Comments Submitted Electronically

May 24, 2010

Dockets Management System U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets Operations, M–30

Ground Floor, Room W12–140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590–0001

Subject: Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0104, Evaluati on of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia Airport

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), represents the safety interests of 53,000 professional airline pilots who fly passenger and car go aircraft for 38 airlines in the United States and Canada. We appreciate the oppo rtunity to comment on the draft report of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) multi-agency wildlife ha zards study concerning the planned construction

of the North Shore Marine Tran sfer Station (MTS) and the MTS’ s potential impact on the safe operations of departing and arri ving aircraft on Runway 13/31 at the LaGuardia Airport and the airport’s general environment.

ALPA applauds the DOT for undertaking this st udy and risk assessment in order to determine the wildlife (bird) hazard safety impact posed by the North Shore MTS. While we unequivocally support the general deployment of effective bird hazard mitigati on strategies at the LaGuardia Airport, we respectfully di sagree with the Evaluation’s conclusions. Specifically, we categorically oppose the construction and operation of the MTS at the planned site under the departure and arrival paths of LaGuardia Airp ort’s Runway 13/31, and qu estion the wisdom of that effort and the proposed mitigation strategies intended to accompany it.

The Evaluation’s “Determination of Findi ngs” points out in risk assessment Alternative Three, that the proposed facility, w ith modifications and an integr ated operational wildlife hazard mitigation plan, would provide the safest, most acceptable alternative when considering the building of the North Shore MTS. We interpre t this to mean that the FAA and DOT have

concluded that in order to reduce hazardous bird activity and increase air safety at LaGuardia, it would actually be better to build the MTS than to maintain the present situation with no facility. We disagree; the Evaluation leads us to conclu de that if additional wildlife hazard mitigation strategies were implemented for the existing co nditions (i.e., no MTS and additional strategies), air safety would be significantly increased.Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0104, Evaluation of th e North Shore Marine Transfer Station

Air Line Pilots Association, International May 24, 2010 Page 2

ALPA believes that the Evaluation team should not have used the experience of the Staten Island

waste transfer station, a land-based facility, as a predictor of poten tial wildlife activity the marine transfer station may generate. According to the repor t, during six standardized bird surveys conducted of the 140 gulls observed, only less th an one per hour was observed “using” the transfer station. The report then states, “Gu lls commonly used the waterway adjacent to the transfer station property but appe ared to show little interest in the facility and the waste management activities that occurred inside the bui lding.” We believe that because gulls are more inclined to frequent a water environment, it is reasonable to conclude th at they would be more likely to congregate at a marine facility than at a land facility.

Regarding the Evaluation’s recommendations, keep ing in mind that we oppose the construction

of the MTS, our concerns as to their advisability, app licability and sustainability are articulated

in italics, below:

Planning and Construction Phases:

• Develop an integrated wildlife hazards management plan for the MTS facility.

4 There is no mention of specific elements that should be included in the integrated wildlife hazards management plan. The Evaluation should highlight essential methodologies which must be included in the plan.

• Eliminate ledges and other perching sites in the building design to the greatest extent possible. As an example, signage on the building should not use raised letters as this

provides perching and nesting sites for European starlings and house sparrows. 4 As a general mitigation strategy for any airport environment, we concur

.

• Install anti

‐ perching devices on the transfer station roof, pilings, and other surfaces

where birds might perch.

4 Such design elements would likely deter bi rds from using the MTS for perching or nesting. However, because the facility is not an isolated building, but rather, will stand among many others, we do not agree that these design modifications provide a valid mitigation. Adjacent buildings that do not incorporate similar design mitigation features will become perching or roosting lo cations for birds that are attracted to, and feeding from the contents of the vehicles entering and exiting the building, whether by land or water

.

• Strict enforcement of a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy.

4 The demolition of the current structure on the MTS site is taking place without the implementation of this recommendation, lik ely resulting in a feeding area having been already established.

• Ensure landscaping plants and materials are selected to be non

‐ attractive to wildlife

(such as minimizing grassy areas which might attract Canada geese).

4 Because this recommendation is consistent with acceptable wildlife mitigation strategies in any airpor t environment, we concur

.Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0104, Evaluation of th e North Shore Marine Transfer Station

Air Line Pilots Association, International May 24, 2010 Page 3

Fully Operational Transfer Station:

• Implement an integrated wildlife hazards management program for the MTS facility.

4 There is no mention of definitive elements to be included in the integrated wildlife hazards management program that are specific to this facility. The Evaluation should

delineate areas that are e ssential to be addressed and in cluded in the program.

• Provide a dedicated (i.e., only duties) wildlife control professional trained and equipped

to mitigate bird use of the transfer station as issues develop (i.e., proactive approach).

4 This dedicated position should be mandat ory in the development and implementation of the program

.

• Strict enforcement of a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy.

4 It is highly doubtful that the enforcemen t effort, beyond the initial commencement of operations, would be either effective or sustainable.

• Monitor trash containers to ensure no trash is extruding from them prior to leaving the

transfer station building.

4 It isn’t clear what action, if any, is require d to be taken to repair or replace trash containers that are no longer fit to serve their intended purpose. This concern also applies to monitoring and ensuring th e good working condition of the truck

containment modules.

• Monitor barge activity for birds that might be attracted to them (due to water disturbance

and/or the refuse containers ) and mitigate accordingly.

4 It is unclear what “mitigate accordingl y” means. For example, what mitigation technique(s) would be used in a downt own, river neighborhood environment? Would the mitigation specify the elimination of the birds flying in the areas around the building and barges ?

Recommendations

Based on our considerable aviati on experience and analys is of the impact of the planned North Shore MTS on flight operations at the LaGuar dia Airport, we recommend the following:

1. The FAA/DOT should find against the proposed construction and ope ration of the North

Shore Marine Transfer Station on the basis that it poses a significant bird strike hazard for all aircraft operating at the LaGuardia Airport.

2. Effective bird strike hazard mitigation strate gies should continue to be researched and utilized to mitigate the existing wildlife hazard situation at LaGuardia.Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0104, Evaluation of th e North Shore Marine Transfer Station

Air Line Pilots Association, International May 24, 2010 Page 4

Conclusion

Because the planned North Shore Marine Transfer Station represents a bird strike hazard that will negatively impact the safe operation of aircra ft utilizing the LaGuardi a Airport, it should not be built. Our position is based upon consideration of conditions that will inevitably exist when operational mitigations are no longer effective du e to aging of the building, wear and tear on equipment which is likely to result in poor c ontainment, bird acclimatization, and the potential loss of funding to support a dedi cated wildlife professional and other mitigation strategies.

In addition to the fact that the North S hore MTS only meets the FAA’s runway obstacle clearance criteria by a few feet, it introduces a po tentially unending food source for birds directly under the approach and departure path of a major airport’s ac tive runway. Although the proposed mitigation strategies may have some positive effect during initial operations, they will eventually prove to be ineffective in the long term.

The significant threat posed to aviation posed by bird activity in an airport environment was never more clearly demonstrated than in the “M iracle on the Hudson” event in January, 2009. In order to effectively mitigate that threat and ensure the safety of air operations in the LaGuardia

environment, the MTS must not be constructed.

If we can offer further clarification or assistance on this issue, please contact me directly at steve.jangelis@alpa.org or ALPA Senior Staff Engi neer Rick Kessel (703/689-4202, rick.kessel@alpa.org ).

Thank you for providing ALPA the opportunity to comment on this extremely important issue.

Sincerely,

Captain Rory Kay Executive Air Safety Chairman

RK:rk Cc: Steve Jangelis