LAND DISPOSAL SITES NEAR AIRPORTS
REPORTING BIRD/AIRCRAFT HAZARDS
A Division of Technical Operations
Open-File Report (TSR 1.6.004/0)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
LAND DISPOSAL SITES
NEAR AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD/AIRCRAFT HAZARDS
A Survey for the Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Committee
A Division of Technical Operations
Open-File Report (TSR 1.6.004/0)
GEORGE R. DAVIDSON, JR., TRUETT V. DEGEARE, JR.,
THOMAS J. SORG, and ROBERT M. CLARK
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Magnitude of the Problem .................
Department of Interior Surveys ......... ..... '
Canadian Experience ................... °
Study Development .................... 9
Study Procedure ..................... 10
FINDINGS ............................ 15
DISCUSSION .......................... 26
REFERENCES .......................... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................... 33 '
TABLES ............................
1 AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEM CAUSED
BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ........... 11
2 AIRPORTS REPORTING A BIRD HAZARD .......... 16
3 AIRPORTS REPORTING NO BIRD HAZARD .......... 17
4 DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION .............. 18
11
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In 1969, the Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Committee 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 Management
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 civilian (16) and military (16) airports.
Adjacent to the 32 airports, the survey team inspected 105 land
disposal sites.
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 be eliminated or
nonexistent. Almost all airports had some type of bird control program
to either 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 contributing 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 indicated 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 collisions 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, are either eliminated or
converted to sanitary landfills, the bird/aircraft hazard can 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 potential effectiveness.
1. 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 populations at these sites.
2. Due to the many social, political, and financial problems
involved in locating new sites or constructing 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, particularly food waste, should
be covered immediately 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 contimplated 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 airplane accident
due to the new disposal site.
Finally, an intensive research program should be initiated with the
following objectives:
1. To operate sanitary landfills in such a manner as to minimize
their attractiveness to birds.
2. To determine the optimal locations for disposal sites adjacent
to an airport that will minimize the risk of a bird/aircraft
accident.
-------
LAND DISPOSAL SITES NEAR AIRPORTS
REPORTING BIRD/AIRCRAFT HAZARDS
INTRODUCTION
Magnitude of the Problem
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 of 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.
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. Examples include: (1) the accident in
Boston, Massachusetts where in 1960, a flock of starlings contributed to
an engine power failure of an Electra aircraft resulting in the loss of
the aircraft and 62 lives; (2) the strike by a whistling swan at Elliott
City, Maryland in 1962, which caused the loss of an aircraft, 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 involving 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. 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
International, Newark, and Boston's Logan International airports further
*It 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 Solid Waste Management Office, EPA. ^
-------
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. '
Canadian Experience
In 1963, at the request of the Canadian Department of Transport,
the National Research 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 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 improvement
could be done until international standards were developed.
It also became obvious that to make a completely 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 by engineering methods, 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
why they were present 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.
-------
A major attraction of birds to airport environments was the
availability of food, and one of the most important sources was dumps
where food wastes were present. The Committee recommended that land
disposal sites be moved away from the airport environment. In some cases,
complex negotiations with neighboring municipalities 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
for the five-year period ending in 1963 was about $240,000. For the
five-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 carriers, 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 replacement to be about $360,000 per year. Although it
would take about 30 years for hardware replacement costs to equal the
expenditure for modifications, the potential saving of lives certainly
justifies any costs.
Study Development
In June 1968, the Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Committee (IABHC)
requested the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
investigate the relationship between solid waste land disposal practices
-------
and bird hazards in airport environments and to identify the 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 environ-
ments 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.
Study Procedure
The Inter-Agency Bird Hazard Committee identified 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 (Table 1). Because of manpower limitations, the survey concentrated
10
-------
TABLE 1
AIRPORTS REPORTING BIRD HAZARD PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Eastern region*
Airport
Civil (C)
Military (M)
Location
Priority
Cleveland Lake Front
Cambridge
Norfolk Municipal
Eastport Municipal
Presque Isle
Laconia Municipal
Burlington Municipal
Logan International
Fall River Municipal
Lawrence Municipal
Bridgeport Municipal
John F. Kennedy Int.
La Guardia
Flushing
Greater Buffalo Int.
Newark
Teterboro
Philadelphia Int.
Brunswick Naval Air
Station
S. Weymouth Naval
Air Station
Hanscom Air Force Base
Quonset Point NAS
Floyd Benett Field NAS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
M
M
M
Cleveland, Ohio 1
Cambridge, Maryland 3
Norfolk, Virginia 1
Eastport, Maine 2
Presque Isle, Maine 2
Laconia, New Hampshire 3
Burlington, Vermont 1
Boston, Massachusetts 1
Fall River, Massachusetts 3
Lawrence, Massachusetts 3
Bridgeport, Connecticut 2
New York City, New York 1
New York City, New York 2
Flushing, New York 2
Buffalo, New York 2
Newark, New Jersey 1
Teterboro, New Jersey 3
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2
Brunswick, Maine 1
S. Weymouth, Massachusetts 2
Bedford, Massachusetts 2
Quonset Point, Rhode Island 2
New York City, New York 1
^Regions are FAA regions.
: 1, high; 2, medium;
3, low.
11
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Southern region
Airport
Civil (C)
Military (M)
Location
Priority
Wilson Municipal
New Hanover County
Tifton
Seymour Johnson AFB
Shaw Air Force Base
Myrtle Beach AFB
Charleston AFB
Moody Air Force Base
Hunter Air Force Base
Elgin Air Force Base
Patrick Air Force Base
Homestead AFB
Norfolk Naval Air Station
C
C
C
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Wilson, North Carolina
Wilmington, North Carolina
Tifton, Georgia
Goldsboro, North Carolina
Sumter, South Carolina
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina
Valdosta, Georgia
Savannah, Georgia
Valparaiso, Florida
Cocoa, Florida
Homestead, Florida
Norfolk, Virginia
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Central region
Hutchinson Municipal
Renner Field Municipal
Grand Forks International
Duluth International
Madison
General Mitchell Field
Minot Air Force Base
Grand Forks AFB
Glenview Naval Air Station
Kincheloe Air Force Base
Wurtsmith AFB
C
C
C
C
C
C
M
M
M
M
M
Hutchinson, Kansas
Goodland, Kansas
Grand Forks, North Dakota
Duluth, Minnesota
Madison, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Minot, North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota
Glenview, Illinois
Sault Ste Marie, Michigan
Oscoda, Michigan
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
12
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Southwestern region
Airport
Civil (C)
Military (M)
Location
Priority
Arkansas County
Mineral Wells Municipal
Dallas Naval Air Station
C Rockport, Texas
C Mineral Wells, Texas
M Dallas, Texas
3
3**
Western region
Clallam County
Seattle International
Spokane International
Yakima Municipal
Milton Sweet
Pendleton Municipal
Oakland International
San Francisco International
Los Angeles International
Sonoma
Santa Rosa
San Jose Municipal
Hayward Municipal
Fremont Municipal
Fallen Municipal
Alameda Naval Air Station
Hamilton Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base
McClellan Air Force Base
C Port Angeles, Washington
C Seattle, Washington
C Spokane, Washington
C Yakima Municipal
C Eugene, Oregon
C Pendleton, Oregon
C Oakland, California
C San Francisco, California
C Los Angeles, California
C Sonoma, California
C Santa Rosa, California
C San Jose, California
C Hayward, California
C Fremont, California
C Fallen, Nevada
M Alameda, California
M Hamilton, California
M Travis, California
M Mather AFB, California
M Sacramento, California
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
**Delete from list.
eliminated.
FAA reported that dump was cleaned up and problem
13
-------
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
management officials as Phase II. In Phase III the land disposal sites
were inspected and the operations were evaluated. During Phase III,
general information 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.
14
-------
FINDINGS
The survey teams conducted the surveys between April and
December 1969 (Table 2). The 32 airports surveyed consisted of 27
high priority, 2 medium priority, and 3 not on the original list, and
were evenly divided between civilian (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 2 and 3). 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 2 and 3). A few airports
indicated that the problem was either slight, or seasonal. On occasion
there were conflicting reports between the airport management and the
air controllers or safety personnel regarding the aircraft/bird strike
hazard.
Of the thirteen airports not reporting problems, two of the airport
managers indicated that potential hazards would exist if the number of
aircraft operations increase substantially. One airport reported the
15
-------
TABLE 2
AIRPORTS REPORTING A BIRD HAZARD
Airports
Degree of hazard
Bird control measures
CO
4J
•H 0
cd 0)
0 J-l
•H M
g 0)
CU -U
43 CU
U 0
CD
0)
CJ
•H
f>
CU
n
CU
CO
-rl
O
S
60
CD C
CO -H
cu T3
M M
-U O
CO O
•H 0)
Q Pi
T3
CD
0)
&
«3
iH
-U O
CJ !-l
CU -U
CO fi
C 0
M CJ
C
3
00
•U
O
,c
C/3
CU
r-i rH
CJ O
•H M
,£3 4-1
CU cd
> PL,
Number of
Disposal
Sites
contributing
to hazard
Brunswick NAS, Brunswick, Maine
Logan International, Boston, Mass.
Trumball, Groton, Connecticut
Kennedy International, New York, N. Y.
Floyd Bennett Field NAS, New York, N. Y.
Newark International, Newark, N. J.
Burke Lakefront, Cleveland, Ohio
Norfolk Municipal, Norfolk, Virginia
Shaw AFB, Sumter, South Carolina
Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach, S. C.
Charleston AFB, Charleston, S. C.
Moody AFB, Valdosta, Florida
Traux Field, Madison, Wisconsin
Oakland International, Oakland, Calif.
San Francisco International, S. F., Calif.
Alaneda NAS, Alameda, California
Hamilton AFB, Hamilton, California
Travis AFB, Travis, California
McClellan AFB, Sacramento, California
Severe X X
Severe X X X X
Severe X XX
Severe X X
Slight X
Severe XX X
Slight X
Slight X X
Slight (seasonal) X
Severe X X
Severe XX XX
Severe XX X
Severe (seasonal) X X
Severe X
Severe X XX
Severe XXX
Severe XX X
Severe XXX X
Severe (seasonal) X X
2
2
1
2
2
or more
0
5
2
7
4
0
2
12
12
12
1
3
3
16
-------
AIRPORTS REPORTING NO BIRD HAZARD
Bird control measures
Airports
CO
4-1
•H a
Cfl 0)
O M
•H M
6 OJ
0) 4_)
,£ 0)
U O
M
cu
O
•H
>
0)
Q
0)
to
•H
O
&
M
W 0
03 -H
0) T3
M M
4J O
CO 0
•H 0)
Q Pi
T3
PL|
Remarks
Bangor International, Bangor, Maine
Presque Isle Municipal, Presque Isle, Maine
Bridgeport Municipal, Bridgeport, Conn.
Norfolk NAS, Norfolk, Virginia
Seymour Johnson AFB, Goldsboro, N. C.
Hunter AFB, Savannah, Georgia
Patrick AFB, Cocoa, Florida
General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Wise.
Dallas NAS. Dallas, Texas
Seattle International, Seattle, Wash.
Spokane International, Spokane, Wash.
Mather AFB, Sacramento, California
Los Angeles International, L.A., Calif.
X X Potential hazard exists.
Smoke from burning dump provides
visibility problem.
X Potential problem when jet traffic increases.
No bird problem, since dump closed in 1967.
Potential problem exists from blackbirds.
Ninety-seven percent helicopter operations;
no problem.
Potential problem but bird control program
has presently eliminated it.
X X Problem, but is under control—a "nuisance".
Potential problem if number of flights
increases.
X Problem ended with closing of open dump.
Problem ended with burning of piggery.
17
-------
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
the land disposal sites were one of the principal factors causing bird
hazards.
The airport surveys included inspection of 105 adjacent or nearby
disposal sites (Table 4). 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, the San Francisco
Bay area where 14 sites were within an 8-mile radius of 3 airports :
I
San Francisco International, Oakland International, and Alameda Naval Air
Station (NAS)-
The majority (73%) of the landfill sites inspected were classified
by the survey teams as dumps (Table 4). 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 operators
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 operation, 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
18
-------
roosting grounds. The number and amount of other food sources available
in the area, but not associated with disposal sites, is important.
However, these sources were not part of the survey. The relationship
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
officials to the hazard and the relationship of the hazard to the adjacent
disposal sites.
19
-------
TABLE 4
DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION
Eastern region
Airport
Presque Isle
Bangor International
Brunswick NAS
Logan International
Trumbull
Bridgeport
JFK and
Floyd Bennett NAS
Name Size
or
Presque Isle
Brewer
Herman
Bangor
Top sham
Brunswick
(conical burner)
Brunswick NAS
Saugus
Wintrop
Groton
Bridgeport
Incinerator Residue
Stanford
Fountain Avenue
Edgemere Landfill
Disposal site
(population served
quantity handled)
15,000 people
NA*
NA*
40,000 people
5,000 people
25,000 people
NA*
500,000 people
20,000 people
45,000 people
NA*
NA*
3,500 tons /day
380 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
None
Weekly
None
None
Twice monthly
None
Weekly
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
Daily
Daily
Expected life
(years)
NA*
10
NA*
3
10
10
NA*
1+
5
10
NA*
NA*
3-4
15-20
Birds reported
or observed
None
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
None
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
*Not Available
20
-------
TABLE 4 (Contd.)
Eastern region (contd.)
Airport
Name Size
or
Newark International Oak Island (Newark)
Disposal Area Inc.
Rozelle
Hackensack
Staten Island
Norfolk NAS and
Norfolk Municipal Naval Base
Hampton
Williamsburg-
Newport News
Chesapeake Sanitary
Landfill
Virginia Beach
Norfolk
Little Creek Naval
Burke Lake Front Rockside Hide-Away
Garden Park
(demolition wastes)
Ridge Road
(incinerator residue)
Disposal site
(population served
quantity handled
1,000 cu yd/day
1,900 tons/day
3,500 tons/day
2,500 tons/day
8,000 tons/day
NA*
NA*
NA*
170 tons/day
250-500 tons/day
NA*
NA*
2,000 cu yd/day
100 tons /day
300 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
Weekly
Daily (top)
Daily (top)
Daily (top)
Weekly
None
None
NA*
Daily
Daily
None
None
Daily
Daily
None
Expected life
(years)
1
2-3
2
NA*
4-7
NA*
NA*
NA*
18-20
5
NA*
NA*
3
2
6-8
Birds reported
or observed
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
NA*
Gulls (winter)
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Few gulls when
lake frozen
Few gulls
No
21
-------
TABLE 4 (Contd.)
Southwestern region
Airport
Name
)allas NAS NAS Landfill
Irving
Grand Prairie
Dallas Landfill
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
Closed
100,000 people
55,000 people
NA*
Cover material
frequency
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Expected life
(years)
2
5
NA*
Birds reported
or observed
Gulls, blackbirds,
starlings
Gulls, crows,
blackbirds
Pidgeons, gulls,
blackbirds
Central region
Traux Field Mineral Point
Traux Landfill
Olin Street
Maple Bluff
General Mitchell Field Milwaukee County
South Milwaukee
(no food wastes)
Oak Creek
(no food wastes)
Oak Creek
Disposal Co.
Hunt Landfill
Nipe
125 tons/day
500 tons/day
NA*
1,600 people
300 tons/day
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
Daily
Daily
No
No
Daily
No
No
No
Daily
No
1
2-3
NA*
60
3
10
NA*
NA*
10
10
Sparrows
None
Gulls, blackbirds
Gulls, blackbirds
Crows
None
None
Crows
None
Gulls, crows
22
-------
TABLE 4 (Contd.)
Southern region
Airport
Seymour Johnson AFB
Charleston AFB and
Charleston Municipal
Myrtle Beach AFB
Shaw AFB
Moody 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
Myrtle Beach
Garden City
State Camp Site
Gravels Gully
Surfside
AFB Landfill
Sumter County
Fish Road
AFB Landfill
Valdosta
Hahira
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
12,000 people
20 tons/day
115 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*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
75 tons/day
2 tons /day
Cover material
frequency
Daily
None
Daily
Twice-weekly
NA*
NA*
NA*
Daily
Occasionally
Daily
Monthly
Occasionally
None
Daily
Every 2 days
None
None
Occasionally
Occasionally
Daily
Occasionally
None
Every 2 days
Occasionally
Twice weekly
Expected life
(years)
1
1
NA*
NA*
NA*
5-10
NA*
5-10
2-3
NA*
10
NA*
10
10
50
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
1 1/2
NA*
NA*
10-12
1
10
Birds reported
or observed
Few sparrows
Sparrows
Crows, blackbirds
sparrows
None
NA*
NA*
NA*
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Blackbirds
Gulls
None
None
Crows, gulls
Gulls
Crows
Gulls, crows
Gulls
No
Blackbirds, crows
Blackbirds, crows
Blackbirds, crows
None
None
23
-------
TABLE 4 (Contd.)
Southern region (contd.)
Airport
Hunter Army Field
Patrick AFB
Name
Army Landfill
Savannah
Port Wentworth
Cole
AFB Landfill
Melbourne
Brevard County
Cape Kennedy
Disposal site
Size (population served
or quantity handled)
3,800 cu yd/month
330 tons/day
10 tons /day
20 tons/day
350 cu yd/day
50,000 people
50,000 people
1,000 tons/day
Cover material
frequency
Daily
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Expected life
(years)
Indefinite
3
30-40
NA*
5
5
3
10
Birds reported
or observed
Crows, gulls,
Gulls
Blackbirds
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Western region
Los Angeles
San Francisco Inter-
national
Oakland International
Alameda NAS
Toyon Canyon
Mission Canyon
Palos Verdes
NAS Site
Turk Island
West Winton
San Leandro
Davis Street
Alameda
Berkley
Fleming Point
Richmond
San Mateo
San Mateo
Rubbish
Burlingame
Rubbish
3,500 tons/day
4,000 tons/day
4,000 tons /day
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
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sporadically
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sporadically
Sporadically
Daily
NA*
Daily
Daily
Daily
10
15
3-4
2-3
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
Gulls
(infrequently)
No
Swallows, gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls
Gulls (few)
Gulls
24
-------
TABLE 4 (Contd.)
Western region (contd.)
Airport
Disposal site
Name Size (population served Cover material
or quantity handled) frequency
Travis AFB
Mather AFB
Hamilton AFB
Spokane International
Seattle International
Brisbane
Banner Avenue
(demolition site)
AFB Landfill
Vacaville
Fairfield
Mather AFB
McClellan AFB
Incinerator
(Residue Site)
Gerber Road
Sacramento
White Rock
Redwood Landfill
Hog Farm — Destroyed by
Kent Highlands
Midway Landfill
King County
1,800 tons/day
Closed
15,000 people
60 tons/day
48 tons/day
8,000 people
NA*
NA*
250,000 people
500 tons/day
250 tons/day
fire in 1969.
700 tons/day
700 tons/day
1,400 tons/day
Daily
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
NA*
NA*
Every 2 days
Weekly
Daily
Twice weekly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Birds reported
, , .,- or observed
Expected life
(years)
NA*
4-5
10+
10+
15
NA*
20
10
20
20
10
NA*
20
Gulls (few)
None
Blackbirds,
starlings, crows
Blackbirds, gulls
Gulls
Gulls
NA*
Gulls
Gulls, crows
Gulls
Gulls, crows
Crows
Very few crows
Crows
25
-------
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
considered:
(A) Are both dumps and sanitary landfills equally attractive
to birds?
(B) How should a solid waste disposal site be operated to discourage
birds from visiting it.
(C) 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 (A), we must remember that a dump is an area
where wastes from various sources are discarded and sometimes burned.
The wastes are infrequently 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 disposing of solid waste on land which minimizes
environmental pollution, nuisances or hazards. In a sanitary landfill
the solid wastes are unloaded, compacted, and covered with a layer of
26
-------
compacted soil each day. No solid wastes are left exposed and therefore
available as harborage and food. This operation decreases the
attractiveness of the site to birds by reducing and eliminating the food
and water supply.
In answering question (A), we have partially answered (B). 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 unless repelled by scare devices.
The scope of this study was limited to identifying solid waste
disposal sites that contribute to the bird hazard and has not provided
an answer to question (C). As a result, a primary recommendation of the
report is that additional investigations be made to resolve this question.
The disposal sites mentioned in this report have a special signifi-
cance because of the possible relationship of the bird/aircraft hazard
to the specific airports. Many of these sites are supporting 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.
27
-------
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 to
the Court without a jury. On January 20, 1967, Judge Harold K. Wood
found for the plaintiffs, stating in Pargraph 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 prohibiting 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 in favor of the three
fatalities against the Federal government for a total of $374,000. 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 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."
28
-------
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.
29
-------
REFERENCES
1. Seubert, J. L. Control of birds on and around airports; final report.
SRDS Report No. RD-68-62. Washington, 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. J., 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.J
5. Bird, W. H. Bird strike hazards can be reduced. Montreal, Engineering
Research and Development Department, Air Canada, Sept. 15, 1965. 19 p.
30
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bird, W. H. Bird strike hazards can be reduced. Montreal,
Engineering Research and Development Department, Air Canada,
Sept. 15, 1965. 19 p.
2. 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.
3. Drury, W. H., Jr. Gulls vs terns; clash of coastal nesters. In
Massachusetts Audubon—Summer 1965. Lincoln Massachusetts Audubon
Society. 6 p.
4. Fisher, H. I. Airplane-albatross collisions on midway atoll. Condor,
68:229-242, 1966.
5. Hild, J., 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
published in Luscinia, 40(314)=101-106, 1968.
6. Kadlec, J. A., and W. H. Drury. Structure of the New England herring
gull population. Ecology, 49 (4)-.644-676, Early Summer 1968.
7. Kinney, W. A. Strictly for the birds. Airman, 12(6):34-37, June 1968.
8. 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.J
9. Myres, M. T. The detection of birds, and study of bird movements,
with radar. Alberta, Canada, University of Calgary, [1969.] 28 p.
10. Saul, E. K. Birds and aircraft: a problem at Auckland's new
international airport. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
71(677):366-376, May 1967.
11. Seaman, E. A. Evaluation of "Avitrol 200" for bird control at seven
U.S. Air Force Installations. Nov. 1968. 5 p. Unpublished
report.
12. Bird hazards to aviation. AC 150/5200-1. [Washington], Federal
Aviation Agency. [4 p.]
13. Bird vs. aircraft. Resource Publication No. 5. Boston,.U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
11 p.
31
-------
14. Control of birds on and around airports; final report. SRDS Report
No. RD-68-62. Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Oct. 1968. 30 p.
15. Recommendations of a working conference on the problem 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
32
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Solid Waste Management Office expresses appreciation to
the many individuals who cooperated 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 Protection Agency's regional
solid waste management representatives.
Members of the study teams from the Solid Waste Management
Office were: Robert Clark, Stephen Friedman, Elmer Cleveland,
Charles Reid, George Davidson, Thomas Sorg, Truett DeGeare, and
John Sweeten. James Curry of the Solid Waste Management Office
reviewed the legal portions of the report.
33
------- |