus and Maragos 1995). Emergent land spits provide foraging and resting habitat for migratory shorebirds and seabirds that include Brown Boobies, Sooty Terns, Frigatebirds, and Wandering Tattlers, and may provide basking sites for threatened green sea turtles.

The coral reefs at Kingman Reef are reported to be among the most pristine in the Pacific (Maragos 2000). Coral reef ecologists reported a variety of reef formations at Kingman Reef including lagoon patch reefs, pinnacle reefs, ribbon reefs, intertidal reefs, reef slopes, reef terraces, and reef spur-and-groove formations, each with distinctive assemblages of corals and other reef building organisms. The waters and reefs of Kingman Reef support a spectacularly diverse and healthy marine community. Divers reported 168 species of fish, including sharks, rays, eels, groupers, jacks, goatfishes, butterflyfishes, damselfishes, mullets, wrasses, parrotfishes, surgeonfishes, and tuna r:YV ass and DeMartini 2000). Preliminary surveys also documented 102 species of corals, including an undescribed species offingercoral (Porites), and spectacular assemblages of mushroom corals, fire coral, table coral, and plate corals (Maragos 2000). Other species noted were several giant clams (Tridacna maxima, T. crocea), and several species of other bivalves, anemones, octopus, crabs, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, tunicates, and a variety of marine algae (Newbold 2000).

Kingman Reef provides essential habitat for threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) and endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata). The emergent coral islets may serve as basking sites for green sea turtles, but are not believed to be suitable for large-scale breeding by either species at the atoll (NMFSIFWS 1998a,b).

Several species of giant clams (Tridacna spp.) are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and are found in relatively large numbers in waters of Kingman Reef. This commercially important clam genus has been decimated from waters of other inhabited islands in the Pacific (Munro 1986, Hirschberger 1980).

Pacific migratory seabirds, including Brown Boobies, Great Frigatebirds, Sooty Terns, and Wandering Tattlers, forage in the waters of the atoll.

B. Principal Threats to Natural Resources

Principal threats to habitats and species at Kingman Reef include shipwrecks, oil spills, marine debris, over fishing, and poaching of protected species. Sea turtles and seabirds are threatened by fishing activities because they are often accidentally caught on hooks, lines, or other gear. Sources of hard corals, precious corals, giant clams, ornamental fishes and shells, sharks, and other marine species are being over harvested in other areas of the Pacific, and fishing expeditions are likely to increase in the remote areas.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page9 I

C. Interim Refuge Management Goals

Interim goals of the proposed Kingman Reef Refuge reflect the primary mission of the Service, to protect and manage wildlife resources of national importance. Refuge goals would be refined during future comprehensive management planning.

Interim goals to accomplish this mission would be to: o Maintain, restore, and enhance the structure, species composition, and processes of the atoll including coral reefs, lagoon, and pelagic marine environments. o Aid in the recovery of federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds by protecting and managing their habitats on the proposed Refuge.

Interim Refuge objectives: o Upon Refuge establishment, conduct routine monitoring of marine ecosystems and resources to guide management decisions on the Refuge. o Upon Refuge establishment, develop and publish rulemaking for use of vessels in the waters of the Refuge. o Upon Refuge establishment, develop a Refuge safety plan to ensure safe boating operations, and other personnel safety.

0 Upon Refuge establishment establish appropriate navigational aids and other guidelines for mariners to protect shallow reefs. I o Within the first ten years of Refuge establishment, develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kingman Reef.

D. Natural Resources Management Activities

1. Overview

Wildlife and habitat protection and enhancement, endangered and threatened species recovery, monitoring, outreach, and research are key focus areas for the proposed Refuge. In general, the ~--, Service would allow natural processes that support native fish and wildlife to continue. The Service would use the best available information to make its management decisions and seek advice and review from scientists, managers, private conservation partners, and other government agencies.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 10 "'1 I

2. Monitoring surveys

Preliminary surveys have been completed and would help to design future monitoring surveys. Ongoing marine surveys would help document the distribution and status of coral reef communities and species of management concern and would be used to design management programs. The Service would work with the National Marine Fisheries Service to study marine mammals and sea turtles that occur in the waters of the proposed Refuge and to ensure that Refuge activities are consistent with the conservation and recovery of these species. These surveys would be used by Refuge managers and biologists to identify key areas of the Refuge that would be focal points for specific protection or enhancement actions, serve as long-term monitoring sites, and to evaluate opportunities for future visitor use.

3. Endangered and threatened species recovery

Threatened green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are numerous at Kingman Reef. Hawksbill sea I turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) also likely occur there, but were not observed during recent surveys. The Refuge would benefit endangered and threatened speci~s and would help foster I their recovery. The low levels of management activities proposed for the Refuge during the interim time period would not likely adversely affect listed species.

Interim management activities that would benefit listed species i"nclude periodic management visits, population and habitat monitoring, closure of the Refuge to fishing and regulation of vessels within the waters of the Refuge, long term protection of habitat, removal of marine I debris, implementation of law enforcement patrols, and conducting scientific studies. The Service would coordinate its interim Refuge management activities with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Future Refuge activities that may affect listed species require review by the Service and NMFS in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Refuge activities would be explained in detail in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan that would be reviewed by both agencies. Recovery tasks for listed species would be guided by approved recovery plans (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a,b).

4. Other species of management concern

Giant clams (Tridacna spp.) are protected under CITES5 and are rare throughout most of their range where they are harvested for food, the aquarium trade, and for decoration. A number of species of migratory seabirds occur at Kingman Reef, foraging on marine life in the waters of the atoll, and roosting on the emergent spits. Marine mammals are also protected and occur in the waters of the atoll. Management actions on the Refuge that would benefit listed species would also protect other wildlife.

5 CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Species listed in Appendices I, II, or III (and all parts and derivatives thereof, with limited exceptions) are regulated with respect to international transport.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 11 5. Habitat and wildlif~ population monitoring I

Habitat and population monitoring would help the Service to track trends, detect environmental problems, and guide management decisions. Standard techniques for monitoring seabirds, fish, coral, algae, other invertebrates, sea turtles, and marine mammals would be used on the Refuge. I, 6. Habitat management and enhancement

Marine debris would periodically be collected and destroyed off site. Other habitat management may include the installation of mooring buoys to prevent anchor damage to coral reefs; enhancement of navigation maps and installation of navigation aids to prevent accidental groundings; regulation of activities to ensure protection of marine wildlife and migratory birds on the Refuge; and other initiatives as needed.

7. Law enforcement

The Service's Division of Law Enforcement protects fish, wildlife, and plants through a range of "I· law enforcement techniques. These include: surveillance of areas where priority wildlife and fishery resources are concentrated; inspection of shipments entering or leaving the United States at designated ports, border ports, and special ports; investigation of known and suspected violations; distribution of information about Federal wildlife regulations and their enforcement; and submission of evidence of violations to the Department of the Interior and/or the Department of Justice for consideration of civil penalties or criminal prosecution. 1·

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides the administrative regulations concerning Service enforcement of wildlife laws. By law, employees of the Service who are trained in law enforcement and approved as law enforcement officials carry out wildlife law enforcement activities on National Wildlife Refuges. Enforcement of Federal laws and Refuge regulations on the proposed Refuge would be important to protect public property and for the conservation of natural resources.

In general, the Service would seek to maintain law and order and enforce wildlife laws of the United States at Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge, work to prevent illegal activities from occurring on the Refuge, particularly any unauthorized harvest of marine organisms or wildlife products, and to inform citizens of various Federal laws and regulations relating to the protection of fish, wildlife, and plants at Kingman Reef. Should it become necessary, the Service would prosecute violators of Federal laws and Refuge regulations. ~-

8. Research

Scientific information is vital to Refuge management as it forms the basis for management decisions. The Service would support research and resource management studies, provided they were found to be compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and could be accommodated while benefitting other priority Refuge management programs. In general, work that would contribute to the Service's ability to protect and manage the natural resources of Kingman Reef would

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 12 I I receive priority consideration. Research activities would require a Special Use Permit unless the research were already included as part of an approved management plan.

E. Historic Resources

There is no evidence of permanent human settlement on Kingman Reef, and there are no sites that are listed or that is known to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Sites. Once a Refuge is established, activities that have the potential to affect historic properties that may be found in the future, would require review under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section 106 process includes steps to identify and evaluate resources and to ensure that historic properties are treated appropriately, if they are present with the project's area of potential effect.

F. Other Refuge Issues

1. Access I Upon establishment of the Refuge, the Refuge would be closed to public access, until the Service provided for access through additional planning or rulemaking. Although the Service is not proposing to open the Refuge for public lise during the interim period (following Refuge establishment and prior to the development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan), the Refuge Manager may permit low levels of access under Special Use Permits, that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for compatibility and appropriateness. Special Use Permits and associated Compatibility Determinations would be coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and with the public, as appropriate.

2. Navigation and safety

Boating and diving operations in this remote area would be guided by safety plans. The Service envisions the need to develop navigation aids to prevent accidental groundings on the shallow reefs of the Refuge.

The Service would publish rules for mariners. The rules would describe "areas to be avoided," and would provide other guidelines for access. Regulations would not be intended to preclude international rights of innocent passage.

3. Inspection and quarantine programs

The Service would implement an inspection and quarantine program for the Refuge to prevent the accidental introduction of marine and terrestrial alien species. Refuge-specific procedures would outline measures for inspecting vessels and personal belongings prior to visiting the atoll to prevent accidental introductions of pest species.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 13 I

G. Public Use

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National I Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires the Service to consider the potential for six priority public uses on all Refuges during the development of a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) or before, if priority uses exist at the time of Refuge establishment. The six wildlife-dependent priority public uses include recreational hunting, recreational fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Kingman Reef is not open to public access, therefore, no priority public uses are being evaluated for compatibility at this time.

Due to the remote location of the Refuge, the lack of a land base and support facilities to operate a visitor program, and the nearly pristine condition of the coral reef ecosystem, the Service has determined that Kingman Reef would not be open to public use during the interim phase. More information would be needed to evaluate the potential for public use at Kingman Reef. The Service would monitor the reef ecosystem prior to developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Refuge. I V. POTENTIAL REFUGE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET

The Refuge operations and maintenance budget for the Kingman Reef NWR would cover salaries, facilities, equipment, and maintenance, biological surveys, management planning, habitat restoration, interpretive materials (for off-site educational programs), and supplies.

A. Refuge Start-up Costs

First year start-up costs are estimated to be up to $50,000. This level of funding would pennit Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex biologists to undertake migratory bird and coral reef monitoring surveys, and contribute to the evaluation of environmental effects of installing mooring buoys at Kingman Reef.

B. Estimated Refuge Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs

At a conservative staffing level, the annual Refuge operations and maintenance costs are estimated to be up to $100,000, which includes salaries (a proportioned share), logistics, and resource management project costs.

C. Estimated Facilities Costs

Mooring buoys are the only projected facilities needed at Kingman Reef. Although detailed prices are not available., the cost of planning, purchasing components, and installing mooring buoys is estimated to be around $300 apiece for each small buoy based on the costs for mooring buoys currently in use at Molokini Islet, in Hawaii. Large buoys might each cost up to $4,000.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 14 VI. PREPARER AND INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM I A. Preparer Phyllis Y. Ha, Ecologist, Pacific Islands Refuge Planning Office, Honolulu, Hawaii

B. Interdisciplinary Team

Carolyn Bohan, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Forrest Cameron, Refuge Supervisor, National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Elizabeth N. Flint, Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii Ben Harrison, Chief, Land Protection Planning Branch, Region 1, Portland, Oregon A. Eugene Hester, Senior Resident Agent, Division of Law Enforcement, Honolulu, Hawaii Charles J. Houghten, Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon David N. Johnson, Refuge Manager, Pacific Remote Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii Kay Kier-Haggenjos, Writer/Editor, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Jerry F. Leinecke, Project Leader, Hawaiian and Pacific Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Honolulu, Hawaii James E. Maragos, Coral Reef Biologist, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Barbara Maxfield, Public Information Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Stephen B. Moore, Chief, Division of Refuge Operations Support, Region 1, Portland Oregon Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Karen Rosa, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Catherine B. Sheppard, Chief, Division of Realty, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Georgia Shirilla, Senior Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, Region 1, Portland, Oregon Robert P. Smith, former Pacific Islands Manager, Honolulu, Hawaii (participated in project conceptualization and the development of preliminary drafts)

Cartography:

Rodman Low, Geographer, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Susan Machida, Geographer, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii

Other technical assistance:

Kevin B. Foster, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Joseph McDermott, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Don Palawski, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Francesca R. Ryan, Realty Specialist, Division of Realty, Washington, D.C. Karen Sprecher-Keating, Office of the Solicitor, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 15 I

Chris Swenson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii Ronald Walker, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii ·a· David J. Wesley, former Geographic Assistant Regional Director, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, · Portland, Oregon David Woodside, Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, Honolulu, Hawaii Marilet Zablan, Division of Ecological Services, Honolulu, Hawaii

VII. REFERENCES

Drake, C.L., J. Imbrie, J.A. Knauss, and K.K. Turekian. 1978. Oceanography. Holt, Rinehard and Winston. NY. 447 pp. Flint, E. and D. Aycock. 2000. "Kingman Reef." Trip report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ,, Hirschberger, W. 1980. ''Tridacnid clam stocks on Helen Reef, , Western Caroline Islands." Mar. Fish. Rev. 42:8-15.

Holthus, P.F. and J.E. Maragos. 1995. Marine Ecosystem Classification for the Tropical Island Pacific. Pp: 239-278. Chapter 13, In: Marine and Coastal Biodiversity in the Tropical Island Pacific Region, Vol. 1: Species Systematics and Infonnation Management Priorities, Maragos, J.E., M.N.A. Peterson, L.G. Eldredge, J.E. Bardach, and H.F. Takeuchi (eds). East-West Center, Honolulu, 424 pp.

Maragos, J.E. 2000. "Status of Coral Reefs at Kingman Reef, U.S. Line Islands." Summary reporting on the expedition to Kingman Reef on file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Munro, J.L. 1986. "Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement." In: Caddy, J.P. (Ed.) Scientific approaches to management of shellfish resources. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations ofthe Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 84pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 82pp.

Newbold, R. 2000. Unpublished data listing invertebrates seen during dive surveys at the U.S. Line and Phoenix Islands, March-April, 2000.

W ass, R. and E. DeMartini. 2000. Unpublished data listing fishes seen during dive surveys at Kingman Reef, March-April, 2000.

Conceptual Management Plan for the Proposed Kingman Reef NWR Page 16 I

I

Appendix C.

Glossary

I I Appendix C. Glossary

Alien: a species not naturally occurring in an area; also called an "introduced", "nonnative", or "exotic" species.

I Approved Refuge Boundary. A project boundary that the Regional Director and Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approve upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved Refuge boundary only designates those lands that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of a Refuge boundary does not grant the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction or I control over lands within the boundary, and does not by itself make the lands part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands are not included in the National Wildlife Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under an agreement that provides for management as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Biological Diversity or Biodiversity. The variety of life, including the variety ofliving organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities in which they occur.

CITES. Acronym standing for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of I Wild Fauna and Flora. Species listed in Appendices I, II or III (and all parts and derivatives thereof, with limited exceptions) are regulated with respect to import, export and re-export. CITES is implemented statutorily in the United States by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Compatible Use. A use that, in the sound professional judgement ofthe Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the I mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of a National Wildlife Refuge. Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates.

Conceptual Management Plan (C:MP). A document that presents a broad overview of the Service's proposed management approach to lands included within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Management actions are finalized only after additional planning and public input, generally in the form of a CCP.

Ecosystem. A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For the Service's administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems have been designated covering the United States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries and their sizes and respective ecological complexity vary.

I Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page C-1 I Appendix C. (Continued)

Endangered Species. A species that is officially recognized by Federal or State agencies to be I in immediate danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Environmental Assessment (EA). A concise public document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1973, that discusses the purpose and need for an action, considers alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Fathom. A unit of length equal to six feet, used chiefly in nautical and mining measurements.

Habitat. The specific environmental setting (e.g., soil, water, shelter, food, etc.) required by the individuals of a population, variety, subspecies, or species to survive and reproduce.

Marine Protected Area. As defined in Executive Order Number 13158, entitled, Marine Protected Areas, and dated May 26, 2000, the term "Marine Protected Arean (MPA) refers to any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein. Submerged lands and waters within an approved Refuge boundary would fall within this classification. The Executive Order directs certain agencies to work to help protect the significant natural and cultural resources of the marine environment by working to expand and strengthen a network of marine protected areas, and among other activities, to work together to establish and protect the resources of:MP As.

Migratory Bird. An official desigmition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for birds that are covered by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Treaty, and included on official lists. Migratory birds are protected by certain laws in the United States and are a specific category of natural resources that is managed on National Wildlife Refuges.

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). A designated area ofland, water, or an interest in land or I water within the Refuge System. Does not include Coordination Areas.

Native Species. An organism that is indigenous or endemic to a particular area and whose presence in the area is not due to past or present human activities or actions.

Natural Community. Individuals of several native species that occur in the same habitat or region and interact directly or indirectly with one another.

Refuge purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a Refuge, Refuge Unit, or Refuge subunit.

Species. A group of organisms all of which have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms.

Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page C-2 I Appendix C. (Continued)

Threatened Species. A species that is officially recognized by Federal or State agencies as likely to become endangered or extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a I significant portion of its range.

Wildlife-Dependent Visitor Recreational or Educational Use. A use of a Refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six priority public uses of the System as established in the National I Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other uses in the preparation of Refuge CCPs, however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence.

I

I

I

I

I Proposed Kingman ReefNWR Page C-3 I

I

Appendix D.

Executive Orders for

Coral Reef Protection I and Marine Protected Areas I

I I 32701

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 63, No. 115 I Tuesday, June 16, 1998

Title 3- Executive Order 13089 of June 11, 1998

The President Coral Reef Protection

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the I laws of the United States of America and in furtherance of the purposes of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), National Marine Sanctuaries Act, (16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1, et seq.), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), and other pertinent statutes, to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and eco­ nomic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment, it is hereby ordered as follows: I Section I. Deflnitions. (a) "U.S. coral reef ecosystems" means those species, habitats, and other natural resources associated with coral reefs in all mari­ time areas and zones subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States (e.g., Federal, State, territorial, or commonwealth waters), including reef systems in the south Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean. (b) "U.S. Coral Reef Initiative" is an existing partnership between Federal agencies and State, territorial, commonwealth, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and commercial interests to design and im­ plement additional management, education, monitoring, research, and res­ toration efforts to conserve coral reef ecosystems for the use and enjoyment of future generations. The existing U.S. Islands Coral Reef Initiative strategy covers approximately 95 percent of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and is a key element of the overall U.S. Coral Reef Initiative. (c) "International Coral Reef Initiative" is an existing partnership, founded by the United States in 1994, of governments, intergovernmental organizations, multilateral devel­ opment banks, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and the private I sector whose purpose is to mobilize governments and other interested parties whose coordinated, vigorous, and effective actions are required to address the threats to the world's coral reefs. Sec. 2. Policy. (a) All Federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall: (a) identify their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems; (b) utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and (c) to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems. (b) Exceptions to this section may be allowed under terms prescribed by the heads of Federal agencies: (1) during time of war or national emergency; (2) when necessary for reasons of national security, as determined by the President; (3) during emergencies posing an unacceptable threat to human health or safety or to the marine environment and admitting of no other feasible solution; or (4) in any case that constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea, such as cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather or other act of God. 32702 Federal Register/Val. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Presidential Documents

Sec. 3. Federal Agency Responsibilities. In furtherance of section 2 of this order, Federal agencies whose actions affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems, shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, provide for implementation of measures needed to research, monitor, manage, and restore affected eco­ systems, including, but not limited to, measures reducing impacts from I pollution, sedimentation, and fishing. To the extent not inconsistent with statutory responsibilities and procedures, these measures shall be developed in cooperation with the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and fishery management councils and in consultation with affected States, territorial, commonwealth, tribal, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, and commercial interests. Sec. 4. U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall co-chair a U.S. Coral Reef Task Force ("Task Force"), whose members shall include, but not be limited to, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Ad­ ministrator of the Agency for International Development, and the Adminis­ trator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Task Force shall oversee implementation of the policy and Federal agency responsibil­ ities set forth in this order, and shall guide and support activities under the U.S. Coral Reef Initiative ("CRI"). All Federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall review their participation in the CRI and the strategies developed under it, including strategies and plans of State, territorial, commonwealth, and local governments, and, to the extent feasible, shall enhance Federal participation and support of such strategies and plans. The Task Force shall work in cooperation with State, territorial, commonwealth, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, and commercial interests. Sec. 5. Duties of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. (a) Coral Reef Mapping I and Monitoring. The Task Force, in cooperation with State, territory, com­ monwealth, and local government partners, shall coordinate a comprehensive program to map and monitor U.S. coral reefs. Such programs shall include, but not be limited to, territories and commonwealths, special marine pro­ tected areas such as National Marine Sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other entities having significant coral reef resources. To the extent feasible, remote sensing capa­ bilities shall be developed and applied to this program and local communities should be engaged in the design and conduct of programs. (b) Research. The Task Force shall develop and implement, with the scientific community, research aimed at identifying the major causes and consequences of degradation of coral reef ecosystems. This research shall include fundamental scientific research to provide a sound framework for the restoration and conservation of coral reef ecosystems worldwide. To the extent feasible, existing and planned environmental monitoring and map­ ping programs should be linked with scientific research activities. This Executive order shall not interfere with the normal conduct of scientific studies on coral reef ecosystems. (c) Conservation, Mitigation, and Restoration. The Task Force, in coopera­ I tion with State, territorial, commonwealth, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community and commercial interests, shall develop, recommend, and seek or secure implementation of measures necessary to reduce and mitigate coral reef ecosystem degradation and to restore damaged coral reefs. These measures shall include solutions to problems such as land-based sources of water pollution, sedimentation, detrimental alteration of salinity or temperature, over-fishing, over-use, col­ lection of coral reef species, and direct destruction caused by activities I such as recreational and commercial vessel traffic and treasure salvage. In developing these measures, the Task Force shall review existing legislation I Federal Register/Val. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Presidential Documents 32703

to determine whether additional legislation is necessary to complement the policy objectives of this order and shall recommend such legislation if appropriate. The Task Force shall further evaluate existing navigational aids, including charts, maps, day markers, and beacons to determine if the designa­ .I tion of the location of specific coral reefs should be enhanced through the use, revision, or improvement of such aids. (d) International Cooperation. The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, in cooperation with other members of the Coral Reef Task Force and drawing upon their expertise, shall assess the U.S. role in international trade and protection of coral reef species and implement appropriate strategies and actions to promote conservation and sustainable use of coral reef resources worldwide. Such I actions shall include expanded collaboration with other International Coral Reef Initiative ("ICRI") partners, especially governments, to implement the ICRI through its Framework for Action and the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network at regional, national, and local levels. Sec. 6. This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or proce­ dural, enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. I

THE , june 11, 1998. [FR Doc. 98-16161 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am] I Billing code 3195-01-P

I I Federal Register/Val. 65, No. lOS/Wednesday, May 31, 2000/Presidential Documents 34909

Presidential Documents

Executive Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 Marine Protected Areas

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the I laws of the United States of America and in furtherance of the purposes of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362 et seq.), Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (42 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), and other pertinent statutes, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order will help protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations by strengthening and expanding the Na­ tion's system of marine protected areas (MP As). An expanded and strength­ ened comprehensive system of marine protected areas throughout the marine environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future generations. To this end, the purpose of this order is to, consistent with domestic and international law: (a) strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing ma­ rine protected areas and establish new or expanded MPAs; (b) develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems, and the Nation's natural and cultural re­ sources; and (c) avoid causing harm to MP As through federally conducted, approved, or funded activities. I Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order: (a) "Marine protected area" means any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein. (b) "Marine environment" means those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands there­ under, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law. (c) The term "United States" includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Co=onwealth of , the Virgin Islands of the United States, , Guam, and the Co=onwealth of the North­ em Mariana Islands. Sec. 3. MPA Establishment, Protection, and Management. Each Federal agen­ cy whose authorities provide for the establishment or management of MPAs shall take appropriate actions to enhance or expand protection of existing MPAs and establish or recommend, as appropriate, new MP As. Agencies implementing this section shall consult with the agencies identified in sub­ section 4(a) of this order, consistent with existing requirements. Sec. 4. National System of lv1PAs. (a) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department 34910 Federal Register/Val. 65, No. 105/Wednesday, May 31, 2000/Presidential Documents

of Defense, the Department of State, the United States Agency for Inter­ I national Development, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and other pertinent Federal agencies shall develop a national system of :.MP As. They shall coordi­ nate and share information, tools, and strategies, and provide guidance to I enable and encourage the use of the following in the exercise of each agency's respective authorities to further enhance and expand protection of existing :tvfP As and to establish or recommend new :.MP As, as appropriate: (1) science-based identification and prioritization of natural and cultural resources for additional protection; (2) integrated assessments of ecological linkages among :tvfP As, including ecological reserves in which consumptive uses of resources are prohibited, to provide synergistic benefits; (3) a biological assessment of the minimum area where consumptive uses would be prohibited that is necessary to preserve representative habitats in different geographic areas of the marine environment; (4) an assessment of threats and gaps in levels of protection currently afforded to natural and cultural resources, as appropriate; (5) practical, science-based criteria and protocols for monitoring and evalu­ ating the effectiveness of :tvfP As; (6) identification of emerging threats and user conflicts affecting :tvfP As and appropriate, practical, and equitable management solutions, including effective enforcement strategies, to eliminate or reduce such threats and conflicts; (7) assessment of the economic effects of the preferred management solu­ tions; and (8) identification of opportunities to improve linkages with, and technical I assistance to, international marine protected area programs. "'"' (b) In carrying out the requirements of section 4 of this order, the Depart­ ment of Commerce and the Department of the Interior shall consult with those States that contain portions of the marine environment, the Common­ wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and other entities, as appro­ priate, to promote coordination of Federal, State, territorial, and tribal actions to establish and manage :tvfP As. (c) In carrying out the requirements of this section, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior shall seek the expert advice and recommendations of non-Federal scientists, resource managers, and other interested persons and organizations through a Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee. The Committee shall be established by the Department of Commerce. (d) The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior shall establish and jointly manage a website for information on :tvfP As and Federal agency reports required by this order. They shall also publish and maintain a list of :tvfP As that meet the definition of :tvfP A for the purposes of this order. (e) The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall establish a Marine Protected Area Center to carry out, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, the requirements of subsection 4(a) of this order, coordinate the website established pursuant to subsection 4(d) of this order, and partner with governmental and non­ governmental entities to conduct necessary research, analysis, and explo­ ration. The goal of the :tvfP A Center shall be, in cooperation with the Depart­ ment of the Interior, to develop a framework for a national system of :tvfP As, and to provide Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments with the information, technologies, and strategies to support the system. This Federal Register/Val. 65, No. 105/Wednesday, May 31, 2000/Presidential Documents 34911

national system framework and the work of the MPA Center is intended to support, not interfere with, agencies' independent exercise of their own existing authorities. (f) To better protect beaches, coasts, and the marine environment from pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying upon existing Clean Water Act authorities, shall expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment. Such regulations may include the identification of areas that warrant additional pollution protections and the enhancement of marine water quality standards. The EPA shall consult with the Federal agencies identified in subsection 4(a) of this order, States, territories, tribes, and the public in the development of such new regulations. Sec. 5. Agency Responsibilities. Each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by an MP A shall identify such actions. To the extent permitted by law and to the maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency, in taking such actions, shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA. In implementing this section, each Federal agency shall refer to the MPAs identified under subsection 4(d) of this order. Sec. 6. Accountability. Each Federal agency that is required to take actions under this order shall prepare and make public annually a concise description of actions taken by it in the previous year to implement the order, including a description of written comments by any person or organization stating that the agency has not complied with this order and a response to such comments by the agency. Sec. 7. International Law. Federal agencies taking actions pursuant to this Executive Order must act in accordance with international law and with Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, on the Territorial Sea of the United States of America, Presidential Proclamation 5030 of I March 10, 1983, on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, and Presidential Proclamation 7219 of September 2, 1999, on the Contiguous Zone of the United States. Sec. 8. General. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed as altering existing authorities regarding the establishment of Federal MPAs in areas of the marine environment subject to the jurisdiction and control of States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin I Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian tribes. (b) This order does not diminish, affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights or United States trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. (c) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 26, 2000.

[FR Doc. OD-~3830

Filed 5-3Q-OO; ~2:14 pm]

Billing code 3~95-0~-P Appendix E.

Other Executive Orders

I

I I ------

( ''. \. ..-~J:- .; ...~ .... \... 1.1 '1 t ~lier~ll:ti,., 4 0 1 lS' 13'

,. : ~ .-

a· -- -· _...

jJ' ..

. •'

.. - .. I~ '. -,._-.. . / ..... KINGMAN '' I 1 . .

6~ .. ~·.

...... I i . •i ...!._._ -

-·. -- .. ·rr--- .

~;;;.

JOHNSTON !SL4u.~D ~J) ;....I. -~ ISL&~D ~~ f SAND l '·. ..., ..

I :• !,.. -~·.,.·" 1.;:;,.

I I I . '

PLAciNG CERTAIN IsLANDs IN 'l'HE P~ciFIC OcEAN UNDER .. 1~HE CoNTROL r- .... :~ J.> AND JURISDICTION OF THE SECRE'l'ARY OF THE NAVY /.

WAKE ISLAND1 KINGMAN REEF, A~!? .~?HKSTON AKD SAXD !SLANDS

By virtue of and pursuant to tho authority vested in mo by tho uct of Juno 25, , . ::1910, ch. 421,' 36 Stu.t. 847, as amen_dcd by tho act of August 24, 1912, ch. 3G9, 37 0 ~t 0

·:·'Stat.. 497, n.nd as President of the 'GnitodStutes,...... it. - .is ordered that Wn.ke Island· · located in tho Pacific Ocen.n approximately in latitude 19°17'28" N. n.nd longitude 166°34'42" E. from G:rcenwich, Kingman Reef ·located in tho Pacific Ocean u.pproxi- nlatcly in lo.titude 6°24'37" N. and longitude 162°22' \V. from Greon·wich, a:1d J<:>hnston and Sand .Islands .loco.tcd in tho Pacific Oceo.n o.pproximntdy in }Qt.iLud~ ... i .___I . 10°44'32" N. o.nd longituCl.o 1G9°30'50"' W. from. Greenwich, together >>--ith t.hQ

\ : reefs surrounding all the aforcsn.id islands, o.s indico.tod upon tho din.gro.m hereto · atto.ched and mn.do a part of this order, be, n.nd they are hereby, reSC!'YCd, set aside, I { -• o •- and placed under tho control n.nd jurisdi.ction of tho Sccretn.ry of the Nil.YY for adm-in~ . istrative purposes: subj.~ct, l~;\~ro\;~r;·t·O .tl~~ U~~ ;f· tl;c-S;~ iu i~h~-;to~-;;a:· S;~~:d I;l~~ds ""; .. ' . by tho Dopn.rt1"0nt of Agriculture. u.s 11 refuge u.nd breeding grl?.~~:J..~or _rw.t~vo birds I . · u.s providcC: by Executive Oraer No. 44G7 of June 29, 1026~ . ' . . . ' . . . . - ·- .. ·rr-- This order shall continuo in full force and olioct unless· and until r?vo~9- by tho : President or by act of Congress. -- I . . ---~- . t FRA.!.'\KLIN D ROOSEVELT.-.--=::::.-~·.:=..· T::s:E W::s:rTE HousE, ' December 29, 1984. I If

• .. ..-. .. '· . .

; . i

···' . ' ' [No.·6935] ------··-·, '\ ---.' -~~~.--... , ...... , s

. 1- /. - - .. -~ , ...... ' ·- 1._../' o : I . ,----,, {. ""'"'f }~ - ... ..L .• ~ ..... / ;... . . ~:~ f~~

·,.

~ EIXC!J'niE .CRIERS NOS,. ~~ 86!2, ..om.. 8683 or !'£fm.'tt&BX 14, l.9U. zstlBLISR­ DiO m:R.~.ll)( tU.1'A.L JJDdSiiE BEL ~li.EAS m lU.VAI.llltSP.lCE RESERVll'IO!lS

Tl:!A ~ 11ths tarritcrle.l. wr:tt«r8 batW&cm tbe U:• 0 • 0 • '\:

oec-nrriilg in tha ~.ir•t ~ ot h.eatrtive ~" ~G4. Sb80, a6S2.r ud. .e68.3 or Fobruuy 1.4, 1.941.. eat..bllahing oer-

ta.1n n ..val ds!ensi~ ass. areaa IUl-4 nrrol. dr&JS,ae re~- - - ti®a, i.e beril=:" ~cteod t.o rea-d ·~'hs t.en-i.tcdd wa:ters - I be t.wee: tht axtrem.. high-enter mrkzr 8Il4 t~ thrM-mil.e · z:u3..M bcnm.duiatt. 1! .

-----~~.-..-~-- DOO.. 50.. ll.4 c 0 p ~ . - / .~....& ("t) I

PROCLA."'dATI ONS No. 5928 \2:;-::~mation 5923 of Deeam~r '7!!· 1saa Territorial Sea·. of the United States of America 54F.R. 777

:Sy ihe Pre~ident of the Unit~ State$ _of America

A Prodama tion international law recrigniu:s .th.at cOastal nations ma1 exercise ~Dvereignty I snd jurisdiction over their territorial seas. The territorial aea of the United Statel5 is a maritime zone extending beyond the. !and territory and internal waters of the United State3 over which the· United Stat~ exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction, a sDvereignty and juri3- I diction that exten-d to the airspace over the territorial sea. as well as to its bed and subsoil. · . · · · · · - . . .. Extensiort_ of tile territorial sea by the. United States to the limits permitted by intem~t!~rial ~w will advance the national !ecurity and other signifiqmt - ·.... intere3ts of. the United States. .. · . NOW, TBER.EFO~ L RONALD REACA.i'i. by the authority vested in me as President hy )he Cdnstitution of the Uni~ed States of America. a.!!d in accord­ ance·wii:!r intefna tionallaw, do hereby prodaim the extension of ~ terri tori­ . al se·a. of the United Sta~es of America~ the Commonwealth of Pu-erto Rico, . Gucpn, J\roef\qan Samoa, the United 'States V!rgin Islands, the Commonwealth of t'ne Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sove~ignty. The territmial sea of the. United States h~nceforth extends !a 1Z nautical mile! from the baselines of the United State3 determined in

In accordan~ with iiltemationallaw. as reflected in the applicable provision:! of !he 1SSZ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within the territorial sea of the United Statas. the ships of all counl'ies enjoy the right of innocent passage and tbe ship~ and alr:craft of ali countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international ~traits. ·I Nothing m this Proclamation: (a} e:xtends or otherwise alter;; existing Federal or State law or any jurisriic­ ti1J~ rights, legal interests, or obligations derived L~erefrom~ or:' -· \b} impain the determination. in accordance. with internation~J law, of any mariti~ boundary of the United State~ with ~'foreign jurisdiction. IN W1'INESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto.; set ~y band· thi; Z7th day of I December, in the year. of our Lord nineteen .hundred and. eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United State~ oL America the two hundred and thirteenth. . ' ·

A293 Executive Order 8682--Establishing naval defensive sea areas around and naval airspace reservations over the islands of Palmyra, Johnston, Midway, Wake, and Kingman Reef

Source: The provisions ofExecutive Order 8682 ofFeb. 14, 1941, appear at 6 FR 1015, 3 CFR, 1938-1943 Camp., p. 894, unless otherwise noted.

Pacific Ocean

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the provisions of section 44 of the Criminal Code, as amended (U.S.C., title 18, sec. 96), and section 4 of the Air Commerce Act approved May 20, 1926 (44 Stat. 570, U.S. C., title 49, sec. 174), the territorial waters between the extreme high-water marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding the islands of Palmyra, Johnston, Midway, Wake, and Kingman Reef, in the Pacific Ocean, are hereby established and reserved as naval defensive sea areas for purposes of national defense, such as areas to be known, respectively, as "Palmyra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area", "Johnston Island Naval Defensive Sea Area", "Midway Island Naval Defensive Sea 1 Area", " Naval Defensive Sea Area \ and "Kingman Reef Naval Defensive Sea Area" and the airspaces over the said territorial waters and islands are hereby set apart and reserved as naval airspace reservations for purposes of national defense, such reservations to be known, respective, as "Palmyra Island Naval Airspace Reservation", "Johnston Island 1 Naval Airspace Reservation \ "Midway Island Naval Airspace Reservation\ "Wake Island Naval Airspace Reservation", and "Kingman ReefNa val Airspace Reservation".

At no time shall any person, other than persons on public vessels of the United States, enter any of the naval defensive sea areas herein set apart and reserved, nor shall any vessel or other craft, other than public vessels of the United States, be navigated into any of said areas, unless authorized by the Secretary ofthe Navy.

At' no time shall any aircraft, other than public aircraft of the United States, be navigated into any of the naval airspace reservations herein set apart and reserved, unless authorized by the Secretary of the Navy.

. ···. The provisions of the preceding paragraphs shall be enforced by the Secretary of the Navy, with the cooperation of the local law enforcement officers of the United States and of the ; and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out such provisions.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this order relating to the above-named naval defensive sea areas shall be subject to the penalties provided by section 44 of the Criminal Code as amended (U.S.C., title 18, sec. 96), and any person violating any of the provisions of this order relating to the above-named naval airspace reservations shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 193 8 (52 Stat. 973).

This order shall take effect ninety days after date hereof.

[EO 8682 amended by EO 8729 of Apr. 2, 1941, 6 FR 1791,3 CFR, 1938-1941 Camp., p. 919}

Editorial note: Executive Order 9881 of Aug. 4, 1947, 12 FR 5325, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Camp., p. 662, discontinued the Palmyra Island Naval Airspace Reservation and the Palmyra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area.