[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