'SEP 022010 

Technical Panel for the Evaluation of the 

North Shore Marine Transfer Station 

and its Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe 

Operations at LaGuardia Airport 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. LaHood: 

We are pleased to inform you that the technical panel of experts that was formed at your request to 

study the impact of the proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) on safe airport 

operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) has completed its work. A copy of the technical panel 

report with addendum is enclosed. 

The study began on November 30,2009 and examined the extent to which the proposed facility, if 

properly managed, would nonetheless constitute a wildlife attractant and would therefore be 

incompatible with safe airport operations at LGA. The technical panel reviewed wildlife data, the 

history of bird strikes at LGA, and the proposed building design plans, specifications, and 

operational parameters. The technical panel conducted multiple on-site visits to collect data 

including a tour the proposed MTS site and surrounding area, a visit to LGA and

al panel conducted risk

nal facility with mitigat

similar waste 

transfer facilities in the New York City area. The technic assessments on a 

range of alternatives - from no facility to a fully operatio ion measures in 

place. 

The report was issued for public review and comment from April 23 to May 24, 2010. Five 

separate respondents (Congressmen Gary Ackerman and Joseph Crowley (NY); State of New York 

Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn; the Air Line Pilots Association; Russell P. DeFusco, USAF 

(retired); and Mr. Kenneth D. Paskar) provided comments. The comments were categorized and 

addressed by topic in an addendum to the final report. Some changes were made to add clarity to 

the report. 

Changes to the building design, adherence to strict operational procedures, and the development 

and implementation of an integrated wildlife hazard management plan and program can reduce the 

hazards to aviation safety posed by birds attracted to the proposed facility. These efforts should be 
2

monitored via a local regulatory framework and also should be discussed locally by existing parties 

concerned with wildlife hazards to aviation. It is the opinion of the technical panel that the report 

recommendations, if enacted and maintained, will achieve conditions that allow for compatibility 

between the North Shore MTS and LGA with respect to bird strikes and safe airport operations. 

Sincerely, 

John R. Weller (Project Manager) Michael J. Begier (Project Manager)

National Wildlife Biologist National Coordinator, Airport Wildlife 

Federal Aviation Administration USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 

Brian E. Washburn, PhD (Report Author) Richard A. Dolbeer, PhD 

Research Biologist Science Advisor 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center 

Christopher A. Nadareski Laura C. Francoeur 

Section Chief, Wildlife Studies Chief Wildlife Biologist 

NYC Environmental Protection The Port Authority of New 

Bureau of Water Supply/ WWQO York and New Jersey 

 

Eugene A. LeBoeuf Edward C. Cleary 

Chief, USAF BASH Team President, WASHMan LLC 

U.S. Air Force 

Enclosure 

cc: J. Randolph Babbitt, FAA Administrator 
EVALUATION OF THE NORTH 

SHORE MARINE TRANSFER 

STATION AND ITS 

COMPATIBILITY WITH 

RESPECT TO BIRD STRIKES 

AND SAFE AIR OPERATIONS 

AT LAGUARDIA AIRPORT

REPORT FOR THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF AIRPORTS

OFFICE OF AIRPORT SAFETY AND STANDARDS

AIRPORT SAFETY & OPERATIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC

AUGUST 2010
Report of the technical panel for the evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and 

its compatibility with respect to bird strikes and safe air operations at LaGuardia Airport. Panel 

members are listed in Appendix A. 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................1

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................5

2. Approach ......................................................................................................................7

3. Components of the North Shore MTS Study .............................................................9

3.1. Bird-Aircraft Collisions at LaGuardia Airport .................................................... 9 

3.2. Urban Wildlife and Wildlife Observations at the Proposed Site ....................... 11 

3.3. Design Features of the Proposed North Shore MTS Facility ............................ 15 

3.4. Operational Procedures of the Proposed North Shore MTS Facility................. 16 

3.5. Examination of Currently Operating Trash-Transfer Facilities......................... 17 

3.6. Risk Assessments............................................................................................... 20 

3.7. Determination of Findings ................................................................................. 21 

4. Recommendations......................................................................................................21

5. Sources of Information..............................................................................................23

Appendix A. Technical panel for the evaluation of the North Shore Marine 

Transfer Station and its compatibility with respect to bird strikes and safe air 

operations at LaGuardia Airport................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B. Scientific names of all animals mentioned in this document ............. A-2

Appendix C. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services review of the wildlife hazard 

attractant potential of the proposed MTS to safe aircraft operations at 

LaGuardia Airport ....................................................................................................... A-3

Appendix D. Letter from FAA Eastern Region Airports Division Manager to 

DSNY Deputy Commissioner, June 10, 2009 ............................................................. A-7

Appendix E. Letter from DSNY Deputy Commissioner to FAA Eastern Region 

Airports Division Manager, July 9, 2009.................................................................... A-9

Addendum: Response to Public Comments for DOT-OST-2010-0104-0001 ........ A-11

i 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page

3-1 Summary of bird strikes at LaGuardia Airport where the bird(s) involved was 

identified, 2004–2008 ............................................................................................11 

3-2 Site location for the proposed North Shore MTS near College Point, Queens, 

New York. The proposed site is approximately 2,206 feet from the landing 

threshold of Runway 13/31 at LaGuardia Airport .................................................12 

3-3 Birds observed during a long-term monitoring program to assess wildlife 

hazards at LaGuardia Airport, 2004–2009.............................................................13 

3-4 House sparrows (left photo) and pigeons (right photo) are often a pest at trashtransfer stations and other facilities where solid waste is received and 

processed................................................................................................................14 

3-5 A European starling. Introduced into Central Park in New York City during the 

late 1800s, this bird has spread across North America. Today the starling 

population in the United States exceeds 100 million birds....................................14 

3-6 Two adult herring gulls. Herring gulls (and other gull species) use waste 

management facilities, such as trash-transfer stations and landfills, as a place to 

find food.................................................................................................................15 

3-7 Cross-sectional schematic of the proposed North Shore MTS ..............................17 

3-8 Standardized bird surveys were conducted at the Staten Island Transfer 

Station, a truck-to-rail transfer station facility located in Staten Island, New 

York. The building design and operational procedures of this facility are 

similar to those of the proposed North Shore MTS ...............................................18 

3-9 Assessment of the risk to aviation safety for aircraft using LaGuardia 

Airport under three alternatives related to the proposed North 

Shore MTS.............................................................................................................21 

ii 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

iii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page

2-1 Study activities and date of achievement for the North Shore MTS study 

conducted in accordance with a pre-determined schedule.......................................9 

3-1 Top 20 FAA Part 139 certificated airports within the FAA Eastern Region (out 

of a total of 64 airports) for reported gull-aircraft collisions (includes several 

gull species) per 100,000 aircraft movements, 2004–2008. ..................................10 

3-2 Average number of birds (of selected species) observed per hour of survey 

time within 0.25 miles of the proposed North Shore MTS site located near 

College Point in Queens, New York, during standardized bird surveys 

conducted in February and March 2010 ................................................................15 

3-3 Average number of birds (of selected species) observed per hour of survey time 

within 0.25 miles of the Staten Island Transfer Station located in Staten Island, 

New York, and the average number of birds per hour of survey time using the 

facility during six standardized bird surveys, February and March 2010..............19 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

This page intentionally left blank. 

iv 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2006, the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) issued a 

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to address the long-term exportation and 

disposal of municipal solid waste from metropolitan New York City. This plan proposed 

refurbishing four closed marine transfer station (MTS) facilities previously operated by 

DSNY. One of the four proposed facilities, the North Shore MTS, would be located in 

the College Point section of Queens, New York, 2,206 feet from the landing threshold of 

Runway 13/31 at LaGuardia Airport (LGA). 

The proposed MTS would be a three-level, over-water, fully enclosed facility explicitly 

designed for the indoor transfer of solid waste from collection vehicles into sealed leakproof containers. Each container would be sealed and cleaned within the transfer station 

building and then loaded onto barges for transfer to a final disposal site. No solid waste 

would be stored or processed outside of the fully enclosed MTS building. 

In January 2007, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

received the final permit application for the North Shore MTS for review and public 

comment. Because of the proximity of the proposed location to LaGuardia Airport, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) evaluated its impact on air navigation and issued 

a determination of “No Hazard to Air Navigation” under Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Further, FAA guidance 

contained within Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or 

Near Airports, states that fully enclosed waste-handling facilities designed and operated 

under specific conditions generally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided 

they are not located on airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). 

Although the proposed site for the North Shore MTS is neither on airport property nor 

within the airport’s RPZ and the proposed facility would be fully enclosed, the project 

has attracted Congressional and public scrutiny, which prompted this study. 

A technical panel of wildlife hazard mitigation experts, including representatives from 

the FAA and United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA), reviewed current and historical wildlife 

data and surveys, the history of bird-aircraft collisions (bird strikes) at LaGuardia Airport, 

and the proposed building design plans, specifications, and operational parameters. The 

technical panel considered currently operating and similarly designed trash-transfer 

stations located in other boroughs of New York City and conducted risk assessments on a 

range of alternatives—from no facility to a fully operational facility with mitigation 

measures in place. 

Previous research has demonstrated that gulls, European starlings, and pigeons are bird 

species frequently attracted to trash-transfer facilities. A review of available information, 

such as the bird strike history at LGA and findings from a wildlife hazards monitoring 

program at the airport, clearly demonstrates that gulls are a documented strike hazard at 

LGA and are frequently observed in the coastal-urban environment where the proposed 

MTS has been sited and in the general area near LaGuardia Airport. 

1 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Standardized bird surveys conducted at the Staten Island Transfer Station (a facility that 

has similar building design and operational procedures as would be used at the proposed 

North Shore MTS) indicated that although gulls were abundant in the general area, those 

birds were not attracted to the transfer station and waste management activities occurring 

inside the building. 

Based on the collected data, the technical panel prepared a draft version of this report, 

which was issued for public review and comment from April 23 to May 24, 2010. Five 

separate respondents provided comments that raised issues related to the conduct of the 

study, future regulation of potential wildlife hazards at the proposed MTS facility if built, 

prior FAA studies about the proposed project, FAA advisory circular guidance, and other 

wildlife and wildlife hazard damage management information. The technical panel found 

the comments informative and amended the final report. All comments received during 

the public comment period and responses to the comments are contained in an addendum 

to the final report. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Changes to the building design, adherence to strict operational procedures, and the 

development and implementation of an integrated wildlife hazard management plan and 

program can reduce the hazards to aviation safety posed by birds attracted to the 

proposed facility. The technical panel of experts concludes that the recommendations 

provided in this report will achieve compatibility between the North Shore MTS and 

LaGuardia Airport with respect to bird strikes and safe air operations. 

In addition to steps DSNY has already agreed to take to mitigate wildlife issues at the 

proposed North Shore MTS facility, the technical panel recommends that DSNY take the 

following actions: 

 Update the existing engineering report for the North Shore MTS to reflect the 

additional wildlife hazard mitigation measures described in this report. (Conditions 

added to the engineering report become conditions of the operating permit.) 

 Join the current wildlife hazard working group for John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK) and LaGuardia Airport (JFK/LGA Wildlife Hazard Task Force). This 

working group/task force can discuss issues of shared interest or responsibility relative 

to the coordination of the report recommendations. The group may want to discuss (1) 

regulatory authority over the operational conduct of the North Shore MTS relative to 

wildlife hazard management as discussed in the engineering report and this report and 

(2) how to monitor and address wildlife hazard issues that may arise at the facility. 

Further, the technical panel makes the following specific recommendations to DSNY to 

provide a framework for proactive monitoring and mitigation of wildlife hazards to 

aviation at the proposed North Shore MTS: 

2 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Planning and Construction Phases

 DSNY should develop an integrated wildlife hazard management plan (IWHMP) for 

the MTS that focuses on the facility during both construction and full operation. It 

should be specific enough to accomplish the goals it identifies and include the 

following key elements: 

– Identify personnel responsible for implementing each phase of the plan, 

– Identify and provide information on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the 

MTS, 

– Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife 

hazard(s) observed, 

– Prioritize appropriate management measures, 

– Recommend necessary equipment and supplies, 

– Identify training requirements for the wildlife damage management personnel who 

will implement the IWHMP, and 

– Identify when and how the IWHMP will be reviewed and updated. 

 DSNY should implement the portions of an integrated wildlife hazard management 

program for the MTS facility that focus on the construction phase of the project. 

 DSNY should hire or contract for a full-time, dedicated wildlife biologist who is 

trained and equipped to proactively mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop. 

 DSNY should plan to eliminate ledges and other perching sites in the building design 

as much as possible. For example, do not use raised letters for signage on the building 

as any projections from the building provide perching and nest sites for European 

starlings and house sparrows. 

 DSNY should install anti-perching devices on the transfer station roof, pilings, and 

other surfaces where birds may perch. DSNY should assess the need for such devices 

on adjacent DSNY buildings, as well. 

 DSNY should strictly enforce a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy. 

 DSNY should ensure landscaping plans and selected plants and materials will not 

attract wildlife (e.g., minimize grassy areas that may attract Canada geese). 

Fully Operational Transfer Station 

 DSNY should implement an integrated wildlife hazard management program for the 

MTS facility based on the plan developed during the planning and construction phase. 

3 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 DSNY should hire or contract for a full-time, dedicated wildlife biologist who is 

trained and equipped to proactively mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop. 

 DSNY should strictly enforce a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy. 

 DSNY should assess the cleanliness of incoming containers off site prior to their 

arrival at the MTS. 

 DSNY should monitor trash containers to ensure no trash is extruding from them 

before they leave the transfer station building. 

 DSNY should monitor barge activity for birds that might be attracted to them due to 

water disturbance or the refuse containers and mitigate accordingly. 

4 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Trash-transfer stations are a relatively new component of solid waste management 

systems. A transfer station is a facility where solid waste (i.e., household garbage, 

commercial refuse, construction and building debris) is received, processed, and 

subsequently transferred to another solid waste management facility for further treatment, 

processing, or final disposal. As with other solid waste management facilities, such as 

landfills, certain species of birds can be attracted to trash-transfer stations. If such 

facilities are located near airports, the potential for collisions between birds and aircraft 

(bird strikes) could increase and thus negatively impact safe aircraft operations. 

Recently, a scientific study administered through the National Wildlife Research Center 

of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Wildlife Services program (hereafter referred to as USDA), evaluated the 

attractiveness of trash-transfer stations to wildlife and particularly to species of birds that 

are documented hazards to aviation. Findings from this study indicate the design and 

operation of trash-transfer facilities, in addition to other factors, can influence whether 

birds are attracted to a trash-transfer station. Thus, if the facility is located near an 

airport, these factors must be considered when assessing the overall compatibility of a 

transfer station to safe aircraft operations. 

In 2006, the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) issued a 

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to address the long-term 

exportation and disposal of municipal solid waste (i.e., residential and commercial waste) 

from metropolitan New York City. As an integral part of the plan, the SWMP focused on 

refurbishing four closed marine transfer station (MTS) facilities previously operated by 

DSNY. According to the plan, municipal solid waste would be transported to the MTS 

facilities by curbside garbage trucks, processed and containerized within each facility, 

and transported by barge from each MTS to intermodal facilities or waste disposal sites, 

such as landfills, outside of the New York City area. 

The State of New York sets design standards and operational criteria for all solid waste 

management facilities within the state through regulations, specifically 6 New York 

Codes, Rules, and Regulations Part 360 (Part 360). In January 2007, the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation received the Final Part 360 Permit 

Application for the North Shore MTS, one of the four proposed MTS, for review and 

public comment. 

Previously, on November 10, 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received 

a proposal from DSNY to construct the North Shore MTS [building height of 110 feet 

Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL)] at a site located 2,206 feet from the landing threshold 

of Runway 13/31 at LaGuardia Airport. In response, the FAA completed an aeronautical 

study for which no internal objections were received. The FAA identified the proposed 

MTS building as an obstruction under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, 

Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, and released the finding for public comment in 

April 2005. The FAA issued a determination of “No Hazard to Air Navigation” on 

September 18, 2006. Following concerns expressed by The Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey (PANYNJ), DSNY submitted a revised proposal (with a modified 

5 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

building height of 100 feet AMSL) to the FAA in March 2007. The FAA conducted a 

second aeronautical study and, on September 19, 2008, issued a determination that the 

proposed North Shore MTS structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe 

and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation 

facilities. 

FAA guidance in Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or 

Near Airports, states that fully enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive garbage 

behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar processes; and 

remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with safe airport 

operations, provided they are not located on airport property or within the Runway 

Protection Zone (RPZ). The proposed site for the facility is neither on airport property 

nor in the RPZ for LaGuardia Airport. 

On May 5, 2009, USDA biologists from the New York office met with representatives 

from the FAA, PANYNJ, and DSNY to review the wildlife hazard attractant potential of 

the proposed MTS. Based on review of operational procedures in the Part 360 

Engineering Report, a visit to the Staten Island Transfer Station, and conversations with 

DSNY personnel (H. Szarpanski and S. Dolinar), the USDA determined the North Shore 

MTS did not inherently conflict with safe aircraft operations at LGA, provided 

recommendations (similar to those made in this report) were met (Appendix C). 

Correspondence between the FAA Eastern Region Airports Division Manager William 

Flanagan and DSNY Deputy Commissioner Harry Szarpanski from June 10, 2009, and 

July 9, 2009, respectively, acknowledged the findings and recommendations of the 

USDA New York office. Further, the Deputy Commissioner agreed to implement 

USDA’s recommendations. 

In general, public interest and overall awareness of collisions between wildlife and 

aircraft increased substantially in recent years, most notably following the US Airways 

Flight 1549 “Miracle on the Hudson” event on January 15, 2009. Public concern about 

the potential safety hazards that wildlife populations pose and habitat features that attract 

wildlife to areas on or near airports also increased. As the proposed location for the 

North Shore MTS is within the current flight path corridor for LaGuardia Airport, the 

public, as well as local, state, and Federal government agencies, have expressed concern 

that waste management activities at a trash-transfer station located less than 0.5 miles 

from LaGuardia Airport could attract birds that are known hazards to aviation, thereby 

negatively impacting safe flight operations at the airport. 

Notable discourse about this issue, evident in local and national media stories, occurred 

throughout 2009. Interest from the New York Congressional delegation resulted in 

several questions about FAA policies and previous examinations of the topic by the FAA 

and other government agencies. During the autumn of 2009, the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation held a series of meetings with the New York Congressional delegation, 

the City of New York, the FAA, and USDA. In the interest of public safety, it was 

determined that the FAA and USDA should engage in a joint study to re-examine the 

topic. The FAA and USDA frequently work together to conduct research on various 

6 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

topics related to wildlife hazards to aviation. The FAA uses research findings to develop 

and promulgate safety regulations related to wildlife at airports, thus ensuring safe 

environments for aircraft operations at the Nation’s airports. 

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood directed a technical panel of experts, including 

the FAA and USDA, to study the impact of the proposed North Shore MTS on safe 

airport operations at LaGuardia Airport. This “blue ribbon” technical panel includes 

experts recognized as knowledgeable about wildlife hazards at airports (Appendix A). 

Project Leaders John R. Weller (National Wildlife Biologist, FAA) and Michael J. Begier 

(National Coordinator, Airport Wildlife Hazards Program, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife 

Services) provided oversight, and Dr. Brian E. Washburn (Research Biologist, 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center) provided detailed 

analysis and authored the study. Other members of the expert panel were Richard A. 

Dolbeer, PhD (Science Advisor, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services); Edward C. Cleary 

(President, WASHMan LLC); Eugene A. LeBoeuf [Chief, U.S. Air Force Bird/wildlife 

Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team]; Laura Francoeur (Chief Wildlife Biologist, The 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey); and Christopher A. Nadareski (Section 

Chief, New York City Environmental Protection Bureau of Water 

Supply/WWQO/Wildlife Studies Section). This technical panel was charged with 

helping the agencies analyze the data, assess the risk of various alternatives, and 

determine whether the MTS could be made compatible with safe airport operations at 

LaGuardia Airport. 

A key effort by the technical panel was to produce a report examining all available 

information concerning the issue. This report was to provide an informed answer as to 

whether the North Shore MTS proposed by DSNY is compatible with safe airport 

operations at LaGuardia Airport with respect to bird strikes. A draft version of the report 

was released for public review and comment from April 23 to May 24, 2010. The 

technical panel received valuable comments that were incorporated into the final report. 

All comments and associated responses are attached in an addendum to this report. 

2. APPROACH 

The approach used in this effort is not unique. Typically, examinations of wildlife hazard 

issues related to aviation safety involve a series of quantitative and qualitative approaches 

that are commonly used by wildlife management biologists. Following an established 

study schedule (Table 2-1), the technical panel decided to review plans for the design and 

operation of the proposed North Shore MTS in detail while considering the ecology of 

birds that are commonly found in the highly urbanized coastal area where the proposed 

MTS site and LaGuardia Airport are located. Specifically, the technical panel committed 

to the following tasks: 

a. Review wildlife data, including wildlife strike history, surveys, previous wildlife 

hazard assessments, and other related studies that pertain to LaGuardia Airport. 

Recognizing that the applicable FAA regulation—Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

7 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Part 139, Certification of Airports (Part 139)—was updated in 2004, the panel decided 

that information collected prior to 2004 would not be considered. 

b. Conduct a detailed review of the proposed building design plans, specifications, 

and operational parameters of the proposed North Shore MTS, including transport trucks, 

barges, trash types and volume, and nature of the general operation. 

c. Arrange a physical assessment of the proposed facility location by the technical 

panel. This included a series of direct observations, or surveys, to determine the presence 

and quantity of wildlife at the proposed North Shore MTS location. 

d. Examine currently operating trash-transfer stations of similar design located in 

other boroughs of New York City (more specifically, the Bronx and Staten Island) to 

better understand the processes employed in solid waste transfer and to observe first hand 

how these facilities and/or processes might attract birds. 

e. Conduct risk assessments on a range of alternatives—from no facility to a fully 

operational facility with mitigation measures in place. 

f. Issue, based on an examination of the available data, a determination of findings 

about (1) whether the trash-transfer facility is incompatible with safe airport operations at 

LaGuardia Airport with respect to bird strikes, (2) whether the MTS and its operation (as 

proposed in the Part 360 Permit Application) is compatible, or (3) whether the proposed 

facility can be compatible if further mitigation measures are applied. 

g. Seek public input on the findings, incorporate this input, and issue a final report of 

the technical panel’s findings and recommendations. 

8 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Table 2-1. Study activities and date of achievement for the North Shore MTS study 

conducted in accordance with a pre-determined schedule. 

Item Date of Achievement 

Project Initiation and Task Assignment November 30, 2009 

First Technical Panel Meeting December 7, 2009 

Finalize Detailed Project Plan December 9, 2009 

Mid-Project Progress Briefing February 8, 2010 

Initial Draft Report March 19, 2010 

Technical Panel Draft Report Review March 26, 2010 

Report Released for Public Comment April 23, 2010 

Completion of Public Comment Period May 24, 2010 

Public Comment Review Meeting May 28, 2010 

Delivery of Final Report June 3, 2010 

Final Report Published June 18 – August 13, 2010 

3. COMPONENTS OF THE NORTH SHORE MTS STUDY 

3.1. Bird-Aircraft Collisions at LaGuardia Airport 

Civil and military aviation communities have long recognized that the threat to human 

health and safety from aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife (wildlife strikes) is 

real and increasing. Worldwide, wildlife strikes have resulted in more than 229 human 

fatalities and the destruction of over 220 aircraft since 1988. Information about wildlife 

strikes to civil aviation within the United States is contained in the FAA National 

Wildlife Strike Database. 

Recent events have amplified public awareness of wildlife strikes to aircraft. The 

dramatic landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009, 

after Canada geese were ingested in both engines of the aircraft dramatically 

demonstrated to the public that wildlife strikes are a serious aviation safety issue. 

LaGuardia Airport is managed by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and 

is located on the northeastern end of Long Island, in Flushing, New York. LaGuardia 

Airport is one of 64 airports certificated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

139 that fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA Eastern Region. The airport is bordered 

on the north, east, and south by Flushing Bay (part of Long Island Sound) and on the 

west by the highly urbanized (i.e., residential and commercial properties), densely 

populated areas of northern Queens County. As with other airports located directly 

adjacent to large water bodies, large populations of various species of birds that live in or 

near aquatic environments, such as gulls and waterfowl, can be found very near 

LaGuardia Airport. Due to the presence and behavioral patterns (e.g., flocking, soaring) 

9 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

of these birds, the risk of bird strikes is a significant concern at LaGuardia Airport as well 

as at other airports located on waterways. Further, data from the FAA National Wildlife 

Strike Database clearly shows that bird strikes frequently occur at the airport and thus 

represent an important issue. 

One means of understanding and quantifying bird strikes at airports is to determine the 

number of reported bird strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements. Of the 64 Part 139 

certificated airports in the FAA Eastern Region, LaGuardia Airport ranked ninth for the 

total number of wildlife strikes reported between 2004 and 2008 (20.5 strikes per 100,000 

aircraft movements). Furthermore, incidents with gulls constituted a large portion of the 

bird strikes that occurred at LaGuardia Airport (Figure 3-1) and other airports located on 

waterways within the mid-Atlantic region (Table 3-1). 

Table 3-1. Top 20 FAA Part 139 certificated airports within the FAA Eastern Region 

(out of a total of 64 airports) for reported gull-aircraft collisions (includes several 

gull species) per 100,000 aircraft movements, 2004–2008. 

Airport Name (State) 

Reported Gull Strikes per 

100,000 Aircraft Movements Rank 

Norfolk International (VA) 8.6 1 

LaGuardia Airport (NY) 8.0 2 

Buffalo-Niagara International (NY) 6.0 3 

John F. Kennedy International (NY) 5.8 4 

Albany International (NY) 5.2 5 

Harrisburg International (PA) 4.2 6 

Atlantic City International (NJ) 4.2 7 

Ronald Reagan National (VA) 3.8 8 

Elmira / Corning Regional (NY) 3.3 9 

Newark Liberty International (NJ) 2.7 10 

Greenbrier Valley (WV) 2.5 11 

New Castle (DE) 2.4 12 

Niagara Falls International (NY) 2.0 13 

Newport News (VA) 2.0 14 

Hagerstown Regional (MD) 1.9 15 

Baltimore/Washington International (MD) 1.7 16 

Philadelphia International (PA) 1.6 17 

Williamsport Regional (PA) 1.5 18 

Greater Rochester International (NY) 1.4 19 

Erie International/Tom Ridge Field (PA) 1.4 20 

10 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

55%

19%

4%

6% 5%

11%

Gulls Ducks & Geese

Blackbirds & Starlings Doves & Pigeons

Small Perching Birds Other Birds

Figure 3-1. Summary of bird strikes at LaGuardia Airport where the bird(s) 

involved was identified, 2004–2008. 

3.2. Urban Wildlife and Wildlife Observations at the Proposed Site 

Many species of wildlife have adapted to living in areas that are densely populated with 

humans. Canada geese, gulls, pigeons, European starlings, songbirds, and a wide variety 

of other birds, mammals, and insects flourish in urban and suburban areas. The diversity 

and abundance of urban wildlife is enhanced when urban areas are located within coastal 

areas. Many people derive pleasure from watching birds and other wildlife in cities and 

urban areas, but conflicts can arise when urban wildlife negatively impacts some aspect 

of the quality of life for people. Examples of such conflicts include bird strikes, parks 

and recreational areas contaminated with wildlife droppings, and damage to landscaping 

around homes and community residences. 

Given the location of the proposed site of the North Shore MTS on Flushing Bay (Figure 

3-2), the potential exists for large numbers of many species of birds associated with 

marine and/or urban environments to be present on or near the proposed building site. 

11 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Figure 3-2. Site location for the proposed North Shore MTS near College Point, 

Queens, New York. The proposed site is approximately 2,206 feet from the landing 

threshold of Runway 13/31 at LaGuardia Airport. 

Historical and current observations of birds clearly demonstrate that gulls and other birds 

are frequently present in large numbers within the general vicinity of the proposed North 

Shore MTS site. During 2004–2009, LaGuardia Airport implemented a program to 

monitor and assess wildlife hazards to aviation. Ducks, geese, and gulls made up the 

majority of birds observed on or near the airport (Figure 3-3). In addition, on several 

occasions during this study, the technical panel of experts and other wildlife biologists 

observed gulls at several locations adjacent to LaGuardia Airport and in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed North Shore MTS site. For example, members of the technical 

panel observed gull use of mud flats near LaGuardia Airport. These observations are 

consistent with previously documented gull activity gathered during wildlife monitoring 

at LaGuardia Airport. Additionally, the long-term monitoring data collected at the airport 

(2004−2009), as well as other studies of birds within the New York City area, clearly 

show that bird activity and numbers within these environments is dynamic and likely 

influenced by several environmental factors, such as weather patterns, tidal cycles, and 

other seasonal influences (see LaGuardia Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment, Shooting 

Gulls to Reduce Strikes with Aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 

1991−2008). 

12 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

44% 36%

3% 9% 7%

1%

Gulls Other Birds

Blackbirds & Starlings Doves & Pigeons

Small Perching Birds Ducks & Geese

Figure 3-3. Birds observed during a long-term monitoring program to assess 

wildlife hazards at LaGuardia Airport, 2004–2009. 

On December 15, 2009, the technical panel conducted a site visit to the proposed North 

Shore MTS location to gather information and conduct general observations about the 

area. The group gained first-hand knowledge of current conditions at the proposed site, 

including information about habitats, wildlife activity, and other important factors, and 

about the proximity of this site to LaGuardia Airport. 

An evaluation of bird activity at the site of the proposed North Shore MTS was needed to 

establish a baseline for bird numbers and activity prior to the existence of an active trashtransfer station. To gain insight into bird activity at or near the proposed building site, 

professional wildlife biologists conducted 18 standardized bird surveys in February and 

March 2010 at the proposed MTS site. During these surveys, the biologists identified to 

species all birds observed within the area and recorded the number and behaviors 

exhibited. The data from these efforts were summarized to provide insight into the 

existing bird activity at the proposed site, with particular consideration of birds that are 

known to be hazardous to safe aircraft operations. 

During the 18 standardized bird surveys, 396 birds [consisting of 308 gulls, 72 pigeons 

(Figure 3-4), and 16 European starlings (Figure 3-5)] were observed in the vicinity of the 

proposed North Shore MTS site (Table 3-2). Of the birds seen near the proposed site, 

only one percent of the birds were using the former North Shore MTS building. On one 

occasion, several pigeons were observed flying into the former transfer station building to 

roost. The gulls observed during the surveys, which consisted of a mixture of herring 

gulls (Figure 3-6) and ring-billed gulls, were flying over the proposed site or perched on 

13 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

the roof of the New York City Department of Sanitation’s truck repair and maintenance 

facility building, which is adjacent to the site of the proposed MTS. 

Figure 3-4. House sparrows (left photo) and pigeons (right photo) are often a pest at 

trash-transfer stations and other facilities where solid waste is received and 

processed. 

Figure 3-5. A European starling. Introduced into Central Park in New York City 

during the late 1800s, this bird has spread across North America. Today, the 

starling population in the United States exceeds 100 million birds. 

14 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Table 3-2. Average number of birds (of selected species) observed per hour of 

survey time within 0.25 miles of the proposed North Shore MTS site located near 

College Point in Queens, New York, during 18 standardized bird surveys conducted 

in February and March 2010. 

Bird Species Average Number Observed Per 

Hour of Survey Time 

Herring Gull 62 

Ring-billed Gull 40 

Pigeon 24 

Figure 3-6. Two adult herring gulls. Herring gulls (and other gull species) use 

waste management facilities, such as trash-transfer stations and landfills, as places 

to find food.

3.3. Design Features of the Proposed North Shore MTS Facility 

As currently proposed, the fully enclosed transfer station building will have four walled 

sides and a pitched roof (Figure 3-7). It will be a three-level, over-water facility 

explicitly designed for the indoor transfer of solid waste from collection vehicles into 

sealed, leak-proof containers. Each container will be sealed and cleaned then loaded onto 

barges for transfer to a final disposal site outside of the New York City metropolitan area. 

15 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Not-to-exceed permit limits for the North Shore MTS are based on a weekly and 

maximum peak tons per day of solid waste. The expected average daily throughput is 

2,200 tons of municipal solid waste and up to 1,000 tons of commercial waste. The 

proposed weekly limit is 21,840 tons. A 20-percent allowance is included for seasonal 

variability, growth in waste generation, and system redundancy. The proposed maximum 

peak tons-per-day limit is 3,672 tons, which accounts for DSNY post-holiday collections. 

Design features of the proposed transfer station facility include the following: 

 Waste will be delivered to the transfer station facility inside closed collection vehicles 

(i.e., curbside garbage trucks). 

 All trucks will enter and exit the transfer station building through rapid, roll-up doors. 

 A truck scale, ramps, and the tipping floor inside the building are all designed to 

minimize the number of trash trucks that enter and exit the building, particularly 

during peak hours. 

 All waste will be processed in an enclosed building that maintains negative air 

pressure to prevent odors from escaping while building doors are open. In addition, 

exhaust air from the transfer station building will be treated using an odor neutralizing 

system. 

 Each container will be sealed and cleaned inside the transfer station building. 

 All waste will leave the North Shore MTS in sealed, leak-proof containers, and all 

containers will enter and exit through rapid, roll-up doors. 

3.4. Operational Procedures of the Proposed North Shore MTS Facility 

As currently proposed, all solid waste will arrive in covered trucks that enter the facility 

through rapid, roll-up doors and dump the waste from a high-level tipping floor down to a 

lower-level loading floor (Figure 3-7). Next, waste will be loaded into containers that are 

sealed and cleaned in a lidding/unlidding area. Finally, the containers will leave the MTS 

building through rapid, roll-up doors and be placed onto barges for transfer to a final 

disposal site. 

The following operational procedures will be used at the proposed facility: 

 No solid waste will be processed or stored outside of the transfer station building. 

 The tipping floor will be cleaned daily. 

 All vehicles will be cleaned prior to exiting the building. 

16 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

Figure 3-7. Cross-sectional schematic of the proposed North Shore MTS. 

3.5. Examination of Currently Operating Trash-Transfer Facilities 

In an effort to predict how attractive the proposed North Shore MTS might be to wildlife 

if it were to be constructed and put into operation, the expert panel identified and 

examined other operational trash-transfer facilities in the greater New York City 

metropolitan area. 

On December 15, 2009, the technical panel of experts visited the Harlem River Yard 

Transfer Station, located in Bronx, New York. During the site visit, the panel observed 

how this transfer station is operated, considered how the building was designed, and 

attempted to determine the extent to which the facility and its operational procedures 

attracted birds. 

On the same day, the technical panel of experts visited the Staten Island Transfer Station 

(Figure 3-8) located in Staten Island, New York. This trash-transfer station is very 

similar to the proposed North Shore MTS in terms of building design and operational 

procedures. As a whole, the group observed that opportunities for the facility to act as an 

attractant to wildlife were limited. The basic design of the facility appears to provide 

wildlife with little opportunity to use the structure or access portions of the waste transfer 

operation. However, the group decided to collect additional short-term data at this 

location to document possible wildlife attractant issues that may not have been apparent 

during this visit. 

During February and March 2010, professional wildlife biologists conducted six 

standardized bird surveys at the Staten Island Transfer Station (1) to gain information 

about the attractiveness and use of that trash-transfer facility by birds hazardous to 

17 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

aviation and (2) to assess the overall bird activity in the immediate vicinity of the transfer 

station. The biologists identified to species, counted, and recorded all birds observed 

within the area of the transfer station (within 0.25 miles) during these surveys. In 

addition, they documented the behaviors exhibited by birds (in particular, birds observed 

using the trash-transfer station—perching on the building, in the building, or directly 

feeding on trash). These data were summarized to provide insight into the existing bird 

activity at the site and to determine the degree to which birds, particularly those 

recognized as being hazardous to safe air operations, used the transfer station facility. 

Based on the surveys (Table 3-3), the biologists observed that, on average, 41 birds (all 

species combined) used the Staten Island Transfer Station during a one-hour period. 

Birds were considered to be using the transfer station if they were observed feeding on or 

in the garbage or were perched on or in the transfer station building. 

Gulls, primarily herring gulls and great black-backed gulls, accounted for most of the 

birds seen near the Staten Island Transfer Station (Table 3-3). However, even though, on 

average, 140 gulls were observed in the area of the facility per hour of survey time, less 

than 1 gull was seen using the transfer station. Although gulls commonly used the 

waterway adjacent to the transfer station property, they appeared to show little interest in 

the facility and the waste management activities that occurred inside the building. 

Figure 3-8. Standardized bird surveys were conducted at the Staten Island Transfer 

Station, a truck-to-rail transfer station facility located in Staten Island, New York. 

The building design and operational procedures of this facility are similar to those 

of the proposed North Shore MTS. 

18 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

European starlings (Figure 3-5) accounted for 26 percent of the birds observed using the 

Staten Island Transfer Station. On average, ten starlings were observed feeding on trash 

while it was being processed inside the Staten Island Transfer Station building each hour. 

Recent research conducted by USDA showed that starlings account for approximately 

half of all birds that use trash-transfer stations to search for food and find places to nest. 

On average, 12 pigeons (Figure 3-4) were observed during each survey hour at the Staten 

Island Transfer Station (Table 3-3). Almost all of the pigeons seen at the facility were 

actually feeding on the trash inside the transfer station building. These birds are often 

considered a pest and cause problems in buildings and other man-made structures 

because of corrosion and disease concerns caused by fecal contamination and nesting 

debris. 

Starlings and pigeons raise aviation safety concerns because they commonly collide with 

aircraft. Both have been involved in collisions with both civil and military aircraft that 

have resulted in human fatalities, so must be considered when assessing bird strike risks. 

Approximately one-half (49 percent) of the birds observed using the Staten Island 

Transfer Station were house sparrows (Figure 3-4), which were frequently feeding on the 

trash inside of the transfer station building (Table 3-3). Although these birds are 

considered a pest and can cause problems for transfer station operators and employees, 

they do not present a substantial bird strike risk. 

Table 3-3. Average number of birds (of selected species) observed per hour of 

survey time within 0.25 miles of the Staten Island Transfer Station in Staten Island, 

New York, and the average number of birds per hour of survey time using the 

facility during six standardized bird surveys, February and March 2010. 

Bird Species 

Average Number of Birds 

Observed within 0.25 mile of 

the Transfer Station Per Hour 

of Survey Timea

Average Number of Birds 

Observed Usingb the 

Transfer Station Per Hour 

of Survey Time 

Herring Gull 165 < 1 

Great Black-backed Gull 69 < 1 

Ring-billed Gull 6 < 1 

European Starling 19 10 

Pigeon 12 11 

House Sparrow 21 20 

a

 All birds observed within 0.25 miles of the Staten Island Transfer Station building were counted 

and recorded. 

b

 Birds that were perching on or in the transfer station building or were seen in or feeding on trash 

were considered to be using the transfer station. 

19 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

3.6. Risk Assessments 

To facilitate effective decision-making about how the proposed North Shore MTS facility 

might attract birds and become a hazard to aviation operations, the technical panel used a 

risk assessment process and portrayed available alternatives in a risk matrix. Figure 3-9 

illustrates a series of three alternatives for the proposed North Shore MTS. 

The following three alternatives were considered in the risk assessment process: 

 No MTS facility (i.e., the present situation). 

 North Shore MTS as proposed in the Part 360 Permit Application. 

 North Shore MTS with changes to the building design and operational procedures and 

the development and implementation of an integrated wildlife hazard management 

program. 

The risk assessments only consider the risk posed to safe aircraft operations at LaGuardia 

Airport by birds using the proposed North Shore MTS site. Although this risk 

assessment does not specifically address the overall risk posed to aircraft operations to 

and from LaGuardia Airport by birds present throughout the general vicinity of the 

airport, it does consider dynamic, area-wide bird populations within the site-specific 

assessment of risk. 

Sizable populations of gulls and other birds are commonly found in highly urbanized 

areas in coastal environments. Historic and current observations, in addition to the 

number of gulls struck by aircraft at or near LaGuardia Airport, clearly demonstrate that 

gulls and other birds that pose a hazard to safe air operations are commonly present at the 

proposed MTS site. Bird activity and numbers within these environments are dynamic 

and influenced by numerous factors, including weather patterns, tidal cycles, seasonal 

influences, and the availability of natural foods. Previous research has shown that bird 

use of trash-transfer facilities varies seasonally. Consequently, the risk assessment must 

consider the impact of changes in the number and activity of birds hazardous to safe 

aircraft operations. 

The technical panel recognizes that the environment surrounding the proposed MTS 

location inherently supports populations of some birds that can be hazardous to aviation 

safety and that these population levels can vary over time for various reasons. However, 

the highest risk posed to safe aircraft operations by birds would likely occur if the design 

and operation of the proposed MTS did not consider wildlife issues. This level of risk 

would be associated with increased bird movements (primarily gulls) flying to and from 

the MTS, especially if these movements occurred within the flight paths of aircraft 

approaching or departing from LaGuardia Airport. Changes to the MTS building design 

and operational procedures that dissuade birds from using the MTS (see Section 4, 

Recommendations) would reduce the probability of birds and other wildlife being 

attracted to the facility and lower the risk associated with bird strikes. The risk could be 

further reduced if the MTS, after incorporating changes to the building design and 

20 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

operational procedures, was operated with an integrated wildlife hazard management plan 

and program. The technical panel believes that an integrated wildlife hazard management 

plan would reduce the risks associated with hazardous birds in the immediate vicinity of 

the proposed facility below current background levels. 

Alternative 1a

No facility 

(present situation) 

Alternative 2b

Proposed facility 

Alternative 3c

Proposed facility with 

modifications and 

wildlife hazard 

management plan 

High High Low 

Medium Medium Low 

Hazardous Bird 

Activity 

Low Low Low 

Risk Levels 

a

 Alternative 1: present situation (no MTS facility) 

b

 Alternative 2: MTS as proposed under the Part 360 application 

c

 Alternative 3: MTS with (1) changes to building design and operational procedures and (2) the 

implementation of a wildlife hazard management plan 

Figure 3-9. Assessment of the risk to aviation safety for aircraft using LaGuardia 

Airport under three alternatives related to the proposed North Shore MTS. 

3.7. Determination of Findings 

The technical panel determined that Alternative 3, the MTS with changes to building 

design and operational procedures and the implementation of an integrated wildlife 

hazard management plan and program, will most likely provide the safest, most 

acceptable alternative. This alternative would greatly reduce the risk of a bird strike as 

compared to the present situation (no MTS facility) and the North Shore MTS site as 

proposed under the Part 360 application. 

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The hazards to aviation safety posed by birds that might be attracted to the proposed 

North Shore MTS can be reduced by incorporating changes to the building design, 

following strict operational procedures, and developing and implementing an integrated 

wildlife hazard management plan and program. The technical panel concludes that the 

21 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

recommendations provided below will achieve compatibility between the North Shore 

MTS and LaGuardia Airport with respect to bird strikes and safe air operations. 

In addition to the steps that DSNY has already agreed to take (Appendix E), the technical 

panel of experts recommends that DSNY take the following actions: 

 Update the existing engineering report for the North Shore MTS to reflect the 

additional wildlife hazard mitigation measures recommended in this report. 

(Conditions added to the engineering report become conditions of the operating 

permit.) 

 Join the current wildlife hazard working group for John F. Kennedy International 

Airport and LaGuardia Airport (JFK/LGA Wildlife Hazard Task Force). This 

working group/task force can discuss issues of shared interest or responsibility relative 

to the coordination of the report recommendations. The group may want to discuss (1) 

regulatory authority over the operational conduct of the North Shore MTS relative to 

wildlife hazard management as discussed in the engineering report and this report and 

(2) how to monitor and address wildlife hazard issues that may arise. 

Further, the technical panel makes the following specific recommendations to DSNY to 

provide a framework for proactive monitoring and mitigation of wildlife hazards to 

aviation at the proposed North Shore MTS: 

Planning and Construction Phases

 DSNY should develop an integrated wildlife hazard management plan (IWHMP) for 

the MTS facility that focuses on the MTS during both construction and full operation. 

It should be specific enough to accomplish the goals it identifies and include the 

following key elements: 

– Identify personnel responsible for implementing each phase of the plan, 

– Identify and provide information on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the 

MTS, 

– Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife 

hazard(s) observed, 

– Prioritize appropriate management measures, 

– Recommend necessary equipment and supplies, 

– Identify training requirements for the wildlife damage management personnel who 

will implement the IWHMP, and 

– Identify when and how the IWHMP will be reviewed and updated. 

 DSNY should implement the portions of an integrated wildlife hazard management 

program for the MTS facility that focus on the construction phase of the project. 

22 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 DSNY should hire or contract for a full-time, dedicated wildlife biologist who is 

trained and equipped to proactively mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop. 

 DSNY should plan to eliminate ledges and other perching sites in the building design 

as much as possible. For example, do not use raised letters for signage on the building 

as any projections from the building provide perching and nest sites for European 

starlings and house sparrows. 

 DSNY should install anti-perching devices on the transfer station roof, pilings, and 

other surfaces where birds may perch. DSNY should assess the need for such devices 

on adjacent DSNY buildings, as well. 

 DSNY should strictly enforce a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy. 

 DSNY should ensure landscaping plans and selected plants and materials will not 

attract wildlife (e.g., minimize grassy areas that may attract Canada geese). 

Fully Operational Transfer Station 

 DSNY should implement an integrated wildlife hazards management program for the 

MTS facility based on the plan developed during the planning and construction phase. 

 DSNY should hire or contract for a full-time, dedicated wildlife biologist who is 

trained and equipped to proactively mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop. 

 DSNY should strictly enforce a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy. 

 DSNY should assess the cleanliness of incoming containers off site prior to their 

arrival at the MTS. 

 DSNY should monitor trash containers to ensure no trash is extruding from them 

before they leave the transfer station building. 

 DSNY should monitor barge activity for birds that might be attracted to them (due to 

water disturbance and/or the refuse containers) and mitigate accordingly. 

5. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 

Guidance: 

Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports 

Advisory Circular 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public 

Airports 

23 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

24 

14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace 

14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139, Certification of Airports 

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Operators, 2nd edition, 

2005

Reports: 

Evaluation of Trash-transfer Facilities as Bird Attractants, Report No. DOT/FAA/AR09/62, 2010 

Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990–2008, Serial Report No. 15, 

2009 

FAA National Wildlife Strike Database (http://wildlife.faa.gov)

LaGuardia Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment, 2000 

Shooting Gulls to Reduce Strikes with Aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 

1991−2008. Special Report for The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center, 2009 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services New York, Site Visit Letter for LaGuardia Airport, 

 1 June 2009 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services New York, Site Visit Letter Regarding North Shore 

MTS to FAA Eastern Region Safety and Standards Branch, 4 June 2009 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services New York, Wildlife Hazard Monitoring Program 

Annual Reports for LaGuardia Airport (2004–2007, 2008, and 2009) 

Proposed Facility: 

Engineering Report for the North Shore Marine Transfer Station Waste Containerization 

Facility, Part 360 Permit Application, Volume 1, City of New York Department of 

Sanitation, January 2007 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

APPENDIX A. TECHNICAL PANEL FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE 

NORTH SHORE MARINE TRANSFER STATION AND ITS COMPATIBILITY 

WITH RESPECT TO BIRD STRIKES AND SAFE AIR OPERATIONS AT 

LAGUARDIA AIRPORT 

Brian E. Washburn, PhD (Report author) 

Research Biologist 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center 

John R. Weller (Project Manager) 

National Wildlife Biologist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Michael J. Begier (Project Manager) 

National Coordinator, Airport Wildlife Hazards Program 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 

Richard A. Dolbeer, PhD 

Science Advisor 

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 

Edward C. Cleary 

President, WASHMan LLC 

Eugene A. LeBoeuf 

Chief, USAF BASH Team 

U.S. Air Force 

Laura C. Francoeur 

Chief Wildlife Biologist 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Christopher A. Nadareski 

Section Chief, NYC Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Water Supply/WWQO/Wildlife Studies Section 

A-1 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-2 

APPENDIX B. SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF ALL ANIMALS MENTIONED IN THIS 

DOCUMENT 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Canada goose Branta canadensis

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Great black-backed gull Larus marinus

Herring gull Larus argentatus

House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Pigeon Columba livia

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

APPENDIX C. USDA/APHIS/WILDLIFE SERVICES REVIEW OF THE 

WILDLIFE HAZARD ATTRACTANT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED MTS 

TO SAFE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT LAGUARDIA AIRPORT 

A-3 

-~ --::::-

--,.,.,_. 

::-ow. ... """ .... .,,- ' .... n_ .. 

C",I)oo~l"'C""_h •• _ ~""5aodooIo _ nlA ___ _ _ 

"".A~'iI 

,,, .......... J-uo.. >lY '14.lMl1OP 

~.....,.., ,..,)to, ,"', .... \1,;1111. !Io<._ 1I;.Iog"u .... ' _ '"~...-.lIJti_ rr,.. the 

h .",.1 ",....,., .um;,"""'ioo (1' ...... ~ "" l'cc! AucboritT d." '" V, .t .... "'~. l_y 

(PA'<YSJ), oM tI~ (l~ <A'New V ..... lltponln"'l '" Sa,",,',,", (!;DI'N). Tbo.....-

o!1h< """ilia .. .., ",,",,,,,,, ttl< ...,..".,.,. "" .. """Ju., "u .. N..olli sru., Mo."" 

T ... ,r .. 51>1"'" -.. 1.":h>o.-41o Airpm '" :10\"""",, ;ril ~; n 1"'''.' ~t"i_"""",., 

. ... ,,, ... to o.rd$ '" ".,,,it,,,,,. "ft" ,,, .i."CtatI "'~ LoG~it ~ (LO"). " flo< 

~ "Ii>< l'<<luol hio" ,," t.dnioiltr.tion bIIildirli ir. j"""" .. NY, '''' 

"P""''''''-'' ..... ...,J • 'lo\iIor T':wIsI'u ~"'"'"' on~...., I.-..J "'jOJl r_ ~P' of''''~.".,..",," 

Th< r AA;'.n ~ ot!!IorIIy"""""" .... ~~ """""q ' vW-"'l ",fely.wld ... . 

d<.~ .. Mio:wyC'Ww" """""J ....... ",iI<I~ 1i ......... "" ... ..... """"(AC 1~3lO).)J~) ·'IoioAC ............... _"' .... ..,.id_..,.;rn. _oil). __ ........... ..;WWO ..... QIIoo _paoitok .. ;d,..r., ... _.,... 

_. __ ",,;,;,~...w"' ..... ilio:aly_e ............. r .. ,_,... 

__ ~"''''''''tlL'''~-'' 1 9qidlm ... ' ..... w .m--_'-" .... _ • .....-bj-=--S--ll ... ~ ....... It: .. """, "fI<'-" pov.;,wo..,-_ ""'...,.... - __ """""'-'" .. ; .............. "Y _1"". jlti'Z)." 11K M" 1m """ronnool a. ... p:~ Nor:Io sn,.. M,,; .. T .... rw _ (\tIS) .... , 1iC-.I .. hlIJIOf' • ""'"' 

111< kPl b r,n .... O<>J, 1l>n""" _ be ." .... pk ,r_. tltll)' _ .... """ toaoo./ .. 

_ ..t,n Wpo<1 , ...... __ 10 ,\,>00 """""'" ~tw. b. •• _'''~ ,..;0. .. 10 

."""ft ~ 

FAA .I.e 111,lo'1,0(_))8 ' .,., .. r ....... ' t1IOI "for , II airport~ tl ... r AA =oJn!!>01ld,. <Ii,,,,,,. ofl ''''u'' .,,~. "''''<to me -.. "'II" of .... ."on·,AOA ""' ,..., 

1 ..... """ ~; .,H fo ""',,"'" ifoh< ~".., .... """' ....... ""=4<>0, w;Od" r. mo".""'" 

""" (J< _ ,ty "1'1""",1 ,~"",""wt ~" usn ~. "'·il<ll;r. 'i<l"io= (\\'51 

""1.,,.,. ,II" 1I><1""!'..,.;! It.TS il •• ,. ""'" "".-.>:- i"jifi "",-.,. " .... 

l(;A ainpo« ;r ~ !o.lcw> I:Ioc .\" """j~ '_WI "daI .... Lo. 

F........."., MIoao.",....-.... 1""-.~r""'_,,,Holli!.~" ~iA 

......... liJ _of_It ................. IIO.rtif)' <hooc<> to b.n.oodo< ..... 

~.,. _ d:c""""""'. Mf'!. 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-4 

SONY has established operating procedures for MTS documented in their Engineering 

Report for the North Shore Marine Transfer Station Waste Containerization Facility 

(prepared by Greeley and Hansen, for New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, on behalf of City of New York Department of Sanitation, January 2007). 

Many of these procedures are applicable to wildlife, and we have referenced the relevant 

sections when possible. 

Based on a review of the operating procedures in the above mentioned Engineering 

Report, a visit to the Staten Island Transfer Station, and on conversations with 

Department of Sanitation personnel (H. Szarpanski and S. Dolinar), Wildlife Services has 

detennined that the North Shore Marine Transfer Station is not inherently in conflict with 

safe aircraft operations at LaGuardia Airport, provided the following recommendations 

are met: 

I. Upon initiation of operations, enlist the services ofa FAA-qualified airport 

biologist to conduct weekly surveys and inspections of the interior and exterior of 

MTS for a period of two years. The surveys should be based on an accepted 

scientific monitoring method for identifying hazardous wildlife attractants and 

patterns relative to aviation safety. They should also include inspections for 

procedural compliance relative to wildlife as detailed in point 4, below. 

2. Meet regularly with LGA representatives to address wildlife hazards and 

solutions (i.e., with the airport's bird hazard working group). 

3. If after two years no consistent threat to aviation is documented, SONY will 

continue to allow annual inspections by the FAA and a FAA-qualified airport 

biologist to ensure that MTS is maintaining procedures originally established in 

the Engineering Report. 

4. The following section is added to the Engineering Report: 

3.4.5 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management 

During the first two years of operation SONY will employee an FAA-qualified, 

airport biologist to conduct weekly surveys at the MTS to identify potential 

hazardous wildlife attractants and patterns relative to aviation safety. 

To prevent the MTS from attracting birds that could be hazardous to aircraft 

using LaGuardia Airport, precautions will be taken to minimize the attractiveness 

of the facility. Waste or leachate spilled on the tipping floor will be cleaned 

immediately in an effort to prevent the generation and/or tracking of waste 

outside the building (2.1.4.1 Tipping Floor). The exterior of containers/vehicles 

will be free of debris when entering or exiting the facility and exiting the lidding 

area (2.1.4.4 Container Lidding Area). The biologist will monitor roll up doors to 

ensure that they are closed when containers/vehicles are not entering or exiting 

(2.1.4.7.5 Ventilation). Floor drainage from the tipping floor and the loading and 

pier levels will be collected by floor trench drains and discharged into the City 

sewer system (2.1.4.7.6 Utility Systems). 

In addition to triggers that may shut down the facility listed in 2.2.1 Acceptable 

Waste and Waste Sources, documented excessive and persistent presence of 

2 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-5 

hazardous birds creating a real or potential threat to aviation safety may also 

disrupt the operation of the facility until the threat is mitigated and the 

responsible attraction corrected. Bird presence may be quantified based on prior 

surveys at LOA. Pursuant to 2.3.5 Collection Vehicle and Employee On-Site 

Traffic Flow, upon delivery of waste and while queuing outside the MTS, at no 

time will a truck's contents be accessible to birds, which could create an 

attractant. All vehicles entering the facility will be clear of external debris before 

entering the site. 

The access roadway and parking facility will be cleaned either mechanically or 

by hand daily (3.4.2 Liner Control). Equipment will be maintained onsite to 

mitigate land or water spillage. Spills will be cleaned up immediately so as not to 

cause an attractant (3.4.2 Litter Control). Once each week, while conducting onsite surveys for hazardous wildlife activity and potential attractants, the biologist 

will inspect the entire MTS for cleanliness, including the tipping floor, similar to 

the duties of the MTS Headquarters (MTS HQ) Superintendent, the Director of 

MTSs, and MTS staff (3.4.2 Litter Control). The processing areas will be cleaned 

daily, or when weather conditions permit, by wash-down and other appropriate 

methods (3.5 Floor Drainage and Maintenance). 

Signs will be posted to inform employees and visitors that feeding of wildlife is 

prohibited, and actions will be taken to discourage people from doing so when 

identified. Landscaping installed on the premises shall not attract wildlife, and 

landscaping plans will be vetted through WS or another FAA-qualified airport 

biologist. 

5. When birds are routinely attracted to the MTS in a manner as to constitute a 

threat to aviation safety, immediate actions will be taken to mitigate the source(s) 

of attraction, whether they are food, loafing, perching, roosting, or water 

attractants. These sources may include all external and internal aspects of the 

MTS including rooflines, ledges, docks, shoreline, ramp areas, and parking areas. 

The proposed kingpile waH and associated rip rap impacts to shoal mudflat and 

littoral wetlands could result in providing foraging and loafing opportunities for 

hazardous wildlife. WS or another FAA-qualified airport biologist will monitor 

these sites to ensure they do not attract hazardous wildlife independent ofMTS 

itself. If these sites do attract hazardous wildlife, MTS will implement deterrent 

or exclusionary methods as recommended by WS or another FAA-qualified 

airport biologist. 

In addition to these recommendations, WS encourages SONY to create a MOV with 

LOA that addresses, at a minimum, the following points: 

a. SONY acknowledges that wildlife, particularly birds, pose a safety hazard to 

airport operations. MTS shall take all measures necessary to prevent wildlife 

attractions during construction and operation of the transfer station. In the event 

that the transfer station attracts hazardous wildlife, MTS (or the contracted FAAqualified airport biologist) shall take immediate action to remove the wildlife and 

3 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-6 

prevent further wildlife attraction. MTS will cooperate fully with the Airport, the 

FAA, and WS to eliminate wildlife hazards associated with the transfer station. 

In the event MTS is unable to manage wildlife hazards to the satisfaction of the 

Airport, the transfer station will be closed until the wildlife hazard is mitigated 

and the responsible attractant is removed. 

b. MTS shall enter into a contract with WS (or another F AA-qualified airport 

biologist) to monitor wildlife during the first two years of operation and respond 

to potential and actual wildlife hazards resulting from MTS. If, after the first two 

years, MTS has demonstrated that it does not represent any risk to aviation safety, 

no further monitoring or direct control would be required except annual 

inspections by the FAA or WS. IfMTS is unable to demonstrate that it does not 

represent any risk to aviation safety, SONY, FAA, Wildlife Services, and 

PANYNJ will detennine what level of support will be required from MTS to 

mitigate wildlife hazards to aviation throughout the duration ofMTS operation. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the SDNY's Engineering Report and to make 

recommendations to enhance the FAA's and the Port Authority's efforts to minimize 

wildlife risks to aviation and human safety. With the above stipulations, USDA, Wildlife 

Services believes that the MTS can be operated in a safe and responsible manner so as 

not to attract birds that pose risks to LGA's aircraft operations. 

Sincerely, 

Allen Gosser, Assistant State Director 

New York USDA, Wildlife Services 

cc: Lysa Scully, laGuardia Airport 

Laura Francoeur, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Harry Szarpanski, Department of Sanitation 

Laurence Schafer, USDA, Wildlife Services 

John Weller, Federal Aviation Administration 

4 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

APPENDIX D. LETTER FROM FAA EASTERN REGION AIRPORTS 

DIVISION MANAGER TO DSNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JUNE 10, 2009 

A-7 

U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

AdminiStrotion 

June 10, 2009 

Eastern Region, ~ DMslon 

Deputy Commissioner Harry Szarpanski 

44 Beaver St 12th A. 

New York, NY 10004 

Dear Deputy Commissioner Szarpanski: 

1 Avialion Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434-4809 

FAA has reviewed the USDA's letter of June 4th, 2009. We have summarized the salient. points in their 

words below: 

The FAA has confirmed that the proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) near 

LaGuardia Airport is outside the RPZ for WA, and, therefore can be an example of how a fully 

enclosed trash transfer station and an airport can operate in close proximity while being compatible 

with safe aircraft operations. 

USDA, Wildlife Services (WS) believes that the proposed MTS will not cause hazardous wildlife 

movements within WA airspace if SDNY follows the operating procedures recommended herein. 

Furthermore, WS has conducted over five years of hazardous wildlife monitoring at WA and has a 

solid baseline of data that may be used to identify changes in hazardous bird presence as a result of 

operations at MrS. 

SDNY has established operating procedures for MrS documented in their Engineering Report for 

the North Shore Marine Transfer Station Waste Containerization Facility. 

Based on a review of the operating procedures in the above mentioned Engineering Report, a visit to 

the Staten Island Transfer Station, and on conversations with Department of Sanitation personnel (H. 

Szarpanski and S. Dolinar), Wildlife Services has determined that the North Shore Marine Transfer 

Station is Dot inherently in conflict with safe aircraft operations at LaGuardia Airport, provided the 

following recommendations are met: 

1. Upon initiation of operations, enlist the services of a FAA-qualified airport biologist to 

conduct weekly surveys and inspections of the interior and exterior of MrS for a period of 

two years. 

2. Meet regularly with LGA representatives to address wildlife hazards and solutions (i.e., with 

the airport's bird hazard working group). 

3. H after two years no consistent threat to aviation is documented, SONY will continue to 

nllow nnnuru inspections by the FAA and a FAA-qualified airport biologist to ensure that 

MTS is maintaining procedures originally established in the Engineering Report. 

4. The following section is added to the Engineering Report: 

3.4.5 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-8 

2 

During the first two years of operation SDNY will employee an FAA-qualified, airport 

biologist to conduct weekly surveys at the MTS to identify potential hazardous wildlife 

attractants and patterns relative to aviation safety. 

To prevent the MrS from attracting birds that could be hazardous to aircraft using 

LaGuardia Airport, precautions will be taken to minimize the attractiveness of the facility. 

In addition to triggers that may shut down the facility listed in 2.2.1 Acceptable Waste and 

Waste Sources, documented excessive and persistent presence of hazardous birds creating a 

real or potential threat to aviation safety may also disrupt the operation of the facility until 

the threat is mitigated and the responsible attraction corrected. Bird presence may be 

quantified based on prior surveys at LGA Pursuant to 2.3.5 Collection Vehicle and 

Employee On-8ite Traffic Bow, upon delivery of waste and while queuing outside the MrS, 

at no time will a truck's contents be accessible to birds, which could create an attractant. All 

vehicles entering the facility will be clear of external debris before entering the site. 

The access roadway and parking facility will be cleaned either mechanically or by hand daily (3.4.2 

Litter Control). Equipment will be maintained onsite to mitigate land or water spillage. Spills will be 

cleaned up immediately so as not to cause an attractant (3.4.2 Litter Control). 

Signs will be posted to inform employees and visitors that feeding of wildlife is prohibited, and 

actions will be taken to discourage people from doing so. 

When birds are routinely attracted to the MTS in a manner as to constitute a threat to aviation safety, 

immediate actions will be taken to mitigate the source(s) of attraction, whether they are food. 

loafing, perching, roosting, or water attractants. 

In addition to these recommendations, WS encourages SDNY to create a MOU with LOA that 

addresses. at a minimum, the following points: 

SDNY acknowledges that wildlife, particularly birds; pose a safety hazard to airJx>rt 

operations. MrS shall take all measures necessary to prevent wildlife attractions during 

construction and operation of the transfer station. In the event that the transfer station attracts 

hazardous wildlife, MTS (or the contracted FAA-qualified airport biologist) shall take 

immediate action to remove the wildlife and prevent further wildlife attraction. 

MrS shall enter into a contract with WS (or another FAA-qualified airport biologist) to monitor 

wildlife during the first two years of operation and respond to potential and actual wildlife hazards 

resulting from MTS. If, after the first two years, MrS has demonstrated that it does not represent any 

risk to aviation safety, no further monitoring or direct control would be required except annual 

inspections by the FAA or WS. 

FAA believes the USDA recommendations are appropriate to ensure the WTF does not become a bird 

attractant. Please formally inform us if you concur and would implement the recommendations after the 

proposed facility become operational. In addition, the FAA should be advised if in the future management of 

the Waste Transfer Station changes from NYC to the private sector. 

Sincerely. 

&Iv M~ William J. Flanagan 

Manager, Airports Division 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

APPENDIX E. LETTER FROM DSNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO FAA 

EASTERN REGION AIRPORTS DIVISION MANAGER, JULY 9, 2009 

A-9 

William J. Flanagan 

Manager, Airports Division 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Eastern Region. Airports Division 

I A vi81:10n Plv.a 

Jamaica. NY 11434-4809 

Dear Mr. Flanagan: 

July 9. 2009 

HARRY SZARPANSKI. P.E. 

Deputy Commi ~$i oner 

Bureau of Long Tenn Export 

44 Beav~r Street. 121t1 Roor 

New York. NY 10004 

Telephone: (917) 237-5501 

Fax: (212) 269-0788 

I write in response 10 your letter dated June 10.2009 regarding the compatibility 

of the proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) and safe aircraft operation at 

the nearby laGuardia Airport (LGA). On behalf of the New York City Department of 

Sanitation (DSNY). I want to thank the FAA and the US Department of Agriculnue 

(USDA) Wildlife Services (WS) for taking the time to meet with me and my staifto 

discuss the MTS. review the Engineering Report which supports the pennit to construct 

and operate issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC). and visit the Staten Island Transfer Station, a facility similar 10 the MTS, 

which has operated since 2006 without attracting birds. 

DSNY concurs with your conclusion that the proposed MTS is not inherently in 

conflict with safe aircraft operations at LaGuardia Airport. We agree to institute the 

measures recommended in your letter a1 the start of MTS operations. Specifically. we 

will: 1) enlist the services of an FAA-qualified airport biologist to conduct inspections; 2) 

conduct regularly scheduled meetings with LOA representatives, and 3) continue to allow 

annual inspections of the MTS by the FAA or an F AA-qualified biologist beyond the first 

two years of operations. With respect to the suggested additions to the Engineering 

Report for the MTS, we will work with NYSDEC to amend the Report to include the 

specific provisions you have requested. In addition, we accept and agree to the 

recommendations on daily site cleaning and spill prevention and mitigation. proper 

signage and the need to take immediate action to discourage feeding of wildlife and 

mitigation of any sources of wildlife attractants. Further. DSNY agrees to enter into a 

Memorandwn of Understanding with the Port Authority. the FAA and/or the USDA to 

carry out the recommendations in your letter. so that all necessary steps are taken to 

ensure that the proposed MTS docs not become a bird attractant. 

(over) 

www.nyc.gov/slnitltion 

KEEP NYC CLEAN ~. REDUCE. REUSE. RECYCLE ,JiIio. DONT LI'ffER 

@ primed on rC1:)'c1ed paper 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-10 

We look forward to working with the FAA and the USDA on this important 

effort. 

;;~' Hany Szarpanski 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

ADDENDUM: 

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR DOT-OST-2010-0104-0001 

Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its Compatibility with 

Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia Airport 

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” was issued 

for public review and comment from April 23, 2010, to May 24, 2010. Five separate 

respondents provided comments: 

 Representatives Gary Ackerman and Joseph Crowley, U.S. House of 

Representatives 

 State of New York Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn 

 Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) 

 Dr. Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret.) 

 Mr. Kenneth D. Paskar 

The comments were categorized and addressed by topic. At the end of each comment, the 

individuals responsible for the comment are identified. The complete comments appear at 

the end of this addendum. 

 

Agency Oversight 

1. Who will provide oversight and coordination for the report’s recommendations 

between the various agencies involved (FAA, USDA, DSNY, NY State Department 

of Environmental Conservation [NYSDEC])? (Ackerman and Crowley [1], 

Mayersohn [1], DeFusco [1][9]) How will various agencies involved (FAA, USDA, 

DSNY, NYSDEC) coordinate the implementation of the recommendations?

(Ackerman and Crowley [2], Mayersohn [1], DeFusco [1][9] )

Response: DSNY is responsible for implementing the recommendations in the 

report. Previously, DSNY revised the Final Engineering Report for the North 

Shore MTS Part 360 Permit Application to include terms stipulating that the FAA 

and an FAA-qualified biologist would provide oversight for similar 

recommendations. (See the DSNY letter dated July 9, 2009, in Appendix E of the 

report.) Measures in the engineering report are conditions of DSNY’s operating 

permit. NYSDEC provides regulatory oversight of DSNY and has the authority to 

enforce terms of the permit. 

In the July 2009 letter, DSNY agreed, among other things, to enlist the services of 

an FAA-qualified biologist to conduct weekly surveys and inspections of the 

interior and exterior of the MTS for 2 years. If no problems surface, the FAA and 

an FAA-qualified biologist would conduct annual inspections thereafter. 

A-11 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

The technical panel recommends that DSNY hire a full-time, dedicated wildlife 

control biologist who is trained to mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop 

during construction and operation of the MTS. The technical panel recommends 

that DSNY update the engineering report to incorporate this and other additional 

measures in this report. 

Also, the technical panel recommends that DSNY join the existing wildlife hazard 

working group for LGA and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 

(JFK/LGA Wildlife Hazard Task Force). This group can discuss issues of shared 

interest or responsibility relative to the coordination of the report recommendations. 

2. If the NYDEC is the regulatory agency, it must include the recommended mitigation 

measures provided within the report as conditions of the operating permit with 

assurance of monitoring and enforcement of compliance. (Ackerman and Crowley 

[3], Mayersohn [1], DeFusco [1][9]) 

Response: Comment Noted. If DSNY does not update the engineering report, 

NYSDEC can make the measures recommended in the report conditions of the 

operating permit. 

North Shore MTS Design Features 

3. The original design drawings showed the facility as fully enclosed including the 

gantry/crane for transferring containers under a roof to the marine barges. A later 

design modification, as shown in the report, depicts the crane/gantry as not covered 

and could provide perching and nesting sites for birds on the exposed structures. 

The removal of the roof from the design is likely due to obstruction clearance 

requirements and could compromise the ability to deter birds from this portion of 

the structure. Anti-perching devices may not be able to be installed in some areas 

(e.g., safety rails, etc.) as maintenance crews would need to access these areas. 

Design and materials for these exposed structures must account for potential 

attractiveness to hazardous bird species. (DeFusco[3]) 

Response: The technical panel recommends that modifications to the North Shore 

MTS building or design features not specifically mentioned within the report that 

may create an attraction to hazardous birds (e.g., uncovered crane/gantry, etc.) be 

identified in the integrated wildlife hazard management plan (IWHMP) and 

mitigated accordingly. See the response to Comment 13 for more specifics about 

the IWHMP. 

4. It is not entirely clear from the report that the containers will be designed in a 

manner to completely exclude birds from accessing trash that may be exposed if the 

lids are not tightly sealed. Also not clear is whether fluids can be fully contained to 

ensure no leakage occurs on site after trash is compacted for loading, though the 

report states that they will be leak-proof. (DeFusco [4][6]) 

A-12 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

Response: The DSNY engineering report provides details about the design of the 

containers and proposed measures to keep containers free of external debris and 

leak-proof. Section 2.1.2, “Basis of Design”, of the engineering report states: “All 

waste delivered to the North Shore MTS will be containerized in special-purpose 

open-top-loaded containers that have a tare weight of approximately 5.25 tons and a 

capacity of approximately 62 cubic yards. The containers will hold an average net 

payload of 20 to 22 tons. The containers, similar to those currently manufactured 

by Accurate Industries, in Erial, New Jersey, and used in intermodal waste hauling 

operations at the Harlem River Yard transfer station in the Bronx and at other 

transfer stations throughout the country, are fabricated to American Bureau of 

Shipping (ABS) standards and bear the International Convention for Safe 

Containers (CSC) Approval Plate. The containers will be top loaded at the MTS 

and unloaded at the disposal facility by tipping the container with the end door 

open. The exterior dimensions of the containers will allow them to be lifted using 

International Standards Organization (ISO) standard spreader assemblies that twistlock the container to the platform or another container during transport. The lids 

and rear door assemblies of the containers are fitted with gaskets to provide leakproof and water tight seals.” 

Section 2.1.4.4, “Container Lidding Area”, states: “The enclosed container lidding 

area will be approximately 24 feet long and 200 feet wide, and located at the same 

elevation as the container loadout area and pier. Empty containers will be moved 

into the lidding area building by battery-operated shuttle cars traveling on tracks 

through one of four 15-foot-high by 22-foot-wide overhead roll-up doors. After the 

containers move into the lidding/delidding area within the transfer station, the 

operators stationed at the intermediate platform will signal for the outer pier level 

door to close. At the same time the operators will signal the spreader mechanism to 

lower onto the lid. Once positioned and locked onto the lid, the pins will either be 

removed by a DSNY employee or by an automatic latching mechanism that will 

release the lid from the container and raise the lid, leaving it suspended about 36 

inches above the container.” The next paragraph states, “After a loaded container is 

lidded, the overhead roll-up door will open and the shuttle cars will be pulled onto 

the pier level. The ventilation system in the container loading and lidding areas 

will be kept under sufficient negative pressure to keep loose waste and debris from 

escaping the building when the roll-up doors are open. In addition to the 

ventilation system, the roll-up doors will be designed to rapidly open and then 

close.” 

Section 2.1.4.1, “Tipping Floor,” states: “Waste delivery trucks will not be cleaned/ 

washed on site before exiting the facility. Since the tipping floor is elevated above 

the loading floor and the waste will be tipped directly onto the loading floor, there 

will be little chance of the trucks coming in contact with waste on the tipping floor 

and tracking this waste out of the facility. In the event that waste or leachate 

collects on the tipping floor, it will be cleaned immediately in an effort to prevent 

the generation and/or tracking of leachate. The tipping floor will be cleaned each 

day that waste is delivered. In addition, a vacuum sweeper will be used to routinely 

A-13 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

wash the tipping floor of mud and other debris that may be tracked onto the floor 

from outside.” 

The technical panel recommends that the recommended on-site FAA qualified 

biologist monitor these operations to help ensure that DSNY complies with these 

measures. 

Operational Procedures 

5. There is no contingency plan noted for possible storage of containers on site should 

barges not run due to volume, maintenance, or weather delays. While it is 

acknowledged that the containers are to be cleaned prior to leaving the facility, 

there is no description of the cleaning process. Cleaning of incoming containers is 

not mentioned. Where will this occur? Off-site or on-site? Within the structure or 

outside? (ALPA [7], DeFusco [4][6]) 

Response: The technical panel recommends the cleanliness of incoming containers 

be assessed off site prior to arrival at the MTS. This procedure will ensure that 

containers arriving at the MTS will not provide an attractant to hazardous wildlife. 

Section 2.1.2 of the engineering report states: “The waste throughput capacity 

available in the MTS design reflects the fact that the four MTSs are part of the 

overall DSNY long-term export waste management system that will also 

incorporate several private transfer stations to containerize DSNY-managed Waste 

for export via a barge and/or rail. As an element of this system, each facility must 

provide a margin of capacity that gives DSNY the flexibility to deal with: (i) future 

growth in waste generation as a function of population increases over the period of 

the SWMP; (ii) upset condition at any given facility, e.g. an equipment outage that 

would result in the need for waste flow to be temporarily redistributed among 

nearby facilities; and (iii) public emergency, such as a heavy blizzard that leaves a 

backlog of waste on the curb that must be moved through the system as rapidly as 

possible once roads are clear.” 

Section 2.1.4.5, “Pier (Barge Loadout Area)”, of the engineering report states: 

“There are four reserved container spaces for damaged containers. Any containers 

found to be leaking or damaged will be taken out of service and placed in one of 

four designated spaces on the pier to ensure that damaged containers are not 

accidentally placed back into service.” 

6. Who will ensure that incoming and departing vehicles are clean and how will it be 

done? Additionally, there is no contingency plan outlined should volume of traffic, 

vehicle maintenance problems, or other issues with the facility delay access to the 

building. No mitigation/contingency plans are mentioned to deal with hazardous 

birds that may be present during these times. (ALPA [7], DeFusco [4][6])

A-14 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

Response: DSNY will be responsible for ensuring the cleanliness of the North 

Shore MTS. The technical panel recommends that the recommended on-site FAA 

qualified biologist monitor these operations to help ensure that DSNY complies 

with this measure. The technical panel also recommends that DSNY develop an 

IWHMP for the MTS that defines the roles and responsibilities of personnel 

assessing operations that may impact wildlife attractants. See also responses for 

Comments 4 and 5. 

Report Questions/Responses 

7. We interpret risk assessment Alternative Three to mean the FAA and DOT conclude 

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. (ALPA [1], DeFusco [7]) 

Response: The findings are those of the technical panel, which disagrees with this 

characterization of the risk assessment. Alternative 3 identified in Figure 3-9 of the 

report shows that constructing the MTS with proposed mitigation (i.e., 

incorporating changes to the building design and operational procedures and 

implementing an IWHMP) will not pose an increased risk to air operations at LGA 

compared to the existing situation with no facility and to the proposed facility 

without mitigation. Current FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B) and 

“Evaluation of Trash-transfer Facilities as Bird Attractants”, DOT/FAA/AR-09/62 

(2010), provide that fully enclosed trash transfer stations are generally compatible 

with safe airport operations. The technical panel believes an IWHMP would reduce 

the risks associated with hazardous birds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

facility below current background levels. 

8. The risk assessment model in Figure 3-9 of the draft report is not correct and must 

be re-accomplished in the final report to reflect the appropriate use of Operational 

Risk Management (ORM) models. (DeFusco [7], Paskar [8]) 

Response: Figure 3-9 of the technical panel’s report was chosen as a graphic 

representation of the risk assessment conducted with each of the proposed 

alternatives. The figure was constructed to be a visual aid to supplement the text 

within the report. It is not an operational risk model, as suggested by this 

comment. 

9. As per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife On or Near 

Airports, the NSMTS should be evaluated through a full Wildlife Hazard 

Assessment (WHA) because it is located within 5 statute miles of an airport and 

could cause birds to enter operational airspace. (DeFusco [2], Paskar [2][3]) 

Response: This interpretation is incorrect. The Advisory Circular does not require 

Federally funded airports to prepare wildlife hazard assessments to evaluate 

enclosed trash transfer stations. 

A-15 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

According to Section 2-2 (d), “Enclosed Trash Transfer Stations”, of Advisory 

Circular 150/5200-33B, the 5 statute mile separation criteria does not apply to fully 

enclosed trash transfer stations like the North Shore MTS. Rather, it applies to 

trash transfer stations that “are open on one or more sides; that store uncovered 

quantities of municipal solid waste outside, even if only for a short time; that use 

semi-trailers that leak or have trans clinging to the outside; or that do not control 

odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable)]” and 

therefore do not qualify as enclosed. The FAA considers open trash transfer 

facilities incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located closer than 5 

statute miles from the farthest edge of the airport’s Airport Operations Area and 

could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure 

airspace (see Section 1-4, “Protection of Approach, Departure, and Circling 

Airspace”). 

Further, Section 2-2 (d) states: “Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive 

garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar 

manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with 

safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport property or within 

the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).” The North Shore MTS is neither on airport 

property nor in the RPZ. 

Although there is no requirement for The Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey to prepare a wildlife hazard assessment for LaGuardia Airport as a result of 

the proposed MTS, the technical panel recommends that DSNY prepare an IWHMP 

for the facility and work closely with the airport by joining the JFK/LGA Wildlife 

Hazard Task Force. 

10. The report did not adequately address the synergistic effect of the proposed trash 

transfer operation with surrounding land uses and natural features that contribute 

to the overall risk of bird strikes and the potential attractiveness of the facility. 

This synergistic effect makes the proposed transfer station incompatible with safe 

air operations at LGA. (DeFusco [10]) 

Response: The comment supposes that the MTS operation may act as a wildlife 

attractant. A synergistic effect could be realized if the MTS operation does become 

a true attractant; however, the findings of the technical panel indicate that if the 

MTS is constructed and operated as recommended by the technical panel, no 

conflict will occur. Current FAA guidance on this topic (Advisory Circular 

150/5200-33B) recommends that situations that may contribute to a potential 

synergistic effect be considered during the wildlife hazard management planning 

process. 

The technical panel recommends that an IWHMP designed for the MTS consider 

this issue. 

A-16 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

11. The FAA report entitled “Evaluation of Trash-transfer Facilities as Bird 

Attractants” DOT/FAA/AR-09/62 (2010) concluded that use of trash transfer 

stations, particularly by bird species potentially hazardous to aircraft, can be 

significant and that all such facilities located near airports be individually 

evaluated due to differences in building design, season, geographic location, and 

on-site management practices. Also, the comparison with Staten Island facility 

should not have been used because that facility is a land-based transfer station. 

(ALPA [2], Paskar [7]) 

Response: DOT/FAA/AR-09/62 (2010) recognized that the potential level of 

wildlife attraction for any given trash transfer station is highly related to the 

operation of the facility and its design features. The technical panel concluded that 

if the facility is designed and operated as recommended, it will not act as an 

attractant to wildlife. The surveys at the Staten Island facility were conducted to 

observe operations that will be analogous to the proposed MTS. In this sense, the 

comparison between operations at the Staten Island facility and the proposed MTS 

are valid. 

 

12. 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. (DeFusco [5], Paskar [9]) 

Response: Vultures were not excluded from study. On-site observations at 

LaGuardia Airport and review of the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database 

revealed no sitings of vultures in the immediate vicinity of the proposed MTS and 

LaGuardia Airport. There are observations of turkey vultures in the New York City 

area (personal communication from a panel member, 2010), and a strike at JFK on 

May 24, 2007, was attributed to a black vulture. However, DOT/FAA/AR-09/62 

(2010) noted that vultures were not observed at fully enclosed trash transfer 

facilities. 

Recommendation Questions/Responses 

13. The report should list specific elements within the IWHMP. The plan should 

highlight essential methodologies, and it should exist for the planning and 

construction phase as well as the fully operational phase. (ALPA [3], DeFusco [8]) 

Response: The FAA currently advises certificated airports in the United States on 

the creation and implementation of wildlife hazard management plans (WHMPs) to 

assist in reducing wildlife hazards to aviation (Wildlife Hazard Management at 

Airports, 2005). The goal of an airport’s WHMP is to minimize the risk to aviation 

safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations of 

hazardous wildlife on and around the airport. The technical panel recommends the 

development and implementation of an IWHMP for the MTS facility; this plan 

would be analogous to an airport WHMP. 

A-17 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

The technical panel recommends that an IWHMP for the MTS contain the 

following information: 

 Identify personnel responsible for implementing each phase of the plan, 

 Identify and provide information on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the 

MTS, 

 Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife 

hazard(s) observed, 

 Prioritize appropriate management measures, 

 Recommend necessary equipment and supplies, 

 Identify training requirements for the wildlife damage management personnel 

who will implement the IWHMP, and 

 Identify when and how the IWHMP will be reviewed and updated. 

The plan must also be specific enough to accomplish the goals that are outlined in 

the IWHMP. 

14. The dedicated on-site biologist should be mandatory in the development and 

implementation of the program. (ALPA [6], DeFusco [8]) 

Response: The technical panel agrees that a dedicated on-site wildlife biologist 

trained in wildlife damage management should be present for the construction and 

subsequent operation of the MTS. 

15. Clarify the duties of the dedicated biologist. (ALPA [6], DeFusco [8]) 

Response: The dedicated wildlife biologist must have sufficient background 

through academic study and training to be knowledgeable about the basic principles 

of wildlife management and in the identification, behavior, general life history, and 

legal status of the potentially hazardous species and situations common in the area. 

The wildlife biologist should have sufficient background to implement an IWHMP. 

Typical duties might involve the application of recognized survey and investigative 

techniques used to assess wildlife populations and the potential or realized hazards 

they pose in both qualitative and quantitative contexts. On a daily basis, a wildlife 

biologist at the MTS would focus on the monitoring of operations, site investigation 

of specific locations, and overall assessment of situations that may pose or act as a 

wildlife attractant. However, the wildlife biologist also should possess sufficient 

background in the proper implementation or deployment of various control 

strategies and techniques (e.g., harassment of wildlife) outlined in the IWHMP. 

Finally, the biologist must have an awareness of endangered and threatened wildlife 

species and/or habitats that might visit or be present at or near the MTS site. 

A-18 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

16. Installation of anti-perching devices on the MTS does not provide valid mitigation 

because adjacent buildings will not maintain similar devices. (ALPA [4], DeFusco 

[2]) 

Response: The technical panel does not fully agree with this opinion. The 

installation of anti-perching devices will provide mitigation for the MTS structure 

because the installation of these devices will deter birds from the building. 

However, the technical panel does acknowledge that nearby buildings that have 

anti-perching devices installed may provide a broader area in which birds may not 

wish to perch or loaf. The technical panel recommends that all proximate DSNY 

facilities assess the need for and install anti-perching devices as necessary. 

 

17. A “no feeding” policy was not enforced during the demolition and construction 

phase of the current structure on the MTS, which has likely resulted in the 

establishment of a feeding area attractant. Also, it is doubtful that the enforcement 

effort of a “no feeding” policy for wildlife or feral animals, beyond the initial 

commencement of operations, would be either effective or sustainable. (ALPA [5]) 

Response: The technical panel recommends that a no feeding policy be adopted 

during the construction phase of the new facility and enforced in order to limit the 

habituation of wildlife at the MTS location. The technical panel does not agree that 

a no feeding policy would be ineffective or unsustainable over time. 

18. Clarify the recommendation for monitoring barge activity for birds that might be 

attracted to them (due to water disturbance and/or refuse containers) and then 

mitigate accordingly. This should include techniques used for mitigation in a 

downtown, river neighborhood environment and whether it would involve 

elimination of birds around the building and barges. (ALPA [8])

Response: The technical panel recommends the development of an IWHMP. This 

plan should take into account all types of MTS operations that may be related to 

wildlife at the MTS. The technical panel does not agree that the plan should address 

areas not in the immediate vicinity of the MTS. 

19. I am deeply concerned that a delicate and subtle shading or skewing of facts exists 

in the draft report. A number of relevant facts have been omitted, downplayed, or 

mischaracterized in an effort to approve building the NSMTS in College Point, 

Queens. (Paskar [1]) 

Response: Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood asked the technical panel to 

study the extent to which the proposed enclosed waste transfer facility would attract 

wildlife and the extent to which any such attraction would be incompatible with 

safe airport operations at LaGuardia Airport. The technical panel included wildlife 

and transportation experts from the FAA, USDA, the U.S. Air Force, The Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the City of New York. The group 

conducted an extensive review of LaGuardia bird strike data and plans for the MTS 

A-19 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

site and also did detailed analysis of similar waste management operations in the 

New York area. 

20. The Executive Summary of the draft report claims that the North Shore MTS would 

be sited 2,206 feet from the landing threshold for runway 3r. But the AC criteria for 

separation between a waste transfer station and an airport is the distance from the 

Airport Operations Area (AOA) and not the runway threshold. The distance 

between the AOA and the MTS is approximately 1,600 feet—a difference of nearly 

35 percent. The report's claim that the NSMTS is more than 2,000 feet from the 

runway is at best misleading and at worst intentionally deceptive. (Paskar [2][3]) 

Response: The proposed North Shore MTS is an enclosed trash transfer station. 

Section 2-2 (d) of AC 150/5200-33B indicates that enclosed facilities are 

compatible with safe airport operations as long as they are not located on airport 

property or within the Runway Protection Zone. Open facilities and other sites that 

do not qualify as enclosed are subject to the separation criteria cited by the 

respondent. 

21. The technical panel of experts includes individuals who participated 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. (Paskar [4]) 

Response: This is incorrect. No technical panel members participated in a previous 

study of the proposed facility. The commenter cites no specific evidence about a 

prior study or other matter to demonstrate bias on the part of the technical panel. 

The technical panel consists of recognized experts within the fields of wildlife and 

transportation from the FAA, USDA, the U.S. Air Force, The Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, and the City of New York. 

22. Steven Garber, an expert wildlife biologist and former director of wildlife 

management for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, says the NSMTS 

is within 1,850 feet of LaGuardia's Runway r3—within the Runway Protection 

Zone—and will attract birds. He says the NSMTS constitutes “flagrant safety 

violations that will greatly increase the risk of imminent plane crashes.” He says 

the food source created by the NSMTS will guarantee that the area will become “an 

enormous lounging, feeding, socializing, and breeding area.” He also notes that 

the birds are federally protected and that efforts to remove them will entail a 

lengthy and expensive—and probably futile—battle. (Paskar [5]) 

Response: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Section 2-2 (d), “Enclosed 

Trash Transfer Stations”, states: “Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive 

garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar 

manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with 

safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport property or within 

the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).” Also, the study “Evaluation of TrashTransfer Facilities as Bird Attractants” (2010) determined that fully enclosed trash 

A-20 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

transfer stations do not provide a significant attraction to hazardous birds if they are 

constructed and operated correctly. 

Ninety percent of avian species within the United States are Federally protected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both state and Federally protected birds are 

routinely and successfully mitigated from airport properties and surrounding 

habitats under regulatory depredation permits issued from the participating state or 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The mitigation of hazardous wildlife that pose 

a threat to air operations is an accepted, cost-effective measure with respect to the 

costs of damaged engine/aircraft repairs, downtime costs of passenger aircraft, and 

human safety. We note that Mr. Garber did not comment on this report. We stand 

by the findings and conclusions in this report. 

23. 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 of interest; independent analysis and objectivity cannot 

be assured, because the FAA and the USDA knew the panel members’ position on 

the project prior to the development of this report. After reviewing letters from the 

FAA and USDA, I am baffled over why these two agencies are crusading in favor of 

building the NSMTS. I have not seen one item of correspondence or 

communication of any kind from either agency questioning or investigating the 

risks and hazards the NSMTS would impose on air travel. (Paskar [6][10]) 

Response: The technical panel consists of recognized experts within the fields of 

wildlife and transportation from the FAA, USDA, the United States Air Force, The 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the City of New York. The 

technical panel concludes that the recommendations in the report will achieve 

compatibility between the North Shore MTS and LaGuardia Airport with respect to 

bird strikes and safe air operations. The report reflects the fact that the panel 

undertook a good faith, independent, and objective review of the proposed project. 

The fact that certain members of the panel currently or previously worked for the 

FAA or USDA does not constitute a conflict of interest. The commenter cites no 

flaws in the study or other evidence to support these allegations. 

A-21 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

COMMENTS BY RESPONDENT 

Congressmen Gary Ackerman and Joseph Crowley, U.S. House of Representatives 

(1) Accordingly, we would like to know how these various agencies (FAA, USDA, 

DSNY, NYDEC) will coordinate the implementation of the recommendations, (2)

whether specific agencies will be responsible for specific recommendations, (3) and if 

there will be a controlling authority to make decisions with regard to these new 

recommendations. 

State of New York Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn 

(1) Specifically, the study recommends several additional design modifications, 

operational procedures and a wildlife management program during the planning, 

construction and operational phases of the MTS. These changes to the design, 

construction and operation of the MTS will require long-term commitments and extensive 

coordination from several city, state and federal agencies, including: the Department of 

Sanitation, New York City; the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation; the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Wildlife 

Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This oversight and coordination is not 

delineated in the report, and while there are worthy safeguards recommended in this 

study, they will be of no value if there is not the required commitment and authority to 

carry them out. 

ALPA – Air Line Pilots Association, International 

(1) The Evaluation’s “Determination of Findings” points out in risk assessment 

Alternative Three, that the proposed facility, with modifications and an integrated 

operational wildlife hazard mitigation plan, would provide the safest, most acceptable 

alternative when considering the building of the North Shore MTS. We interpret 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. 

(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 potential 

wildlife activity the marine transfer station may generate. We believe that because gulls 

are more inclined to frequent a water environment, it is reasonable to conclude that they 

would be more likely to congregate at a marine facility than at a land facility. 

(3) [Implement an integrated wildlife hazards management program for the MTS 

facility.] 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 essential to be addressed and included in the program.

A-22 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

(4) [Install anti‐perching devices on the transfer station roof, pilings, and other surfaces 

where birds might perch.] Such design elements would likely deter birds 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 locations for birds 

that are attracted to, and feeding from the contents of the vehicles entering and exiting 

the building, whether by land or water. 

(5) [Strict enforcement of a “no feeding wildlife or feral animals” policy.] The 

demolition of the current structure on the MTS site is taking place without the 

implementation of this recommendation, likely resulting in a feeding area having been 

already established. It is highly doubtful that the enforcement effort, beyond the initial 

commencement of operations, would be either effective or sustainable.

(6) [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).] This dedicated position should be mandatory in the development and 

implementation of the program. 

(7) [Monitor trash containers to ensure no trash is extruding from them prior to leaving 

the transfer station building.] It isn’t clear what action, if any, is required 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 the good working condition of the 

truck containment modules. 

(8) [Monitor barge activity for birds that might be attracted to them (due to water 

disturbance and/or the refuse containers) and mitigate accordingly.] It is unclear what 

“mitigate accordingly” means. For example, what mitigation technique(s) would be used 

in a downtown, river neighborhood environment? Would the mitigation specify the 

elimination of the birds flying in the areas around the building and barges? 

 

Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, USAF (ret.) 

(1) There is no mention of independent monitoring or enforcement of compliance by the 

regulatory agency to ensure mitigation measures are maintained in perpetuity for the life 

of the facility.

(2) FAA Advisory Circular Requirements: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B 

“Hazardous Wildlife On or Near Airports” states that fully enclosed waste handling 

facilities are considered incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located on 

airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). In any case, such facilities 

should be evaluated through a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) if they are located 

within 5 statute miles of an airport and cause birds to enter operational airspace and are 

generally considered incompatible within the standard separation criteria of 10,000 feet 

from active surfaces or cause birds to enter the approach, departure, or circling airspace 

A-23 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

for airports serving jet aircraft if certain criteria are not met. The proposed facility lies 

nearly on centerline with LaGuardia Airport Runway 31, possibly within the RPZ (the 

draft FAA/USDA report states otherwise, but Garber disagreed), and well within the 

standard separation distances and thus should be considered incompatible by these 

criteria.

(3) Building Design: The original design drawings I reviewed showed the facility as 

fully enclosed including the gantry/crane for transferring containers under a roof to the 

marine barges. A later design modification, as shown in the report, depicts the 

crane/gantry as not covered and could provide perching and nesting sites for birds on the 

exposed structures. The removal of the roof from the design is likely due to obstruction 

clearance requirements and could compromise the ability to deter birds from this portion 

of the structure. Anti-perching devices may not be able to be installed in some areas (eg. 

safety rails, etc) as maintenance crews would need to access these areas. Design and 

materials for these exposed structures must account for potential attractiveness to 

hazardous bird species. Other aspects of the building design are detailed in the report 

and I concur with their findings. 

(4) Container Design: It is not entirely clear from the report that the containers will be 

designed in a manner to completely exclude birds from accessing trash that may be 

exposed if the lids are not tightly sealed. Also not clear is whether fluids can be fully 

contained to ensure no leakage occurs on site after trash is compacted for loading, 

though the report states that they will be leak-proof. There is also no contingency plan 

noted for possible storage of containers on site should barges not run due to volume, 

maintenance, or weather delays. While it is acknowledged that the containers are to be 

cleaned prior to leaving the facility, there is no description of the cleaning process. 

Cleaning of incoming containers is not mentioned. Where will this occur? Off-site or onsite? Within the structure or outside? 

(5) Odor control. It is mentioned in the report that negative air pressure in the building 

and odor elimination will be employed to limit odors escaping the facility. Most birds 

have a very poorly developed sense of smell, with one notable exception; the Turkey 

Vulture. Turkey Vultures were not mentioned in the draft FAA/USDA report, perhaps 

because the surveys were conducted at a time of year when these birds are generally 

absent from the region and there are no records of strikes with these birds at LaGuardia 

Airport. However, vultures are commonly observed in the region, particularly in summer. 

As these birds find their food sources primarily by smell, they may be expected at the site 

if odors are present. 

(6) Incoming Traffic: While it is acknowledged that it is a regulatory requirement that 

trash hauling vehicles be covered when transporting trash from the point of pick-up to 

deliver to the station, it is my experience that these vehicles frequently have exposed 

trash that is partially exposed at the containment seals or adhering to external structures 

such as tires, chassis, lifts, and others. Such exposed trash will attract birds to the 

vehicles and parking areas outside the building. Additionally, there is no contingency 

plan outlined should volume of traffic, vehicle maintenance problems, or other issues 

A-24 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

with the facility delay access to the building. No mitigation/contingency plans are 

mentioned to deal with hazardous birds that may be present during these times. 

(7) Risk Assessment Model: The risk assessment model in Figure 3-9 of the draft 

FAA/USDA report is not correct. It is an adaptation of a standard Operational Risk 

Management (ORM) model that should show the frequency of occurrence of a hazard on 

one scale and the severity of the consequences of encountering that hazard on the 

opposing scale. As depicted in the report, the risk of Alternative 1 (no facility) and 

Alternative 2 (facility as proposed with no mitigation measures) are shown as equal, 

despite the fact that the text did not come to the same conclusions. In my opinion the risk 

level would rise from lowest to highest from Alternative 1 (no facility) to Alternative 3 

(facility with mitigation) to Alternative 2 (facility as proposed). This model must be reaccomplished in the final report to reflect the appropriate use of ORM models. 

(8) Mitigation Measures: The design features, anti-perching devices, no feeding policy, 

landscaping recommendations, monitoring of incoming and outgoing 

vehicles/barges/containers, development of an integrated wildlife hazard management 

program, and provision of a full-time dedicated wildlife control professional are all 

necessary elements of proper mitigation measures to reduce potential hazards to nearby 

aircraft. However, there are other provisions that are not detailed in the draft report. For 

example, it recommends monitoring bird activity attracted to barges and mitigating 

accordingly. Who will be monitoring this activity? What are the mitigation measures to 

adapt accordingly? Mitigation measures, such as the use of pyrotechnics and other 

standard harassment techniques are not detailed. Are there provisions to temporarily or 

permanently halt operations while mitigating techniques are applied should unacceptable 

flight safety risks be noted? These details must be specifically spelled out in the report 

and in the wildlife hazard management plan or there is no way to monitor and ensure 

compliance.

(9) Compliance. There is no mention in the draft FAA/USDA report of compliance 

issues. Neither the FAA nor the USDA, or for that matter the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey nor LaGuardia Airport have the regulatory authority to ensure that any 

provisions in the recommendations contained in the report are adapted, monitored, or 

enforced. 

(10) Cumulative Effects: The proposed trash transfer operation also cannot be treated 

as an entirely separate entity, as the cumulative and/or synergistic effects of other land 

uses and natural features in the surrounding area contribute to the overall risk of bird 

strikes and the potential attractiveness of the facility. The adjacent maintenance facilities 

where trash hauling vehicles are maintained exhibited several factors that can attract 

hazardous birds near the proposed facility. Open bays where birds such as Rock Pigeons 

and European Starlings were nesting and roosting were noted in a May site visit. Gulls 

were observed perched on the roofs. Open compartments on the vehicles themselves 

allowed birds access to residual, exposed trash. The nearby inactive Flushing Meadows 

Airport provides a wildlife sanctuary near the facility that will attract a variety of birds 

that will interact with the trash transfer operation. Other industrial buildings in the area 

A-25 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

provide roosting and nesting sites near the facility. The natural habitat on and around 

the waterfront and marine traffic north of the facility attracts gulls and other potentially 

hazardous species near the facility and airport. Each of these contribute to a background 

level of activity that will necessarily interact and perhaps be enhanced by the trash 

transfer facility and must be more fully evaluated, yet were not adequately addressed in 

the draft FAA/USDA report.

Kenneth D. Paskar 

(1) I am deeply concerned that a delicate and subtle shading or skewing of facts exists in 

the draft report. A number of relevant facts have been omitted, downplayed, or 

mischaracterized in an effort to approve building the NSMTS in College Point, Queens.

(2) The Executive Summary of the draft report claims that the NSMTS would be sited 

2,206 feet from the landing threshold for runway 3r. But the AC criteria for separation 

between a waste transfer station and 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 1,600 feet - a difference of nearly 35 percent. The 

report's claim that the NSMTS is more than 2,000 feet from the runway is at best 

misleading and at worst intentionally deceptive. 

(3) 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." 

(4) The technical panel of experts includes individuals who participated 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. 

(5) Steven Garber, an expert wildlife biologist and former director of wildlife 

management for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, says the NSMTS is 

within 1,850 feet of LaGuardia's Runway r3-3i - within the Runway Protection Zone - 

and will attract birds. He says the NSMTS constitutes "flagrant safety violations that will 

greatly increase the risk of imminent plane crashes." He says the food source created by 

the NSMTS will guarantee that the area will become "an enormous lounging, feeding, 

socializing, and breeding area." He also notes that the birds are federally protected and 

that efforts to remove them will entail a lengthy and expensive – and probably futile - 

battle.

(6) 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 of interest; independent analysis and objectivity cannot be assured, because the 

FAA and the USDA knew the panel members' position on the project prior to the 

development of this report. 

A-26 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

(7) 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 such facilities located near 

airports should be individually evaluated because of differences in building design, 

location, and on-site management practices.' "Variability between facilities was 

considerable even in the same regions," he wrote, "and therefore comparisons with other 

local facilities, such as on Staten Island or in Harlem, may not be 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.

(8) 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 show the 

frequency of occurrence of a hazard on one scale and the severity of the consequences of 

encountering that hazard on the opposing scale." 

(9) The draft report states that gulls, starlings, and pigeons are species frequently 

attracted to trash transfer facilities. But according to the AC, vultures are the top species 

that pose hazards to aviation safety. "Most birds 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. 

(10) After reviewing letters from the FAA and USDA, I am baffled over why these two 

agencies are crusading in favor of building the NSMTS. I have not seen one item of 

correspondence or communication of any kind from either agency questioning or 

investigating the risks and hazards the NSMTS would impose on air travel.

A-27 
Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010 

 

A-28 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Sincerely, 

U.S. Deportment Office of Airport Safety 800 Independence Ave., SW of Transportation and Standards Washington, DC 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Admil'!istration 

r.�lP 4)! ·2010 

Mr. Hary Szarpanski 

Deputy Commissioner 

Bureau of Long Tenn Export 

44 Beaver Street 

New York, NY 10004 

Dear Mr. Szarpanski: 

Last year, following the forced landing of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, 

Secretary LaHood requested that an expert technical panel reexamine whether the proposed 

North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in College Point, Queens, would be compatible 

with safe operations at LaGuardia Airport. We were fortunate to be able to assemble a true 

"blue ribbon" panel, including experts in bird strike hazards from the United States Air Force, 

the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture, the city of 

New York, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

The panel issued its final report, "Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its 

Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia Airport," on 

September 2. The report concludes the proposed MTS will be compatible with safe 

air operations so long as it is constructed and operated in accordance with the report's 

recommendations. 

The FAA has reviewed the final report. We believe the technical panel's approach to the issue 

presented was appropriate and its analysis and conclusions are sound. We believe it is important 

for the city to adopt the recommendations of the panel and we appreciate your undertaking to 

adopt them in full, and we urge you to commit to implementing the recommendations in full. 

Secretary LaHood and the FAA appreciate your cooperation with the work of the technical 

panel. We look forward to working with you to protect the safety of the region's airports. 

Director, Airport Safety 

and Standards 

Enclosure 
sanitation HARRY SZARPANSKI, P.E. 

Deputy Commissioner 

Bureau of Long Term Export 

44 Beaver Street, 12th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Telephone: (917) 237-5501 

Fax: (212) 269-0788 

September 3, 2010 

Michael 1. O'Donnell, A.A.E. 

Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-I 

US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW Room 621 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Dear Mr. O'Donnell: 

On September 2, 2010, a technical panel that was assembled to re-examine whether the 

North Shore Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in College Point, Queens in the City of New 

York would be compatible with saFe operations at LaGuardia Airport released its Final 

report, entitled "Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its 

Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia 

Airport." The report concludes that the proposed MTS will be compatible with saFe air 

operations, and issues recommendations for the construction and operation of the 

proposed facility. 

The Department of Sanitation's plans for the MTS were the result of a detailed planning 

efFort. We agree with the report's conclusion that this Facility can be operated saFely in 

regards to safe aviation operations at LaGuardia Airport. We will implement the panel's 

recommendations as we seek to construct and operate a facility that will reduce the 

environmental impact of solid waste removal on New York City while ensuring the 

safety of the flying public. 

www.nyc.gov/sanitation 

KEEP NYC CLEAN .�'<, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE ,� DON'T LlTrER 

@ printed on recycled paper