[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 106 (Friday, June 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13530]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Record of Decision on Gull Hazard Reduction Program for John F.
Kennedy International Airport
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control (ADC) and the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey (PA) have applied for permits to take
migratory birds, including several species of gulls at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFKIA). The Lead Agency for this Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is the ADC. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) is a cooperating agency with jurisdiction by
law and actively participated in the scoping, drafting and reviewing of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the FEIS. Pursuant
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (Sec. 1506.3, title
40 CFR) for Implementing Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and the Department of Interior, Departmental Manual
at 516 DM 1.1-6.6, the Service adopts the above FEIS as prepared by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Service used the information and
analyses in the DEIS and FEIS to make its own, independent Record of
Decision (ROD) for this project. Based on its independent evaluation
and review, the Service has selected an alternative similar to the
Integrated Management Program, Department of the Interior Policy (IMP/
DOI) as its preferred alternative (FEIS, pp. 6-7 to 6-9). The
conditions contained in the IMP/DOI are designed to minimize
environmental harms and constitute an enforceable monitoring and
enforcement program.
Background
JFKIA is one of three major airports in the New York Metropolitan
Region, servicing approximately 28 million passengers per year. It is
located at the eastern end of Jamaica Bay, immediately adjacent to the
Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is part of Gateway National
Recreation Area (GNRA) [administered by the National Park Service
(NPS)]. The interaction of birds and aircraft at JFKIA is a serious
problem, creating significant hazards to human safety, as well as
causing financial losses due to aircraft destruction, equipment damage,
runway closures, and associated personnel costs. The proximity of the
airport and wildlife refuge in a coastal location has contributed to an
unusually high incidence of bird strikes at JFKIA. As early as 1975, a
Service study concluded that gulls (herring, ring-billed and great
black-backed) constituted the principal bird hazard at JFKIA. This
problem was severely exacerbated by the establishment and rapid growth
of a breeding colony of laughing gulls on the salt marsh islands in
Jamaica Bay located at the southeast end of Runway 22R/4L. As the
colony grew from 15 pairs in 1979 to more than 7,000 pairs in 1990, the
number of laughing gulls involved in bird strikes increased from 2 to
as many as 187 per year, and the percentage of bird strikes involving
laughing gulls increased from less than 2 percent to approximately 50
percent. Other gulls accounted for approximately 25 percent of JFKIA's
bird strikes. The 58 other bird species together (1979-93) have
accounted for approximately 23 percent of the air strikes and 25
percent of the damage delays.
Throughout the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, the PA and Federal, New
York State and New York City natural resource management agencies have
conducted activities to evaluate, control, and monitor JFKIA's bird
strike hazard. These activities have included, but are not limited to
the following: Experimental laughing gull egg-oiling project;
international panel review; ecological studies; non-lethal harassment
programs; and interim shooting programs. Despite implementation by the
PA of a multi-faceted bird hazard reduction program and closure of
nearby landfills, strikes by laughing gulls continued to increase. In
response to the increase, a temporary, on-airport gull hazard reduction
program was conducted by the ADC unit of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture from 1991 through 1993. Between May and August of each
year, gulls entering JFKIA airspace were shot. ADC biologists killed
14,191 laughing gulls in 1991, 11,847 in 1992, and about 6,500 in 1993.
By the third year, this program reduced the number of bird strikes
involving laughing gulls by more than 90 percent in the late 1980's.
In 1992, the concern for potential cumulative impacts associated
with the shooting program demonstrated the need to explore issues
involved in reduction of the hazards of gull/aircraft interaction at
JFKIA. Consequently, the preparation of this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was initiated to explore all reasonable alternatives
that might be implemented to reduce the number of gull/aircraft
collisions at JFKIA in an effective, safe, environmentally sound manner
that is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The EIS process, including early public participation, began in
late 1992. The Notice of Intent to prepare the DEIS was published in
the December 4, 1992 Federal Register. At that time, the Service became
a cooperating agency. One scoping meeting and one public meeting were
held at JFKIA. The Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in
the February 11, 1994 Federal Register. Prior to the release of the
DEIS for public review, the Service reviewed several preliminary
drafts. The comment period of the DEIS ended April 25, 1994, however,
comments were accepted through April 28, 1994. The Service reviewed and
commented on a preliminary FEIS, and all substantive comments were
incorporated into the FEIS released to public. The Notice of
Availability of the FEIS appeared in the May 6, 1994 Federal Register.
The Environmental Protection Agency granted a 16-day waiver in the 30-
day comment period for the FEIS on April 29, 1994.
The Preferred Alternative
The Service's Preferred Alternative closely resembles the IMP/DOI
policy, which is set forth in pages 6.6 through 6.9 of the FEIS. The
Preferred Alternative contains more specific actions and time frames
than are found in the FEIS discussion of the IMP, which appears on page
6-11. These more specific time frames are discussed below in the
subsection entitled ``Service Actions'' within the ``Findings and
Decisions'' portion of the ROD.
ADC's Proposed IMP in the FEIS identifies 6 elements. The Service
has direct regulatory control or influence on 4 of these 6 elements.
These specific elements are (1) continued development of JFKIA's on-
airport program, (2) on-airport shooting of gulls, (3) laughing gull
nest/egg destruction in Jamaica Bay, and (4) on-colony shooting of
adult laughing gulls. The Service has no regulatory control or
influence on (1) reduction of off-airport attractants and (2) display
of gull models to harass gulls.
The IMP/DOI has been split into 2 separate categories. Category 1
elements address management actions off the GNRA and Category 2
elements address management actions on the GNRA.
Implementation of Category 1 elements will begin immediately, with
all components monitored continuously by the Bird Control Unit (BCU)
and evaluated at least annually by the Bird Hazard Task Force (BHTF).
Category 1 activities would be continued until the annual reviews of
these programs by the BCU and BHTF demonstrate that either Category 1
activities are no longer needed or that additional management is
required. The BHTF will suggest improvements to this program, recommend
additional research and monitoring needs and establish criteria to be
used for initiation of Category 2 measures. The FEIS states that the
National Park Service (NPS) will initiate steps to satisfy legislative
and procedural requirements, as well as management review for on-colony
elements (Category 2) whenever it is demonstrated that off-colony
elements (Category 1) are ineffective. If initiation of Category 2
actions are justified, the NPS must define actions, analyze impacts and
document decisions in the context of legal authorities and management
policies in further NEPA analysis and documentation.
1. Category 1 actions include continued development of JFKIA's on-
airport program, reduction of off-airport attractants, and the on-
airport shooting of gulls.
a. Continued development of JFKIA's on-airport program with
emphasis upon improvements to the BCU and the BHTF.
(1) Enhance the professional capability of the BCU
(2) Establish in-house capability within the BCU to assess and
monitor effectiveness of control programs on target species.
(3) Prepare written plans for vegetation, insect control, solid
waste, water management and other on-airport issues that address bird
hazard management.
(4) Reorganize the BHTF to assist as an independent review body.
These above improvements will, by themselves, likely result in
marginal reduction in gull-aircraft interactions. However, their
implementation will improve the decisionmaking and evaluation process
and provide a mechanism for determination of when Category 2 elements
need to be considered, while having low environmental impacts (FEIS 5.5
and 6.2.2). The Service Actions within the Preferred Alternative are
presented in the Findings and Decisions section. These Actions explain
what improvements to the JFKIA on-airport program will be implemented
and when these Actions will be implemented.
b. Reduction of off-airport attractants (FEIS 5.4.2.4. and 6.2.1).
As the FEIS states at page 6-4, reduction of off-airport
attractants can be achieved provided cooperation of outside agencies
can be obtained. Implementation of this program will likely result in a
low reduction in gull-aircraft interactions. However, considering the
absence of substantial environmental impacts, it was included as
support to other Category 1 elements.
c. Continue on-airport shooting of gulls (FEIS 5.7 and 6.3.2).
Among on-airport lethal alternatives, only shooting is considered a
feasible and effective option. Its environmental impacts are relatively
low, as long as not more than approximately 14,500 laughing gulls are
shot annually (according to ADC in the FEIS, p. 5-42). The on-airport
shooting program could affect local and New York State laughing gull
populations, unless another nesting colony is established in the State.
Computer simulations indicate regional populations would not be
impacted by an on-airport shooting program restricted to this level.
The impact of the on-airport shooting program on herring, great
black-backed and ringbilled gull populations has been minimal, e.g. the
numbers of these species shot were 508, 128, and 59, respectively, in
1991; 1,338, 150 and 131 in 1992; and 554, 121, and 169 in 1993. Local,
regional and national populations of these gull species would not be
adversely impacted by the on-airport shooting.
2. Category 2 elements include laughing gull nest/egg destruction
in Jamaica Bay (FEIS 5.6.1.2.1 and 6.3.1), on-colony shooting of
laughing gulls (FEIS 5.6.2.2. and 6.3.1), and display of synthetic gull
models to harass gulls (FEIS 5.4.2.3 and 6.2.1).
If the potential risk to the flying public has been shown not to be
reduced to acceptable levels as determined by the BHTF, the NPS will
implement Category 2 control elements within the colony. On-colony
actions will be proposed only after it has been judged that Category 1
actions have not been effective in reducing bird-aircraft interactions
at JFKIA. The FEIS states that if initiation of Category 2 elements are
justified, the NPS must define those actions, analyze those impacts and
document its decision in the context of its legal authorities and its
management policies and NEPA.
Other Alternatives Considered
Four alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered
in the FEIS.
Alternative II. This alternative is the No-Action Alternative (FEIS
6.1), which involves the continuation of JFKIA's on-airport program
(vegetation management, water management, insect control, sanitation
management, and BCU programs), without further expansion, and does not
include the intensive on-airport shooting program that was conducted
during the 1991-93 period. The No-Action Alternative will not
sufficiently reduce the gull hazard or address the issue of public
safety for the 28 million passengers that use JFKIA each year. Because
it is not effective, the No-Action Alternative is not considered for
implementation.
Alternative III. This alternative involves implementation of a
nonlethal gull hazard control program (FEIS 6.2). Off the airport, it
addresses nesting habitat modification, discouraging use of the
laughing gull colony site through harassment, and reduction of off-
airport attractants. On JFKIA, it addresses expansion of the JFKIA on-
airport control program. Overall, this alternative was not selected due
to substantial adverse environmental impacts. However, elements of this
alternative were included in the Preferred Alternative.
Of the on-colony habitat modification elements of this alternative,
all these elements were considered to present unacceptable
environmental impacts, which cannot be substantially mitigated and are
therefore not considered for selection as preferred alternatives. Those
elements included marsh devegetation through moving, herbicide, burning
and excavation.
The only on-colony harassment element was display of synthetic
models representing dead gulls. Although this element would not create
substantial adverse ecological environmental impacts it is only
moderately effective in reducing the gull hazard. The display of gull
models were included as a Category 2 element of the IMP/DOI.
The reduction of off-airport attractants can be achieved provided
cooperation of outside agencies can be obtained. The effectiveness in
reducing gull/aircraft interactions is moderate to low and the
environmental impacts of this element is very low. This element was
included as a Category 1 element of the IMP/DOI.
The only on-airport element was the expansion of the existing on-
airport program (Section 1.a. of the Preferred Alternative). The
expansion of the existing on-airport program was not considered as a
preferred alternative by itself, because it had a low level of
effectiveness. However, this element was included as a Category 1
element of the IMP/DOI.
Alternative IV. This alternative involves implementation of a
lethal gull hazard control program (FEIS 6.3). Off the airport, it
addresses population reduction of the laughing gull colony, including
nest/egg destruction or oiling eggs, and population reduction of
adults. On JFKIA, it addresses shooting and avicide application.
Several on-colony elements were considered. These elements included
physical destruction of nests and eggs, oiling eggs, toxicant
application to nesting adults, shooting of adults on the colony site,
and introduction of predators to the nesting colony. None were
considered effective enough individually to warrant consideration as a
preferred alternative. However, shooting of adult gulls from blinds,
and egg and nest destruction were included as Category 2 elements of
the IMP/DOI.
Among JFKIA elements, only shooting was a feasible and effective
option. The environmental impacts of this element for laughing gulls
was low, as long as not more than 14,500 are shot annually. Populations
of herring, great black-backed and ring-billed gulls would not be
affected by this program. This alternative was included as a Category 1
element of the IMP/DOI.
Alternative methods. Twelve methods for gull hazard management on
JFKIA were examined as possible alternatives to the IMP/BOI. These
include planting laughing gull breeding areas with shrubs (FEIS
3.3.1.2), landform alteration by filling marsh (FEIS 3.3.1.3.1),
landform alteration by physical obstruction (monofilament, cordage, or
wire barriers) (FEIS 3.3.1.3.3), harassment of breeding laughing gulls
by falconry (FEIS 3.3.2.1), harassment of breeding laughing gulls by
dogs (FEIS 3.3.2.2), harassment of breeding laughing gulls by acoustics
(FEIS 3.3.2.3), harassment of breeding laughing gulls by deterrent
display of dead gulls (FEIS 3.3.2.4), harassment of breeding laughing
gulls by radio-controlled model airplanes (FEIS 3.3.2.5), alteration of
airport operations (numbers of aircraft using JFKIA, daily distribution
of aircraft using JFKIA and types of aircraft using JFKIA) (FEIS
3.4.2.1), alteration of runway use patterns (FEIS 3.4.2.2), research
and development into aircraft engineering to reduce air strikes (FEIS
3.4.3.2), and bird tracking and warning devices (FEIS 3.4.3.4). It was
concluded that none of these alternatives would be effective in the
control of the gull hazard at JFKIA.
Minimization of Impacts and Public Concerns
The Preferred Alternative incorporates a variety of measures to
minimize the adverse environmental, social and economic impacts as
described in the FEIS. Improvements to the bird hazard management
program at JFKIA will permit the continuous monitoring and evaluation
of this program. The Preferred Alternative significantly reduces the
threat of bird/aircraft interactions at JFKIA for the 28 million
travelers using that airport yearly through the implementation of the
IMP/DOI. The IMP/DOI includes improvement of the on-airport management
program and data collected for the evaluation of the on-airport and
off-airport management programs. Specific measures to minimize impacts
of and public concerns about the proposed action are identified in the
Findings and Decision section of this document
Service Authority
Statutory authority for the Service's actions is as follows:
Migratory birds listed in treaties with Great Britain (Canada),
Mexico, Japan, and the former Soviet Union are protected and activities
involving them are regulated in the United States by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. The Secretary of the Interior under 16 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Sections 703-712 has responsibility for management of those
migratory birds, including the issuance of permits to take those birds.
Criteria for issuance of Special Purpose permits is further defined by
regulations found in Title 50 CFR part 21.
Specifically, 16 U.S.C. 704 provides:
``Subject to the provisions and in order to carry out the
purposes of the conventions, the Secretary * * * is authorized and
directed from time to time, having due regard to the zones of
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value,
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such
birds, to determine, when, to what extent, if at all, and by what
means, it is compatible with the terms of the conventions to allow,
* * * taking * * * of any such bird * * *''.
Generally, all species of gulls are listed in the treaties and
further identified in 50 CFR 10.13, List of Migratory Birds. Prohibited
activities involving these listed migratory birds are more clearly
identified in 50 CFR 21.11 which provides: ``No person shall take * * *
any migratory bird * * * except as permitted under the terms of a valid
permit * * *''.
The regulations then provide for issuance of permits for general
standardized activities (import/export, banding and marking, scientific
collecting, taxidermy, waterfowl sale and disposal, and falconry
activities) utilizing standard form permits. They also provide for
issuance of Special Purpose permits which authorize otherwise
prohibited activities involving migratory birds, not otherwise covered
by the standard form permits, when: ``* * * an applicant * * * submits
a written application containing the general information and
certification required by part 13 [50 CFR 13] and makes a sufficient
showing of * * * compelling justification.'' (50 CFR 21.27)
These Special Purpose Permit regulations give the Service broad
authorities to address human safety issues at JFKIA. The Preferred
Alternative is compatible with all conventions and treaties and the
Service Actions identified within this Preferred Alternative are
compatible with the intent of these conventions, treaties, and
associated regulations. The compelling justification for these Service
Actions is the issue of human safety at JFKIA.
Service Actions
On May 24, 1994 the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) made a
declaration ``* * * that in the opinion of the Federal Aviation
Authority an `urgent situation' exists at JFK which requires emergency
actions which are necessary on a limited and temporary basis for the
protection of life, health, and property or natural resources.'' As of
this time, there is no effective short-term alternative to address the
public safety risk presented by gulls within JFKIA airspace, except to
permit limited shooting of gulls at the airport. As is explained below,
the Service intends to permit shooting to proceed in May 1994, subject
to certain permit conditions.
1994 Actions. The Service will issue Special Purpose Permits to ADC
to permit the 1994 shooting program and to PA to permit the 1994 BCU
program. Both permits will be non-renewable and ADC's permit will
expire on August 20, 1994, by which time the peak of laughing gull
strikes can reasonably be expected to have diminished. The PA's permit
will expire on October 1, 1994, as is discussed in greater detail
below. Non-renewable means that activity ends when the permit expires,
and another permit must be issued before the activity can be continued
(Title 50 CFR 13.22).
The Service will take this action on the ADC permit, in
consideration of the FAA's determination of a need for emergency
actions at JFKIA and the information presented in the FEIS concerning
the hazards presented by gulls at JFKIA. The Service will issue the ADC
permit, after the Service has concurred with documentation provided by
ADC that the number of birds flying into JFKIA airspace present a
hazard to aircraft.
The Service will condition the PA permit to authorize PA personnel
to (1) kill non-endangered and non-threatened species of migratory
birds, except eagles and all species of gulls, as provided by 50 CFR
21.41 (c)(2), when they are creating or about to create a hazard to
aircraft; (2) all carcasses collected under this permit must be donated
to a public/scientific institution or destroyed by burial/incineration;
and (3) maintain records as required per 50 CFR 13.46. This gull
restriction in the PA permit is based upon a State of New York
limitation. The Service will condition the ADC permit to authorize ADC
personnel to (1) kill no more than 14,500 laughing gulls, 1,500
herring, 200 great black-backed and 200 ring-billed gulls, when found
flying into JFKIA airspace and creating a hazard to aircraft, using
shotguns with steel shot; (2) all specimens collected under this permit
must be donated to a public/scientific institution or destroyed by
burial/incineration; and (3) maintain records as required per 50 CFR
13.46. The validity of both permits is also conditioned upon strict
observance of all applicable foreign, state, local or other Federal
law.
The restrictions placed upon the take of herring, black-backed, and
ring-billed gulls under the 1994 ADC permit reflect approximate past
performance under the 1991-93 permits, because these takes have been
demonstrated to have no impacts on local, state, or regional
populations (FEIS, pp. 3-92 to 3-93). The restriction for shooting no
more than 14,500 laughing gulls for the 1994 ADC permit is based on the
results of population modeling (FEIS pp. 3-4 to 3-9 and p. 5-42) which
suggests that the current Massachusetts/New York/New Jersey population
could sustain a maximum annual loss of approximately 14,500 birds to
shooting every year.
The Service will entertain an application from the PA for a Special
Use Permit to support the activities of their BCU for the remainder of
1994 provided that they have agreed to the improvements to the BCU,
BHTF and JFKIA management programs and the schedule for these
improvements to be completed on or before September 15, 1994. The
Service will monitor the compliance of the PA to implementation of
these improvements. Future permits will not be issued if improvements
are not implemented according to the implementation schedule.
Consistent with IMP/DOI policy to enhance the professional
capability of the BCU and to establish capability within the BCU to
assess and monitor the effectiveness of control programs on target
species, the Service has determined that the PA must fundamentally
change the staff, functions and size of the existing BCU to insure that
the BCU's capabilities and functions are improved prior to any
application by the ADC or the PA for any permit for 1995. The Service
has determined that the time frames set forth in Section 6.4.3.2 are
inadequate. Therefore the Service has determined that the following
measures shall be implemented by the dates set forth below:
1. Enhance the professional capability of the BCU.
The PA will hire a person trained in ornithology, or wildlife
biology, or in a related field as the supervisor for the BCU by August
1, 1994. This supervisor will be trained to the Master of Science level
in either ornithology or wildlife biology and will be capable of
developing and evaluating the bird hazard management program at JFKIA
and developing monitoring programs for birds in the JFKIA area.
The PA must apply to the Service for the October 1994 BCU permit by
September 15, 1994, and should indicate in its application how it has
complied with hiring the BCU supervisory biologist (#1 above) and the
reorganization of the BHTF. With this application the PA may include
its assessment of the BCU's personnel capabilities and expertise. This
assessment, if provided, should address needs for increases in staff
size, changes in professional capabilities of staff, and training. It
should also identify BCU equipment and support requirements, as well as
document how the BCU will conduct the collection of biological field
data, surveys and monitoring programs described in the IMP/DOI and this
document.
2. Reorganize the BHTF to assist as an independent review body.
The PA will reorganize the BHTF to serve as an advisory committee
to the Port Authority for the evaluation of the BCU program and the
gull shooting program by August 1, 1994. The BHTF will suggest
improvements to this program, recommend additional research and
monitoring needs and establish criteria to be used for initiation of
Category 2 measures. The agencies currently composing the BHTF would
remain. The chairmanship would be rotated on an annual basis; however,
the Service would chair the task force during this reorganization
period.
On May 17, 1994, the Port Authority provided the Service with a
letter indicating significant disagreement concerning those measures
needed to implement the IMP/DOI. The Service wants a competent,
professional, fully-staffed BCU in place before the Spring of 1995.
Based upon the Service's evaluation of the current capabilities of the
BCU and the improvements required to implement the IMP/DOI, the Service
has identified additional organizational improvements. The Service will
evaluate subsequent requests for special permits in light of the PA's
implementation of the tasks set forth above, the measures described
below, advice from the BHTF, and any other information submitted by the
PA. Additional measures to improve the capabilities of the BCU include
the following:
1. Additional enhancement of the professional capability of the
BCU.
The PA will increase staff size for the BCU to 10 permanent, full-
time members by November 1, 1994. All BCU employees will be qualified
to consistently and accurately collect biological field data and to
conduct surveys and monitoring programs with the minimum professional
training of a Bachelors of Science or equivalent substantive course
work and field experience. The BCU will include at least one person
trained in entomology and pesticides.
The PA will provide sufficient equipment and vehicles to support
the improved BCU by November 15, 1994. This includes equipment to
disperse water following rain storms, pyrotechnics, speaker systems in
all vehicles, firearms, and safety equipment.
The PA will train and authorize all BCU employees to conduct all
harassment methods, including the firing of firearms for lethal and
non-lethal harassment by November 15, 1994. This includes the
development of a training plan for all employees.
The BCU staff requires 7 people to perform its bird harassment
responsibilities (1 supervisor, 2 employees per shift, 2 shifts per
day, 7 days a week). In order to incresae the capability of the BCU,
the Service has determined that three additional people are required,
as well as improving the professional training and capabilities of the
BCU and assuring that the BCU is adequately equipped to do its job.
2. Establish in-house capability within the BCU to assess and
monitor effectiveness of control programs on target species.
On or before January 31, 1995, the PA will develop and implement
monitoring programs to assess the following:
(1) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the gull shooting program
and JFKIA's bird hazard management program;
(2) Identification of criteria that could be used to determine when
a gull shooting program should begin or end;
(3) Identification of criteria, with the involvement of the BHTF,
that could be used to determine when Category 1 elements have become
ineffective;
(4) Evaluation of off-airport attractants that encourage gulls to
fly through JFKIA airspace; and
(5) Continuing evaluation of potential on-airport attractants.
3. Prepare written plans for vegetation, insect control, solid
waste, water management and other on-airport issues that address bird
hazard management.
The PA will produce written management plans for vegetation,
insect, water, and solid waste management on JFKIA by December 29,
1994. These plans will document the existing programs and the overall
management strategies for these programs.
The Service has determined that these written plans are needed as
part of the Service's monitoring and enforcement program for this
permit. The PA has actively addressed these management issues on JFKIA,
as documented in FEIS (Section 3.2); however, poor documentation for
these programs makes interpretation and monitoring impossible at this
time.
4. As a part of the effort to develop data on bird species
contributing to hazards at JFKIA and to a determination of when
Category 2 measures may be appropriate, the NPS is committed to
participating in seasonal surveys in 1994 to monitor gull populations
and distribution in the Jamaica Bay area and will provide these data to
the BCU and BHTF.
1995 Actions. For the 1994-95 period, the Service will monitor the
above described implementation schedule and will not consider
applications for Special Purpose Permits for either the PA or ADC in
1995, unless all of the above specified improvements are implemented
according to the above schedule or unless a deviation from these
conditions has been expressly permitted by the Service.
The Service has ascertained that these specific improvements are
needed under the IMP/DOI element dealing with continued development of
JFKIA's on-airport program. The Service has determined that these
programs are needed to support the Service's monitoring and enforcement
program for this permit. These improvements will, by themselves, likely
result in a marginal reduction in gull-aircraft interactions. However,
their implementation will improve the decision-making and evaluation
process, and will provide a mechanism for determination of when
Category 2 elements need to be considered. In addition, the NPS has
committed to participate in seasonal surveys in 1995 to monitor gull
populations and distribution in the Jamaica Bay area, as part of this
program, and will provide these data to the BCU and BHTF to support
this monitoring and enforcement program.
1996 Actions. In 1996 and subsequent years, the Service will review
data collected by the BCU and recommendations made by the BHTF, as part
of the annual review process for issuance of Special Purpose Permits.
These future permit decisions and any restrictions placed upon future
permits will be guided by this improved data collection and analysis
system implemented by the PA for JFKIA in 1994.
Findings and Decisions
Having reviewed and considered the FEIS for the gull hazard
management program at JFKIA and the public comments thereon, the
Service finds as follows:
1. The requirements of NEPA and implementing regulations have been
satisfied; and
2. Consistent with social, economic, programmatic and environmental
considerations from among the reasonable alternative thereto, the
Preferred Action alternative with the Service's conditions described
above is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to
the maximum extent practicable, including the effects discussed in the
FEIS; and,
3. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential
considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse
environmental effects revealed in the EIS process will be minimized or
avoided by incorporating as conditions those mitigative measures
identified in the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and its supporting
appendices; and,
4. The limitations on the numbers of gulls which may be taken under
this permit are compatible with the terms of the Migratory Bird
Conventions and are made with due regard to their distribution,
abdundance, breeding habits, and migratory patterns; and
5. The ADC and the PA have made a sufficient showing of compelling
justification for these permits; and
6. All improvements to the BCU, BHTF, and JFKIA management
programs, as specified in above in the Service Actions section during
the term of each permit are hereby adopted as part of this finding and
will be used to guide future migratory bird permit decisions.
Having made the above findings, the Service has decided to proceed
with implementation of the Preferred Alternative with the above
conditions.
This Record of Decision will serve as the written facts and
conclusions relied on in reaching this decision. This Record of
Decision was approved by the Regional Director of the Service on May
25, 1994.
Dated: May 25, 1994.
Ronald E. Lambertson,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 94-13530 Filed 6-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M