# Report on Bird Strike Hazards Associated with the Proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station, Queens, New York.

Submitted by: Ronald L. Merritt DeTect Inc.1 I. Introduction

. In preparing this report I reviewed a number of documents and reports that ad dress the potential for the proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) to increase bird strike risk at the nearby LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New York. Included in these documents was a report titled “ Preliminary
Assessment and Recommendations Re garding Potential Bird Hazards to Aviation from the Proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station, Queens, New York
, ” dated May 14 , 2010, various maps of the region, FAA bird strike data and several other expert reports and analyses. Additionally I partic ipated in a risk management workshop held in Phoenix, AZ, on July 14, 2010 , to discuss additional risk considerations and implications to internationally recognized standards and methods of risk management.

II. Review of the Report : T he FAA/USDA report ( the report) “ Evaluation of the north shore marine transfer station and its compatibility with respect to bird strikes and safe air operations at LaGuardia Airport (draft) ” dated April 2010 is the result of an extremely short assessment of the proposed faci lity. The hurried time line for this effort resulted in an incomplete study, unconventional risk assessment methodologies and
conclusions that are not substantiated by the report itself.

1. The study upon which the report relies was conducted due to leg itimate concerns that the proposed site would pose a significant hazard to safe aviation. This concern is based upon decades of experience with birds being attracted to municipal solid waste facilities, including transfer stations. This attraction
and t he subsequent bird strike hazards associated with the attraction led to the development of separation
criteria and study requirements outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200

- 33B.

2. The study period was inadequate. The report states that, “ Standardized bird surveys were conducted by professional wildlife biologists during February and March of 2010 at the proposed MTS site to gain insight into bird activity at or near the proposed building site” (page 13). A standard wildlife hazard assessment for airp orts requires that daily and seasonal movements be determined. Further examination of the report reveals a very compressed time

- line for this study which began on 30 Nov 2009 and resulted in a draft report 110 days later on March 19, 2010. Without a full seasonal study, it is unclear if these wintering populations represent the worst case scenario or if summer populations may increase the density of gulls using the area. Reference was made in the report to other long term studies conducted at the airport , but no seasonal data were presented to indicate which months had peak activity.2

3. The study range was limited. A standard wildlife hazard assessment for an airport generally requires investigation of bird attractions out to a range of 5 nautical miles from the airport. This is based on the

ge neral knowledge that gulls and other potentially hazardous species may travel over 10 miles to forage or loaf in a preferred area. In the report, the background number of birds was determined from repeated surveys
with in a 0.25 mile radius from the proposed MTS site

.

4. Background numbers of hazardous birds. The report identifies three potentially hazardous species of birds, gulls (includes all species in the area such as herring gulls and ring

- billed gulls), pige ons, and European starlings. From those surveys it was estimated that number of gulls in that limited area over 100 per hour
and that less than 1% were actually observed directly on the proposed MTS site.

5. Risk analysis is unconventional. The risk ana lysis procedure included in the report uses unconventional methods of depicting operational risk assessments. Generally, op erational risk is a matrix between the probability of occurrence and the severity of outcome, generally divided into 5 categories ea ch. The report uses only three cat egories of hazardous bird activity for each of three alternative scenarios 1. no facility present (current condition), 2. proposed facility, and 3. proposed facility with construction modifications and wildlife management . The subsequent risk categories, however, are based only upon opinion as to what levels of hazardous bird activities would be expected at the site. Yet t he study agrees that construction of the MTS at the proposed site would increases bird strike risk

. The report states,

“ Overall, the highest risk posed to safe aircraft operations by birds would likely occur if a MTS was constructed and operated at the proposed site with no consideration of wildlife issues. This level of risk
would be associated with in creased bird movements (primarily gulls) flying to and from the MTS, in particular if these movements occurred within the flight paths of aircraft approaching or departing from LaGuardia Airport”(page 22). How or why the proposed mitigation measures (buil ding modifications and control programs) are able to reduce risk from High to Low is unexplained.

6. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. The report concludes that, “ By incorporating modifications to the building design, implementing operational procedures, and developing and conducting an integrated wildlife hazard management program, the risk of bird strikes could be greatly reduced when compared to the present situation (that is, no MTS facility present and no mitigation of wildlife hazards at the proposed No rth Shore MTS site). However it is not clear how this change in risk category was derived. If there are a high number of birds in the approach and departure corridor near the proposed MTS site, the airport should already be3

taking aggressive measures to reduce the risk. How adding a new food source directly at the end of the runway and then implementing a routine integrated bird control plan would reduce risk below background levels is not explained nor demonstrated.

III. Risk Assessment. After reviewin g all available documents, reports, and maps, I conducted an initial risk assessment of the proposed MTS. This assessment includes risk identification, risk analysis, and risk treatment options.

1. Risk Identification. One of the first components of the ri sk management process is to identify sources of risk, areas of impacts, events, and their causes and their potential consequences. In the case of the MTS there are two main components, the MTS facility (and its operations), and the species of birds that

w ould be attracted to the facility.

- The species of birds attracted to the facility would include gulls (ring

- billed gull and herring gulls would be most common, but others may also investigate), European starlings, and rock dove (common pigeon).
These bir ds pose a hazard to aviation due to their body mass and or flocking behaviors. There appears to be no disagreement among biologists that these are the most species of greatest concern as other hazardous species common in the area such as waterfowl (ducks and geese) are not typically associated with municipal waste disposal facilities. Gull species are highly adapted to exploit an available food source within minutes. This is part of a well known optimum foraging strategy evolved in these birds
and is eas ily demonstrated by simply finding an area with a moderate number of gulls present. On July 30, 2010, I drove to a beach area near my home. At approximately 10:30 CDT I took a bag of potato chips out to the beach. For thirty minutes I observed laughing gulls flying overhead and loafing along the beach. Over the 30 minute period I observed approximately 25 gulls either standing along the beach or flying past in a field of view that was approximately 400 meters. Often there were no gulls to been
seen in the observation area (figure 1). I opened the bag of chips and simply tossed it into the air. A laughing gull came from behind me and before the chip was taken several birds had already flown in (figure 2). I opened the bag and spread the remainder of t he bag on the beach and within 60 seconds had over 100 gulls attempting to get to the chips and the bag (figure 3). It only takes minutes for an4 Figure 1. Panama City Beach with few gulls

Figure 2. The first chip is down

Figure 3. Within 60 seconds of the bag of chips being placed on the beach5

available food source to be recognized and exploited by a species highly evolved with this foraging strategy and experience in feeding in and around w aste disposal areas and vehicles.

- The MTS facility attracts these hazardous bird species. Municipal solid waste facilities including transfer stations have the potential to attract large populations of potentially hazardous species of birds
as the waste stream generally contains a large amount of food. Gulls and other species can quickly exploit an available food source within minutes of it becoming available. In the case of the proposed MTS food could become available at several points in the disposal/ transfer process. Each of these points has the potential for industrial “failure mode” to occur which would result in this food source being temporarily available.

- First inbound vehicles moving towards the MTS may periodically fail to be completely cov ered or closed. Waste may also leak from these vehicles. Generally a transfer station operation plan will include some level of litter patrol activities to police the roads in the vicinity of the MTS. Gulls are quickly attracted to spilling garbage and are accustomed to feeding in and around these areas. Additionally these trucks often emit odors that birds will detect and seek to exploit. Another potential
source of industrial failure would be the breakdown of a full short haul trash truck near the st ation that may sit for hours waiting removal. Such a vehicle may also have exposed debris attached to the external portions of the vehicle that would attract gulls to scavenge around it.

- Outbound vehicles may also have residual debris attached to the tr uck. While most standards of operations require cleaning the wheels and other external components, these wash systems also breakdown periodically and trucks may leave the facility with “food” attached.

- Transfer station activities. The transfer station i tself has several functions where industrial failure may result in large quantities of food becoming available to birds. Doors failing to properly open and close may result in temporary access to the tipping floors. Other mechanical failures or personne l delays result in vehicles sitting outdoors for extended periods of time, delivery schedules being delayed, trucks backing up into holding areas. Compacting equipment, loaders, containers, all have moving parts that will break and or fail over a period o f time and will result in momentary availability of food. When these malfunctions occur, it will only take a few minutes for gulls to find the available food and exploit6

it. It is unlikely that a trained bird control specialist will always be able to ide ntify the accidental availability of food prior to birds finding it. The subsequent dispersal activities will move birds away from the site, but only after the birds have arrived at the food source (moved through the critical airspace). Following dispers al, the birds will leave the facility and will again move through the critical airspace.

- Inbound and outbound Barges. Gulls often follow barges along rivers. Prop wash often stirs up invertebrates and other food sources. Garbage barges, even with conta iners, may have residual debris and leakage which attract birds

– Residual debris. Inadvertent failure to close doors or door failures occur which further invites opportunities for gulls to feed.

2. Risk analysis

. Risk analysis includes an estimation of the probability of occurrence of a risk event combined with the severity of the outcome sh ould such and even occur. ISO 31000 standards include a simple risk matrix (figure 4 below) to assist in organizing these components.

Figure 4 . Risk assessment matrix

- Likelihood of occurrence. The report suggests that the proposed MTS would periodic ally attract hazardous bird species to the site. This is supported by the already high strike history with gull species R I S K M A T R I X Definitions P robability ( P ) S ever ity ( S ) A V ery H igh (VH) Likely to occur often (to be expected) I V ery H igh (VH) Death / system loss / severe environmental damage / severe financial loss ($10M) B H igh (H) Several times in the system’s life cycle II H igh (H) Irrecoverable severe injur y / irrecoverable illness / major system damage / major environmental damage / major financial loss ($5M) C M edium / Moderate (M) Once in the system’s life cycle III M edium / Moderate (M) Irrecoverable light injury / irrecoverable illness / relevant syst em damage / relevant environmental damage / relevant financial loss ($1M) D L ow (L) Unlikely but may possibly occur IV L ow (L) Recoverable light injury / recoverable illness / relevant system damage / relevant environmental damage / relevant financial lo ss ($0.25M) E V ery L ow (VL) Practically impossible ( not to be expected) V V ery L ow (VL) Will not result in injury / illness / irrelevant system damage / irrelevant environmental damage / irrelevant financial loss ($0.075M)

Red: Unacceptable => Must be reduced Yellow: Reduce if feasible , proceed with care Green: Good to go for the time being, keep monitoring7

reported at LaGuardia (55% of all identified strikes were with gull species from 2004

- 2008). More importantly the report identifies La Guardia ranking second highest in reported gulls strikes in the FAA Eastern Region with 8.0 strikes per 100,000 movements. The report also states, “Additionally, long

- term monitoring data collected at LaGuardia Airport (2004−2009), in addition to other s tudies of birds within the New York City area, clearly show that bird activity and abundance within these environments is dynamic and likely influenced by several environmental factors, such as weather patterns, tidal cycles and other
seasonal influences ... .”. It is abundantly clear that gulls are not only common in the area, but have behaviors that influence their distribution throughout the year that may result in numbers sufficiently high enough around the airport to result in bird strike events. The l ikelihood of a strike would have to be rated as high and possibly very high even under current conditions (i.e. without the MTS). The addition of the MTS, by consensus of the blue ribbon panelists who wrote the report will increase the
attraction of the a rea to gulls. The reasonable conclusion from that position is that the likelihood of a gull strike after the construction of the MTS is very high.

- Severity of outcome. Damage to aircraft is a function of aircraft speed and the mass of the bird species struck. Ring

- billed gulls and herring gulls may weigh up to 2.5 to 3 pounds. Additionally these birds commonly move in flocks which dramatically increase the probability of a strike as well as the potential for a multiple strike. The severity of outcome of hitting multiple birds with the mass of ring

- billed and herring gulls would also be rated high to very high.

- Using this standard risk format, the probability of a serious strike would be Very High (A) and the severity of outcome would be Very High (I) . Clearly the risk matrix would result in an unacceptable
risk assessment.

3. Risk Treatment Options

. Risk treatment involves selecting one or more options for modifying risks and implementing those options. In the case of the MTS there are two major trea tment options, modification to the building and daily operations to minimize perching locations, and feeding opportunities and active control or harassment of birds that attempt to feed at the site.8

- Physical

– construction to limit perching/roosting: red uce pigeon and starlings, but these birds will easily establish perching and roosting/nesting areas in nearby buildings

– close by food will continue to increase activity in the safety zone

.

- Active

– active harassment and depredation will only occur on

- si te and only after birds have passed through the airspace. Dispersal will move birds away from the site, but may put them back through the airspace and perhaps to the airfield to take refuge. Airport will have to step up gull patrols, and even if
local bi rds begin to understand the threat of depredation, migrant birds will still recognize the barges, the short haul trucks, and the odors of the MTS.

3. Residual Risk

. The risk that remains after treatment options or mitigation have been in place is critical

t o this process. It is this risk that will drive implementation of additional mitigation and oversight or change the direction of the overall program

. Mitigation of risk must include both the positive and negative impacts of the mitigation process. At th e proposed MTS risk mitigation is proposed in two

ways.

- Physical

– limiting access through design will have a limited impact as pigeons and starlings will easily find roosting and nesting locations in the nearby facilities. Gulls are already plentiful i n the area and need not linger at the site but merely flyby occasionally to exploit opportunities. Physical constraints (that result from revised design) are obviously not 100% effective as it has been suggested in the report that active management would be required for an effective program. Therefore sufficient residual risk remains after the implementation of design and operational modifications.

- A ctive

- Active control has residual risk components as it is only implemented once increased bird activity is identified at the MTS. By the time increased bird activity is observed, birds may have already passed through the traffic pattern. Following dispersal these birds will leave the area for some period of time. During their departure they are likely to fly through the traffic pattern and may take refuge on airport property. So, while active control reduces the number of birds feeding on waste at the MTS it also has the negative effect of having to wait until birds arrive on site (pass through the airspa ce) and drives them back into the airspace upon dispersal where they may seek refuge in a nearby open field or river (possibly the airport). Further, dispersal activities would have to be carefully coordinated with air9

traffic control officials at La Guar dia to insure birds were not dispersed into the path of arriving or departing aircraft. Further, active control mitigation relies heavily on human factors. Bird control staff must be specially training to recognize and coordinate bird dispersal efforts. Keeping trained and motivated staff is difficult when the risk events occur at low frequency on a daily basis.

IV. Summary. There is complete agreement among the biologists involved in the assessment of the proposed MTS that this facility has the pot ential to increase hazardous bird activity at the site and in the local area around the site. The disagreement is in how effective mitigation efforts might be over the life

- cycle of the MTS facility. Industrial accidents and failures are not as rare as o nce thought and conventional risk management practices based upon normal distributions of risk probabilities have been shown to be poor predictors of catastrophic events. It is highly likely that over the life of the MTS mistakes will be made and accident s will happen. The unfortunate consequence of one of these mishaps would be a rapid response of gulls to the site to exploit food resources while posing a significant threat to aviation safety. The potential for this rapid response is underscored by surv ey data recorded from the area and strike reports at LaGuardia which clearly indicates a robust population of gulls nearby. Mitigation can only take place at the facility after birds have been attracted to the site, and eventuality that is so likely that the experts highly recommend a full time bird control staff be present along with extensive monitoring and oversight. Once at the site, a carefully coordinated dispersal procedure would be required to remove the birds from the MTS facility while avoiding inbound and outbound aircraft. The construction of the MTS poses a real threat to aviation safety at LaGuardia and all efforts should be made to find a more suitable location. If this facility can b e safely built and operated at this location, then separation criteria are no longer meaningful.