## 'SEP 

# 022010 **Technical Panel**  **for the**  **Evaluation of**  **the North**  **Shore Marine**  **Transfer Station and**  **i ts**  **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**  **o f**  **expe rt**  **s 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**

**- si**  **t e**  **visits to**  **collect data**  **including a**  **tour the**  **proposed MTS**  **site and**  **surrounding a**  **rea, 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 Associatio**  **n; Russell**  **P. DeF**  **usco, USAF**  **(retired); and**  **Mr. Kenneth**  **D. Paskar)**  **prov i**  **ded 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 buil**  **d ing**  **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 fr am ework and also should be disc ussed locally by existing parties concerned with wildlife hazards to aviation. It is the opinion of the techni cal 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 sa fe 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 Babbi tt, FAA Administrator

# E VALUATION OF THE 

# N ORTH 

# S HORE 

# M ARINE 

# T RANSFER 

# S TATION AND ITS 

# C OMPATIBILITY WITH 

# R ESPECT TO 

# B IRD 

# S TRIKES
AND 

# S AFE 

# A IR 

# O PERATIONS
AT 

# L A 

# G UARDIA 

# A IRPORT

R EPORT FOR THE 

### A SSOCIATE 

### A DMINISTRATOR OF 

### A IRPORTS 

### O FFICE OF 

### A IRPORT 

### S AFETY AND 

### S TANDARDS 

### A IRPORT 

### S AFETY 

### & O PERATIONS 

### W ASHINGTON 

### , DC

A UGUST 

### 2010

### Report of the technical panel for the evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its com patibility 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 Obse rvations 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 Oper ating 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 an imals mentioned in this document ............. A-2

Appendix C. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Serv ices 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 Re gion 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 Co mments 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 strike s at LaGuardia Airport wher e 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 appr oximately 2,206 feet from the landing threshold of Runway 13/31 at LaGuardia Airport .................................................12

3-3 Birds observed during a long-term m onitoring program to assess wildlife hazards at LaGuardi a Airport, 2004–2009.............................................................13

3-4 House sparrows (left photo) and pigeons (right photo) are often a pest at trashtransfer stations and other faciliti es where solid waste is received and processed................................................................................................................14

3-5 A European starling. Introduced into Ce ntral 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 gul ls (and other gull species) use waste management facilities, such as trash-transf er 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 con ducted at the Staten Island Transfer Station, a truck-to-rail tran sfer station facility loca ted 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 achie vement for the North Shore MTS study conducted in accordance with a pre-determined schedule.......................................9

3-1 Top 20 FAA Part 139 certificated airpor ts within the FAA Eastern Region (out of a total of 64 airports) for reported gull-aircraft co llisions (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 Tr ansfer 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 Departme nt of Sanitation (DS NY) issued a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to address the long-term exportation and disposal of municipal solid waste from metropo litan New York City. This plan proposed refurbishing four closed marine transfer st ation (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 Yo rk, 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 se aled and cleaned within the transfer station building and then loaded onto barg es for transfer to a final di sposal site. No solid waste would be stored or proce ssed outside of the fully enclosed MTS building.

In January 2007, t 

### he 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) evaluate d its impact on air navigation and issued a determination of “No Hazard to Air Na vigation” under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navi gable 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 compa tible with safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport property or w ithin the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Although the proposed site for the North Shor e 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 sc rutiny, which prompted this study.

A technical panel of wildlife hazard mitigati on 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 co llisions (bird strikes) at LaGuardia Airport, and the proposed building design plans, speci fications, and operational parameters. The technical panel considered currently operating and simila rly 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 gul ls, European starlings, and pigeons are bird species frequently attracted to tr ash-transfer facilities. A review of available information, such as the bird strike history at LGA a nd 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 co astal-urban environment where the proposed MTS has been sited and in the genera l area near LaGuardia Airport.

1

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

Standardized bird surveys conducted at the Stat en Island Tr ansfer Stat ion (a facility that has similar building design and operational proc edures as would be used at the proposed North Shore MTS) indicated that although gulls were abundant in th e general area, those birds were not attracted to the transfer sta tion and waste management activities occurring inside the building.

Based on the collected data, the technical pane l prepared a draft vers ion of this report, which was issued for public review and co mment from April 23 to May 24, 2010. Five separate respondents provided comments that ra ised issues related to the conduct of the study, future regulation of potential wildlife hazar ds 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 manageme nt 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 integr ated 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 wi ll achieve compatibility betw een 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 techni cal 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 measur es 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/L GA Wildlife Hazard Task Force). This working group/task force can discuss issues of shared interest or responsibility relative to the coordination of the report recommendati ons. The group may want to discuss (1) regulatory authority over the operational c onduct of the North S hore 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 fo llowing specific recommendations to DSNY to provide a framework for proactive monitori ng 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 wildlif e hazard management plan (IWHMP) for the MTS that focuses on the facility du ring 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 hazar dous wildlife attracta nts on or near the MTS,

– 

### Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard(s) observed,

– 

### Prioritize appropriate ma nagement measures,

– 

### Recommend necessary equipment and supplies,

– 

### Identify training requirements for the w ildlife 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 ot her perching sites in the building design as much as possible. For example, do not us e raised letters for signage on the building as any projections from the building provi de 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 feed ing wildlife or feral animals” policy.

 

### DSNY should ensure landscaping plans and selected plants and materials will not attract wildlife (e.g., minimize grassy ar eas 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 feed ing wildlife or feral animals” policy.

 

### DSNY should assess the cleanliness of inco ming 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 tr ansfer station building.

 

### DSNY should monitor barge activ ity 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 com ponent of solid waste management systems. A transfer station is a facility where solid waste (i.e., household garbage, commercial refuse, construction and buildi ng debris) is received, processed, and subsequently transferred to another solid wast e management facility for further treatment, processing, or final disposal. As with othe r solid waste management facilities, such as landfills, certain species of birds can be attracted to tr ash-transfer stations. If such facilities are located near air ports, the potential for collisi ons between birds and aircraft (bird strikes) could increase and thus negatively impact safe aircraft operations. Recently, a scientific study administered th rough the National Wildlife Research Center of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services program (hereaf ter referred to as USDA), evaluated the attractiveness of trash-transfer st ations to wildlife and particul arly to species of birds that are documented hazards to aviation. Findings from this study indicate the design and operation of trash-transfer facilities, in addi tion to other factors, can influence whether birds are attracted to a trash-tr ansfer 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 Departme nt of Sanitation (DSNY) issued a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Pl an (SWMP) to address the long-term exportation and disposal of municipal solid wa ste (i.e., residential and commercial waste) from metropolitan New York City. As an inte gral part of the plan, the SWMP focused on refurbishing four closed marine transfer st ation (MTS) facilities previously operated by DSNY. According to the plan, municipal so lid waste would be transported to the MTS facilities by curbside garbage trucks, processe d and containerized w ithin 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 (Par t 360). In January 2007, the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva tion 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 Federa l 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 lo cated 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 determinati on of “No Hazard to Air Navigation” on September 18, 2006. Following concerns expres sed 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 Septembe r 19, 2008, issued a dete rmination 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 th e opera tion of air navigation facilities.

FAA guidance in Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, states that fully enclosed wa ste-handling facilities that receive garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar processes; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles ge nerally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport propert y or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The proposed site fo r the facility is neith er 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 pot ential of the proposed MTS. Based on review of operational procedures in the Part 360 Engineering Report, a visit to the Staten Is land Transfer Station, a nd conversations with DSNY personnel (H. Szarpanski and S. Dolin ar), the USDA determined the North Shore MTS did not inherently conf lict with safe aircraft ope rations 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 populat ions pose and habitat fe atures 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 activiti es at a trash-transfer sta tion 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 po licies and previous examinati ons of the topic by the FAA and other government agencies. During th e autumn of 2009, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation held a series of meetings w ith 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 e ngage 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 aviati on. The FAA uses research findings to develop and promulgate safety regulations related to wildlife at airports, thus ensuring safe environm ents for aircraft operati ons 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 LaGuardi a Airport. This “blue ribbon” technical panel includes experts recognized as knowledgeable about wild life hazards at airports (Appendix A). Project Leaders John R. Weller (National Wildlife Biologist, F AA) and Michael J. Begier (National Coordinator, Ai rport Wildlife Hazards Pr ogram, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services) provided oversight, and Dr. Br ian E. Washburn (Research Biologist, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services/National Wildli fe Research Center) provided detailed analysis and authored the study. Other memb ers of the expert panel were Richard A. Dolbeer, PhD (Science Advisor, USDA/APHIS/ Wildlife Services); Edward C. Cleary (President, WASHMan LLC); Eugene A. LeBo euf [Chief, U.S. Air Force Bird/wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team]; Laur a Francoeur (Chief Wildlife Biologist, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ); and Christopher A. Nadareski (Section Chief, New York City Environmen tal Protection Bureau of Water Supply/WWQO/Wildlife Studies Section). This technical panel was charged with helping the agencies analyze the data, asse ss the risk of various alternatives, and determine whether the MTS could be made comp atible 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 DS NY 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 incorporat ed 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 safe ty involve a series of quantitative and qualitative approaches that are commonly used by wildlife manageme nt 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, includi ng wildlife strike history, surveys, previous wildlife hazard assessments, and other related studies that pertain to La Guardia Airport. Recognizing that the applicable FAA regula tion—Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations

7

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

Part 139, Certification of Airports (Par t 139)—was updated in 2004, the panel decided that inf ormation 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 No rth Shore MTS, including transport trucks, barges, trash types and volume, a nd nature of the general operation.

c. Arrange a physical assessment of the pr oposed facility loca tion by the technical panel. This included a series of direct obser vations, 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 sp ecifically, the Bronx and Staten Island) to better understand the processes employed in soli d waste transfer and to observe first hand how these facilities and/or pro cesses might attract birds.

e. Conduct risk assessments on a range of alte rnatives—from no f acility to a fully operational facility with mitigation measures in place.

f. Issue, based on an examination of the av ailable data, a determination of findings about (1) whether the trash-transf er facility is incompatible w ith safe airport operations at LaGuardia Airport with respect to bird strike s, (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, incorporat e this input, and issu e 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. Worldwid e, wildlife strikes have resu lted 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 containe d in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database.

Recent events have amplified public awarene ss 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 airc raft dramatically demonstrated to the public that wildlife st rikes are a serious aviation safety issue.

LaGuardia Airport is managed by The Port Au thority of New York and New Jersey and is located on the northeastern end of Long Island, in Flus hing, 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 F AA 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 comme rcial properties), densely populated areas of northern Qu eens 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 a nd behavioral patterns (e.g., flocking, soaring)

9

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

of these birds, the risk of bi rd strikes is a significan t conc ern 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 stri kes 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 st rikes 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 st rikes 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 Airpor t (Figure 3-1) and othe r airports located on waterways within the mid-Atla ntic 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 Ob servations at the Proposed Site Many species of wildlife have adapted to living in areas th at are densely populated with humans. Canada geese, gulls, pigeons, Eur opean 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 area s are located within coastal areas. Many people derive pleasure from watc hing 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 w ildlife 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 pres ent on or near the pr oposed building site.

11

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

Figure 3-2. Site location for the propos ed 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 observat ions of birds clearly demonstr ate 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, LaGuardi a Airport implemented a program to monitor and assess wildlife hazards to avia tion. Ducks, geese, and gulls made up the majority of birds observed on or near the ai rport (Figure 3-3). In addition, on several occasions during this study, the technical pane l 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 La Guardia Airport. Th ese observations are consistent with previously documented gull activity gathered during wildlife monitoring at LaGuardia Airport. Additionally, the long-te rm 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%

7% 9% 3%

1% Gulls Other Birds Blackbirds & Starlings Doves & Pigeons Small Perching Birds Ducks & Geese



### Figure 3-3. Birds observed during a lo ng-term monitoring program to assess wildlife hazards at LaGuardia Airport, 2004–2009.

On December 15, 2009, the technical panel conduct ed a site visit to the proposed North Shore MTS location to gather information and conduct general obs ervations about the area. The group gained first-hand knowledge of current conditions at the proposed site, including information about ha bitats, wildlife activity, and ot her 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 activ ity prior to the existence of an active trashtransfer station. To gain insi ght into bird activity at or near the proposed building site, professional wildlife biologists conducted 18 st andardized bird surveys in February and March 2010 at the proposed MTS site. During th ese surveys, the biologists identified to species all birds observed w ithin 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 pr oposed site, with particular c onsideration 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 th e former North Shore MTS building. On one occasion, several pigeons were observed flying in to the former transfer station building to roost. The gulls observed during the survey s, 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 re pair and ma intenance 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 facili ties 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 se lected species) observed per hour of survey time within 0.25 miles of the prop osed 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. Herrin g gulls (and other gull species) use

w aste 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 (Figur e 3-7). It will be a thre e-level, over-water facility explicitly designed for the indoor transfer of solid waste fr om collection vehicles into sealed, leak-proof containers. Each container will be sealed and cleaned then loaded onto barges for transfer to a final di sposal 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 maxim um peak tons per day of solid waste. The expected aver age 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-pe rcent allowance is included for seasonal variability, growth in waste generation, and system redunda ncy. 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 in clude the following:

 

### Waste will be delivered to the transfer stati on facility inside closed collection vehicles (i.e., curbside garbage trucks).

 

### All trucks will enter a nd exit the transfer station buildi ng 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 bu ilding, 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 clean ed inside the transf er station building.

 

### All waste will leave the North Shore MTS in sealed, leak-proof containers, and all containers will enter and ex it 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 wast e from a high-level tipping floor down to a lower-level loading floor (Figure 3-7). Next, wa ste will be loaded into containers that are sealed and cleaned in a liddi ng/unlidding area. Finally, the containers will leave the MTS building through rapid, roll-up doors and be pla ced 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 pro cessed or stored outside of the transfer station building.

 

### The tipping floor will be cleaned daily.

 

### All vehicles will be cleaned pr ior to exiting the building.

16

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

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

3.5. Examination of Currently Opera ting 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, c onsidered 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 expert s visited the Staten Is land Transfer Station (Figure 3-8) located in Staten Island, New Yo rk. This trash-transf er station is very similar to the proposed North Shore MTS in terms of building design and operational procedures. As a whole, the group observed th at opportunities for the f acility 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 struct ure or access portions of the waste transfer operation. However, the group decided to coll ect additional short-term data at this location to document possible wildlife attracta nt issues that may not have been apparent during this visit.

During February and March 2010, professiona l wildlife biologists conducted six standardized bird surveys at the Staten Isla nd Transfer Station (1) to gain information about the attractiveness and use of that tr ash-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 activ ity in the immediate vicinity of the transfer station. The biologists identif ied to species, counted, and recorded all birds observed within the area of the transfer station (with in 0.25 miles) during these surveys. In addition, they documented the behaviors exhibi ted by birds (in particular, birds observed using the trash-transfer station—perching on th e building, in the build ing, or directly feeding on trash). These data were summarized to provide insight in to the existing bird activity at the site and to determine the degree to which birds, particularly those recognized as being hazardous to safe air opera tions, used the transfer station facility.

Based on the surveys (Table 3-3), the biolog ists 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 us ing the transfer station if th ey 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 Is land 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 propert y, they appeared to show little interest in the facility and the waste management act ivities that occurred inside the building.

Figure 3-8. Standardized bird surveys w ere conducted at the Staten Islan d Transfer Station, a truck-to-rail transfer station fac i lity 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 fo r 26 percent of the bi rds 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 th at 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 pigeon s seen at the facility were actually feeding on the trash inside the transf er 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 c oncerns because they commonly collide with aircraft. Both have been involved in collisi ons 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 th e birds observed using the Staten Island Transfer Station were house sparrows (Figur e 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 fo r transfer station ope rators and employees, they do not present a substant ial bird strike risk.

Table 3-3. Average number of birds (of se lected 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 bird s 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 Time a Average Number of Birds Observed Using b 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 Stat en 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 S hore MTS facility might attract birds and become a hazard to av iation operations, the technical panel used a risk assessment process and portrayed available alternatives in a risk matrix. Figure 3-9 illustrates a series of thr ee alternatives for the proposed North Shore MTS.

The following three alternatives were cons idered 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 build ing design and operati onal procedures and the development and implementation of an integrated wildlife hazard management
program.

The risk assessments only consider the risk pos ed to safe aircraft operations at LaGuardia Airport by birds using the proposed Nort h Shore MTS site. Although this risk assessment does not specifically address the ove rall risk posed to aircraft operations to and from LaGuardia Airport by birds presen t throughout the genera l vicinity of the airport, it does consider dynamic, area-wide bird populati ons within the site-specific assessment of risk.

Sizable populations of gulls and other bi rds are commonly found in highly urbanized areas in coastal environments. Historic and current observations , in addition to the number of gulls struck by airc raft at or near LaGuardia Airp ort, 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 numb ers within these environments are dynamic and influenced by numerous factors, includi ng weather patterns, tidal cycles, seasonal influences, and the availability of natural f oods. Previous research has shown that bird use of trash-transfer facilities varies seas onally. Consequently, the risk assessment must consider the impact of changes in the numb er 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 so me 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 consid er wildlife issues. This level of risk would be associated with increased bird m ovements (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 th at dissuade birds from using the MTS (see Section 4, Recommendations) would reduce the probabi lity of birds and other wildlife being attracted to the facility and lowe r the risk associated with bird strikes. The risk could be further reduced if the MTS, after incor porating changes to the building design and

20

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

operational procedures, was operated with an in tegrated wildlife haza rd management plan and program . The technical panel believes that an integrated wildlife hazard management plan would reduce the risks associated with h azardous birds in the im mediate vicinity of the proposed facility below current background levels.

Alternative 1 a

No facility (present situation) Alternative 2 b

Proposed facility Alternative 3 c

Proposed facility with

modifications and

wildlife hazard management plan

High High Low

Medium Medium LowHazardous BirdActivity

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 build ing design and operational procedures and (2) the implementation of a wildlife hazard management plan



### Figure 3-9. Assessment of the risk to avi ation 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 Altern ative 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. Th is 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 Pa rt 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 inco rporating changes to the building design, following strict operational procedures, and developing and implementing an integrated wildlife hazard management plan and program . The technical pane l concludes that the

21

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

recommendations provided below will achieve co mpatibility 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 alrea dy 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 m easures 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 recommendati ons. The group may want to discuss (1) regulatory authority over the operational c onduct of the North S hore MTS relative to wildlife hazard management as discussed in the engineering report and this report and (2) how to monitor and a ddress wildlife hazard issues that may arise.

Further, the technical panel makes the fo llowing specific recommendations to DSNY to provide a framework for proactive monitori ng and mitigation of wildlife hazards to aviation at the proposed North Shore MTS:

Planning and Construction Phases

 

### DSNY should develop an integrated wildlif e 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 hazar dous wildlife attracta nts on or near the MTS,

– 

### Identify appropriate wildlife manageme nt techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard(s) observed,

– 

### Prioritize appropriate ma nagement measures,

– 

### Recommend necessary equipment and supplies,

– 

### Identify training requirements for the w ildlife 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 ot her perching sites in the building design as much as possible. For example, do not us e raised letters for signage on the building as any projections from the building provi de 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 feed ing 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 feed ing wildlife or feral animals” policy.

 

### DSNY should assess the cleanliness of inco ming 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 tr ansfer station building.

 

### DSNY should monitor barge activ ity 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 Wild life 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 Pa rt 139, Certification of Airports

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

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

### edition, 2005

Reports:

Evaluation of Trash-transfer Facilities as Bird Attractants, Report No. DOT/FAA/AR09/62, 2010 Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in th e United States 1990–2008, Serial Report No. 15, 2009

FAA National Wildlife Strike Da tabase (http://wildlife.faa.gov) LaGuardia Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment, 2000

Shooting Gulls to Reduce Strikes with Aircra ft at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 1991

− 2008. Special Report for The Port Aut hority of New York and New Jersey by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nati onal 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, S ite Visit Letter Regarding North Shore MTS to FAA Eastern Region Safety and Standards Branch, 4 June 2009

USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services New Yor k, 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 Wa ste Containerization Facility, Part 360 Permit Application, Volu me 1, City of New York Department of Sanitation, January 2007

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

APPENDIX A. TE CHNICAL 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 En vironmental 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 Scientifi c 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 PO TENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED MTS TO SAFE AIRCRAFT OPERATIO NS 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.

- 4 1o 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< kP l 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 1 11,lo'1,0(_))8 '

. ,., .. r

....... ' t1IOI "for

, II**airport~** tl

... r AA =oJn!!>01ld,. 

# <Ii,,,,,,

. of l 

# ' '''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. T S**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 on

site 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 o f 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. T he 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 FAA

qualified 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 wi l dlife 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 t he 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 w i ldlife during the first two years of operation and respond

to potentia l and actual wildlife hazards resulting from MTS. If, after the first two years, MTS has demonstrated that it does not represent any risk to av i ation safety,

no further monitoring o r direct control would be required except annual inspections by the FAA or WS. IfMTS is unable t o demonstrate that it does not
repre sent any risk to aviatio n safety, SONY, FAA, Wildlife Services, and PANYNJ will detennine what level of s upp o rt will be required from MTS to mitigate wildl ife hazards to aviation throughout the dura tion 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,

A llen Gosser

, Assistant Sta t e Director New Yo rk 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 Servic e s 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 DEP UTY 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

.

# M~ &Iv William J. Flanagan Manager, Airports Division

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

APPENDIX E. LETTER FROM DS NY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO FAA EASTERN REGION AIRPORTS DI VISION MANAGER, JULY 9, 2009

A-9 William J

. Flanagan Manager, Airports Di visi on 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 o f Lo ng Tenn Export 44**Beav~ r**  S treet

. 121t1 Roor New York. NY 10004 Tel e phone : (917) 237-550 1 Fax: (212) 269-0788

I write in response 10 your letter dated J une 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 E ngineering 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 operat i ons

. With respect to the sugge st ed 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 dai ly 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 o f U nderstanding with the Port Authority. the FAA and/or the USDA to carry out the recommendations in your letter

. so that al l necessary steps are taken to

ens ure that the proposed MTS docs not become a bird attractant. (over)

www

. nyc.gov /s lnitltion

KEEP NYC CLEAN**~.** REDUCE. REUSE. RE CYCLE 

### , JiIio

. DONT LI'ffER @ prim e d 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 Tran sfer Station and its Compatibility w ith 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 Apr il 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 Associat ion, 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 id entified. The complete comments appear at the end of this addendum.

Agency Oversight

1. Who will provide oversight and coordina tion 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 implem entation of the recommendations? (Ackerman and Crowley [2], Mayersohn [1], DeFusco [1][9] )

Response: DSNY is responsible for implem enting the recommendations in the report. Previously, DSNY revised the Fi nal 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 overs ight of DSNY and ha s the authority to enforce terms of the permit.

In the July 2009 letter, DSNY agreed, among other things, to enlis t the services of an FAA-qualified biologist to conduct w eekly surveys and inspections of the interior and exterior of the MTS for 2 y ears. If no problems surface, the FAA and an FAA-qualified biologist would conduc t annual inspections thereafter.

A-11

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

The technical panel recommends that DS NY hire a full-time, dedicated wildlife control biologist who is tra ined to mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop during construction and operation of the MT S. 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 th at DSNY join the existing wildlife hazard working group for LGA and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) (JFK/LGA Wildlife Hazard Task Force). Th is group can discuss issues of shared interest or responsibility rela tive to the coordination of th e 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 recomme nded 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 site s 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 d evices 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 st ructures 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 speci fically mentioned within the report that may create an attraction to hazardous bird s (e.g., uncovered crane/gantry, etc.) be identified in the integrated wildlif e 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 th ey 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 th e 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 engineeri ng repor t states: “All waste delivered to the North Shore MTS will be containerized in special-purpose open-top-loaded containers that have a ta re 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 Jers ey, and used in intermodal waste hauling operations at the Harlem River Yard tran sfer station in the Bronx and at other transfer stations throughout the country, are fabricated to American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) standards and bear th e International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) Approval Plate. The c ontainers 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 Orga nization (ISO) standard spreader assemblies that twistlock the container to the platform or a nother 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 a nd pier. Empty containers will be moved into the lidding area building by battery-ope rated 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/deliddi ng 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 opera tors will signal the sp reader 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 au tomatic latching mechanism that will release the lid from the container and ra ise the lid, leaving it suspended about 36 inches above the container.” The next paragr aph 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-u p 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: “Was te 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 wast e will be tipped directly onto the loading floor, there will be little chance of the tr ucks coming in contact with waste on the tipping floor and tracking this waste out of the facilit y. 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 de bris 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 he lp ensure that DSNY complies with these

measures.

Operational Procedures

5. There is no contingency plan noted for possi ble storage of contai ners on site should barges not run due to volume, maintenan ce, 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 pr ocess. 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 engin eering report states: “The waste throughput capacity available in the MTS design reflects the f act that the four MTSs are part of the overall DSNY long-term export waste ma nagement system that will also incorporate several private transfer stations to cont ainerize 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 give n facility, e.g. an e quipment 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 ta ken 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 departi ng 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 ensu ring the cleanliness of the North Shore MTS. The technical panel recomm ends that the recomm ended on-site FAA qualified biologist monitor these operati ons to help ensure that DSNY complies with this measure. The technical pane l also recommends that DSNY develop an IWHMP for the MTS that defines the ro les 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 Alterna tive 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 main tain the present situation with no facility. (ALPA [1], DeFusco [7])

Response: The findings are those of the technica l panel, which disagrees with this characterization of the risk assessment. A lternative 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 guida nce (Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B) and “Evaluation of Trash-transfer Facilitie s as Bird Attractants”, DOT/FAA/AR-09/62 (2010), provide that fully enclosed trash tr ansfer stations are generally compatible with safe airport operations. The techni cal 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 assessmen t 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 opera tional 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 evaluat ed through a full Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) because it is located within 5 statute miles of an airport and could cause birds to ente r operational airspace. (DeFusco [2], Paskar [2][3])

Response: This interpretation is incorrect. The Advisory Circular does not require Federally funded airports to prepare w ildlife 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 st atute 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 si des; 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 cli nging to the outside; or that do not control odors by ventilation and filtra tion 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 in to or across the approach or departure airspace (see Section 1-4, “Protection of Approach, Departure, and Circling Airspace”).

Further, Section 2-2 (d) st ates: “Enclosed waste-handli ng 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 assessm ent for LaGuardia Airport as a result of the proposed MTS, the technical panel re commends that DSNY prepare an IWHMP for the facility and work closely with th e airport by joining the JFK/LGA Wildlife Hazard Task Force.

10. The report did not adequately address the sy nergistic 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 attrac tiveness 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 MT S 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 r ecommended by the technical panel, no conflict will occur. Current FAA guida nce on this topic (Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B) recommends that situations that may contribut e 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) conc luded that use of trash transfer stations, particularly by bird species pot entially 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 fa cility 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 t echnical 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 Stat en 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 im mediate vicinity of the proposed MTS and LaGuardia Airport. There ar e observations of turkey vultu res in the New York City area (personal communication from a pane l 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 obser ved at fully enclos ed 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 wildlif e 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 fo llowing information:

 

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

 

### Identify and provide information on hazar dous wildlife attracta nts on or near the MTS,

 

### Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard(s) observed,

 

### Prioritize appropriate ma nagement 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 shou ld be mandatory in the development and implementation of the program. (ALPA [6], DeFusco [8])

Response: The technical panel agrees that a de dicated on-site wildlife biologist trained in wildlife damage management s hould be present for the construction and subsequent operation of the MTS.

15. Clarify the duties of th e 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 identific ation, behavior, general life history, and legal status of the potential ly hazardous species and situ ations common in the area. The wildlife biologist should have suffici ent background to implement an IWHMP. Typical duties might involve the application of recognized survey and investigative techniques used to assess wildlife populat ions 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 m onitoring of operations, site investigation of specific locations, and overall assessment of situations that may pose or act as a wildlife attractant. Howeve r, the wildlife biologist al so should possess sufficient background in the proper implementation or deployment of various control strategies and techni ques (e.g., harassment of wildlife) outlin ed in the IWHMP. Finally, the biologist must ha ve an awareness of endangere d 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 th e MTS does not provide va lid mitigation because adjacent buildings will no t 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 acknowle dge that nearby buildings that have anti-perching devices instal led may provide a broader area in which birds may not wish to perch or loaf. The technical pa nel 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 wild life 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 f acility and enforced in order to limit the habituation of wildlife at th e 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 bar ge activity for birds that might be attracted to them (due to water dist urbance and/or refuse containers) and then mitigate accordingly. This should incl ude techniques used for mitigation in a downtown, river neighborhood environm ent and whether it would involve elimination of birds around the building and barges. (ALPA [8])

Response: The technical panel recommends the de velopment of an IWHMP. This plan should take into account all types of MTS operations that may be related to wildlife at the MTS. The tec hnical 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 skew ing of facts exists in the draft report. A number of relev ant 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 La Hood asked the technical panel to study the extent to which the proposed enclos ed waste transfer f acility would attract wildlife and the extent to which any s uch attraction would be incompatible with safe airport operations at La Guardia 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 an alysis of similar waste manage ment 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 stati on 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 approxim ately 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 intenti onally deceptive. (Paskar [2][3])

Response: The proposed North Shore MTS is an enclosed trash transfer station. Section 2-2 (d) of AC 1 50/5200-33B 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 Z one. 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 i ndividuals who participated in a previous study of this facility. Th ese 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 commen ter cites no specific evidence about a prior study or other matter to demonstrate bi as on the part of the technical panel. The technical panel consists of recognized e xperts within the fiel ds 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 biologi st and former director of wildlife management for the Port Authority of Ne w York and New Jersey, says the NSMTS is within 1,850 feet of LaGuardia's R unway r3—within the Runway Protection Zone—and will attract birds. He says th e NSMTS constitutes “flagrant safety violations that will greatly increase the ri sk of imminent plane crashes.” He says the food source created by the NSMTS will guarantee that the area will become “an enormous lounging, feeding, so cializing, 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 pr obably futile—battle. (Paskar [5])

Response: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Section 2-2 (d), “Enclosed Trash Transfer Stations”, states: “Enclo sed 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 opera ted correctly.

Ninety percent of avian speci es within the United Stat es are Federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both state and Federally protected birds are routin ely and successfully mitigated from airport properties and surrounding habitats under regulatory de predation permits issued from the participating state or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Th e 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 di d 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 sta keholders 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 se en 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 reco gnized 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 Je rsey, and the City of New York. The technical panel concludes th at 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 reflect s the fact that the panel undertook a good faith, independent, and objectiv e review of the proposed project. The fact that certain members of the pane l currently or previously worked for the FAA or USDA does not constitute a conflic t of interest. The commenter cites no flaws in the study or other eviden ce 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 k now how these various agencies (FAA, USDA, DSNY, NYDEC) will coordinate the implementa tion of the recommendations, (2) whether specific agencies will be re sponsible 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 s everal additional design modifications, operational procedures and a wildlife management program during the planning, construction and operational phases of th e MTS. These changes to the design, construction and operation of the MTS will re quire long-term commitments and extensive coordination from several city, state and fede ral agencies, including: the Department of Sanitation, New York City; the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; the Federal Aviation Admi nistration of the U.S. Department of Transportation; and the Animal and Plant He alth 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 ar e 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 A ssociation, International

(1) The Evaluation’s “Determination of Findi ngs” points out in risk assessment Alternative Three, that the proposed faci lity, with modifications and an integrated operational wildlife hazard mitigation plan, w ould 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 th at 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 s hould 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 envir onment, 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 elemen ts to be included in the integrated wildlife hazards management program that ar e specific to this fa cility. 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 stat ion roof, pilings, a nd other surfaces where birds might perch.] Such design elements would likel y 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. Ad jacent buildings that do not incorporate similar design mitigation features will become perching or roosting locations for birds that are attracted to, and feed ing from the contents of th e 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 th e 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 t hat the enforcement effort, beyond the initial commencement of operations, would be either effective or sustainable.

(6) [Provide a dedicated (i.e ., only duties) wildlife cont rol 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 mi ght be attracted to them (due to water disturbance and/or the refuse contai ners) and mitigate accordingly.] It is unclear what “mitigate accordingly” means. For example, what mitigation technique(s) would be used in a downtown, river neighborhood environmen t? 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 inde pendent monitoring or enforc ement 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 incom patible with safe airport operations if they are located on airport property or within the Runway Protectio n 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 ente r 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. Th e proposed facility lies nearly on centerline with LaGuardia Airpor t 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 r eviewed sh owed 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 lik ely due to obstruction clearance requirements and could compromise th e 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 w ould need to access these areas. Design and materials for these exposed structures must account for potential attractiveness to hazardous bird species. Other aspects of th e building design are detailed in the report and I concur with their findings.

(4) Container Design: It is not entirely clear from th e 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 tigh tly sealed. Also not clear is whether fluids can be fully contained to ensure no leakage occurs on si te 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 stru cture 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 sme ll, 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 tim e 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 re quirement that trash hauling vehicles be covered when transpo rting trash from the point of pick-up to deliver to the station, it is my experience that these vehicles fr equently have exposed trash that is partially exposed at the containm ent 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 build ing. Additionally, there is no contingency plan outlined should volume of traffic, vehic le maintenance problems, or other issues

A-24

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

with the facility delay acce ss to the bu ilding. No mitigat ion/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 conse quences of encountering that hazard on the opposing scale. As depicted in the report, the risk of Alterna tive 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 conc lusions. In my opinion the risk level would rise from lowest to highest from Alternative 1 (no facility) to Alternative 3 (facility with mitigati on) to Alternative 2 (facility as proposed). This model must be reaccomplished in the final report to refle ct the appropriate use of ORM models.

(8) Mitigation Measures: The design features, anti-perchi ng devices, no feeding policy, landscaping recommendations, m onitoring of incoming and outgoing vehicles/barges/containers, development of an integrated wildlife hazard management program, and provision of a full-time dedicate d wildlife control pr ofessional are all necessary elements of proper mitigation measur es to reduce potential hazards to nearby aircraft. However, there are other provisions t hat are not detailed in the draft report. For example, it recommends monitoring bird ac tivity 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 prov isions to temporarily or permanently halt operations while mitigating techniques are applied should unacceptable flight safety risks be noted? These details mu st 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 th at 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 contai ned in the report are adapted, monitored, or enforced.

(10) Cumulative Effects: The proposed trash transfer ope ration also cannot be treated as an entirely separate entity, as the cumulative and/or synerg istic effects of other land uses and natural features in the surrounding area contribute to the ov erall 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. Op en 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 tr ash. The nearby inac tive Flushing Meadows Airport provides a wildlife sanctuary near the facility that will attrac t a variety of birds that will interact with the tr ash transfer operation. Other indu strial buildings in the area

A-25

### Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station August 2010

provide roosting and nesting sites near th e facility. The natural habitat on and around the waterfront and marine traffic north of the facil ity attracts gulls and other potentially hazardous species near the facility and airpor t. 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 eva luated, yet were not adequately addressed in the draft FAA/USDA report.

Kenneth D. Paskar

(1) I am deeply concerned that a delicate and s ubtle 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 bu ilding 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 runw ay 3r. But the AC criteria for separation between a waste transfer st ation 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 fa cility is not in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ),-and that "c ongressional and public scrutiny resulted in additional investigation."

(4) The technical panel of exper ts includes individuals who participated in a previous study of this facility. Th ese 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 biologi st 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 consti tutes "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 w ill 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 stakehol ders in this issue, including the FAA, USDA, and the Port Authority. Working for more t han 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 st udy considered "currently operating and similarly designed trash-transfe r stations located in other boroughs of New York City." DeFusco, however, in his report, recommends that all such fac ilities 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 St aten 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 st udy "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 Manage ment (ORM) model that should show the frequency of occurrence of a hazard on one scal e and the severity of the consequences of encountering that hazard on the opposing scale."

(9) The draft report states that gulls, starli ngs, and pigeons are species frequently attracted to trash transfer facilities. But a ccording 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 exc eption: the Turkey Vulture." Why were vultures excluded from the FAA/USDA draft study? Vultures are commonly observed in the region, and should have been pr ominently listed in the study.

(10) After reviewing letters from the FAA and US DA, 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 ki nd from either agency questioning or investigating the risks and hazards th e 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. Harry**  **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 reexam**  **i ne**  **whether the**  **proposed North**  **Shore Marine**  **Transfer Station**  **(MTS) in**  **College Poin**  **t ,**  **Queens, would**  **be compatible**  **with safe operations**  **at LaGuardia**  **Airport. We**  **were fortuna**  **t e**  **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 Sho**  **r e**  **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**