Bird use, bird hazard risk assessment, and
Analysis of Proposed Bird Hazard Provision
Download 124.42 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Recommended Bird Hazard Provision
- Recommendations for Airport Zoning at the Pickering Airport Site
- Primary Bird Hazard Zone
- Secondary Bird Hazard Zone
- Special Bird Hazard Zone
- The three bird hazard zones are depicted in Figure 6. A more detailed map of the zoned areas is enclosed in the folder at the back of this report.
- Land-Use Within the Bird Hazard Zone
- Land-Use Primary Secondary Special
- Dry Waste Landfills No Yes Yes
- Potentially Risky Poultry Factory Farms
- Acknowledgements
- Literature Cited
Analysis of Proposed Bird Hazard ProvisionThe Department of Justice has prepared a suggested wording for a Bird Avoidance Provision to be included in the proposed zoning. The suggested wording is reproduced here.
It is suggested that several changes to the Bird Hazard Provision be considered. The first change in the body of the clause is intended to tie the clause more closely to the fact that hazardous birds must be attracted by the prohibited land-use. No owner or lessee of any land which is situated within the Bird Hazard Zone, which is more particularly described in Part VII of Schedule B, shall use the land or allow the land to be used for activities or uses that attract birds that create a hazard to aircraft safety and, therefore, are incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or aircraft. The addition of items (a) to (d) is apparently intended as a list of examples of prohibited land-uses and then (e) is added to exclude everything that was not included in the list. Thus, (e) is basically restating the main clause. It is not clear why the list is included. If there is a need to provide guidance to landowners to help them understand the significance of the zoning, then perhaps that is better done in an explanatory letter or Policy Guideline that could provide much more information than can be imparted as part of the wording of the Bird Hazard Provision. The Bird Hazard Provision is probably stronger without the list of examples. It is difficult to determine an appropriate short list of examples that would be helpful. Some examples from the proposed list may illuminate the difficulties. In example (a), landfills should clearly be prohibited, but transfer stations that handle waste in an enclosed facility do not attract birds and therefore would be acceptable. Outdoor drive-in theatres (b) are not particularly strong bird attractions, partly because they operate at night. There are many other attractions that attract similar numbers of birds as drive-ins and perhaps they should be included. The question of agricultural practices is particularly difficult for Pickering. The agricultural practices item (c) is usually meant to prevent certain crops being grown in close proximity to airport runways. However, almost all farming in southern Ontario involves plowing and cultivating fields. Each time that these activities are conducted, a strong attraction for Ring-billed Gulls is created by the insects and worms that are exposed by the equipment. Should the zoning try to address this type of issue? Clearly, it is difficult to derive a list that would be compact and informative. It may be better to leave a strongly worded clause that is not obfuscated by inclusion of a confusing partial list of examples. The explanatory notes could be prepared in a Transport Canada guidance document to accompany the zoning and to provide the municipalities guidance on how the bird hazard zoning should be interpreted. This approach is recommended. Recommended Bird Hazard ProvisionIt is recommended that a strong all-inclusive Bird Hazard Provision be applied to the entire bird hazard zoning area around the Pickering Airport Site. This insures that Transport Canada will maintain control in the future when new presently unforeseen land-uses might be introduced into the area. The Bird Provision clause from the Department of Justice, as revised in the previous section provides the required protection. No owner or lessee of any land which is situated within the Bird Hazard Zone, which is more particularly described in Part VII of Schedule B, shall use the land or allow the land to be used for activities or uses that attract birds that create a hazard to aircraft safety and, therefore, are incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or aircraft. In the following sections, the overall zoned area is sub-divided into three hazard zones depending upon proximity to the airport runways. The general Bird Provision applies to all three zones. Recommendations for Airport Zoning at the Pickering Airport SiteIt is important to note that our recommendations for bird hazard zoning are based on distances from the runway ends rather than distances from an arbitrarily selected airport reference point as done in the JWEL report. The altitudes of aircraft determine the level of risk from flying birds, and those altitudes are a function of where the aircraft is in relation to the end of the runway not where it is in relation to the location of the airport reference point. There is a problem in that the locations of the runways for the airport have not yet been determined. Envelopes or strips containing the locations for each of three runways have been mapped by Transport Canada. It is likely, but not certain, that the actual runway locations will be within these envelopes. For the purpose of demonstrating our recommended approach to zoning, we have assumed that each of three runways will be about 3 km long and will be centred in the envelopes provided by Transport Canada. When the actual runway locations are determined, then it will be a simple matter to adjust the recommended bird hazard zoning boundaries to reflect the new runway locations. The framework described in earlier sections enables the modeling of bird-related risks to aircraft operations resulting from land use. Primary Bird Hazard ZoneThe basis for the zoning is the location of the area within which a Category A accident could occur (see Figure 2). [It should be remembered that a Category A accident caused by migrating birds could occur anywhere and cannot be prevented by airport zoning.] The Category A zone has been assumed to occur when an aircraft is below 1500 ft agl, either on approach or departure. For mapping purposes, a 3° glide slope has been assumed which places an aircraft on approach at 1500 ft agl at a distance of about 8.8 km from the end of the runway. On take-off, the aircraft reaches 1500 ft agl long before it is 8.8 from the end of the runway.  
The locations where a Category B accident could occur are shown on Figure 3. The Category B zone refers to situations where aircraft are at altitudes of over 1500 ft agl. Experience in southern Ontario is that the vast majority of non-migrating birds fly at altitudes of less than 1500 ft. In fact, most of the birds affected by local land-uses fly altitudes that are much lower than 1000 ft agl. For this reason, Category B accidents are not considered in determining the location and extent of zoning around Pickering Airport. Secondary Bird Hazard ZoneThe map of the Primary Bird Hazard Zone (Category A zone) already includes a buffer that accounts for aircraft that do not fly on precise approaches and at specified altitudes. To convert these mapped zones to bird hazard zoning recommendations, it is first necessary, to add an additional buffer zone that accounts for variations in bird movements around specific land-uses. Birds that are attracted to a particular site may also then visit other nearby areas. It is not necessarily safe to assume that birds will always fly along the same route or to assume that our knowledge of bird movements is complete enough to accurately predict local movements. It is recommended that a “bird behaviour buffer zone” of 4 km be placed around the Category A zone mapped in Figure 2. The “bird behaviour buffer zone” forms a Secondary Bird Hazard Zone, which is mapped in Figure 4. Special Bird Hazard ZoneThe final piece of the zoning puzzle is the definition of the area within which the highest risk land-uses such as landfills will be prohibited. The concern here is that a major attraction such as a landfill can create a significant safety hazard if it is located north of the airport. In that case, the landfill would attract daily flights of thousands of gulls over the airport or through aircraft approach/departure paths en route between night roosts on Lake Ontario and the landfill. To minimize this risk, it is necessary to place additional zoning restrictions to the north of the airport. It is recommended that a rectangular zone be added extending north from the northern boundary of the zoning for the northernmost east-west runway in Figure 4. The additional zone should extend for a distance of 6 km. It should extend from the outside ends of the Category A zones created by the east-west runways. The resulting zone is considered a Special Bird Hazard Zone under the proposed zoning (Figure 5). The objective of the Special Bird Hazard Zone is to prevent gulls from flying through zones where aircraft are at altitudes of less than 1500 ft agl. The 6-km zone is arbitrary; it will be effective for some land-uses but it will not be totally effective for putrescible or food waste landfills. In previous studies, we have documented that gulls will fly up to 60 km from night roosts on Lake Ontario to an active putrescible waste landfill. We recommend that Transport Canada approach the municipalities north of the zoned area to discuss instituting a prohibition against the siting of a major landfill in those areas. These municipalities (Whitchurch-Stouffville, Uxbridge, East Gwillimbury, and Georgina) may be agreeable to including such a provision in their zoning by-laws because most municipalities do not want a major landfill within their boundaries for other reasons. The three bird hazard zones are depicted in Figure 6. A more detailed map of the zoned areas is enclosed in the folder at the back of this report. 
 
 
Land-Use Within the Bird Hazard ZoneThe three Bird Hazard Zones (Primary, Secondary and Special) comprise the Overall Bird Hazard Zone. Within the overall zoned area, the Bird Hazard Provision is paramount. However, within the Overall Bird Hazard Zone, certain land uses are permitted. These are outlined in the following table. Permitted in Hazard Zone Land-Use Primary Secondary SpecialHigh RiskPutrescible Waste Landfills No No No Food Waste Hog Farms No No No Wildlife Refuges, Waterfowl Feed. Stns. No No No Racetracks No No No Moderate Risk Open or Partially Enclosed Waste Transfer Stations No No Yes Cattle Paddocks No No Yes Sewage Lagoons No No Yes Municipal Parks, Picnic Areas No No Yes Golf Courses No No Yes Low RiskDry Waste Landfills No Yes YesMarshes, Swamps and Mudflats No Yes Yes Commercial Shopping Malls, Plazas No Yes Yes Fastfood Restaurants No Yes Yes Outdoor Restaurants No Yes Yes Schoolyards No Yes Yes Community/Recreation Centres No Yes Yes Potentially RiskyPoultry Factory Farms ? ? ?Enclosed Waste Transfer Stations ? ? ? Wet/Dry Recycling Facilities ? ? ? Stormwater Management Ponds ? ? ? Plowing/Cultivating ? ? ? No RiskCompost Facilities Yes Yes Yes Natural Habitats Yes Yes Yes Agricultural Fields Yes Yes Yes Haying Yes Yes Yes Rural Ornamental and Farm Ponds Yes Yes Yes Residential Areas Yes Yes Yes Other Land-Uses ? ? ?  
Potentially Risky Land-Uses The activities included under the category of potentially risky land-uses can create serious bird hazards to aircraft safety or they can be operated without creating any hazard. The treatment of potentially risky land-uses depends upon how these land-uses are conducted. If the land-uses are conducted without attracting hazardous birds then they can be allowed within the zoned areas. For example, if the poultry factory farms do not dispose of dead chickens outside but rather use approved disposal techniques then the operations will not attract large scavengers and predators, which are hazardous to aircraft safety. Similarly, if enclosed waste transfer stations and wet/dry recycling facilities are operated without spilling any waste outside, then they will not attract gulls and crows and they can be located anywhere within the zoned area. However, it is important that Transport Canada and/or the airport operator retain the ability to review any applications for these uses and to insure that they are only permitted if they are to be operated properly. The plowing and cultivating of fields regularly attracts large numbers of gulls for short periods of time. Ideally, this activity would not occur within the primary bird hazard zone. However, farming activities are strongly supported by society and plowing and cultivating will continue in the zoned areas. Other Land-UsesLand-uses that are not specifically addressed in the discussions above will be covered by the General Bird Hazard Provision. It would be incumbent upon the proponent to demonstrate that the proposed land-use would not create a safety hazard. Additional Comments One of the reasons for developing this approach is that there is some concern that a large zoned area with a massive prohibition of land uses around the Pickering Airport Site would be seen as very onerous by the municipalities and by surrounding property owners. This is particularly true for zoning around an airport that will not be built for some time. Thus, we have recommended an approach that provides some flexibility to the municipal and property-owning stakeholders in the process. Zoning control will be retained by Transport Canada, but the municipalities will retain some flexibility for their land-use planning policies. The downside is that Transport Canada may have to adjudicate some requests for land-use approvals in the lower risk zones. Land-uses that are not specifically covered in the Guidance Document would have to be subjected to a risk assessment by the proponent, the municipality, the future airport operator, or Transport Canada before a decision to approve or reject a land-use can be made. AcknowledgementsSeveral people assisted the authors in and conducting and completing this study. We thank Paul Wyman and Mario Starcevic of the Geomatics Advisory Division of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Lambro Misofi of Real Property Services, PWGSC, for providing base mapping. We thank Bill Olan of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for information on the use of cooked food waste in hog farming operations. We thank Norman R. North of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) in London for Canada Goose population data, and Rick Pratt of CWS for information on goose control permits to municipalities and agencies. We thank Geoff Carpentier, Tyler Hoar, Doug Lockrey, Dave Mills and Rayfield Pye for information on movements and distribution of major bird hazard species in Durham and York Regions. We thank Steve Whitter, Director of Transfer, Processing and Disposal Operation, Solid Waste Management Services, City of Toronto, for permission to conduct bird counts at the Keele Valley Landfill. We also thank Lou Ciardullo and Bob McKenzie for instructions on procedures to follow at the landfill. We thank Marcel Ethier, Operations Manager of Pickering Town Centre for permission to count gulls on the roof and we thank David Brown for supervising access to the roof. At LGL we thank for Ted Elliot for assistance with GIS, and Ross Harris and Rob Nisbet for information on bird hazard populations in Durham Region and for collecting information from municipalities and conservation authorities on their Canada Goose control programs. We thank Scott Jarvie of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for information on their Canada Goose control programs. We thank Bill Edmunds for Greater Toronto Area Canada Goose data from the Mid-Winter Waterfowl Inventory. We thank Lesley Baker, Senior Environmental Officer, Environmental Services, PWGSC, and David Bayliss, Regional Manager, and Keith Riley, Safety Inspector, Aerodrome Safety, ANS and Airspace, Transport Canada. Literature CitedBird and Hale Limited. 1995. Durham Landfill Site Search: Gull Populations in the Regional Municipality of Durham July 1992- June 1994. Report prepared for the Interim Waste Authority, Limited, Toronto, Ontario. 58 p. Dolbeer, R.A., S.E. Wright and E.A. Cleary. 2000. Ranking the hazard level of wildlife species to aviation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:372-378. Harris, R. E. and R.A. Davis. 1994. Gull Populations in Metropolitan Toronto and the Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, August 1992 – December 1993. Report by LGL Limited, King City, Ontario, for Fenco MacLaren, Inc., Willowdale, Ontario, and Interim Waste Authority, Toronto, Ontario. 109 p. Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. 1991. Pickering Airport Lands Avifauna Study. Report prepared for Transport Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 120 p. Transport Canada. 2001. Sharing the Skies. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 1 Canadian Standards Association, Risk Management: Guideline for Decision-Makers, CAN/CSA-Q850-97, ISSN 0317-5669, October 1997 2 The differentiation between more than one death in a Category A accident and one death in a Category B is intended to discriminate between a bird strike event that results in collision with the terrain (Category A) and an event that causes death to a flight crew member after windshield penetration by a bird (Category B). In addition to the greater loss of life, the former will have significantly broader operational, economic, commercial, and political ramifications, and needs to be treated differently than a Category B accident. 3 A bird strike event may include single or multiple bird strikes. 4 A multiple engine failure could occur as the result of a random event involving large, flocking birds. This could occur during all flight phases, and for the purpose of this analysis is factored equally amongst all flight segments. 5 For instance, in the case of an unanticipated go-around from an altitude below the Minimum Descent Altitude or the Missed Approach Point. An example of such pressing operational conditions occurred during the loss of an Air Canada CL-65 at Fredericton, New Brunswick, in December 1998. Directory: media -> documents -> ontario-eng documents -> Do remittances have a flip side? A general equilibrium analysis of remittances, labor supply responses and policy options for Jamaica* Maurizio Bussolo and Denis Medvedev documents -> Cosida teleconference: Collegiate Communications Issues & Challenges: With an nfl perspective michael signora documents -> Suny cortland red dragons athletic awards (Updated: 8/15/11) all-america name Sport Honor documents -> Cosida st. Louis Convention Schedule as of June 18, 2012 (subject to change) Saturday, June 23 documents -> For release: Friday, May 31 – 12 noon (edt) Please visit the Capital One Academic All-America® website documents -> Time location 9 am – 10 am Lindell Program Committee Meeting documents -> James ramsey of florida state headlines capital one academic documents -> Division II basketball teams documents -> Matt howard of butler, austin meier of msoe ontario-eng -> Airport wildlife management and planning part 2 (car 302. 201-302. 206) bulletin #32—winter 2002 Download 124.42 Kb. Share with your friends:
|