•'*

SYNOPSIS WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

A. Background The Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge encompasses a series of eight islands, reefs and shoals in the Central Pacific Ocean, almost 3,000 miles southwest of San Francisco. The refuge extends over 800 miles, in a chain known as the Northwestern or Leeward Hawaiian Islands, between Midway and the main Hawaiian Islands. The proposed wilderness includes almost the entire refuge. The refuge was established by Executive Order in 1909 after a long period of careless destruction and commercial exploitation of the island's resources. The refuge was set aside as a sanctuary and breeding ground for sea birds--sea bird rookeries on the refuge are among the world's largest. Today, the refuge is managed for those objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System consistent with the island's unique ecosystem. The Executive Order establishing the refuge reflect that era's incomplete knowledge of this region. The various islands, reefs, and shoals were withdrawn by name only, with indications on a map of the location and extent of the unit. Exact boundaries have never been determined and are further compli- cated by a complex legal history from discovery to the present day. In today's world, a more definable boundary is needed for adequate management. The boundary question is currently under nego- tiation between the State of and the Federal Government. The wilderness proposal reflects the present boundary as agreed upon by both parties at this time. The proposed wilderness would include the entire Hawaii Islands Refuge except and immediately adjacent disturbed submerged lands and a ship channel to the island. Immense numbers of sea birds depend upon the islands as a nesting area. Hundreds of thousands of albatrosses which have been roaming the North Pacific from North America to Asia return to the islands to nest. Each year a million or more sooty terns nest on Island and many hundreds of thousands more on other islands. Esti- mates of burrowing species—shearwaters and petrels--place daytime populations on Island at half a million birds. Since most of these birds are nocturnal and spend the daylight hours fishing at sea, numbers present on the island at night are beyond guess. Some 18 different sea birds nest on the refuge, taking their turns throughout the year—for all could not find nesting room at the same time. The more notable include: Laysan and black-footed albatrosses; gray-backed and sooty terns; wedge-tailed and Christmas Island shearwaters; Bulwer's and Bonin Island petrels; common and Hawaiian noddies; three species of boobies; frigate birds and tropic birds; and the small white fairy tern. Several birds are found only on islands of the refuge. Several other endemic birds are now extinct. The entire world population of Laysan teal—about 175 birds—remains on Laysan Islands. The Laysan finch, population 10,000, is found only on their native Laysan and on Southeast Island in Pearl and Hermes Reef, where they were introduced. About 3,500 Nihoa finches and 600 Nihoa millerbirds survive on Nihoa Island. Three land birds—all once found on Laysan only—are extinct. They include a millerbird, a red honey creeper, and a flightless rail. Almost the entire world population of the -- about 1,000—live and breed on the refuge. And, is the most important nesting area for the remaining in the North Central Pacific and in the Nation. No changes in management will be necessary under wilderness. Present management emphasizes protection and restoration of natural environmental qualities and the extension of man's knowledge of the islands' ecosystems. Public use of the refuge islands is limited to investigators engaged in authorized and carefully regulated research. No recre- ational use is permitted. The islands are remote and access is diffi- cult. Careless or uninformed visitors could be very destructive to the rookeries. Accidental introductions of pest plants or insects in clothing or equipment is a definite threat. Under wilderness, no changes in public use will be made. The proposed wilderness includes all lands both emergent and submerged in the refuge except Tern Island in French Frigate Shoals. Military development on Tern Island during the Second World War permanently altered the island's character. Today* the island looks much like a giant aircraft carrier. The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a manned LORAN Station on the island under a cooperative agreement. These facilities are carefully regulated to prevent dis- ruption of other islands or lagoon waters of the shoals. Tern Island is also used as a refuge "subheadquarters" where equipment is housed. Also, a small refuge research facility is under construction on the island. The proposed wilderness totals about 255,878 acres. About 1,742 acres are emerged lands above mean high tide. The remainder are submerged lands below the level of mean high tide. The proposed wilder- ness does not include the waters overlying the submerged lands. These waters are navigable and not under the sole jurisdiction of the refuge.

B. Description The refuge and proposed wilderness encompasses a series of eight islands, reefs and shoals, almost 800 miles from end to end. Geologically, the islands are part of a chain of huge underwater peaks marking the summits of extinct submarine volcanoes. Over the eons the direction of volcanic activity in the chains has progressed from northwest to southeast, with the Island of Hawaii typifying the younger volcanic stage and , like Midway, the ancient eroded stage at the opposite end of the spectrum. The various islands and reefs of the refuge are remnants of this past and perhaps were once as large or larger than today's main Hawaii Island. Rising about 900 feet above the sea, Nihoa is the second largest, nearest to the main islands, and presumably youngest of the refuge islands. The most striking feature of its 174 acres is a series of irregular vertical cliffs forming the island's edge on three sides. Like its neighboring volcanic islands—Necker and -- it lacks beaches and fringing reefs. Landing on the islands is extremely hazardous. Nihoa is rivaled only by Laysan Island in animal and plant variety. West of Nihoa is at 47 acres and shaped like a giant fishhook. The island is predominantly exposed volcanic rock with low-growing vegetation limited to its upper portions. The third unit in the chain is French Frigate Shoals, an with low sandy islets in an incomplete fringing reef. The reef is about 18 miles tip to tip and 10 miles wide. heads are scattered throughout the lagoon, many rising abruptly to within a few feet of the surface. There are currently 11 coral-sand islets within the lagoon. Tern Island is the largest at 27 acres. Some islands are subject to constantly changing shape with storms and shifting currents. French Frigate Shoals is the largest refuge unit, but only 65 of its 106,100 acres rise above mean high tide. t Gardner Pinnacles, the fourth unit, is the westernmost island. It may well be the oldest piece of lava remaining above the ocean in the Hawaiian chain. The main island and satellite rocks total about 5 acres and are almost completely devoid of vegetation. Near the midpoint of the refuge is . Maro is a vast network of coral reefs covering over 70 square miles. At high water it is entirely submerged except for a single coral head extending about 2 feet above the surface. At low tide, reefs are exposed throughout the area and are interspersed with channels up to 10 fathoms deep. The reef is an excellent example of a marine ecosystem not associated with an island and is, therefore, unlike any other refuge unit. The reef is rich in biological resources and is an important area for feeding sea birds. Laysan and Lisianski--the fifth and sixth units—are low, elongated islands associated with extensive reefs and shallow waters. Laysan, at 1,020 acres, is the largest refuge island. It is about a mile wide and 2 miles long, rising about 35 feet above sea level. A slight fringing reef exists close inshore along parts of the island. Lisianski has no fringing reef, but there is an extensive shallow water area associated with the island. Both islands are remarkably similar. A shallow, highly saline closed lagoon about a mile long and half a mile wide exists in the center of Laysan. A lagoon also once existed on Lisianski but it filled in prehistoric times. Gradual addition of organic materials to the parent soil has created a fertile soil supporting dense, low growing vegetation over both islands. Plant and animal life are abundant, but Lisianski cannot rival Laysan in variety. Rabbits reduced both islands literally to sandy wastes in the early 1900's. Today, they have recovered in appearance but recovery is probably still occurring. Pearl and Hermes Reef, the westernmost of the refuge units, is a typical atoll. It is elliptical in outline, about 19 miles long and 10 miles wide, and almost completely enclosed by a barrier reef. The atoll contains seven islets, the largest of which is Southeast Island at 31 acres. Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals exhibit many similarities. Each of the refuge units is different—different in character of the topography, different in biological resources, and different in problems to be coped with. Proper management of the refuge is manage- ment of each refuge unit as an entity in itself and as one ecosystem of both emergent and submergent lands and resources. Therefore, the refuge boundary has, where possible, been established to account for each area's peculiarities. Nihoa, Necker, Gardner Pinnacles, and Lisianski are distinct islands with no definable reef. The refuge on these islands extends to the line of mean lower low tide around the land masses. On Laysan, the refuge encompasses the land mass and extends to the outer edge of the fringing reef, where it exists, to mean lower low tide. On Maro Reef the refuge includes all lands, within an. area, defined by straight lines, from the outer edges of reef headland to reef headland. Points on the outer headlands are those at mean lower low tide. The configuration of the refuge is trapazoidal. On French Frigate Shoals the boundary extends around the outer edge of the barrier reef, where it exists, along the line of mean lower low tide. Where the reef is indistinct, the boundary proceeds from point to point again at the line of mean lower low tide. On Pearl and Hermes Reef, the boundary follows the outer edge of the barrier reef at mean lower low tide almost completely around the atoll. The boundary of the proposed wilderness is identical with that of the refuge except for the omission of Tern Island and adjacent submerged lands in French Frigate Shoals (Table 1). Table 1 Refuge Lands Suitable and Non-Suitable for Wilderness !_/ Acres Suitable Acres Non-Suitable Refuge Unit Emergent 2/ Submergent 3/ Emergent Submergent Nihoa 174 1 Necker 47 8 French Frigate Shoals 38 105,795 27 240 Gardner Pinnacles 5 57 Maro Reef 4/ 52,000 Laysan Island 1,020 795 383 32 Pearl & Hermes Reef 75 95,505 SUB TOTAL: 1,742 254,136 27 240 GRAND TOTAL: 255,878 267

I/ all acreages are rough estimates by planimeter on nautical charts ?/ all lands above the line of mean high tide 3/ all lands below the line of mean high tide less than 1 acre In the absence of a definitive boundary prior to the public hearing, an arbitrary refuge boundary was used. The arbitrary boundary included both emergent and submerged lands within the 15-fathom con- tour of Nihoa; the 10-fathom contour of Necker, Gardner Pinnacles, Maro Reef, Laysan and Lisianski; and the barrier reefs of Pearl and Hermes Reef, and French Frigate Shoals. Differences between these two sets of boundaries are reflected in Table 2. Table 2 Area Proposed for Wilderness - At Public Hearing and Current ]_/ Total Acres Proposed for Wilderness 2_/ Refuge Unit At Public Hearing Current Proposal Nihoa 800 175 Necker 580 55 French Frigate Shoals 107,505 105,833 Gardner Pinnacles 90 5 Maro Reef 44,893 52,000 Laysan Island 7,104 1,815 Lisianski Island 47,383 415 Pearl & Hermes Reef 95,581 95,580 TOTAL: 303,936 255,878 ]_/ all differences involve submerged lands only; i.e., those lands below the line of mean high tide. All acreages are rough estimates by planimeter on nautical charts. 2/ Includes both emergent and submerged lands. Current boundaries on Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals are very similar to those proposed at the hearing. Small differ- ences exist on Nihoa, Necker, Gardner Pinnacles, and Maro Reef. The greatest difference is on Lisianski. Due to the sensitive nature of refuge boundary questions and possible international implications, reference to the boundary question was held to a minimum. The tentative nature of the proposal boundaries, as presented at the public hearing, was not emphasized to as great a degree as would otherwise be desirable. Since the public hearing, the State of Hawaii and the Department of the Interior have reached agree- ment on a mutually acceptable refuge boundary. This boundary has also been adopted as the proposed wilderness boundary. C. Management Management of the refuge, with or without wilderness, will be virtually identical. Management emphasizes protection and restoration of natural environments and the extension of knowledge through research. These activities as presently carried out and as planned in the future, will be completely compatible with wilderness. The refuge is administrated from an office in Kailua on the island of . Periodic visits are made to the refuge for wildlife popula- tion inventories, special scientific studies and general surveillance. Travel is by ship and aircraft through the courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy. In recent years, only about three trips to the refuge have been made annually; even then, not all islands were visited. Trips have occurred on an opportunistic irregularly-scheduled basis as transportation has become available. More frequent visits and more flexibility in timing is badly needed. Landings on the islands are by small boat and by helicopter. Both systems of transportation are the only feasible means of landing and must continue under wilderness. Beyond refuge signs, no refuge de- velopment has occurred on the area proposed for wilderness and no significant developments are planned. There is a need to create safer landing sites at some of the islands and to provide rustic shelter for ground parties. These types of developments will be minimal but are most desirable for the safety of management personnel and refuge visi- tors. Landing on some of the islands is extremely hazardous. There are no commercial uses presently being made of refuge re- sources. It is possible that some potential for commercial fishing exists, particularly in lagoon waters of French Frigate Shoals and Pearl and Hermes Reef. Since the waters of the refuge are not inclu- ded in the proposed wilderness, there would be no direct conflict between such uses and wilderness. However, it is noted that if any such use does occur in the future, it must be carefully regulated to prevent unauthorized and unsupervised landings on the islands proper, and to insure that the natural values of undersea resources and ecosystems are not damaged.

D. Wilderness Public Hearing Record A public hearing announcement was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on February 21, 1973. Written notification of the hearing and infor- nation" about the proposal were sent to Governor JOHN A. BURNS of Hawaii, and 61 members of the Hawaii State Legislature; U.S. Senators HIRAM L.FONG and DANIEL K. INOUYE. and Representatives SPARK M. MATSUNAGPt and'PATSY T. MINK; tfieTespective Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs; 5 Hawaii State Officials and agencies; 18 Federal agencies and departments; about 280 citizen organizations; and about 900 individuals. Each was sent a public hearing announcement and brochure summarizing the wilderness study and proposal. The hearing was held in , Hawaii, on April 14, 1973. Mr. CHARLES R. RENDA. Regional Solicitor, Sacramento Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, was the hearing officer. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was represented by Mr. JOHN D. FINDLAY, Regional Director, Portland, Oregon. There were 53 people in attend- ance (besides the Bureau personnel). 1. The Public Hearing A total of 16 statements was presented at the hearing by persons other than the hearing officer and Bureau representatives. In addition, 3 statements for the record were received, but not presented orally. Of the 19 statements for the record, 10 supported the proposal as presented by the Bureau; 7 supported the proposal with the addition to the proposed wilderness; and 2 were opposed to the proposal in part. No statements were made in complete opposition. Mr. SUNAO KIDO. Chairman of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, represented Governor JOHN A. BURNS, and the State of Hawaii. He expressed the State's opposition to include submerged lands until the question of refuge boundaries has been settled. "We . . . concur with the inclusion of the land masses above the ocean in the proposed wilderness; we question the inclusion of the submerged lands because the question of the refuge boundary still remains unresolved." The State expressed interest in the "potential for diversified commercial fishing operations as well as possible recreational use." The State advocates proper management and the setting aside of "representative marine reserve areas and development of fishery potential." Robert Way. Planning Director for the City and County of Honolulu, represented tne Mayor and quoted the Mayor's letter for the record. "I would like to add my full support for the proposal . . .". The Mayor expressed "a personal interest ... as the refuge lies com- pletely within the boundaries of the City and County of Honolulu." The Mayor urged that the refuge's marine environment be preserved intact. In a statement received for the record, Mr. GERALD HASHIMOTO. representing the Tuna Boat Owners Association (Honolulu) opposed the inclusion of submerged lands on the basis that wilderness would pre- vent their use of the fishery. The Association is interested in the refuge islands principally as a source of bait fish for the skip- jack fishery. Mr. Eric Laysan Schlemmer spoke in favor of the wilderness proposal Mr. Schlemmer was born on Laysan Island (March 22, 1903). The Environmental Committee of Hawaiian Botanical Society, Citizens for Hawaii, Wilderness Society, Hawaiian Entomological Society, Department of Anthropology of the , Department of Entomology, Hawaiian Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and two in- dividuals supported the proposal as presented by the Bureau. Seven statements were in favor of the proposal with additions to the proposed wilderness. The Confederation of Western Outdoor Clubs, National Organization of Western Outdoor Clubs, National Organization of Friends of the Earth, and Honolulu office of Friends of the Earth, urged that offshore undersea lands and waters to 3 miles offshore of every island be included in the wilderness. The Hawaiian Audubon Society, Honolulu Chapter of Zero Population Growth and one individual said the wilderness should include refuge waters as well as their underlying submerged lands. Two of the above statements urged that the status of Kure be clarified. One felt that those parts of Kure island and Midway, not occupied by the military should be added to wilderness. Life of the Land, a Hawaiian based organization, urged that no commercial use of the marine biota be permitted, while the Honolulu office of Friends of the Earth agreed with the "proposed" fishing on refuge waters. The Environmental Committee of the Hawaiian Botanical Society said that exact landing sites proposed for improvement should be located more precisely, while the Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, was opposed to ramps and rustic shelters as open invitations to trespass. Several statements pointed out the tremendous value of the refuge for scientific purposes and urged continued safeguards against un- authorized entry and contamination of the islands. The Hawaiian Entomological Society and Dr. John Beardsley of the University of Hawaii emphasized the unique insect life of the islands. Almost 50 species of insects are endemic to the refuge and are found no- where else. At least 7 became extinct on Laysan as a result of human disturbance. The Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, advocates limited excavation of some archaeological sites on Nihoa and Necker, and a survey of other islands. Excavational methods would be consistent with wilderness. One speaker noted the role of sea bird colonies in the distri- bution of viral disease—a potentially valuable research opportunity. No immediate human health threat, however, exists. 2. Communications from elected public officials Letters were received from 3 elected officials. One opposed the proposal in part and 2 supported the proposal as presented. A letter was received from Governor JOHN A. BURNS of Hawaii prior to the hearing. He said "while I endorse the general concept of classifying portions of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, I question the inclusion of the 302,400 acres of submerged lands in the proposal." He also noted the refuge boundary problems and indicated that further contact will be through Mr. SUNAO KIDQ. Mr. Kido expressed the same position at the public hearing. Mr. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Senator from Hawaii, supported the proposal saying "... the proposal for an addition of 303,936 acres of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to the National Wilderness Preservation System is to be fully supported. To support this proposal is to advance the interest of future generations as well as the inter- ests of science of the sea. Let us all commit ourselves to those ends." Prior to the hearing, a letter was received from Mr. SPARK MATSUNAGA, U.S. Representative, 1st district, Hawaii, indicating he intended to make a statement. His statement, received after the hearing, said "I wish to express my complete support for the proposal to designate as wilderness, under the terms of the Wilderness Act of 1964, the islands and submerged lands constituting the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge." He further expressed concern over population growth leading to an altered character of the Hawaiian Islands. The limited opportunities for wilderness in Hawaii were also noted. The letter fully supported strict control of access to the islands. 3. Communications from State and Local Officials and State Departments and Agencies A statement was received from ROBERT R. WAY, Planning Director, City and County of Honolulu, in reference to the Environmental Im- pact Statement, expressing "no objections to the proposal." Mr. Way subsequently made a statement for the Mayor favoring the proposal at the public hearing. The Director, Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan, supported the proposal. 4. Communications from Federal Officials, Departments and Agencies Seven letters were received in this category. Five took no position, one favored the proposal, and one opposed with "mixed emotion." GEORGE D. LEA, Acting Assistant, Bureau of Land Management, ex- pressed opposition. He supported the idea of protection but questioned the applicability of the Wilderness Act for the action. He said "Addition of these islands to the Wilderness System could result in a more liberal interpretation of the Act than has heretofore been expressed." Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, favored the proposal, stating, "We fully concur with your report findings concerning wilderness status for . . . Refuge." A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior noted that no mineral survey has been made by the Geological Survey or Bureau of Mines. He further stated, "However, the reported minor mineral resources of phosphate and sand would seem to be of little significance relative to the value of adding this refuge to the Wilder- ness System." A letter from the Acting Director, Geological Survey, also took no position and noted no mineral survey. BENJAMIN 0. DAVIS JR.. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Consumer Office of the Office of Secretary of Transpor- tation, said the proposal would be forwarded to the Coast Guard for comment. No comments were received from the Coast Guard. The Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, has "no comments to offer." BETSY ANKER - JOHNSON. Assistant Secretary for Sciences and Technology, Secretary of Commerce, had "no comments to offer." A letter was received from P.H. KUTSCHENREUTER. Director, Pacific Region, National Weather Service, Department of Commerce. He took no position on the proposal but stated his Service's desire to in- stall remote sensing meteorological stations on several islands of the refuge. Mr. Kutschenreuter noted that approval of the station installations is related to the wilderness proposal. 5. Communications from Organizations A total of 35 letters was received from citizen organizations. The Bureau's proposal was supported by 29; three favored wilderness, but said that the waters of the refuge should also be included in wilderness. Two opposed the proposal outright, and one was opposed in part. The American Mining Congress was opposed "until such time as a thorough mineral survey has been completed." The WUN (Wyoming-Utah- Nevada) Chapter of Outdoors Unlimited, Inc., was also totally opposed. They said, "All the protection the refuge and its wildlife resources require, or should have, can be provided under the Refuge System." They were also concerned that wilderness would attract people to the refuge islands. The Tuna Boat Owners Association (Hawaii) was opposed in part. They supported wilderness on lands above the high water mark, . . .". However, this action should definitely exclude the reefs and sub- merged lands up to high water mark on the respective islands." They feel the area has potential for the harvest of bait fish for tuna fishing. The Hawaii Chapter of the Sierra Club expressed concern over the future of Tern Island. They agreed it should not be wilderness, but "... favored the idea that some provision be placed into this basic proposal which would limit future uses of Tern Island, so as not to endanger this fragile area." 6. Communications from Citizens A total of 359 letters was received from individuals for the record. Some 349 letters from 390 individuals supported the Bureau's proposal. One individual supplied a petition with 137 names; two individuals supplied lists of 161 names that they were purportedly representing. Seven letters from 9 individuals favored wilderness but recommended it also include waters of the refuge. Two of these suggested adding Kure Island. One letter was opposed to wilderness. The position of two letters could not be determined. The only statement opposed to wilderness was received from a fishing boat owner (Hawaii). He stated no position with respect to the land area, but he said "The commercial fishermen have explored and fished the entire Leeward Area and plan to expand the existing fisheries there. By placing this area off limits to our fishermen, you will deal a serious blow to Hawaiian economy and squelch our potential for growth." Letters from individuals and organizations were received from 42 states and the District of Columbia. About 38 percent were from California, 8 percent from New York, 6 percent from Hawaii, and 5 percent each from Washington and Oregon. /<=>

A large number of letters was received from the academic community. Several were from individuals who had visited the islands. Statements were made by individuals from and/or representing about 40 colleges, universities, and scientific organizations in about 17 states. 7. Summary and Analysis