RESPONSE TO:

Evnlunnoru Or THr Nonrn SnoRr MRRrrur TRerusrrR Srmoru Aruo Irs CoNpnriallrv WnH Rrsprcr

To Bino SrRrrrs AND SAFE Arn 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 of the runway atLaGuardia. The agencies requested public comment on the 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 of facts 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 on the development of a precision

approach to LaGuardia's runway 31.

The Executive Summary of the draft report claims that the NSMTS would be sited z,zo6 feet

from the landing threshold for runway 3r. But the AC criteria for separation between a waste

transfer stationind an airport is the 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 claim that 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 to the NSMTS. There is now - and has been for manyyears - strong

opposition to the building of the NSMTS.

According to the Executive Summary, "A joint study conducted by the FAA and the USDA., with

guidance from a technical 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 to the facility,

with the exception of Richard Dolbeer.

Dolbeer was quoted in an Associated Press article in May 2oog: "It might be safe to put-garbage

transfer stations of the 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 a trash facility.

That certainly raises a red flag 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

on the 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 by the 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 on the project prior to the

development of this report.

"In my opinion, the

potential increased risks

are unacceptable. The

facility (NSMTS) should

not be developed and

then mitigated when the

risk can be avoided

altogether."

N Russell P. DeFusccr

According to the 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 in the same regions," he wrote, "and therefore comparisons with

other local facilities, such as on Staten Island or in Harlem, may notbe valid." It's important to
note 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 facility with mitigation measures in place."

The model in the report, however, is invalid. "The risk assessment model (figure 3-9) of the 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 on the opposing

scale."

This is but one example of incorrect information - or involvement of the panel of experts - may

have compromised the validity of the draft report.

The draft report states that gulls, starlings, and pigeons are species frequently attracted to trashtransfer facilities. But according to the AC,'urrltures are the top species that pose hazards to

aviation safety. "Mostbirds have a very 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 by the 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 determine whether 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 to the transfer station. JeffSkiles, copilot of US Airways t519t 

_

which landed in the ftrrasotr 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 in favor of building the NSMTS.I have not seen one item of

cS.respondence or coirmunication of any kind from either agency questioning or investigating
the risks and hazards the NSMTS would impose on air travel. Instead, this new study was

initiated only after much opposition to the facilityby the public and elected officials - and the

"Miracle on the Hudson" that focused attention on the problem of bird strikes at LaGuardia.

Other than the 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 of the aviation

community, I hereby submit this written response in strong opposition to the North Shore

Marine Transfer Station for the reasons stated herein.

Submitted May 24, zoto