bird/aircraft
hazards
I I
-------
This publication (SW-1T6) was written
for the Federal solid waste, management programs
by GEORGE R. DAVIDSON, JR.,TRUETT V. DEGEARE, JR.,
THOMAS J. SORG, and ROBERT M. CLARK
and was originally published in 7977
as open-file report TSR 1.6.004/0
An environmental protection publication
(SW-JJ6) in the solid waste
management series
For sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
bird/aircraft
hazards
at Airports Near Solid Waste Disposal Sites
In 1969, the Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Com-
mittee designated 70 airports with bird/aircraft
hazards, resulting in part from the proximity of
the airports to solid waste disposal sites, where the
problem needed to be studied. The Committee
ranked 30 airports as high-priority, 16 as medium-
priority, and 24 as low-priority study sites. At the
request of the Committee, the Solid Waste Man-
agement Office* surveyed 32 of these airports,
consisting of 27 high-priority, 2 medium-priority,
and 3 not on the Committee's list. The 32 surveys
were evenly divided between civil (16) and mili-
tary (16) airports. The survey team inspected 105
land disposal sites near the 32 airports.
The survey consisted of discussions with the
airports' personnel to obtain opinions on the
bird/aircraft hazard, meetings with State and/or
local solid waste management officials regarding
the operation of land disposal sites around the
airports, and inspections and evaluations of the
sites. At 19 airports the bird/aircraft hazard was
considered by the local personnel to be extremely
serious, and, in fact, most personnel at those
airports felt that their respective facilities were
extremely fortunate in not having had serious
accidents. At the other 13 airports, the bird/
aircraft hazard was reported to have been elimi-
nated or nonexistent. Almost all airports practiced
*Now the Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
some type of bird control program either to
minimize the attraction of birds to the airport
grounds or to scare the birds away. Only 29 of the
adjacent disposal sites were classified by the survey
team as sanitary landfills; the remaining were
open, and sometimes burning, dumps. Birds had
been reported at all sites at various times during
the year, with gulls being the predominant species.
In several cases, a single disposal site was contrib-
uting to the bird hazard problem of more than one
airport.
Discussions with State and local solid waste
management officials and the landfill operators
revealed that most officials and operators were
unaware of the potential bird/aircraft hazard.
Following the discussions, many felt that the need
to provide solid waste disposal sites was an equally
pressing problem.
Analysis of judgments following two lawsuits
resulting from aircraft/bird strike accidents indi-
cated a strong possibility that both government
and a disposal site owner could be liable for an
accident attributed to birds if the disposal site was
knowingly attracting birds and contributing to the
risk of bird/aircraft collisions.
The following conclusions were drawn from
studies of the U.S. Department of the Interior and
the Government of Canada, as well as from
discussions with wildlife experts and the Solid
Waste Management Office survey.
1. Solid waste disposal sites around airports
which attract birds contribute to potential bird/
aircraft collisions.
2. The majority of the land disposal sites
inspected during the survey were open dumps,
which not only contribute to the bird/aircraft
hazard but are also sources of environmental
pollution. Many of these sites were in violation of
State and local regulations.
3. Closing all existing disposal sites around
airports will reduce the risk of bird/aircraft colli-
sions at the airports.
4. Although sanitary landfills are less attractive
to birds than open dumps, they are not always
completely free of birds. Various bird-scare devices
-------
at these sites, however, may be sufficient to keep
birds away.
5. The government and a land disposal site
owner could be liable for a bird/aircraft collision if
the site is known to contribute to the bird hazard.
6. Research is needed to determine methods of
operating sanitary landfills that will not attract
birds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the Solid Waste Management
Office's study indicated that proximity of land
disposal sites to airports was associated with the
bird/aircraft hazard at airports. Furthermore, it is
suggested that if these sites, most of which are
open dumps, were either eliminated or converted
to sanitary landfills, the bird/aircraft hazard could
be substantially reduced. Thus, the following two
alternatives are offered to reduce the bird/aircraft
hazards associated with existing land disposal sites.
The recommendations are listed in order of poten-
tial effectiveness.
• Close all land disposal sites near airports.
The closing of all dumps and sanitary landfills
around airports is the most effective measure that
can be taken to eliminate the food sources
attracting and supporting the large bird popula-
tions at these sites.
• Operate all such sites as sanitary landfills.
Due to the many social, political, and financial
problems involved in locating new sites or con-
structing new disposal facilities, all land disposal
sites cannot be closed. Therefore, to minimize the
bird/aircraft hazard, all land disposal sites should
be operated as sanitary landfills. All waste, par-
ticularly food waste, should be covered imme-
diately following deposition. It is probable that
some birds will, nevertheless, continue to frequent
the site, particularly if it is the only food source in
the area. These birds should be frightened away
using any measures found effective. Specific
details and help on such bird control techniques
can be obtained by writing the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife Research, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D. C., 20240.
-------
An additional recommendation is presented as a
preventative measure for minimizing the bird/
aircraft hazard that might arise from sites which
are contemplated but not yet operational. The
potential bird/aircraft hazard should be considered
when planning new solid waste disposal sites
around airports. Airport officials and wildlife
experts should be consulted for their opinions on
the increased risk of an aircraft accident due to the
new disposal site.
Finally, an intensive research program should
be initiated to determine: (1) methods for the
operation of sanitary landfills in such a manner as
to minimize their attractiveness to birds; (2) the
optimal locations for disposal sites adjacent to air-
ports that will minimize the risk of a bird/aircraft
accident.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
The collision of birds and aircraft is a potential
problem at airports throughout the world. Many
nations, including the United States, have initiated
programs for collecting statistics on such collisions
(termed "bird strikes") to assist in determining
guidelines for reducing the frequency of the
strikes. In the United States, the Federal Aviation
Agency and the U.S. Air Force are the principal
agencies engaged in collecting data on bird strikes
with commercial and private aircraft, and with
military aircraft, respectively.
Magnitude of the Problem
A report published by the U.S. Department of
the Interior for the Federal Aviation Agency
(FAA) stated that commercial U.S. air-carriers
reported 476 bird/aircraft strikes in 1966 and
2,196 strikes during the period April 1961 through
June 1967.' Of the many bird strikes that have
occurred since 1960, several resulted in the loss of
human life and'extensive aircraft damage. Exam-
ples include: (1) the accident in Boston, Massa-
chusetts, where in 1960 a flock of starlings
contributed to engine power failure on an Electra
aircraft resulting in the loss of the aircraft and 62
ntl M ^ T'>ke by 3 whistll'ng swan at Ellicott
City, Maryland, ,n 1962, which caused the loss of
an a,rcraft, and the death of 17 people; (3) the
-------
collision in March 1963 of a Beechcraft and a loon
near Bakersfield, California, resulting in a crash
fatal to both pilot and passenger; (4) the loss of a
$1.5 million aircraft in 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio,
where a flock of sea gulls was ingested by the
engines of a private jet aircraft; fortunately, the
three crew members were uninjured.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) reported that in
1968 there were 1,192 bird-aircraft collisions
involving their aircraft, with 363 collisions causing
damage and 829 collisions where no damage was
sustained.2 There were two major accidents in-
volving jet fighter aircraft. Both aircraft were
destroyed and one pilot was fatally injured. The
total cost of damage to the two jet aircraft was
over $1.5 million.
The FAA reported that most strikes occurred at
altitudes of 2,500 feet or less.1 The USAF
reported that over 50 percent of the known
military aircraft strikes happened between the
ground and 1,500 feet.2 These strikes occurred
during take-off and landing and during low-
altitude flights.
Department of the Interior Surveys
U.S. Department of the Interior studies and
surveys showed that "garbage dumps"* located
near airports are major attractors of sea gulls, the
most common bird species involved in aircraft
strikes. Case studies by their Division of Wildlife
Research at New York City's Kennedy Interna-
tional, Newark, and Boston's Logan International
airports further documented the contribution of
solid waste disposal sites to the bird hazard. As
many as 8,000 to 10,000 sea gulls were feeding at
some of the sites surveyed by the Department of
the Interior. The Department of the Interior
concluded that the removal of these food sources
would alleviate the sea gull hazard considerably
around the airports.1 >4
Canadian Experience
In 1963, at the request of the Canadian
Department of Transport, the National Research
*lt is not known whether, in these reports, the term
"garbage dump" also refers to a sanitary landfill or
whether it is used in its true meaning as defined by the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA.
-------
Council of the Canadian Government set up the
Associate Committee on Bird Hazards to Aircraft
to study the problem and recommend solutions.
Initially, the problem was considered to be partly
of an aircraft engineering nature, and studies were
begun to determine the necessary strength of
aircraft components to resist bird impact without
serious damage. It soon became apparent that
because of the weights of birds involved and
speeds of aircraft, not much engineering improve-
ment could be done until international standards
were developed.
It also became obvious that to make a com-
pletely bird-proof aircraft would involve creation
of a structure of such weight that flight would not
be economically feasible. After recognizing the
difficulty of solving the problem through aircraft
engineering, the Associate Committee directed its
major effort toward biological solutions. Biological
studies were conducted at a number of airports to
learn about the bird species involved, the reasons
for their presence on airports, and what could be
done to disperse them. Studies were also made to
determine ways of making airport environments
unattractive to the birds.5
A major attraction of birds to airport environ-
ments was the availability of food, and one of the
most important sources was dumps where food
wastes were available. The Committee recom-
mended that land disposal sites be moved away
from- the airport environment. In some cases,
complex negotiations with neighboring municipal-
ities were required to remove these sources of
attraction.
The Department of Transport spent about $10
million modifying the immediate environments at
the major Canadian airports to reduce bird
hazards. The cost benefits were reflected in lower
Canadian Airlines hardware replacement costs.
Before the airport modifications, average annual
hardware replacement costs due to bird strikes for
one airline over the 5-year period 1958 to 1963
was about $240,000. For the 5-year period ending
in 1968, the annual average cost was about
$125,000, while for 1969, it was less than
$50,000. Comparable figures are not available for
other Canadian earners, but it is reasonable to
assume similar cost savings have occurred.
-------
If the airport habitats had not been modified,
the airline could have expected hardware replace-
ment to be about $360,000 per year. Although it
would take about 30 years for hardware replace-
ment costs to equal the expenditure for modifica-
tions, the potential saving of lives certainly
justifies the costs incurred.
Study Development
In June 1968, the Inter-Agency Bird Hazard
Committee (IABHC) requested the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare* to
investigate the relationship between solid waste
land disposal practices and bird hazards in airport
environments and to identify solid waste disposal
sites contributing to the hazard. The Committee
reported that many airports have a bird hazard
primarily because of solid waste disposal sites in
the vicinity of the airports. Studies by the U.S.
Department of the Interior and others have shown
that disposal sites are a major source of attraction
to birds and that the elimination of dumps in these
environments will reduce, and in some cases may
eliminate, the danger of bird strikes at the airport.
This report summarizes a survey conducted by
the Division of Technical Operations, Solid Waste
Management Office of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to determine the extent to
which solid waste disposal sites contribute to the
bird hazard at certain airports in the continental
United States. It describes the bird hazard at these
airports and the operation of the adjacent land
disposal sites that are believed to be contributing
to the problem. All public and private officials and
agencies associated with these problem areas are
strongly urged to exert efforts to either improve or
eliminate the operation of the disposal sites. Such
action is necessary if we are to reduce the risk of
bird/aircraft collisions and the possible loss of life.
*ln 1970 the Federal solid waste management program
was transferred from the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Study Procedure
The Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Committee iden-
tified 70 airports that were judged to have a
bird/aircraft hazard resulting in part from solid
waste disposal sites. In order to aid the studies the
Committee assigned a high priority to 30, a
medium priority to 16, and a low priority to 24
(Tables 1 through 5). Because of manpower
limitations, the survey concentrated on high-
priority airports. If medium- and low-priority
airports were located near high-priority airports
and required little additional effort, they were
surveyed. Several high-priority airports were not
surveyed because communications with the safety
officers or FAA personnel indicated that a bird
hazard did not exist.
A two-man team conducted each survey in
three phases. Phase I consisted of interviews with
airport managers and other airport personnel to
obtain their views on the extent of the bird
hazard, the principal causes of the hazard, and
methods being used at the airport for bird control.
Information on land disposal sites in the area and
their relation to the airport's bird hazard was
obtained from State and local solid waste manage-
ment officials as Phase II. In Phase III the land
disposal sites were inspected and their operations
were evaluated. During Phase III, general informa-
tion on the type of solid waste handled, size of
operation, the expected life of the site, and other
background information was gathered. In most
cases, the operations were documented by
photographs.
FINDINGS
The survey teams conducted the surveys be-
tween April and December 1969. The 32 air-
ports surveyed consisted of 27 high priority, 2
medium priority, and 3 not on the original list,
and were evenly divided between civil (16) and
military (16). All of the airports were located in
coastal States or States bounded by the Great
Lakes.
Interviews with airport personnel indicated that
the severity of the bird hazard varies between
airports. Of the 32 airports surveyed, 19 reported
a bird hazard and 13 reported that the hazard had
been eliminated or did not exist (Tables 6 and 7)
-------
TABLE 1
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES,
EASTERN REGION*
Civil (C)
Airport Military (M)
Bridgeport Municipal
Bridgeport, Conn.
Brunswick NAS'''
Brunswick, Maine
Eastport Municipal
Eastport, Maine
Presque Isle
Presque Isle, Maine
Fall River Municipal
Fall River, Mass.
Hanscom AFB§
Bedford, Mass.
Lawrence Municipal
Lawrence, Mass.
Logan International
Boston, Mass.
S. Weymouth NAS
S. Weymouth, Mass.
Cambridge
Cambridge, Md.
Laconia Municipal
Laconia, N.H.
Newark
Newark, N.J.
Teterboro
Teterboro, N.J.
Floyd Bennett Field NAS
New York, N.Y.
Flushing
Flushing, N.Y.
Greater Buffalo International
Buffalo, N.Y.
John F. Kennedy International
New York, N.Y.
La Guardia
New York, N.Y.
Cleveland Lake Front
Cleveland, Ohio
Philadelphia International
Philadelphia, Pa.
Quonset Point NAS
Quonset Point, R.I.
Norfolk Municipal
Norfolk, Va.
Burlington Municipal
Burlington, Vt.
C
M
C
C
C
M
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
Priority'
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
*Regions are geographical divisions used by the
Federal Aviation Agency.
tPriority assigned by the IABHC: 1, high; 2, medium;
3, low.
tNaval Air Station.
§Air Force Base.
-------
TABLE 2
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES,
SOUTHERN REGION
Civil (C)
Airport Military (M) Priority
Elgin AFB
Valparaiso, Fla.
Homestead AFB
Homestead, Fla.
Patrick AFB
Cocoa, Fla.
Hunter AFB
Savannah, Ga.
Moody AFB
Valdosta, Ga.
Tifton
Tifton, Ga.
New Hanover County
Wilmington, N.C.
Seymour Johnson AFB
Goldsboro, N.C.
Wilson Municipal
Wilson, N.C.
Charleston AFB
Charleston, S.C.
Myrtle Beach AFB
Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Shaw AFB
Sumter, S.C.
Norfolk NAS
Norfolk, Va.
M
M
M
M
M
C
C
M
C
M
M
M
M
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
Of the 19 airports reporting bird hazards, 10 were
military and 9 were civil.
At the airports reporting a problem, most
airport managers considered the problem to be
serious. In fact, most of them felt that the airport
was fortunate that a serious accident had not
occurred. At these airports, bird control programs
ranging from environmental cleanup activities to
bird scare devices had been initiated (Tables 6 and
7). A few airports indicated that the problem was
either slight or seasonal. On occasion there were
10
-------
TABLE 3
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES,
CENTRAL REGION
Airport
Glenview NAS
Glenview, III.
Hutchinson Municipal
Hutchinson, Kans.
Renner Field Municipal
Goodland, Kans.
Kincheloe AFB
Sault Ste Marie, Mich.
Wurtsmith AFB
Oscoda, Mich.
Duluth International
Duluth, Minn.
Grand Forks AFB
Grand Forks, N. Dak.
Grand Forks International
Grand Forks, N. Dak.
Minot AFB
Minot, N. Dak.
General Mitchell Field
Milwaukee, Wis.
Madison
Madison, Wis.
Civil (C)
Military (M)
M
C
C
M
M
C
M
C
M
C
C
Priority
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
TABLE 4
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES,
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
Airport
Dallas NAS
Dallas, Tex.
Arkansas County
Rockport, Tex.
Mineral Wells Municipal
Mineral Wells, Tex.
Civil (C)
Military (M)
M
C
C
Priority
1
3
3*
*Before this report was originally published, the FAA
reported to the study team that the dump was cleaned up
and the problem eliminated.
11
-------
TABLE 5
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES,
WESTERN REGION
Airport
Alameda N AS
Alameda, Calif.
Fremont Municipal
Fremont, Calif.
Hamilton AFB
Hamilton, Calif.
Hayward Municipal
Hayward, Calif.
Los Angeles International
Los Angeles, Calif.
Mather AFB
Sacramento, Calif.
McClellan AFB
Sacramento, Calif.
Oakland International
Oakland, Calif.
San Francisco International
San Francisco, Calif.
San Jose Municipal
San Jose, Calif.
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa, Calif.
Sonoma
Sonoma, Calif.
travis AFB
Travis, Calif.
Fallen Municipal
Fallen, Nev.
Milton Sweet
Eugene, Oreg.
Pendleton Municipal
Pendleton, Oreg.
Clallam County
Port Angeles, Wash.
Seattle International
Seattle, Wash.
Spokane International
Spokane, Wash.
Yakima Municipal
Yakima, Wash.
Civil (C)
Military (M)
M
C
M
C
C
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Priority
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
1
1
3
conflicting reports between the airport manage-
ment and the air controllers or safety personnel
regarding the aircraft/bird strike hazard.
Of the 1 3 airports not reporting problems, two
of the airport managers indicated that potential
hazards would exist if the number of aircraft
12
-------
operations increase substantially. One airport
reported the problems had ended with the closing
of an open dump and a piggery in the area.
Another airport manager stated that an open
burning dump nearby created visibility problems.
Airport personnel expressed various opinions
on the cause of the bird hazard. These opinions
varied from land disposal sites to the weather as
the principal cause of the hazard. The general
opinion was that land disposal sites were one of
the principal factors causing bird hazards.
The airport surveys included inspection of 105
adjacent or nearby disposal sites (Tables 8 through
12). The number of disposal sites believed to be
contributing to a bird hazard at any one airport
ranged from 1 to 14 sites. In several cases, a single
disposal site was believed to be contributing to the
problems of more than one airport. For example,
in the San Francisco Bay area 14 sites were within
an 8-mile radius of three airports: San Francisco
International, Oakland International, and Alameda
Naval Air Station.
The majority (73 percent) of the landfill sites
inspected were classified by the survey teams as
dumps (Tables 8 through 1 2). Only 28 of the 105
sites surveyed were judged to be sanitary landfills.
Some birds were reported at all sites at sometime
during the year. A number of disposal site oper-
ators reported that the problem was seasonal, with
birds, particularly gulls, frequenting sites only
during the winter months. The number of birds
and their occurrence at the sites was reported to
be dependent on the climate, the type of opera-
tion, the type of waste handled, and bird control
measure utilized. Other factors which undoubtedly
contribute to the attractiveness of land disposal
sites are the presence of water and roosting
grounds. The number and amount of other food
sources available in the area, but not associated
with disposal sites, is important. Although these
sources were not part of this survey, their relation-
ship to the problem should be determined.
Discussions with State and local solid waste
management officials and landfill operators
revealed that most officials were not aware of the
bird/aircraft hazard. We believe, therefore, that
one of the primary benefits already accomplished
by this survey has been the enlightenment of these
13
-------
TABLE 6
STUDY TEAM FINDINGS AT SELECTED AIRPORTS REPORTING A BIRD HAZARD
Airports
Alameda NAS, Alameda, Calif.
Hamilton AFB, Hamilton, Calif.
McClellan AFB, Sacramento, Calif.
Oakland International, Oakland, Calif.
San Francisco International, San Francisco, Calif.
Travis AFB, Travis, Calif.
Trumball, Groton. Conn.
Moody AFB, Valdosta, Ga.
Brunswick NAS, Brunswick, Maine
Logan International, Boston, Mass.
Newark International, Newark, N.J.
Floyd Bennett Field NAS, New York, N.Y.
John F. Kennedy International, New York, N.Y.
Burke Lakefront, Cleveland, Oliio
Charleston AFB, Charleston, S.C.
Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Shaw AFB, Sumter, S.C.
Norfolk Municipal, Norfolk, Va.
Traux Field, Madison, Wis.
Degree of hazard
severe
severe
severe (seasonal)
severe
severe
seve e
seve e
seve e
seve e
seve e
severe
slight
severe
slight
severe
severe
slight (seasonal)
slight
severe (seasonal)
Chemical
deterrents
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Noise
devices
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bird control measures used
Insect
Distress & weed
recording control
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
Shotgun
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Number of
Hkpncal
sites
Vehicle contributing
patrol to hazard
12
X 1
T
J
1 2
i o
1 Z
3
X 1
v 9
A *•
1
2 or mor6
2
2
Q
7
2
5
X 2
-------
TABLE 7
AIRPORTS REPORTING TO STUDY TEAM THAT BIRD HAZARDS HAD BEEN ELIMINATED OR DID NOT EXIST
Bird control measures used
Airports
Insect
Chemical Noise Distress & weed Vehicle
deterrents devices recording control Shotgun patrol
Remarks
Los Angeles International, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mather AFB, Sacramento, Calif.
Bridgeport Municipal, Bridgeport, Conn.
Patrick AFB, Cocoa, Fla.
Hunter AFB, Savannah, Ga.
Bangor International, Bangor, Maine
Presque Isle Municipal, Presque Isle, Maine
Seymour Johnson AFB, Goldsboro, N.C.
Dallas NAS, Dallas, Tex.
Norfolk NAS, Norfolk, Va.
Seattle International, Seattle, Wash.
Spokane International, Spokane, Wash.
General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Wis.
Potential problem when jet traffic increases.
Potential problem but bird control program
has presently eliminated it.
No problem; 97 percent helicopter
operations.
Potential hazard exists.
Smoke from burning dump provides visibility
problem.
Potential problem exists from blackbirds.
Potential problem if number of flights
increases.
No bird problem since dump closed in 1967.
Problem ended with closing of open dump.
Problem ended with burning of piggery.
Problem, but is under control—a "nuisance."
-------
TABLE 8
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION, EASTERN REGION
Airport
Bridgeport
Trumbull
Bangor International
Brunswick NAS
Presque Isle
Logan International
Name
Bridgeport
(incinerator residue)
Stanford
Groton
Brewer
Herman
Bangor
Topsham
Brunswick
(conical burner)
Brunswick NAS
Presque Isle
Saugus
Wintrop
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
NA*
NA
45,000 people
NA
NA
40,000 people
5,000 people
25,000 people
NA
15,000 people
500,000 people
20,000 people
Cover material
frequency
occasionally
occasionally
occasionally
weekly
none
none
twice monthly
none
weekly
none
daily
occasionally
Expected life
(years)
NA
NA
10
10
NA
3
10
10
NA
NA
1 +
5
Birds reported
or observed
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
none
gulls
none
gulls
gulls
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
Airport
Newark International
John F. Kennedy International
and Floyd Bennett MAS
Burke Lake Front
Name
Oak Island (Newark)
Disposal Area Inc.
Rozelle
Hackensack
Staten Island
Fountain Avenue
Edgemere Landfill
Rockside Hide-Away
Garden Park
(demolition wastes)
Ridge Road
(incinerator residue)
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
1,000 cu yd/day
1,900 tons/day
3,500 tons/day
2,500 tons/day
8,000 tons/day
3,500 tons/day
380 tons/day
2,000 cu yd/day
100 tons/day
300 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
weekly
daily (top)
daily (top)
daily (top)
weekly
daily
daily
daily
daily
none
Expected life
(years)
1
2-3
2
NA
4-7
3-4
15-20
3
2
6-8
Birds reported
or observed
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
few gulls when
lake frozen
few gulls
no
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
Airport Name
Norfolk NAS and Naval Base
Norfolk Municipal Hampton
Williamsburg-
Newport News
Chesapeake Sanitary
Landfill
Virginia Beach
Norfolk
Little Creek Naval
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
NA
NA
NA
170 tons/day
250-500 tons/day
NA
NA
Cover material
frequency
none
none
NA
daily
daily
none
none
Expected life
(years)
NA
NA
NA
18-20
5
NA
NA
or observed
gulls
gulls
NA
gulls (winter)
gulls
gulls
gulls
*Not available.
-------
TABLE 9
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION, SOUTHWESTERN REGION
Disposal site
Airport
Size (population served
Name or quantity handled)
Dallas NAS NAS Landfill closed
Irving 100,000 people
Grand Prairie 55,000 people
Dallas Landfill NA
Cover material
frequency
daily
weekly
daily
Expected life
(years)
2
5
NA
=====
Birds reported
or observed
gulls, blackbirds,
starlings
gulls, crows,
blackbirds
pigeons, gulls,
blackbirds
-------
Airport
General Mitchell Field
Traux Field
TABLE 10
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION, CENTRAL REGION
Disposal site
Name
Milwaukee County
South Milwaukee
(no food wastes)
Oak Creek
(no food wastes)
Oak Creek
Disposal Co.
Hunt Landfill
Nipe
Mineral Point
Traux Landfill
Olin Street
Maple Bluff
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
300 tons/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
125 tons/day
500 tons/day
NA
1,600 people
Cover material
frequency
daily
no
no
no
daily
no
daily
daily
no
no
Expected life
(years)
3
10
NA
NA
10
10
1
2-3
NA
60
Birds reported
or observed
crows
none
none
crows
none
gulls, crows
sparrows
none
gulls, blackbirds
gulls, blackbirds
-------
officials to the hazard and the relationship of the
hazard to the adjacent disposal sites.
DISCUSSION
From this and previous studies, there is little
doubt that improper solid waste disposal sites in
many areas of the country contribute to the
bird/aircraft strike hazard at airports. Several
important questions are raised when the bird
hazard/solid waste disposal relationship is con-
sidered:
1. Are both dumps and sanitary landfills
equally attractive to birds?
2. How should a solid waste disposal site be
operated to discourage birds from visiting it?
3. What is the critical radius for the location of
solid waste disposal sites near airports, or, more
clearly stated, how far from an airport should a
disposal site be located so that there will be no
interference to air traffic?
In answering question (1), we must remember
that a dump is an area where wastes from various
sources are discarded and sometimes burned. The
wastes are infrequently or never covered, and there
is little or no control over the disposal operation.
At these sites, birds find food and water available
to them. In addition, these areas make ideal roosts
and shelters from inclement weather.
In contrast to the operation of a dump, a
sanitary landfill is a controlled method of dispos-
ing of solid waste on land which minimizes
environmental pollution, nuisances, or hazards. In
a sanitary landfill the solid wastes are unloaded,
spread, compacted, and covered with a layer of
compacted soil each day. No solid wastes are left
exposed and therefore available as harborage and
food. Operation of a disposal site as a sanitary
landfill decreases the attractiveness of the site to
birds by reducing and eliminating the food and
water supply.
In answering question (1), we have partially
answered (2). All conditions which attract birds to
an area must be removed before the birds will
discontinue their visits. By quickly covering the
deposited solid waste and providing adequate
drainage from the site, the sources of food and
water are minimized. However, some birds may
continue to visit the area to roost and seek shelter,
as they will in other cleared areas, unless repelled
by scare devices.
21
-------
TABLE 11
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION, SOUTHERN REGION
Airport
Moody AFB
Patrick AFB
Hunter Army Field
Myrtle Beach AFB
Name
AFB Landfill
Valdosta
Hahira
AFB Landfill
Melbourne
Brevard County
Cape Kennedy
Army Landfill
Savannah
Port Wentworth
Cole
AFB Landfill
Myrtle Beach
Garden City
State Camp Site
Gravels Gully
Surfside
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
NA
75 tons/day
2 tons/day
350 cu yd/day
50,000 people
50,000 people
1,000 tons/day
3,800 cu yd/month
330 tons/day
1 0 tons/day
20 tons/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cover material
frequency
every 2 days
occasionally
twice weekly
occasionally
weekly
daily
daily
daily
daily
occasionally
occasionally
daily
every 2 days
none
none
occasionally
occasionally
Expected life
(years)
10-12
1
10
5
5
3
10
indefinite
3
30-40
NA
10
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
Birds reported
or observed
blackbirds, crows
none
none
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
crows, gulls
gulls
blackbirds
gulls
none
crows, gulls
gulls
crows
gulls, crows
gulls
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Airport
Seymour Johnson AFB
Charleston AFB and
Charleston Municipal
Shaw AFB
Name
S-J AFB Landfill
Mt. Olive
Goldsboro
Cherry Hospital
Pikeville
Fremont
Eureka
AFB Landfill
Charleston
North Charleston
St. Andrews
Hanahan
Roadside (1-26)
AFB Landfill
Sumter County
Fish Road
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
12,000 people
20 tons/day
1 15 tons/day
4 tons/day
3 tons/day
6 tons/day
1 ton/day
20 tons/day
200 tons/day
80 tons/day
65 tons/day
20 tons/day
White goods
NA
NA
NA
Cover material
frequency
daily
none
daily
twice weekly
NA
NA
NA
daily
occasionally
daily
monthly
occasionally
none
daily
occasionally
none
Expected life
(years)
1
1
NA
NA
NA
5-10
NA
5-10
2-3
NA
10
NA
10
r/2
NA
NA
Birds reported
or observed
few sparrows
sparrows
crows, blackbirds,
sparrows
none
NA
NA
NA
gulls
gulls
ni 1 1 \c
&u ' ' J
blackbirds
Oljllc
6U " J
none
no
blackbirds, crows
blackbirds, crows
-------
TABLE 12
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION, WESTERN REGION
Airport
Name
ho Hamilton AFB Redwood Landfill
Los Angeles International Toyon Canyon
Mission Canyon
Palos Verdcs
Mather AFB Mather AFB
McClcllan AFB
Incinerator
(Residue Site)
Gerbcr Road
Sacramento
White Rock
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
250 tons/day
3,500 tons/day
4,000 tons/day
4,000 tons/day
8,000 people
NA
NA
250,000 people
500 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
twice weekly
daily
daily
daily
NA
NA
every 2 days
weekly
daily
Expected life
(years)
20
10
15
3-4
15
NA
20
10
20
Bin
or
gulls,
gulls (
no
Js reported
observed
crows
infrequently)
swallows, gulls
gulls
NA
gulls
gulls,
gulls
crows
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
Airport
San Francisco International
Oakland International
Alameda MAS
Name
NAS Site
Turk Island
West Winton
San Leandro
Davis Street
Alameda
Berkeley
Fleming Point
Richmond
San Mateo
San Mateo
Rubbish
Burlingame
Rubbish
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
150 tons/day
25 tons/day
400 tons/day
60 tons/day
975 tons/day
225 tons/day
95 tons/day
165 tons/day
880 tons/day
400 tons/day
NA
100 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
sporadically
daily
daily
daily
daily
sporadically
sporadically
daily
NA
daily
daily
daily
Expected life
(years)
2-3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Birds reported
or observed
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls
gulls (few)
gulls
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
Airport
Travis AFB
Seattle International
Spokane International
Name
AFB Landfill
Vacaville
Fairfield
Kent Highlands
Midway Landfill
King County
Hog Farm-
destroyed by
fire in 1969.
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
15,000 people
60 tons/day
48 tons/day
700 tons/day
700 tons/day
1,400 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
occasionally
occasionally
occasionally
daily
daily
daily
Expected life
(years)
4-5
10+
10+
10
NA
20
Birds reported
or observed
blackbirds,
starlings, crows
blackbirds, gulls
gulls
crows
very few crows
crows
-------
The scope of this study was limited to identi-
fying solid waste disposal sites that contribute to
the bird hazard and has not provided an answer to
question (3). As a result, a primary recommenda-
tion of the report is that additional investigations
be made to resolve this question.
The disposal sites mentioned in this report have
a special significance because of the possible
relationship of the bird/aircraft hazard to the
specific airports. Many of these sites are support-
ing large bird populations which contribute to the
risk of a serious aircraft accident. Regardless of
who has the major responsibility to assure the
proper operation or the closing of these sites, the
responsibility is upon the shoulders of all officials,
agencies, and the public who are associated with
the problem. Good solid waste disposal facilities
are expensive and are not easily constructed or
operated. Nevertheless, when a problem exists,
responsible officials must take immediate action.
Failure to accept responsibility may result in a
catastrophe similar to the Boston accident, where
sixty-two people were killed and ten were injured
in the crash of an Eastern Airlines Lockheed 188
Electra.
Three suits involving fatalities and one involving
injuries to a survivor arising from that crash were
transferred to the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. All were tried by
the Court without a jury. On January 20, 1967,
Judge Harold K. Wood found for the plaintiffs,
stating in Paragraph 7 of his conclusions of law:
"The Government was negligent in failing to
require the Massachusetts Port Authority at Logan
Airport to remove the attractions to birds on the
airport surfaces by filling in the ponds, closing the
dumps, cutting down the phragmites and prohibit-
ing the dumping of garbage and food particles on
the airport surface and in failing to take adequate
measures to insure that birds would not act as
airport hazards when planes were taking off."
Accordingly, judgment was entered against the
Federal Government for a total of $374,000 in the
three cases involving fatalities. The personal injury
case was not decided at the time of this decision.
The judgment was based in part upon a section
of the Federal Airport Grant Act, 49 U.S.C.A.
1101(a)(4), which states: "Airport hazard means
any structure or object of natural growth located
27
-------
on or in the vicinity of a public airport, or any use
of land near such airport, which obstructs the air
space required for the flight of aircraft in landing
or taking off at such airport or is otherwise
hazardous to such landing or taking off of
aircraft."
Appeals were perfected and the cases were
remanded to the trial court for consent judgments
against the United States. One wrongful death and
survival action was settled for $8,374.62. One
personal injury was settled for $15,030, and
Eastern Air Lines was awarded $7,477.50 in a
cross-claim in that case. Another wrongful death
and survival claim was settled for $31,735.12, with
an additional award of $253,881 which was not
assessed against the United States. In all consent
judgments against the United States it was agreed
by the parties that payment was a compromise,
not an admission of liability or an adjudication on
the merits.
The results of this court decision indicate that
any person, either public or private, who is
responsible for an aircraft hazard in the vicinity of
an airport could be liable for death and accident.
For this reason, all operators of land disposal sites
should take adequate measures to prevent a bird
hazard.
REFERENCES
1. Seubert, j. L. Control of birds on and around airports;
final report. SRDS Report No. RD-68-62. Washing-
ton, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Oct. 1968. 30 p.
2. USAF aircraft collisions with birds, 1 Jan. 68 thru 31
Dec. 68. Report No. 3-69. Norton AFB, Calif.,
Directorate of Aerospace Safety, Deputy Inspector
General for Inspection and Safety, USAF- 17 p.
3. Sorg, T. )., and H. L. Hickman, Jr. Sanitary landfill
facts. 2d ed. Public Health Service Publication No.
1792. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1970. 30 p.
4. Personal communication (summary report). J. Bull,
Kennedy International Airport, to Dr. J. L.
Seubert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [1965.]
28
-------
5. Bird, W. H. Bird strike hazards can be reduced.
Montreal, Engineering Research and Development
Department, Air Canada, Sept. 15, 1965. 19 p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caithness, T. A., M. J. Williams, and R. M. Bull. Birds and
aircraft: a problem on some New Zealand airfields.
Proceedings New Zealand Ecological Society
14:58-62, 1967.
Drury, W. H., Jr. Gulls vs terns; clash of coastal nesters. In
Massachusetts Audubon—Summer 1965. Lincoln
Massachusetts Audubon Society. 6 p.
Fisher, H. I. Airplane-albatross collisions on midway atoll.
Condor, 68:229-242, 1966.
Hild, )., W. Keil, and W. Przygodda. Research projects of
the Committee of the Federal Republic of Germany
for the Prevention of Bird Strike Hazards to Aircraft.
Technical Translation 1357. Ottawa, National
Research Council of Canada, 1969. 8 p. Also pub-
lished in Luscinia, 40(31 4):1 01-1 06, 1968.
Kadlec, J. A., and W. H. Drury. Structure of the New
England herring gull population. Ecology,
49(4):644-676, Early Summer 1968.
Kinney, W. A. Strictly for the birds. Airman, 12(6):34-37,
June 1968.
LaHam, Q. N. Report on aircraft turbine engine birdstrike
investigations. Report No. CM4-S. 17-2. The National
Research Council of Canada, Jan. 17, 1967. [37 p.]
Myres, M. T. The detection of birds, and study of bird
movements, with radar. Alberta, Canada, University of
Calgary, [1969.] 28 p.
Saul, E. K. Birds and aircraft: a problem at Auckland's
new international airport, journal of the Royal Aero-
nautical Society, 71(677):366-376, May 1967.
Seaman, E. A. Evaluation of "Avitrol 200" for bird
control at seven U.S. Air Force Installations. Nov.
1968. 5 p. Unpublished report.
Bird hazards to aviation. AC 150/5200-1. [Washington],
Federal Aviation Agency. [4 p.]
Bird vs. aircraft. Resource Publication No. 5. Boston, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. 1 1 p.
29
-------
Control of birds on and around airports; final report.
SRDS Report No. RD-68-62. Washington, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau ot Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Oct. 1968. 30 p.
Recommendations of a working conference on the prob-
lem of ecological studies in support of the problem of
hazards of birds to aircraft. Davis, University of
California, May 31-June 2, 1966. 12 p.
Personal communication on herring gull populations and
movements in Southeastern New England. W. H.
Drury, Jr., Massachusetts Audubon Society, to J. L.
Seubert, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Apr.
15, 1963. 106 p.
USAF aircraft collisions with birds, 1 Jan. 68 thru 31
Dec. 68. Report No. 3-69. Norton AFB, Calif.,
Directorate of Aerospace Safety, Deputy Inspector
General for Inspection and Safety, USAF. 17 p.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs ex-
presses appreciation to the many individuals who cooper-
ated in this study. The names of the participants are too
numerous to list but include many State and local airport
and solid waste officials and operators, private landfill
operators, personnel from the FAA, the Departments of
Defense and Interior, and the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's regional solid waste management represen-
tation.
Members of the study teams from the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs were: Robert Clark, Stephen
Friedman, Elmer Cleveland, Charles Reid, George David-
son, Thomas Sorg, Truett DeGeare, and John Sweeten.
James Curry reviewed the legal portions of the report. H.
Lanier Hickinan, Jr., Director of Operations for Solid
Waste Management Programs, was responsible for the
overall management of the study.
30
------- |