35804 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

Representatives. Each Secretary’s

Representative is redelegated limited

authority to issue waivers of Department

directives, including handbook

provisions, concerning fair housing and

equal opportunity in Department

programs for the geographic area for

which the Secretary’s Representative is

responsible. The Secretary’s

Representative is concurrently

redelegated the same authority to waive

Department directives concerning fair

housing and equal opportunity in

Department programs as resides with

the Directors of FHEO for the Field

Offices in the geographic area. The

Program Director and the Secretary’s

Representative must jointly concur in

all requests for waivers, whether the

request is granted or denied. If the

Secretary’s Representative and the

Program Director do not agree, the

matter will be referred to the Assistant

Secretary for FHEO for resolution. If the

Secretary’s Representative further

redelegates his or her authority to a

State and Area Coordinator, and the

Program Director and State and Area

Coordinator disagree on a waiver

request, the State and Area Coordinator

will refer the matter to the Secretary’s

Representative.

Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary

for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

redelegates as follows:

Section A. Authority redelegated

The Assistant Secretary for Fair

Housing and Equal Opportunity

concurrently redelegates to each

Secretary’s Representative the following

authority to waive Department

directives, including handbook

provisions, concerning fair housing and

equal opportunity in Department

programs for the geographic area for

which the Secretary’s Representative is

responsible. This authority includes the

same authority to waive directives

pertaining to fair housing and equal

opportunity in Department programs as

is redelegated to Directors of FHEO in

the geographic area. Each waiver

granted shall be in writing, specify the

grounds for the waiver, and shall be

transmitted in writing to the Assistant

Secretary for FHEO. The Assistant

Secretary for FHEO will publish any

changes or amendments to its

redelegations of authority to Directors of

FHEO in the field.

Section B. Authority to further

redelegate

The authority redelegated pursuant to

Section A., above, may be further

redelegated to the State and Area

Coordinators for the geographic region

of the Secretary’s Representative. If the

Secretary’s Representative redelegates

this authority to a State and Area

Coordinator, the redelegation shall

include the requirement that each

waiver granted shall be in writing,

specify the grounds for the waiver, and

shall be transmitted in writing

simultaneously to the appropriate

Secretary’s Representative and to the

Assistant Secretary for FHEO.

Authority: Sec. 7(d) of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (42 U.S.C.

3535(d).

Dated: June 18, 1996.

Elizabeth K. Julian,

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and

Equal Opportunity.

[FR Doc. 96–17175 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–28–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Revised Record of Decision on Gull

Hazard Reduction Program for John F.

Kennedy International Airport

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey (PA) has applied

for a permit 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)

was Animal Damage Control (ADC). The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

was 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 (Part

1506.3, Title 40 CFR) for Implementing

Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and

the Department of the Interior,

Departmental Manual at 516 DM 1.1–

6.6, the Service adopted the above FEIS

as prepared by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture in 1994. The Service used

the information and analyses in the

DEIS and FEIS to make its own

independent Record of Decision (ROD)

for this project, which was published on

June 3, 1994 in the Federal Register.

Based on its independent evaluation

and review, the Service 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 were designed to minimize

environmental harms and constitute a

viable monitoring and enforcement

program.

The PA has not to date fully

implemented all of the actions

identified in the original ROD, and as a

result the Service has been unable to

issue the PA a Special Purpose Permit

to support the bird hazard reduction

program at JFKIA. However, the Service

did issue limited permits in 1994, 1995,

and 1996 to address emergency

conditions associated with gulls during

the summer months. These emergency

conditions were documented by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

and by data collected by ADC biologists

in those years. The current

environmental situation at JFKIA

remains essentially the same as was

addressed in the 1994 FEIS. The data

collected by ADC biologists since 1994

complements, but does not materially

change the analysis of impacts of

alternatives bearing on the revised

decision. These data are available by

contacting the person listed in this

notice. Since issuing the original ROD,

the Service has been involved in lengthy

negotiations with the PA, but has been

unable to find the PA in full compliance

with the ROD, as published on June 3,

1994. The Service believes that

significant bird hazards do occur at

JFKIA, as are documented in the FEIS,

and that a Special Purpose Permit is

needed to address emergencies and to

facilitate migratory bird management

programs on JFKIA. In addition, the

Service recognizes that the PA has

implemented many of the actions

identified in this ROD, and the Service

hereby amends its original ROD to

support a limited Special Purpose

Permit action for the bird hazard

program at JFKIA.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the referenced

ADC data, the 1994 ROD and the 1994

FEIS may be obtained from George Haas,

300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,

Massachusetts 01035 (413/253–8576).

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35805

destruction, equipment damage, runway

closures, and associated personnel

costs. The airport is constructed on a

filled-wetland within a major estuary on

the Atlantic Coast and within a major

migratory bird corridor in the Atlantic

Flyway. This 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 blackbacked) 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. Fiftyeight other bird species have accounted

for approximately 23 percent of the air

strikes and 25 percent of the damage

delays (1979–93).

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 were

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 multifaceted 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 1992. By the third year, this

program reduced the number of bird

strikes involving laughing gulls by more

than 90 percent.

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 an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) was initiated to explore

all reasonable alternatives which might

be implemented to reduce the number

of gull/aircraft collisions at JFKIA in an

effective, safe, environmentally sound

manner in compliance with all

applicable laws and regulations.

The EIS process, including early

public participation, began when a

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

the public. The Notice of Availability of

the FEIS appeared in the May 6, 1994

Federal Register. The Service published

its ‘‘Record of Decision on Gull Hazard

Reduction Program for John F. Kennedy

International Airport’’ in the June 3,

1994 Federal Register.

The 1994 Record of Decision

The Service’s 1994 ROD closely

resembles the IMP/DOI policy, which is

set forth in pages 6.6 through 6.9 of the

FEIS. The 1994 ROD contains more

specific actions and time frames than

are found in the FEIS discussion of the

IMP, which appears on page 6.11.

Specific measures identified in the June

3, 1994 Federal Register (taken verbatim

from the 1994 ROD and enclosed in

quotes) and the Service’s evaluation of

each measure are as follows:

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘The PA will hire a person trained in

ornithology, or wildlife biology, or in a

related field as the supervisor for the Bird

Control Unit (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 Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The Service believes that this measure

was met, but not according to schedule.

This biologist does not directly

supervise the BCU. The BCU and

biologist report to the Manager,

Aeronautical Services Division for

JFKIA. The biologist influences BCU

activities through his supervisor.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 Bird Hazard Task Force

(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

program described in the IMP/DOI and this

document.’’

The Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

This measure was not accomplished

in 1994, and no longer applies to this

issue.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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.’’

The Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The Service believes that this measure

has been met, but not within the

schedule.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The Service believes that this measure

has not been met. There are not 10

permanent, full-time members of the

BCU and all members of the BCU do not

possess the minimum professional

training of a Bachelors of Science degree

or equivalent. However, the PA has
35806 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

provided some training to members of

the BCU over the past year relating to

bird control, which may improve the

ability of the BCU to do its job. The PA

has one staff person trained in

entomology and pesticides within a

separate section and this one staff

person is available to the BCU. The

Service recognizes that the PA has

improved the profession capability of

the BCU and that BCU employees

currently conduct bird surveys at JFKIA.

However, the staff size of the BCU has

only been increased by the addition of

the biologist, and with the exception of

the biologist the Service believes that

the other members of the BCU lack the

equivalent of a Bachelor of Science

training in data collection or population

monitoring programs.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The PA has assured the Service that

this equipment is available to the BCU.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The PA provided training to all

employees associated with the BCU, but

this training was not provided within

the above stated schedule. However, the

PA does not permit all members of the

BCU to conduct all harassment

methods. Specifically the use of

firearms is restricted to shift

supervisors.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 increase

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.’’

The Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The Service does not believe that the

increase in staff size and capability has

been accomplished.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 offairport attractants that encourage gulls to fly

through JFKIA airspace; and (5) continuing

evaluation of potential on-airport

attractants.’’

The Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The PA provided the Service with a

document addressing these issues in

February 1995 and provided the Service

with information addressing these five

issues in a report entitled ‘‘Wildlife

Management Plan’’ in 1996. In addition,

ADC annually; reviews the effectiveness

of the gull shooting program (action 1);

the last interagency review of JKFIA’s

bird hazard management program was

in 1994 (action 1); ADC and the Service

cooperated in the development of

criteria for determining when a gull

shooting program should begin in 1994

and 1995 (action 2); NPS has been

working on the identification of criteria

which could be used to determine when

Category 1 elements have become

ineffective since 1994 (action 3); the PA

collected data on off-airport attractants

for gulls in 1995 (action 4); and the PA

presented information concerning onairport attractants in their ‘‘Wildlife

Management Plan’’ (action 5).

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The PA has provided the Service with

a series of drafts for these management

plans, but not within the above stated

schedule. The most recent version is

dated April 1996 and entitled ‘‘Wildlife

Management Plan’’. The Service merely

stipulated that these plans be prepared

in its ROD and did not stipulate any

criteria about plan quality. However, the

Service is concerned about the quality

of this draft and previous drafts. These

concerns are shared by BHTF member

agencies. The plan continues to be

under development.

The 1994 ROD identifies the

following specific action:

‘‘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 committee 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.’’

The Service’s evaluation of this

specific action is as follows:

The NPS participated in these surveys

in 1994, 1995, and 1996.

The Service received assurance that

‘‘. . . the Port Authority wishes to

reaffirm our commitment and

demonstrate the extent of our effort to

satisfy the elements of the ROD’s

scope,’’ in a letter dated August 31, 1994

and signed by Mr. Robert J. Kelly, Chief

Operations Officer, Aviation

Department, for the PA. The PA did not

meet the deadlines identified in the

ROD, but has made progress with

reaching all but one action. The PA has

not met the action entitled ‘‘1.

Additional enhancement of the

profession capability of the BCU’’.

Specifically, the PA has not increased

the staff size for the BCU to 10

permanent, full-time members with the

minimum professional training of a

Bachelors of Science or equivalent

substantive course work and field

experience. In addition, the BCU is not

directly supervised by the wildlife

biologist.

Service Actions Following the 1994

ROD

1994 Actions

The Service issued Special Purpose

Permits to ADC to allow the 1994

shooting program and to PA to allow the

1994 BCU program. ADC’s permit

expired on August 20, 1994, and the

PA’s permit expired on October 1, 1994.

The Service took this action on the ADC

permit, in consideration of the FAA’s

determination of a need for emergency

actions at JFKIA (letter dated May 24,

1994) and the information presented in

the FEIS concerning the hazards

presented by gulls at JFKIA. This action

was identified in the Service’s ROD. The

Service authorized ADC personnel to

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. This permit was

issued when data collected by ADC

personnel demonstrated this emergency

existed at JFKIA. In 1994, 3,688
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35807

laughing gulls, 184 herring gulls, 73

great black-backed gulls, and 36 ringbilled gulls were taken under these

permits. Following release of the ROD,

the Service met with the PA on August

22 and November 29 in 1994; attended

three related meetings with our

governmental agencies; and sent letters

to the PA dated June 6, June 14, June 27,

August 19 and November 10, 1994,

concerning the additional organizational

measures identified in the Service’s

ROD. However, the PA did not fully

accomplish these ROD actions in 1994.

1995 Actions

The Service issued a Special Purpose

Permit to the PA to allow the 1995

shooting program. The PA was not in

full compliance with the Service’s ROD

at that time. The Service took this action

on the PA permit, in consideration of

the FAA’s determination of a need for

emergency actions at JFKIA (letter dated

May 12, 1995) and actions taken by the

PA to meet the Service’s ROD. The

Service authorized the PA to kill no

more than 14,500 laughing gulls, 1,500

herring, 200 great black-backed, 200

ring-billed gulls and 20 Canada geese,

when found flying into JFKIA airspace

and creating a hazard to aircraft. This

permit was issued when data collected

by ADC personnel demonstrated this

emergency existed at JFKIA. In 1995,

6,302 laughing gulls, 430 herring gulls,

97 great black-backed gulls, 65 ringbilled gulls and 20 Canada geese were

taken under this permit. The Service

met with the Port Authority on February

7, February 10, March 15, March 16,

May 2, October 5, and November 30 in

1995, attended five related meetings

with other governmental agencies; and

sent letters to the PA dated February 23,

April 24, June 6, and June 7, 1995,

concerning the organizational

improvements identified in the

Service’s ROD. However, the PA did not

fully accomplish these actions in 1995.

1996 Actions

The Service met with the PA on

February 12 and March 19 in 1996;

attended one related meeting with other

governmental agencies; and sent letters

to the PA dated March 19, April 26, May

16, May 17 and June 5, 1996, concerning

the actions identified in the Service’s

ROD. However, the PA did not fully

accomplish these actions in 1996. The

Service has concluded that the PA will

not completely accomplish the actions

identified in its 1994 ROD in the

foreseeable future. The Service believes

that a serious human safety risk exists

at JFKIA, given its location in the

middle of a major estuary within a

major migratory bird corridor, and that

a program which includes gull shooting

will always be needed. The Service

believes that authority to shoot gulls

and certain other species of migratory

birds is necessary to the overall IMP/

DOI.

Given the Service’s experiences

working with the PA since June 1994,

the Service believes that the PA will not

fully implement the management

measures contained in the ROD, which

the Service believes would improve the

ability of all interested parties to

understand the behavior of gulls

entering JFKIA airspace. When it crafted

its 1994 ROD, the Service determined

that an expanded, full-time,

professionally-trained BCU was needed

to monitor year-round bird movements

and behavior in the JFKIA area, which

would allow improved airport safety

decisions and reduce the take resulting

from the gull shooting program. The

Service acknowledges that while some

members of the BCU do possess

practical experience will gulls gained

from their years at JFKIA, the Service

does not believe the present staff, both

in terms of numbers and training, has

the capability to conduct the necessary

monitoring programs and studies.

During the preparation of the EIS, the

Service and NPS urged the PA and EIS

preparers to also analyze the other

migratory bird species that frequent

JFKIA and the threats that these species

pose to aircraft and human safety. JFKIA

is located in a major estuary within the

Atlantic Flyway and a wide variety of

migratory birds breed, winter and/or

migrate through this area. Given the

unpredictable nature of these species

using JFKIA airspace, the Service has

vigorously urged the PA to implement

these personnel changes needed to

properly identify, monitor and respond

to new patterns of bird behavior or

changing conditions.

The Service has expended over one

person-year of staff time working with

the PA to implement this program since

issuance of its original ROD. Given the

Service’s limited staff and wide breadth

of responsibilities for trust resources, it

is an impractical and inefficient

expenditures of resources given that no

further progress is occurring.

On June 13, 1996 the PA notified the

Service that an American Airlines

Airbus–300 accident earlier that day

had been caused by one laughing gull,

and had resulted in damage to the turbo

blades in one engine. On June 14 and

June 17 the FAA notified the Service by

two separate letters concerning the

existence of a serious hazard to aircraft

at JFKIA. On June 14 the Service

requested any relevant data on bird

activity from ADC and PA, as had been

done in 1994 and 1995 to support an

emergency permit action. Data received

by June 17 did not suggest increased

flights by laughing gulls into JFKIA

airspace. Data provided by NPS

identified a complete loss of laughing

gull nests on the colony near JFKIA due

to flooding. Increased flights by

laughing gulls into JFKIA airspace and

increased risks to aircraft have

previously been associated with the care

of nestling gulls prior to fledging on the

nearby rookery. This was not the case in

1996, where renesting caused by

flooding has delayed egg-hatching. The

1996 incident confirms the Service’s

concern that an expanded, full-time,

professionally-trained BCU would

improve JFKIA airport safety decisions.

However, (1) since the Service intends

to issue the PA a Special Purpose Permit

as soon as this Revised ROD is

published in the Federal Register, (2) in

normal years increased flights of

laughing gulls into JFKIA airspace

would occur at this time associated with

nestling care, and (3) the American

Airlines accident has occurred; the

Service has issued the PA an emergency

permit covering the June 17–30 period,

which allows shooting up to 1,000

laughing gulls and up to 100 other gulls

(herring, great blackbacked and ringbilled gulls in any combination). The

Service took this emergency action to

address a human safety hazard at JFKIA,

but notes that improvements to the BCU

identified in the 1994 ROD, but not

implemented, might have improved the

ability of the PA to address this hazard.

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 (USC) 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 * * * ’’
35808 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

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.

Revised Service Decision

The Service amends its original ROD

to allow issuance of a Special Purpose

Permit to the PA authorizing the take of

no more than 100 herring gulls, 100

great black-backed gulls, 100 ring-billed

gulls, 100 laughing gulls, and 50 Canada

geese or Canada goose nests each year.

This permit will also authorize during

the period of June 12th through August

of each year the additional shooting of

up to 8,000 laughing gulls, 1,400 herring

gulls, 200 great black-backed gulls, and

200 ring-billed gulls when posing a

threat to airplanes on JFKIA. The

Service will issue this permit for a three

year period beginning in 1996.

The laughing gull nesting colony near

JFKIA has not declined significantly

during the course of the shooting

program. ADC concluded in its

evaluation of the 1991–95 shooting

programs that the annual kill of

laughing gulls ‘‘* * * represented about

1–6% of the estimated adult population

in nesting colonies on the Atlantic coast

from Virginia to Maine * * *’’. Takes of

other species under this permit

represent approximately 1% of the

regional adult herring gull population

and less than 1% of the regional adult

populations for great black-backed gulls,

ring-billed gulls, and Canada geese. The

program, which is supported by this

Revised ROD, will likely result in takes

of migratory birds of the following

magnitudes: 3,688–8,100 laughing gulls,

184–1,600 herring gulls, 73–300 great

black-backed gulls, 36–300 ring-billed

gulls, and up to 50 Canada geese or their

nests. Given the high productivity of the

gull species and the number of gulls

taken during the 1991–95 period, the

Service believes that the environmental

impact of this Revised ROD will be the

same as, or less than the impacts

discussed in the FEIS.

In April 1996 the PA presented the

Service with a proposal to use falconry

to reduce the numbers of migratory

birds flying through JFKIA airspace by

both killing and harassment.

Unfortunately, this proposal contains no

meaningful evaluation plan, and it will

be impossible to judge whether the use

of raptors to harass birds at JFKIA will

reduce the number of strikes in 1996

without such a plan. However, the

Service will incorporate conditions in

the 1996 permit that would allow the

experimental use of falconry at JFKIA,

provided this activity is restricted to

only PA property and monitored

appropriately. Also, the Service intends

to consider future modifications of the

PA permit for the JFKIA bird hazard

management program to accommodate

other experimental approaches that

might result in a reduced kill of

migratory birds, while maintaining at a

minimum the current level of risk at

JFKIA to bird strikes.

Having reviewed and considered the

FEIS and the 1994 ROD for the gull

hazard management program at JFKIA,

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 alternatives thereto, the

Revised ROD 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 and other migratory bird species

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, abundance, breeding

habits, and migratory patterns; and

5. The compelling necessity for public

safety at JFKIA, which is documented in

the FEIS, is addressed by the proposed

actions; and

6. The PA have made a sufficient

showing of compelling justification for

these permits; and

7. All improvements to the BCU,

BHTF, and JFKIA management

programs, as specified in the June 3,

1994 Federal Register with the

amendments identified above in the

Service Actions section 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 Revised Record

of Decision as indicated above.

This Revised Record of Decision will

serve as the written facts and

conclusions relied on in reaching this

decision. This Revised Record of

Decision was approved by the Regional

Director of the Service on June 24, 1996.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

Jaime Geiger,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 96–17128 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Ruffe Control Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

meeting of the Ruffe Control Committee,

a committee of the Aquatic Nuisance

Species Task Force. The Committee will

meet to develop action plans to meet

three new objectives of the Ruffe

Control Program. These are: bait fish

management; fish community

management; and, Chicago Ship and

Sanitary Canal. The meeting is open to

the public. Interested persons may make

oral statements to the Committee or may

file written statements for consideration.

DATES: The Ruffe Control Committee

will meet from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, July 30, 1996, and 8:00 a.m. to

12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 31,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Holiday Inn, 1000 U.S. 23 North,

Alpena, Michigan 49707.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Busiahn, Ruffe Control Committee

Chairperson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, at (715) 682–6185.