## RESPONSETO:

Evnlunnoru OrTHr Nonrn SnoRr MRRrrur TRerusrrR

### Srmoru Aruo

### Irs CoNpnriallrv WnH Rrsprcr

To Bino SrRrrrs AND SAFEArn OprnerroNs AT LnGunnoIn AlRpoRr 

### (Dnnn) ApnIi 2010 Rrponr 

## By Kenneth D. Paskar, New 

## York, New York

May 

## 24,2010

In

### April 2o1o,

### the Federal 

### Aviation 

### Administration (FAA) and 

### the U.S. 

### Department 

### of Agriculture, 

### Animal and 

### Plant Health Inspection Service, 

### Wildlife Services (USDA) 

### published 

### their "Evaluation of the 

### North Shore 

### Marine Transfer Station and 

### its Compatibility 

### with Respect 

### to 

### Bird Strikes and Safe

### Air Operations at LaGuardia 

### Airport," a

### joint draft study regarding 

### the siting of a 

### Marine Transfer Station (NSMTS)

### just r,825 feet 

### from the end ofthe 

### runway atLaGuardia. The agencies requested 

### public comment onthe 

### evaluation report; therefore, 

### I hereby 

### submit this letter and the attached 

### reports on 

### mybehalf.


### I have reviewed 

### both the study and 

### its listed supporting documentation. 

### I have also reviewed an 

### independent

### wildlife study completed by Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, USAF 

### (ret), which 

## I commissioned earlier 

### this month (see attached). 

### I have also reviewed the 

### FAAAdvisory Circular 

### t5o/5zoo-ggB (AC), 

### which provides guidance 

### for certain 

### land uses 

### that have the 

### potentialto attract hazardous 

### wildlife on 

### or near 

### public-use airports. These 

### land uses include 

### but are 

### not limited to solid waste 

### transfer stations. 

### I am deeply concerned 

### that a delicate and subtle shading 

### or skewing offacts exists 

### in the 

### draft report. 

### Anumber of relevant facts have been 

### omitted, downplayed, 

### or mischaracterized 

### in an 

### effort to approve 

### building the NSMTS 

### in College 

### Point, Queens. This approval 

### for the NSMTS is sought 

### aeipite the clear 

### ind obvious 

### risk to aviation safety, the objections_of the 

### community and elected 

### officials, and the 

### obstruction the

### facilitywould impose onthe development of a 

### precision approach 

### to LaGuardia's 

### runway 31.

The Executive Summary ofthe 

### draft report claims 

### that the NSMTS 

### would be sited 

### z,zo6 feet from the 

### landing threshold 

### for runway 3r. But theAC

### criteria for separation between awaste 

### transfer 

### stationind an 

### airport isthe distance 

### from the

### Airport Operations Area (AOA) and 

### not the runway 

### threshold. 

### the distance between the AOA and the NSMTS is

### approximately 

### r,6oo feet

## - a

### diiference of nearly 35 percent. The 

### report's claimthat the NSMTS is more 

### than 

### z,ooo feet 

### from the 

### runway is at best 

### misleading and at

### worst 

### intentionally deceptive.

The Executive Summary also claims 

### that the proposed site 

### for the 

### facility is 

### not in the Runway 

### Protection Zone(RPZ),-and 

### that "congressional and 

### public scrutiny resulted 

### in additional investigation." Public officials, including U.S. Rep. 

### GaryAckerman, and many members of

### the

### public are clearly opposed 

### tothe NSMTS. There is 

### now

## - and has been 

### for manyyears 

## - strong

opposition tothe 

### building ofthe NSMTS. 

### According tothe Executive Summary, "A

### joint study conducted by the FAA and the USDA.,

### with guidance 

### from atechnical panel of experts, reviewed 

### current and 

### historical 

### wildlife data and surveys, the 

### bird strike history at

### taGuardia 

### Airport, and the proposed 

### building design plans, 

### specification and 

### operational parameters." 

# o The

### technical panel 

### of experts includes 

### individuals who par[icipated 

### in a previous 

### study of

### this 

### facility.



# . These 

### individuals, 

### prior to

### this study, were 

### known to have no objections 

### tothe 

### facility, with the exception of 

### Richard Dolbeer.
Dolbeer was quoted 

### in an Associated Press

### article 

### in May2oog: 

### "It might be safe 

### to put-garbage 

### transfer stations ofthe

### tlpe proposed by New 

### York near some 

### airports where scavenger 

### birds aren't common." 

### gut he 

### idded that LaGuardia 

### isn't the 

### kind of 

### airport and 

### location compatible 

### with atrash 

### facility.
That certainly raises a redflag regarding the safety of

### this proposed site. 

### "I don't 

### think enough research hasbeen done

### to really determine 

### if

### thesefrlly enclosedfacilities do 

### not 

### attract wildlife," said Dolbeer. 

### "LaGuaidiu hur enough 

### problems (with 

### birds) as 

### it is

### just being located
onthe 

### water."

Steven Garber, an expert 

### wildlife biologist and 

### former director of

### wildlife managem€nt _for

## t\9

. Port

### Authority of New 

### York and New Jersey, says the NSMTS is

### within r,85o feet 

### of LaGuardia's Runway 

### r3-3i

## - within the Runway 

### Protection Zone

## - and 

### will attract birds. He says the NSMTS 

### constitutei "flagrant safety 

### violations that

### will greatly increase the 

### risk of 

### imminent pla19 crashes." He says the 

### food source created bythe NSMTS

### will guarante,e

### that the area

### will become "an enormous 

### lbunging, feeding, socializing, 

### andbreeding area." He also notes 

### that the 

### birds are 

### federally 

### protectedird'that efforts 

### to remove them 

### will entail a 

### lengthy and expensive

## - and 

### probably 

### futile 

## - battle. 

### Virtually all of

### the experts 

### in this study are 

### currently 

### or have been employed by or contracted by one or more 

### of the stakeholders 

### in this issue, 

### including the FAA, USDA, and

### the Port

### Authority. Working 

### for more 

### than one 

### of these agencies 

### constitutes a clear 

### conflict 

### ofinterest; independent analysis and 

### objectivity cannotbe assured, because the FAA and the USDA knew the panel members' 

### position onthe 

### project 

### prior tothe development of

### this report. 

## "In my opinion, 

### the potential increased risks 

### are 

### unacceptable. The 

### facility (NSMTS) should 

### not be developed and 

### then mitigated whenthe risk can be avoided 

### altogether." 

## N Russell P. DeFusccr 

### According tothe Executive Summary, the 

### study considered 

### "currently operating and

### similarly designed 

### trash-transfer stations located 

### in other boroughs of 

### New York City." DeFusco, however, 

### in his 

### report, recommends 

### that all zuch 

### facilities located near 

### airports should be 

### individually evaluated because 

### of differences 

### in 

### building design, 

### location, and on-site management practices_' 

### "Variabilitybetween facilities was consideiable Jven 

### inthe same regions," he

### wrote, "and 

### therefore comparisons 

### with other local 

### facilities, such ason Staten 

### Island or 

### in Harlem, may 

### notbe valid." It's 

### important tonote 

### that the

### facility in Staten 

### Island is 

### not a

### marine transfer station and 

### that the

### facility 

### in

Harlem is designed 

### differently

## - and has a

### history of 

### attracting birds.
The Executive Summary states 

### that the study "conducted 

### risk assessments on a range

### of alternatives,

### from no 

### facilities to a

### fully operational 

### facilitywith mitigation measures 

### in place." The model 

### in the 

### report, however, is 

### invalid. "The 

### risk assessment model 

### (figure 3-9) ofthe 

### draft FAA/USDA report is 

### not correct,"wrote DeFusco. 

### "It is an 

### adaptation of a standard 

### Operating Risk Management 

### (ORM) model 

### that should 

### showthe frequency of occurrence of a hazard 

### on one scale and 

### the severity 

### ofthe consequences 

### ofencountering that hazard onthe opposing scale."


### This is 

### but one example of 

### incorrect 

### information 

## - or involvement ofthe panel of experts 

## - may have 

### compromised the

### validity ofthe 

### draft report.
The 

### draft report states 

### that gulls, 

### starlings, and pigeons are species

### frequently attracted 

### totrashtransfer facilities. But according 

### tothe AC,'urrltures arethe 

### top species

### that pose hazards

### to aviation safety. 

### "Mostbirds have avery 

### poorly developed sense of

### smell," says DeFusco, 

### "with

one notable exception: the Turkey 

### Vulture." Why were 

### vultures excluded

### from the 

### FAA/USDA 

### draft study? 

### Vultures are 

### commonly observed 

### in the region, and should have been 

### prominently listed in the study.

The 

### draft report's 

### Introduction states 

### that the City of New 

### York Department of 

### Sanitation submitted a revised proposal 

### "following concerns expressed by

### the Port

### Authority of New

### York and New Jersey." 

### In a May 

### zoo5 letter 

### from Tom Bock, General Manager-for Airspace 

### Modernization, Technology & 

### Operational Enhancement 

### for the Port 

### Authority of 

### NewYork & New Jersey 

### to Robert

## eleiindeiof the FAA, Bock 

### wrote, "The 

### construction of

### this 

### building

### will not only decrease 

### air safety and 

### restrict l,aGuardia 

### arrivals and departures, 

### but also 

### may adversely 

### impact the 

### NewYork City economy and affect 

### air

### traffic nationwide. For these 

### ,"urorr,'th" Fae must declare 

### this 

### building a hazard 

### to air navigation." The 

### draft rep_ort's use

### of the 

### term "concerns expressed bythe Port

### Authority" is an obvious 

### understatement of

### what Bock
was 

### attempting to communicate.


### I commissioned DeFusco to

### visit the site and the 

### surrounding area,

### to review 

### all available 

### documentation, and 

### to determinewhether the NSMTS 

### would produce a

### bird hazard

### to aviation. 

### I also asked 

### him to 

### speci$'with particulanty his

### findings. 

### I have attached his rep-ort, dated 

### May 

### t4,2oto,along 

## with; study 

### completedby Steven Garber, 

### former director of

### wildlife management 

## fir the Port 

### Authority. Both DeFusco and Garber have concluded 

### that this

### facility is a

### biid magnet and should not be 

### built. The 

### public is opposed 

### to the

### transfer station, and

### our elected 

### officials are opposed 

### tothe 

### transfer station.JeffSkiles, copilot of US

### Airways 

### t519t

_ 

### which landed 

### in theftrrasotr River 

### after a

### bird strike on 

### departure

### from LaGuardia, said of

### the NSMTS 

### project, "That's

### just insane!" Only the 

### City of New 

### York Department of Sanitation and the 

### Mayor of-New 

### York City 

### want

### this faciiity 

### builf After reviewing 

### Gtters from the FAA and USDA, 

### I am 

### baffled over why these 

### two 

### ug"rr"i", are crusading 

### infavor of 

### building the 

### NSMTS.I have 

### not seen one 

### item 

### of cS.respondence 

### or 

### coirmunication of any 

### kind 

### from either agency 

### questioning or 

### investigatingthe 

### risks and hazardsthe NSMTS 

### would impose on 

### air travel. Instead, 

### this new study was



### initiated only after much 

### opposition tothe

### facilityby the 

### public and elected 

### officials

## - and 

### the "Miracle onthe 

### Hudson" that focused 

### attention onthe 

### problem of 

### bird strikes at LaGuardia.
Other 

### thanthe City of 

### NewYork, the FAA and USDA' no one has expressed 

### support for the 

### facility. The FAA and USDA 

### must act 

### in the best 

### interest of

### auiafion safety

## - and 

### not at

### the urging of

### the City of 

### NewYork. As a resident of 

### NewYork City and member ofthe 

### aviation community, 

### I hereby 

### submit this 

### written response 

### in strong 

### opposition tothe 

### North Shore 

### Marine Transfer Station 

### for the reasons stated 

### herein.

Submitted May 24,

### zoto