You are on page 1of 13

David Karopkin GooseWatch NYC Brooklyn, NY 11230 goosewatching@gmail.com (567) 694-6673 June 13, 2012 Via U.S.

Mail and Fax (518) 477-4899 Attn: State Director USDA APHIS Wildlife Services 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033-9653 Re: Commentary Regarding USDA - APHIS - Regulations and Assessments - Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement Bird Hazard Reduction Program: John F. Kennedy International Airport

To Whom It May Concern: This commentary is submitted on behalf of GooseWatch NYC, a coalition opposed to the lethal methods proposed for the management of New York Citys Canada geese. Our supporters include animal advocates, pilots, biologists, veterinarians, legislators, policy makers, community leaders, and members of the general public. GooseWatch NYC (hereinafter GooseWatch) seek to go on record as opposing Alternative Six as discussed and outlined in the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter SEIS) Bird Hazard Reduction Program: John F. Kennedy International Airport. For numerous reasons, outlined below, we do not believe that the justifications as set forth under the Proposed Action to remove New York Citys resident Canada geese and other species as described are supported. This comment addresses the following points: The SEIS Errs in Properly Assessing and Addressing the Threat of Birds to Aircraft Safety; Non-lethal Measures are not Adequately Discussed in the SEIS; and The SEIS Should Provide For Community Notification and Transparency.

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

A. The SEIS Errs in Properly Assessing and Addressing the Threat of Birds to Aircraft Safety The SEIS fails to fully assess and address the actual threats to aviation safety that result from resident Canadian geese by not considering other experts and recent assessments that have studied the threat of birds to aviation safety. For example, in response to recent developments, such as the Proposed Action, and legislation introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (S.2377) which would mandate Canada goose removal by USDA at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, property owned by National Park Services, aviation experts have reiterated that a cull will not make the skies safer for flying. The consensus among wildlife experts appears to be that a goose cull wont really do much to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes, especially since there are dozens of birds that use the [Jamaica Bay] preserve, Russ Niles, editor-in-chief of AVweb.com wrote in a May 6 editorial (see Appendix). Indeed, the SEIS itself recognizes and rejects as impractical and unrealistic the chance that any particular bird hazard management program could result in a zero risk of aviation risk at JFK. Page 407 of the SEIS, under Appendix H, Q. and A. 12 explains: The FAA described the difficulties in defining an acceptable of risk, since by doing so we would be saying that any occurrence below the stated level is safe. Example: one might say that 2 bird strikes a year at JFK is acceptable. Does that mean that a single bird strike that brings down a fully loaded passenger aircraft with multiple fatalities is safe? As you can see this is a very difficult if not impossible issue. ... The alternatives in the SEIS are compared based on their relative reductions in bird collisions and their ability to achieve the established management objectives. In other words, it is not possible to reduce the number to zero, and knowing (a) wildlife will continue to thrive in the fertile region of Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, as well as New York City parks, and (b) any single collision is capable of causing a catastrophe, alternative program elements known to be successful, and that do not include removing wildlife and other solutions should be preferred, developed where necessary and pursued. In an incredible twist of irony, the Proposed Action runs the risk of further delaying, avoiding or circumventing opportunities to implement actual recommendations that could have measurable effects on improving flight safety. The 213-page accident report from Flight 1549 (Miracle On the Hudson) issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made 33 recommendations for safety improvements. The report (and the SEIS at page 10) lauded the efforts of the pilot and crew members, and yet identified troublesome shortcomings in manufacturing, testing, and protocols pertaining to air travel emergencies. Among the findings in the report: The birds involved in the strike were migratory geese, not local resident geese;

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

The distance and altitude where the bird strike occurred were well outside the area expected to be covered by LaGuardia Airports wildlife hazardous management program; Historically, and with regard to this accident in particular, FAA has failed to take action on numerous recommendations made by the NTSB; On May 11, 2000, the NTSB stated that, although it understood the potential fiscal burden on airports [of implementing Avian Hazard Advisory Systems], it strongly felt that the effort was necessary to ensure that all airports become aware of potential hazards of wildlife strikes, regardless of their location; Bird flocks and other phenomena (precipitation, balloons) were not among the display that the air traffic controller had chosen for airport surveillance radar before the bird strike on Flight 1549.

The SEIS fails to detail the status of the implementation of these recommendations, which resulted from a rigorous review of high-quality evidence by aviation safety experts, (see Appendix). 1. La Guardia Airport Waste Transfer Station The SEIS Proposed Action ignores a more potentially critical threat, namely, the proposed La Guardia waste-transfer station. James E. Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. In a New York Times Op-Ed piece published June 27, 2011, he states, in part: "...all 155 people aboard survived in what was called the Miracle on the Hudson. Incredibly, the Federal Aviation Administration has ignored the lesson from that episode and approved construction of a garbage transfer facility, known as the North Shore Marine Transfer Station, in College Point, Queens, less than half a mile east of La Guardia. Even though the facility is to be enclosed, the sight and smells of garbage passing through it will be irresistible to birds, as a possible food source, and are likely to draw birds into the path of approaching and departing aircraft, endangering the lives of passengers and people on the ground." Even Miracle on the Hudson hero Chesley Sully Sullenberger has publicly stated his opposition to plans to build the trash-transfer station less than a half-mile from La Guardia Airport, saying One of the things we've learned is that one of the few ways to mitigate the bird problem is to not put anything near an airport runway that's likely to attract birds. And so putting a trash facility this close to one of the busiest runways in the nation just doesn't make sense. It's really a terrible idea. It should be put much farther away, adding, Its important that we stop this. It is fundamentally flawed . . . It absolutely is wrong. Randy Mastro, attorney for Friends of LaGuardia Airport, an advocacy group, said, Locating a city garbage transfer station that will attract birds on the end of an airport runway is a monumentally stupid idea, (see Appendix). Clearly, it is incumbent upon the agencies to maximize the probable benefits of a program element in consideration of all of the program elements together. And, in agreement with this,

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

the SEIS says: Used together, the effectiveness of one component may reduce the need to use another component. For example, effective use of nonlethal methods to reduce off-airport bird attractants would likely reduce the need for on and off-airport lethal methods, SEIS at page 310 (discussing the Proposed Action). We agree but are confounded, then, by the agencies apparent indifference to what is probably the single largest threat, and therefore the single most effective avoidance measure, of all. Lethal methods for the management of resident Canada geese becomes less important, by the SEISs correct accounting, when other measures are properly and first employed. 2. Negative Long-term Effectiveness How can the public be assured that even through initiation of the Proposed Action the issue will be resolved not worsened? Aviation specialists say that repeated killing merely opens the habitat to other geese or other wildlife. Experience has shown that removing geese from desirable habitat creates a vacuum, and without modifying the environment to deter nesting, it may result in an influx which could thereby exacerbate the chance of a plane-bird collision. Population control through harvest has the potential to reduce the abundance of nuisance and invasive species. However, demographic structure and density-dependent processes can confound removal efforts and lead to undesirable consequences, such as overcompensation (an increase in abundance in response to harvest) and instability (population cycling or chaos). Recent empirical studies have demonstrated the potential for increased mortality (such as that caused by harvest) to lead to overcompensation and instability in plant, insect, and fish populations, (See Appendix, Zipkin, Kraft, Cooch, and Sullivan, 2008) For what duration of time does the USDA intend to continue extermination efforts under the Proposed Action? At what point, if any, will the Proposed Action reach completion? B. Non-lethal Measures are not Adequately Discussed in the SEIS The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages Newark, JFK and LaGuardia, exterminates large populations of geese every summer during the molt, alienating residents in the process. Meanwhile, many major cities around the world are keeping airports safe from potential bird strikes without resorting to lethal methods. Populations have been reduced using proven non-lethal methods, many specifically for use with regards to Canada geese. By employing proven radar detection systems and dissuasive tactics, birds can be kept out of the pathways of aircraft. Habitat modification is also being used successfully to discourage populations of Canada geese from colonizing. The SEIS recites in detail spectacular reductions in incidents associated with the current program (Alternative 1) at JFK; the combination of vegetation control, waste management and on-site shooting by themselves by over 90%, (SEIS Executive Summary, page ii).

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

Furthermore, Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent to the FAA, recognizes that the public values Canada geese and other birds as a positive addition to urban landscapes, and only allows killing in emergencies. In Israel, where birds are rarely if ever killed, Tel Aviv Ben-Gurion International Airport has instituted an avian radar detection program that is receiving worldwide recognition. (see Appendix). Several other non-lethal methods are included in the Appendix to this letter which were not referenced in the SEIS, including specific habitat modification tools, recently developed technologies to deter birds, and most importantly, aforementioned radar technologies, which are in use at other major airports. It is unconscionable that the Proposed Action ignore and fail to recommend aggressive implementation of known technological solutions, recommended by the FAA a decade ago, in favor of an eradication program of minimal effect. In the absence of the development and assessment of these and other techniques, non-lethal measures seem to be favored over lethal measures. The public has a right to inquire why JFK Airport has refused to implement these non-lethal approaches when other airports are showing vast improvements in reducing the incidences of bird strikes by utilizing such methods. C. Community Notification and Transparency As discussed above, the SEIS recognizes that achieving zero risk of a catastrophic aviation event is not a practical or realistic goal in any management scenario. Consistent with this balancing approach, the SEIS warrants with respect to its proposed cumulative take of 4,000 Canada geese that: In general, individual sites within the 5 mile radius with 10 or fewer birds will not have goose removals. Individual sites in the 5-7 mile radius with 20 or few birds will also generally not have goose removals. Although unlikely, an exception might occur if a site within the 5 mile radius is associated with specific bird movements through JFK airspace, (SEIS, pages 293-94). Without agreeing with the absolute population values necessarily, GooseWatch does applaud the SEIS for its temperance in recognizing both that some non-zero population of resident geese in the metropolitan area will be tolerated and that exceptions to the adopted standard will be objective and related to evidence of a specific problem tied to JFK. It is important, however, that this warranty be enhanced with some actual assurance that both the general rule and its exception is adhered to. The SEIS appears already to agree with this principle: There may be concerns that risks to aircraft at JFK may be misused as a justification for bird removal to address nuisance/aesthetic problems. The SEIS therefore assures that off-airport bird hazard management will only be conducted after informing the Bird Hazard Task Force

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

(BHTF), and only in accordance with public notification policies of the landowner or land manager. (SEIS, page 282). Unfortunately, the only assurance provided here is that if public notification happens to be a policy of the local jurisdiction/landowner they will be used; what is required in our view is that as a condition of the SEIS meaningful public notification processes be adopted and implemented where they do not today. The importance of a transparent public notification process prior to execution of any particular culling operation is acute. For example, when 368 Canada geese were removed from Prospect Park, Brooklyn in July 2010, no advance community notification was offered. Ms. Titze and her partner, Ed Bahlman, noticed that the geese were missing on their regular trip to the park on Thursday. The couple found plastic zip-tie restraints in a pile near gosling feathers. They learned what had happened to the geese from news reports on Monday. The fact that this was done without letting the public know is the first concern, Mr. Bahlman said. There were so many people in the park over the last four days who noticed the geese were gone, (see Appendix). Moreover, the fact that USDA Wildlife Services has lead responsibility for any culling operations that occur provides little comfort and, sadly, more than a little concern. A three part investigation recently published in the Sacramento Bee outlines the deeply troubling operations of USDA Wildlife Services to control predator species in the high plains and West, which haphazardly threaten human safety as well as ecosystem health. According to the report, the federal government's wildlife damage control program is based on outdated science and indiscriminate tools that kill many non-target animals, including protected species, according to a lawsuit filed Monday by WildEarth Guardians, a Colorado-based environmental group. A request has been sent to the Obama administration to set up an advisory committee recommending new policies for Wildlife Services. Congressmen Campbell and DeFazio reportedly are proposing a further investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Issa, (see Appendix). The methods that USDA Wildlife Services uses to kill geese are broadly understood to be inhumane; to do so in a wildlife refuge is completely unacceptable, violating the essential concept of a refuge. Residents who live and vote in the city simply do not want to see Canada geese killed. The killing methods endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) for birds such as Canada geese are by the groups own description, capable of causing pain, distress and suffering as well as posing hazards to personnel. It is disingenuous to suggest that the AVMA-recommended killing methods are humane. The SEIS should be modified to require that universal adoption of public notification policies be adopted and implemented by each of the various public agencies involved in any culling activities. This should include any departure from the general rule against culling small populations of geese.

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

The roundups of Canada geese are financed by taxpayers and conducted by a federal agency in city parks, which are public spaces. GooseWatch believes that the public has a right to transparency of governmental operations, and at a minimum, to view video documentation of the treatment of Canada geese during the roundups. An impartial observer should be granted access to the roundup and removal operations. In response to GooseWatchs written request to USDA Wildlife Services to arrange for documentation of the 2012 roundup operations, Lee Humberg (USDA) wrote: for several reasons, including minimizing stress to the wildlife, only those staff working on an activity or the partners requesting it, are included in proposed activities. In the absence of oversight regarding the nature of the Proposed Activities, GooseWatch intends to pursue obtaining documentation of Canada goose roundups taking place in New York City and Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Conclusion The foregoing discusses areas in which the SEIS may be appropriately reevaluated for certain key factual assumptions, including the accuracy of estimates of current resident populations of Canada geese within the zone of concern and, as a corollary, the substantial increase in proposed potential lethal culling. Whether these adjustments are accounted for, however, there should be acknowledgement by USDA APHIS and other relevant agencies regarding the need for public involvement in specific proposed lethal actions (including roundups) at individual resident goose habitations. Tax-paying citizens have a right to be included in governmental policies which affect the habitat, welfare and quality of life of our communities and our wildlife. Understanding that it is not possible to reduce the number of airplane collisions with wildlife to zero, understanding that wildlife, including the targeted species, will continue to inhabit in areas across New York City, understanding that any single collision is capable of causing a catastrophe, alternative program elements known to be successful, and that do not include removing wildlife, and other solutions should be preferred, developed where necessary and pursued. New York City has been pursuing an aggressive geese-killing program since 2009, following the collision of Flight 1549. The program has killed more than 3,000 geese in New York City in three years, yet air collisions continue to occur. There are legitimate public concerns indeed, there is a groundswell of concern for the programs ecological soundness, humane aspects, and appropriateness for the stated purpose of improving air travel safety. Killing Canada geese and other species in the name of air safety is inherently flawed, especially at off-site locations many of which include parks for public recreation and a wildlife refuge. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge has been referred to by Jamaica Bay Ecowatchers, a local environmental protection organization, as not simply New York City's ecological crown jewel

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

Appendix Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Goose Removal Legislation Gillibrand Introduces Legislation to Rid NYC Airports of Bird Strikes by Cutting Through Federal Bureaucratic Red Tape http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gillibrand-introduces-legislation-torid-nyc-airports-of-bird-strikes-by-cutting-through-federal-bureaucratic-red-tape_ Text of S.2377.IS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2377: Senator Seeks to Allow Goose Kills Near NY Airport Associated Press By Karen Matthews, April 26, 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/senator-seeks-goose-kills-ny-airport-16216970

Properly Assessing the Threat of Birds to Aircraft Safety Senator Wants Law Against Geese AV Web By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief, May 6, 2012 http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Senator_Law_Geese_206644-1.html Ditching of Flight 1549 Leads to 33 Safety Proposals By Matthew L. Wald, May 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/nyregion/05ntsb.html Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 CNN Special Investigations Unit By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost, January 19, 2009 http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/us/hudson.plane.folo_1_flight-crew-plane-airwaysflight?_s=PM:US Scientists Determine Geese Involved in Hudson River Plane Crash Were Migratory Smithsonian Institute, July 10, 2009 http://smithsonianscience.org/2009/07/scientists-determine-geese-involved-in-hudson-riverplane-crash-were-migratory/ No Trash, No Crash New York Times By James E. Hall, June 27, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/opinion/28hall.html FAA trashed in U.S. court arguments Queens Chronicle By Michael Gannon, January 12, 2012

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/faa-trashed-in-u-s-courtarguments/article_bd559a7b-beb6-5e11-bf17-6cb964ecffe7.html Sullenberger pans garbage station near LaGuardia CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/16/earlyshow/main20092878.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;4 Sully Bashes Bloombergs trash-station plan near LaGuardia NY Post By Bill Sanderson, May 14, 2012 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/sully_trashes_mike_lag_plan_HzkEkIHTJbfqXjX PudBaWL#.T7EgwAWQfP4.facebook Is La Guardia Airport Safe? Prospect Park Quiet Skies By Jeffrey Starin, Licensed Pilot http://prospectparkquietskies.org/is-la-guardia-airport-safe.html Continuous Descent Approach Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_Descent_Approach

Protecting Air Safety in other Locations Transport Canada - Overview of Wildlife Management http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp11500-sectiona-sectiona2239.htm#removal Wildlife under aerial attack The Independent, UK By Alice-Azania Jarvis, July 20, 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/wildlife-under-aerial-attack-2030311.html Heathrow bosses insist no geese cull planned Hounslow Chronicle, UK By Robert Cumber, Jan 27, 2009 http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslownews/2009/01/27/heathrow-bosses-insist-no-geese-cull-planned-109642-22783430/ [Articles on Heathrow Airport's No-Kill Policy] These geese are cooked: Why a major cull of Canada geese may be a waste of time by Josh Dehaas on Monday, August 30, 2010 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/30/these-geese-are-cooked/ Canadian radar helping avert bird strikes at U.S. airports CBC News, May 14, 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/05/14/tech-090613-avian-radar-bird-strikesairports-airplanes-nohara-accipeter.html [Articles on Canadian airport strategy]

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

Implementation of Technological Strategies Precise Flight / Puslelite http://preciseflight.com/commercial/ Is there a means by which birds might better discern aircraft position and speed, so as to reduce collisions? We know that vision is a primary and highly developed sensory pathway in birds. Recent work has shown that light can be an effective tool as a repellent and, potentially, as an alert, especially when bird strikes cost the international airline industry over $1.28 billion annually. DeTect /MERLIN Aviation Radar http://www.detect-inc.com/avian.html The MERLIN Avian Radar System is the most capable, proven and widely used bird radar system available for conducting bird and bat surveys, mortality risk analysis, and migratory studies, and for long-term and operational monitoring and mitigation of risks. MERLIN technology capabilities include:

Risk assessments for citing of new projects & expansions of existing sites Migratory bird & bat studies & research Habitat assessment & use analysis Monitoring & control of operating sites Mortality risk assessment & mitigation planning Bird and bat mortality mitigation

FlightTurf http://flightturf.com/products-and-services/flightturf/ FlightTurf is a patent-pending, live turfgrass technology that is revolutionizing airfield management. FlightTurf stays short and requires only one mow per year, saving an estimated $800 per acre annually, assuming 22 mows per year. Plus, wildlife such as geese and deer avoid it and tend to graze elsewhere, resulting in safer conditions at airports - for people and for wildlife. FlightTurf meets Federal Aviation Administration specifications. In addition: greenhouse gas emissions due to mowing are reduced 95% storm water run-off is reduced due to greater on-site infiltration no fertilization or watering is necessary airport security and risk exposure is tightened due to fewer mowing crews capital equipment costs are reduced. Geesebusters http://geesebusters.com/ Geesebusters offers a patent approved application method to rid birds, such as Canada Geese,
www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

Seagulls and other birds. Using a natural-like predator, such as a three-dimensional eagle which has a wingspan of approximately seven (7) feet, the eagle will turn in a prey seeking circular motion. The Canadian Geese, Seagulls and other problem birds recognize the turning eagle as real, and immediately flee the target area. After continual harassment and conditioning, the Geese, Seagulls or other problem birds will avoid the area, seeking safer grounds. Bird-X http://www.bird-x.com/ http://www.bird-x.com/search-pages-21.php?search_term=canada+geese Airport Bird Control System - Reduce the risk of bird strikes, decrease bird damage costs, and increase the safety of passengers and employees - Implement the Bird-X Airport Bird Control System. This comprehensive wildlife control system is specifically designed to repel birds and other pest animals away from airports and runways. Attack wildlife with three different sound sources!

Management of Canada geese populations When can efforts to control nuisance and invasive species backfire? Elise F. Zipkin, Clifford E. Kraft, Evan G. Cooch, and Patrick J. Sullivan Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA Received: August 6, 2008; Revised: November 18, 2008; Accepted: December 8, 2008 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1467.1?journalCode=ecap Managing Canada Geese in Urban Environments, A Technical Guide Smith, A. E., S. R. Craven, and P. D. Curtis. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman Institute Publication 16, and Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, N.Y. http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/retrieve/61/ Canada Geese: Living with our Wild Neighbors in Urban and Suburban Communities Humane Society of the United States, May 2010 http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/wild_neighbors/canada_goose_guide.pdf In Defense of Animals: Canada Geese http://www.idausa.org/geese/geese.html Friends of Animals: Canada Goose Habitat Modification Manual http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/canada-geese/Goose%20Habitat.pdf

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

USDA Wildlife Services The killing agency: Wildlife Services' brutal methods leave a trail of animal death (three parts) By Tom Knudson, Monday May 7, 2012 http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450678/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/30/4452212/wildllife-services-deadly-force.html http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/06/4469067/suggestions-in-changing-wildlife.html Taxpayers subsidizing wild life extermination program, probe shows By Mary Lou Simms, Thursday, August 18, 2011 http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/USDA_article_KansasCityStar_Taxpayers_subsidizing_ wildlife_extermination_08-18-2011.pdf

Community Notification and Transparency 400 Park Geese Die, for Human Fliers Sake New York Times By Isolde Raftery July 12, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/nyregion/13geese.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=geese&st=cse Correspondence between David Karopkin and Lee Humberg, USDA April 20, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/92844434/Gmail-Re-2012-NYC-Canada-Goose-RoundupsRESPONSE

www.goosewatchnyc.com www.facebook.com/goosewatchnyc

You might also like