Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Rodent and Mongoose Control and Eradication on U.S. Pacific Islands Within the National Wildlife Refuge System and in Native Ecosystems in Hawaii, 37286-37292 [2015-16152]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37286-37292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16152]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R1-ES-2015-0026; FXES11130100000-156-FF01E00000]


Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement for Invasive Rodent and Mongoose Control and 
Eradication on U.S. Pacific Islands Within the National Wildlife Refuge 
System and in Native Ecosystems in Hawaii

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to 
prepare a Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) to 
analyze the impacts of, and alternatives to, using integrated pest 
management (IPM) to control or eradicate invasive rodents and mongooses 
on U.S. Pacific Islands within the National Wildlife Refuge System 
(Refuge System) and in native ecosystems in Hawaii and to protect 
native wildlife and plants, including federally listed threatened and 
endangered species and designated critical habitats. The PDEIS is for 
informational and planning purposes to improve and facilitate rodent 
and mongoose control on Federal, State, and private lands through the 
IPM process; it does not initiate any specific action or project. The 
PDEIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in compliance with the 
State of Hawaii's environmental review process. The lead agencies for 
preparing the PDEIS are the Service and the State of Hawaii Department 
of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Forestry and Wildlife 
(DOFAW). With this notice, the Service and DOFAW request comments, 
recommendations, and advice on the scope of issues, alternatives, and 
mitigation to be addressed in the PDEIS.

DATES: Written Comments: To ensure consideration, we must receive your 
written comments on or before October 28, 2015 to ensure all relevant 
information and recommendations are considered during the PDEIS 
process. Public scoping meetings will be held at a later date. Meeting 
dates, locations, and times will be announced in a future notice.
    At a later date, DOFAW will be publishing an Environmental Impact 
Statement preparation notice, as defined by Chapters 201N and 343 of 
the Hawaii Revised Statutes and title 11, chapter 200 of the Hawaii 
Administrative Rules, in The Environmental Bulletin published by the 
Hawaii State Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC).

ADDRESSES: Send your comments regarding the proposed action and the 
proposed PDEIS by one of the following methods:
     Electronically: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0026.
     U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-
2015-0026; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803.
    We request that you send comments by only one of the methods 
described above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Availability of 
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Young, Acting Field Supervisor,

[[Page 37287]]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; 
telephone (808-792-9400); facsimile (808-792-9581). If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the Service, intend to prepare a PDEIS 
to analyze the impacts of, and alternatives to, using IPM to control or 
eradicate invasive rodents and mongooses on U.S. Pacific Islands within 
the Refuge System and in native ecosystems in Hawaii and to protect 
native wildlife and plants, including federally listed threatened and 
endangered species and designated critical habitats. The intent of this 
proposal is threefold: (1) To increase the effectiveness of rodent and 
mongoose management in the main Hawaiian Islands and make more 
efficient use of limited financial resources; (2) to develop techniques 
for an IPM approach to eradicate rodents from uninhabited islands 
within the main Hawaiian Islands and from other U.S. Pacific Islands 
within the Refuge System; and (3) to avoid adverse impacts to human 
health and safety and the environment.
    IPM as a concept would assess whether rodents and mongooses are 
negatively affecting native species and interfering with management 
goals for native species; identify methods of control/or eradication; 
evaluate the merits and impacts of available control/eradication 
methods; implement the selected method(s) of control or eradication and 
use monitoring of the target pest species, selected non-target species, 
and native species to determine the effectiveness of the method(s); and 
use that information to adjust implementation of the methods, if 
needed.
    The PDEIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1508.22) and in 
compliance with the State of Hawaii's environmental review process. The 
lead agencies for preparing the PDEIS are the Service and the State of 
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of 
Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). With this notice, the Service and DOFAW 
request comments, recommendations, and advice on the scope of issues, 
alternatives, and mitigation to be addressed in the PDEIS.

Background

    There are no native rodent species in Hawaii. Introduced mammalian 
species on the Hawaiian Islands include the Norway rat (Rattus 
norvegicus), black rat (R. rattus), Polynesian rat (R. exulans), house 
mouse (Mus musculus), and the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes 
auropunctatus). Mongooses are established only on the islands of 
Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. The presence of rodents and mongooses 
has resulted in or contributed to the extinction or endangerment of 
many native species in Hawaii. Rodents and mongooses consume the 
adults, chicks, and eggs of seabirds, waterbirds, and forest birds; and 
sea turtle eggs and hatchlings. Rats and mice eat native plant seeds, 
fruits, seedlings, and flowers, and compete with native birds for food. 
Rats and mice kill plants by chewing off stems and stripping bark. 
Invertebrates, including native species, make up a large proportion of 
the diet of rodents and mongooses in Hawaii. Rats can change the 
species composition of native forests and other natural areas. They 
have destroyed entire ecosystems, such as the native palm forests that 
once covered the lowland plains of Oahu when the first Polynesians 
arrived in Hawaii. The native palm population is now limited to remnant 
patches scattered around the main Hawaiian Islands; one species of palm 
is now primarily restricted to two rat-free sea stacks off the coast of 
Molokai. The loss of native species also threatens Native Hawaiian 
cultural practices that rely on these species. Introduced rats and mice 
are also present on some uninhabited offshore islands within the main 
Hawaiian Islands, and other Pacific islands under U.S. jurisdiction, 
such as the atolls of Midway, Wake, and Johnston, which are within the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. Effective rodent and mongoose control 
and eradication are essential to halt further declines and extinctions 
of many species, particularly those listed under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) and protected by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
    A number of management techniques targeting rodents and mongooses 
are used to protect crops, human health, and native species throughout 
the world. Many of these techniques have been used historically in 
Hawaii by State and Federal agencies, private landowners, 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other entities to manage 
rodents and mongooses to protect native species. Management efforts 
have been conducted on both private and public lands, using private and 
public funds. Control efforts and eradications have been undertaken as 
routine management, to minimize or mitigate the take of native species 
listed under the ESA, to fulfill responsibilities under Executive Order 
13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 
Birds), as restoration actions under the Natural Resource Damage 
Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) process, and to improve the chances 
of survival of critically rare native species. These methods currently 
used will be considered as part of the IPM approach proposed in the 
PDEIS.
    In effective control situations, the rate of removal of pest 
individuals must exceed the reproductive rate of the pest population 
and the rate of in-migration of new individuals of the pest into the 
control area. Even then, the reduction in pest numbers is temporary; 
once control efforts cease, the numbers begin to return to pre-control 
levels. Eradication of a pest, which is the removal of every 
individual, is possible in areas where natural or human-made barriers 
prevent reinvasion by other individuals of the pest species. Such areas 
include islands offshore of the main Hawaiian Islands, islands within 
the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Monument), or in 
limited areas on the main Hawaiian Islands that are surrounded by 
predator-resistant fencing, such as the Kaena Point Natural Area 
Reserve on Oahu. Where pest eradication is achieved, the ecosystem can 
recover from many of the problems that the pest had caused.
    To identify and develop the issues described in this notice, the 
Service and DOFAW held meetings with other State and Federal agencies, 
private landowners, NGOs, Native Hawaiian organizations, and members of 
the community.

Purpose and Need for the Action

    Rats are believed to have caused the extinctions, local 
extirpations, and continuing declines of many of Hawaii's endemic 
forest birds and seabirds. Rats and mongooses also are considered to be 
a threat to all four of Hawaii's federally endangered waterbird 
species. Hawaii's federally endangered endemic snails have been 
decimated and continue to be negatively affected by rats. Impacts by 
rodents have also been documented to 135 federally listed threatened 
and endangered plant species in Hawaii. Federal and State agencies have 
invested considerable resources on rodent and mongoose management and 
control because of the species' devastating impacts on native 
ecosystems and on federally and State-

[[Page 37288]]

listed threatened and endangered species in Hawaii. Native species 
needing protection from rodents and mongooses are found in fragmented 
small areas, such as wetlands or coastal areas, and in large continuous 
swaths of native forest. The control projects currently conducted in 
the main Hawaiian Islands are limited to an extremely small scale by 
circumstances such as topography, land ownership boundaries, 
remoteness, and costs. However, rodents and mongooses are widespread 
and reach high population densities not only in human-altered areas but 
also in relatively intact native ecosystems. In most places, no natural 
or human-made features within the islands impede their distribution. 
Thus, small-scale control efforts are overwhelmed by new individuals 
replacing those removed, and control must be done either continuously 
or repeatedly. Hawaii's native species will likely require protection 
from rodents and mongooses in perpetuity.
    Eradication techniques need to be available for uninhabited 
offshore islands, the Monument, and other U.S. Pacific Islands within 
the Refuge System, such as Wake and Johnston Atolls, to quickly respond 
to new rodent introductions as well as to eradicate existing rat and 
mouse populations.
    The goal of the Service and DOFAW is to identify an IPM approach to 
rodent and mongoose control and eradication that not only results in 
documentable benefits to native species, but which also is compatible 
with maintaining other resource uses, such as fresh water, hunting and 
fishing, and cultural practices. Resource management in Hawaii is often 
evaluated within the context of the ahupuaa, the pre-Western-contact 
system of land division typically extending from the mountains into the 
sea, including the nearshore marine environment. Under this ecosystem 
model, actions taken anywhere within an ahupuaa are understood to have 
the potential to affect the entire ahupuaa and even other ahupuaa as 
well.
    We are proposing to develop an IPM approach that would allow land 
managers to increase the effectiveness of rodent and mongoose control 
on a landscape scale as necessary in a programmatic fashion, because 
the number of native species affected by rodents and mongooses is so 
high, and the total area over which native species are distributed on 
the main Hawaiian Islands is so large. The IPM approach should 
incorporate methods to assess the effectiveness of the control and to 
detect and quantify indirect and cumulative effects resulting from the 
control. In New Zealand, these concepts are successfully used to 
protect native plant and animal species from rodents: The population 
dynamics of native species are first modeled in relation to different 
levels (indices) of rodent control, as measured by footprint-tracking 
tunnels or snap-traps placed throughout the treatment area; levels of 
reproductive success, survival, and population growth of the native 
species are then correlated with specific indices of rodent activity; 
and rodent control efforts are adjusted to meet the target indices of 
rodent activity that yield the desired effect on the native species' 
populations. These concepts linking native species success to predator 
control could be adapted to be used successfully in Hawaiian 
ecosystems. Examining and analyzing the use of these methods is part of 
our purpose and need for this PDEIS.
    This approach is consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 
Federal law (7 U.S.C. 136r-1) directs Federal agencies to use IPM 
techniques in carrying out pest management activities. Department of 
the Interior and Service policies (517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1) require that 
all pest management activities conducted, approved, or funded by the 
Service, on or off Service lands, be conducted using IPM. IPM is 
described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
National Park Service (NPS), and the Service as a process that relies 
on knowledge of the pest's population dynamics and behavior to design 
the most effective combination of methods for managing the pest. These 
can include cultural, mechanical, chemical, and/or biological control 
tools. IPM incorporates flexibility of the methods in order to match 
the most effective tools with the goals established for the pest 
control. A fundamental principle of IPM, as stated in the Service's 
Guidance for Preparing and Implementing Integrated Pest Management 
Plans (2004), is to ``. . . select those methods, or combination of 
methods, that are feasible, efficacious, and yet most protective of 
non-target resources, including wildlife, personnel, and the public.'' 
It is distinguished from other pest management approaches by its 
emphasis on establishing action thresholds, monitoring, and ongoing 
evaluation of the effectiveness and the risks of the control methods 
selected. The target pest activity must be monitored within the 
treatment area, and, following principles of adaptive management, the 
methods may be adjusted or changed to respond to pest behavior, pest 
population levels, and non-target impacts. The IPM process directly 
lends itself to informing adaptive management decisions.
    The use of pesticides is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and Hawaii 
State pesticide laws and regulations. No special provisions exist under 
FIFRA for the use of pesticides for conservation purposes; these uses 
must comply with the same requirements for effectiveness and safety 
that apply to agricultural and public health uses. Any use of a 
rodenticide for conservation purposes would need to be covered by 
pesticide labeling approved by the EPA and the State of Hawaii 
Pesticides Branch.
    The purpose of this proposal is to develop an effective, 
comprehensive, and landscape-level IPM approach to rodent and mongoose 
management based on sound ecological principles, and in compliance with 
State and Federal pesticide laws and regulations for conservation 
entities in Hawaii. The specific objectives of this approach will be 
to:
    (1) Protect native species in Hawaii and on other specified U.S. 
Pacific islands from the impacts of rodents and mongooses;
    (2) Increase populations of native species important to Native 
Hawaiian culture;
    (3) Identify effective methods for rodent and mongoose control and 
eradication which are compatible with and safe for all natural 
resources and the human environment;
    (4) Provide the framework for effective and cost-effective use of 
these methods in Hawaii and on other specified U.S. Pacific islands 
(e.g. education, outreach and permit process); and
    (5) Comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 
1966, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and 
other Federal and State laws, regulations, and policy.
    In accordance with this approach, the PDEIS process would:
    (1) Summarize existing information, including quantitative and 
qualitative documentation, on rodent and mongoose impacts to native 
species in Hawaii; and then assess specific needs for rodent and 
mongoose management;
    (2) Evaluate the effectiveness of past and current rodent and 
mongoose control and eradication projects;
    (3) Evaluate the suitability of rodent and mongoose control methods 
not previously used in Hawaii;
    (4) Identify impacts on the human environment (interpreted

[[Page 37289]]

comprehensively under NEPA to include ``the natural and physical 
environment and the relationship of people with that environment'') 
from the implementation of each rodent and mongoose control method 
considered, and develop criteria for significance;
    (5) Identify consistent standards for rodent and mongoose 
management project implementation, including standards for monitoring, 
and for thresholds and triggers requiring remedial action for any 
significant impacts on the human environment caused by these projects; 
and
    (6) To develop the components required of an adaptive management 
approach (per the Department of the Interior's Guidance on Coordinating 
Adaptive Management and NEPA Processes (OEPC ESM 13-11; January 7, 
2013)).
    All future projects proposing to tier from this PDEIS may be 
subject to site-specific NEPA and/or Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 
343 analyses consistent with Federal and State procedures. The ability 
to tier from the PDEIS would provide efficiencies for the site-specific 
NEPA compliance process. Site-specific projects would also need to 
comply with all other applicable legal requirements for such projects.
    The joint lead agencies for this action are the Service and DOFAW. 
Cooperating agencies on the PDEIS are the EPA; NPS; National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration; the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii; the U.S. 
Army Garrison Pohakuloa; the U.S. Department of Defense, Naval 
Facilities Pacific Area Command; the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services; and the 
U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center. 
These agencies have been identified as funding, permitting, having 
technical expertise with, and/or implementing rodent and mongoose 
control within the State of Hawaii and Pacific islands under U.S. 
jurisdiction. Other agencies may request to be Cooperating Agencies 
during the scoping period.
    The PDEIS is for informational and planning purposes to improve and 
facilitate rodent and mongoose control on Federal, State, and private 
lands through the IPM process; it does not initiate any specific action 
or project.
    The Service may use this IPM approach on the National Wildlife 
Refuges it administers in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific, and in 
habitat restoration projects it funds. The Service may also recommend 
that it be incorporated into habitat conservation plans and other 
applications for ESA permits, as appropriate.

Proposed Action and Other Alternatives

    In analyzing the proposed action and alternatives, we will explore 
the following in the PDEIS: (1) Approaches that use IPM in accordance 
with the Department of the Interior and Service IPM policies, and that 
are in compliance with FIFRA and State of Hawaii pesticide laws and 
regulations; and (2) particular methods of rodent and mongoose control 
or eradication that could be used. The PDEIS will compile research and 
experience-based data on rodent and mongoose management from Hawaii, 
other Pacific islands, and elsewhere, and information on rodent and 
mongoose management from the public, other agencies, Native Hawaiian 
organizations, NGOs, and other interested parties. All of the compiled 
data and information will be used to evaluate the proposed action and 
alternatives.
    Alternative Selection Criteria. To determine how well the proposed 
action and alternatives facilitate achieving the objectives, as stated 
in the purpose and need, each alternative will be measured against the 
following criteria, which are not presented in order of priority:
    (1) How effective the proposed methods are at increasing 
populations of native species;
    (2) The ability to measure the effectiveness of the proposed 
methods through monitoring;
    (3) The ability for wildlife managers to effectively implement the 
proposed methods;
    (4) The safety of the proposed methods for non-target species, 
humans, and the environment;
    (5) The cost-effectiveness of the proposed methods;
    (6) The level of support from communities, wildlife managers, 
Native Hawaiian organizations, and regulatory agencies for 
implementation of the proposed methods;
    (7) The compatibility of the proposed methods with Federal and 
State laws and regulations, including Federal and State pesticide laws 
and regulations; and
    (8) The humaneness to the target animals of the proposed methods, 
in terms of animal welfare.
    Preliminary scoping has identified the no action alternative, a 
possible proposed action, and other potential alternatives summarized 
in the following Table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Description
                               -----------------------------------------
      Action/Alternative           Is it an IPM        Methods to be
                                    approach?             included
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Action: Ground and     Yes..............  Mechanical; all
 Aerial IPM.                                        toxicant application
                                                    methods; use of
                                                    diphacinone,
                                                    chlorophacinone,
                                                    brodifacoum.
No Action.....................  No/some..........  State of HI--
                                                    mechanical; bait
                                                    station (diphacinone
                                                    only); National
                                                    Wildlife Refuge
                                                    Offshore islands not
                                                    in the State of
                                                    Hawaii: Current
                                                    techniques already
                                                    approved under
                                                    environmental
                                                    compliance.
Ground-only IPM Alternative...  Yes..............  Mechanical; bait
                                                    station, hand
                                                    broadcast; use of
                                                    diphacinone,
                                                    chlorophacinone,
                                                    brodifacoum.
Current methods within the      Yes..............  Main Hawaiian
 Main Hawaiian Islands, with                        Islands--mechanical;
 additional uses of                                 bait station
 diphacinone on offshore                            (diphacinone only);
 islands.                                           uninhabited offshore
                                                    islands within the
                                                    State of Hawaii and
                                                    on National Wildlife
                                                    Refuge islands not
                                                    in the State of
                                                    Hawaii: Application
                                                    of diphacinone in
                                                    bait stations, and
                                                    by bola baiting,
                                                    hand and aerial
                                                    broadcast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Action: The Service and DOFAW would propose to develop an 
IPM approach to control or eradicate invasive rodents and mongooses in 
Hawaii and on other U.S. Pacific islands to protect native wildlife and 
plants, including federally listed threatened and endangered species.
    The proposed action would rely on the principles of IPM as adapted 
for application under the unique circumstances associated with Hawaii 
and other U.S. Pacific islands. The first step for use of any methods 
at a site would be to identify the natural resource management goals 
and conduct qualitative and quantitative assessments to determine if 
the targeted pests are

[[Page 37290]]

negatively affecting native species and interfering with achieving the 
identified goals. If so, then the merits of available management 
methods would be evaluated using IPM principles to determine the most 
appropriate methods to implement, and giving consideration to impacts 
to the human cultural environment using criteria established in the 
PDEIS. Third, the selected methods would be implemented along with 
monitoring of the target species, and selected non-target species and 
native species. This sequence of IPM steps establishes the link between 
the level of pest activity and the impacts on native species, and 
provides feedback on the effectiveness of the methods applied. The 
methods may then be adjusted or changed to respond to pest behavior, 
pest population levels, and non-target impacts, following the 
principles of adaptive management.
    The PDEIS will analyze the effectiveness of, and environmental 
impacts from, a number of specific methods that could be applied under 
an IPM approach. These include: (1) Mechanical traps and multi-kill 
devices; and (2) the application of vertebrate toxicants, including the 
rodenticides diphacinone, chlorophacinone, and brodifacoum. Rodenticide 
application methods to be discussed will include bait stations, hand-
broadcast, aerial-broadcast, and other techniques described on the 
labels such as bola-baiting trees. The specific methods, or 
combinations thereof, that could be applied under site-specific 
projects would be determined based on the consistency with the IPM 
protocol discussed above and the analyses of effectiveness and impacts 
in the PEIS, and any other site-specific analysis that is necessary, 
such as a site-specific NEPA analysis.
    At this time, we anticipate that the PDEIS will also analyze the 
following alternatives:
    No Action Alternative: The ``no action'' alternative would involve 
continuing to conduct rodent and mongoose control, as currently 
practiced, using live and kill traps, multi-kill devices, and 
diphacinone in bait stations. Diphacinone has been used in bait 
stations to protect Hawaii's native species since the 1990s. Within the 
State of Hawaii, this alternative would not include controlling rodents 
and mongooses using any bait distribution method other than bait 
stations or any rodenticide other than diphacinone. (The PEIS process 
would not preclude the Refuge System from applying brodifacoum in bait 
stations and by bola baiting, hand and aerial broadcast on a case by 
case basis outside of the State of Hawaii where the Refuge System has 
complied with NEPA and other applicable requirements. Monitoring of the 
effects of the control method(s) on target species and the benefits to 
native species would be done at all Refuge sites, but might be more 
limited at some of the other treatment sites.)
    IPM Ground-Only Alternative: Under this alternative, rodent and 
mongoose management would be done by using traps and multi-kill 
devices, as well as by the application of diphacinone, chlorophacinone, 
and brodifacoum in bait stations and by hand-broadcast. Rodenticides 
would not be aerially applied under this alternative. The principles of 
IPM, including monitoring the target species and selected non-target 
species and native species, would be implemented to improve the 
effectiveness of ground-based methods over current practices.
    Current, Ground-Only Methods Within the Main Hawaiian Islands, With 
Additional Limited Uses of Diphacinone on Uninhabited Islands: Under 
this alternative, all currently used ground-based methods would be 
considered as part of the IPM process described above. Application of 
diphacinone by bait station, bola baiting, hand and aerial broadcast 
would be considered for use on islands other than the main, inhabited 
Hawaiian Islands.

Alternatives Not Considered in the PDEIS

    Other Rodenticides: The use of rodenticides other than diphacinone, 
brodifacoum, and chlorophacinone will not be considered in the PEIS. 
Only compounds currently registered for use on rodents in the United 
States for agricultural and/or conservation purposes have data sets 
extensive enough to support analyses in the PEIS. No acute toxicants 
will be considered because of the high risk of poisoning to non-target 
species and human applicators. Other rodenticides could be considered 
in the future in supplements to the PEIS.
    Biological Control: The use of biological control agents for 
rodents and mongooses will not be considered in the PEIS. No biological 
control agents (predators, parasites, or disease organisms) have been 
able to significantly reduce rodent or mongoose populations on a broad 
scale in Hawaii or elsewhere. Furthermore, the release of a biocontrol 
agent may have significant impacts on the human environment. Because it 
would be impossible to limit the distribution of a biocontrol agent to 
the area where control is intended, there may be indirect and 
cumulative effects within areas of human use and habitation that would 
need to be evaluated. There would also be the risk of deliberate and/or 
accidental spread of the agent by people. Opportunities to mitigate 
impacts to the Polynesian rat, which is significant in Hawaiian 
culture, by confining its control to a small proportion of its overall 
population in Hawaii, would also be lost with the release of a 
biological control agent. Introducing predators has generally not been 
effective in reducing invasive rodent populations because rodent 
population densities are determined by factors independent of 
predation, including their high reproductive rate, the availability of 
food resources, and weather conditions. Two examples of using predators 
for rodent control in Hawaii are the introduction of mongooses in the 
1880s, and barn owls in the late 1950s into the early 1960s. These 
biological control efforts were ineffective at reducing rodent damage 
in sugar cane, and resulted in adverse impacts to native species. 
Previous studies on disease agents for rats and mice have been 
conducted with bacteria such as Salmonella enteritidis, as well as a 
protozoan, viruses, and a nematode, but none have met standards for 
safety and effectiveness for use in the United States. Rodents and 
mongooses are well-known vectors of many diseases and parasites that 
are readily transmitted to humans and domestic animals, such as rabies, 
leptospirosis, and murine typhus, making this alternative too risky to 
consider. At present, we are unaware of any programs worldwide that are 
identifying new biological control agents for rodents, and no research 
has been conducted for mongooses.
    Chemosterilants and Fertility Control Agents: Chemosterilants and 
fertility control agents will not be considered in the PDEIS. To date, 
the successful use of wildlife chemosterilants has been in 
laboratories, pens, and limited field situations. In the latter 
situation, animals are either captured, treated and released, or are 
injected using darts at close range, which is impractical for small 
mammals. Although research is underway to develop chemosterilants for 
rats and mice, it is in the early stages. No research on the use of 
chemosterilants has been conducted on mongooses. If a type of bait is 
developed to deliver the sterilant compound, measures to prevent 
ingestion by non-target organisms, including protected native species, 
would have to be developed. Chemosterilants and fertility control 
agents are regulated under

[[Page 37291]]

FIFRA, and any such product proposed for registration and licensing in 
Hawaii would need to complete the same process of data generation and 
review required for rodenticides. For these reasons, consideration of 
chemosterilants and fertility control agents would be speculative at 
this time.

Issues To Be Addressed in the PDEIS

    The following issues have been identified through preliminary 
scoping for consideration in the PDEIS. Criteria for determining the 
significance of impacts for each of these issues will be developed, and 
each issue will be evaluated for direct, indirect, and cumulative 
impacts, and for short-term and long-term effects on the human 
environment. With this notice, the Service requests comments, 
recommendations, and advice on issues, alternatives, and mitigation to 
be addressed in the PDEIS, including but not limited to:
     The potential to increase or decrease populations of 
native species, especially those that are rare;
     The potential to impact species protected under the 
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other terrestrial species;
     The potential to impact populations of other non-target 
invasive species;
     The potential to impact game animals;
     The humaneness of rodent and mongoose control or 
eradication methods on target and non-target species;
     The potential to impact Native Hawaiian religious cultural 
rights and practices;
     The potential to impact the ability of Native Hawaiians to 
exercise their traditional and customary gathering rights for 
subsistence;
     The potential to impact archaeological and cultural 
resources; and
     The potential to counteract declines in population levels 
of native species that are also declining due to the effects of climate 
change.

In addition, the following issues specific to the use of rodenticides 
will be addressed:
     The potential for the use of rodenticides to impact soils, 
surface waters, and groundwater, including movement of rodenticides 
through water-based (e.g., riparian or stream) ecological systems;
     The potential for the use of rodenticides to impact 
freshwater fish and invertebrates;
     The potential for the use of rodenticides to impact marine 
species, including, but not limited to, fish, invertebrates, and 
corals;
     The potential for the use of rodenticides to impact 
essential fish habitat; and
     The potential for the use of rodenticides to cause human 
health impacts from consumption of meat from mammals, birds, fish and 
shellfish, and from drinking water.

Consideration of Mitigation and Relationship to Tiered NEPA

    The PDEIS will propose and analyze standards to be established for 
mitigation measures, as well as propose and analyze specific mitigation 
measures that have been identified through the scoping process for the 
PDEIS. The standards for use of mitigation measures will be based upon 
the nature of the anticipated impacts, the probability of the impacts 
occurring, and the characteristics of the areas where the impacts may 
occur. The standards for mitigation measures will be developed with 
regulatory agency and community input. The standards will address 
monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures 
and to identify any impacts that result from the implementation of the 
mitigation measures. The standards will require the identification of 
thresholds and triggers for requiring remedial measures as part of an 
adaptive management approach.
    Site-specific projects will be subject to additional NEPA 
compliance, which may rely on and tier to the analyses presented in the 
PEIS, including those related to mitigation measures and standards. 
Mitigation measures may also be developed to reflect site-specific 
circumstances, as long as they meet the standards set in the PEIS. The 
PEIS will identify impacts that would not require mitigation and 
impacts that cannot be mitigated without compromising the effectiveness 
of the rodent and mongoose control or eradication method. Under the 
latter circumstances, the Service and DOFAW could decide in the PEIS 
not to include such methods in our preferred alternative; or we could 
analyze whether there are different control methods with lesser impacts 
that could be used. Even if we ultimately include such methods as 
options in our proposed action, subsequent site-specific NEPA 
compliance would evaluate the site-specific impacts.
    The PDEIS will also evaluate the needs for any appropriate 
mitigation measures to protect archaeological and cultural resources 
during implementation of rodent and mongoose control or eradication 
projects pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act. Such mitigation would be developed in consultation with the Hawaii 
State Historic Preservation Division. In addition, impacts to religious 
cultural rights and practices will be evaluated pursuant to the 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1996).

Consistency With Federal and State Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 
Plans

    The analysis of the proposed action and alternatives in the PDEIS 
will include consideration of the need to implement rodent and mongoose 
control and eradication in compliance with applicable Federal and State 
laws and regulations such as the ESA, the Clean Water Act, section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act, the American Indian 
Religious Freedom Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, DLNR's Hawaii 
State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (Mitchell 2005), DLNR's 
watershed protection initiative, the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and 
Wildlife Office Strategic Plan (Service 2012), and the 2008 Management 
Plan for the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The PDEIS will 
support a phased decision-making process that provides compliance for 
some of the statutory and regulatory requirements listed above at the 
programmatic level, and will attempt to identify and describe other 
requirements that must be deferred until a subsequent site-specific 
proposal is developed. Each implementing entity would be responsible 
for ensuring that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements 
are met for a specific project.

Public Comments

    We are seeking comments, information and suggestions from the 
public, interested government agencies, Native Hawaiian organizations, 
the scientific community, and other interested parties regarding the 
objectives, proposed action, and alternatives that we have identified 
and described above. When submitting comments or suggestions, 
explaining your reasoning will help us evaluate your comment or 
suggestion. We are particularly interested in information related to 
the following questions:
    (1) What do you think about protecting native species and 
ecosystems from introduced rodents and mongooses?

[[Page 37292]]

    (2) Under what circumstances do you think they should be controlled 
and eradicated?
    (3) Are there additional criteria for evaluating methods for rodent 
and mongoose control and eradication that we have not considered?
    (4) Should the criteria for evaluating methods for rodent and 
mongoose control and eradication be modified in any way?
    (5) How would you balance these criteria when evaluating the 
methods?
    (6) What recommendations or suggestions would you make regarding 
the methods that are proposed for evaluation?
    (7) Are there any other methods for rodent and mongoose control 
that should be included? If so, please describe them in sufficient 
detail so that they can be evaluated.
    (8) Should any of the identified alternatives be modified?
    (9) Are there any other alternatives that should be considered? If 
so, please describe them in sufficient detail so that they can be 
evaluated.
    (10) Are there issues not included in the list above that should be 
addressed?
    (11) The process of determining the significance of impacts to 
resources is unique to each resource, and is based upon the context and 
intensity of the impacts. The context refers to the setting of where 
the proposed action may occur, the affected areas or locations, the 
resource affected, and the proposed action's short and long-term 
effects. The intensity refers to the severity of the impact. The 
evaluation of significance will rely upon information received during 
scoping, and may be modified as information is revealed through the 
analyses. Are there resources for which you can identify criteria that 
should be used to begin to determine the significance of the impacts to 
these resources? Please include your thoughts on the context and 
intensity of the effects.
    You may request to be added to the Service and DOFAW contact list 
for distribution of any related public documents. Information on the 
PDEIS is also available on the Web at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/. Special mailings, newspaper articles, and other media 
announcements will inform interested and affected persons, agencies, 
and organizations of the opportunities for meaningful involvement and 
engagement throughout the planning process for the proposed IPM 
approach, including notices of public scoping meetings and notices of 
availability of the draft and final PEIS. This notice will be provided 
to Federal, State, and local agencies, and Native Hawaiian and other 
potentially interested organizations, groups, and individuals for 
review and comment.

Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we use in preparing the draft PEIS, will become part of 
the public record and will be available for public inspection by 
appointment, during regular business hours, at the Service's Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Before including your 
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to 
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Authority

    The environmental review of this project will be conducted in 
accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 
CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, 
and applicable policies and procedures of the Service. This notice is 
being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the NEPA 
regulations to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies 
and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed 
in the PDEIS.

Richard R. Hannan,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2015-16152 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P