Record of Decision on Gull Hazard Reduction Program for John F. Kennedy International Airport

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