C. Bird Control Program and Gull Monitoring Reports

Transcription

1 C. Bird Control Program and Gull Monitoring Reports

2 DEMONSTRATION OF THE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BIRD CONTROL PROGRAM AT THE FORWARD LANDFILL, MANTECA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by For Forward Landfill Republic Services, Inc South Austin Road Manteca, CA LGL Report # TA December 2013

3 DEMONSTRATION OF THE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BIRD CONTROL PROGRAM AT THE FORWARD LANDFILL, MANTECA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Rolph A. Davis, Ph.D. LGL Limited environmental research associates P.O. Box 280, 22 Fisher St. King City, ON, L7B 1A , For Forward Landfill Republic Services, Inc South Austin Road Manteca, CA LGL Report # TA December 2013

4 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Previous Gull Use of Forward Landfill... 1 Gull Control Program... 2 Monitoring Program... 3 Observations at Forward Landfill During Operations... 4 Daily Observations by Controllers... 4 Are Gulls Feeding at the Landfill?... 4 Gulls Approaching the Landfill and Flying Past the Landfill... 5 Observations by LGL Personnel... 5 Observations at Forward Landfill Weekends... 6 Observations at Other Landfills... 6 Where Did the Gulls from Forward Landfill Go?... 9 Gull Behavior at Night History of Bird Strikes at Stockton Metropolitan Airport (SCK) Conclusions Addendum References APPENDICES Appendix 1. Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill Appendix 2. Results of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill iii

5 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Introduction There is a general concern about the presence of birds in the vicinity of airports where they may collide with aircraft. This can threaten the safety of the aircraft. Municipal waste landfills often attract birds, primarily gulls of various species. For this reason, the siting of landfills near airports must be handled carefully. Fortunately, bird strikes are very rare events and damaging strikes are much rarer still but they still do occur. The Forward Landfill has operated near Manteca, CA since An airstrip on the site of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport (SCK) began operation in April Thus, there is a long history (40 years) of co-existence between the landfill and the airport. An analysis of the reported bird strikes by aircraft using the Stockton Airport since 1991 indicates that the operating landfill has not been the source of birds struck by aircraft using the airport. This analysis is included later in this report. Forward, Inc., a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc., operates the Forward Landfill which is located close to SCK (Figure 1). Because can be attracted to landfills there was a potential to create a hazard to the safety of aircraft using the Stockton Airport and because the landfill is known to have attracted gulls in previous winters (October-April), Forward, Inc. has instituted a gull control program at the landfill. LGL Limited, an experienced bird hazard research firm, has been retained to monitor the success of the control program and to make recommendations for improvements to the program, if required. LGL is one of North America s leading ecological research firms. It has been involved with bird hazards to aircraft safety and associated wildlife control issues for over 40 years under the direction of Dr. Davis, the author of this report. The present report provides an analysis of the success of the third year ( ) of bird control program that was instituted at Forward Landfill during the winter of Reports of the two previous years of bird control are available (Davis 2011, 2012). Previous Gull Use of Forward Landfill Gulls are the principal birds that are attracted to edible waste that is disposed of at municipal solid waste landfills. Gulls winter in the Stockton area with first arrivals usually appearing in late September or October. Gull numbers increase in November and December as migrants from further north arrive in the area. The Forward Landfill has attracted gulls during winter in previous years. Previous spot surveys by WRA Environmental Consultants estimated that 550 gulls were present in January 2005, 661 on 23 January 2007, and gulls on 10 February It should be emphasized that these were minimum estimates of gull numbers because they were spot estimates rather than full counts of the numbers using the site on any particular day December 2013

6 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Figure 1. Location of Forward Landfill in relation to Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Gulls are not usually present in the Stockton area during the summer period (May to late September) and intensive gull control at the landfill is not required at that time. However, the landfill is monitored by landfill staff during the off-season for the presence of gulls. A few gulls were present in the Stockton area during late July and August in The control response at Forward Landfill to this gull presence is discussed in the Addendum at the end of the present report. A pilot gull control program was conducted at the Forward Landfill by Airstrike Bird Control, LLC. This was a falconry-based program that began on 9 March 2010 and concluded on 14 April Mr. Brad Felger, Manager of Airstrike Bird Control, estimated that there were approximately 3,000 gulls using the Forward Landfill when the pilot program began (B. Felger, pers. comm.). Gull Control Program The pilot gull control program had been successful and therefore, a gull control program was instituted on an operational basis at Forward Landfill during the fall of The 2 30 December 2013

7 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California operational gull control program was again a falconry-based program operated by Airstrike Bird Control, LLC. The program used several falcons (Peregrine male, Peregrine female, Sakar Falcon, Gyrfalcon/Peregrine hybrid, etc.) to control gulls at and around the landfill. Control in subsequent years was based mainly on the use of male and female Peregrine Falcons. Control was achieved by flying the falcons to lure and by allowing them to chase the gulls on occasion. The program was also supplemented with the use of pyrotechnics to scare gulls away during conditions when it is difficult to fly the falcons (e.g. foggy and stormy conditions). The objective of the control program was to prevent any gulls from feeding at the landfill or landing anywhere on the landfill property. If the gulls cannot feed at the landfill or loaf on the landfill or drink from occasional standing water, then they will stop returning to the landfill on subsequent days. There can be no gaps in the control coverage that might allow gulls to feed for even a few minutes because a gull can obtain all the food that it needs for the day in about 20 to 30 minutes of feeding at a landfill. Therefore, even small gaps in coverage could allow gulls to obtain enough food to encourage them to return to the landfill on a subsequent day. The operational gull control program began on Monday, 27 September 2010 with the intention of being in place before gulls arrived in the Stockton area for the winter. The results of the program were reported in Davis (2011). In the following year, the gull control program was conducted from 1 December 2011 to 12 April The program was again falconry-based and was conducted again by Airstrike Bird Control Inc. The program was the same as that conducted in the previous year. In , the falconry-based gull control program by Airstrike Bird Control Inc. at Forward Landfill began on 15 October 2012 and continued until 13 April The program was supplemented with control using remote-controlled model airplanes and pyrotechnics before the falconry program began (1-10 October 2012) and after it had finished (15 April to 15 May 2013). Monitoring Program The success of the gull control program has been monitored in , , and by LGL Limited to provide an independent assessment of the program. The monitoring has included: 1. Daily observations made by the controllers during their control activities. These included records of all gulls that approached the landfill or flew past the landfill during the day. 2. Observations on and around the landfill by LGL personnel to confirm the observations by the controllers. 3. Observations at Forward Landfill by LGL personnel on Saturday afternoons and Sundays when the landfill was closed, the waste is covered, and the controllers were not on duty. 4. Observations at other landfills by LGL personnel to compare with the results from Forward Landfill. The independent monitoring of the program began on 15 October Several sources of data are used in the evaluation December 2013

8 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Daily Observations by Controllers Observations at Forward Landfill During Operations The falconers who provided the daily bird control at the landfill kept records of the numbers of gulls that approached the landfill and the numbers that flew past the landfill on route to other destinations. These data are summarized on a weekly basis in Table 1. The daily summaries are provided in Appendix 1. A revised, more efficient data summary sheet was provided to the falconers for use in Table 1. Weekly summary of gull observatons by falconers in the vicinity of the Forward Landfill. # of gulls Average Ave. Total Peak Date feeding at # of # of # of gulls in the landfill flocks gulls at one during week /day /day time Oct Oct 29-Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov 26-Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec 31-Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan 28-Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb 25-Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Are Gulls Feeding at the Landfill? The bird control program is designed to deter birds from feeding at the landfill. The observations by the controllers (falconers) indicated that no gulls were able to feed at the active disposal area of the landfill after the control program began (Table 1). However, as part of the 4 30 December 2013

9 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California bird control program, observations are made by an independent observer as an added oversight. The independent observer noted two cases on Thursday, February 7, 2013 where gulls began feeding at the active face. In both cases, the gulls were able to begin feeding but were deterred by the control program prior to reaching the site-specific failure criteria 1. Forward staff was notified regarding the gull incidents. Based on discussions with landfill staff, it appears that the position of the active face may have prevented the controllers from observing the gull landings. The controller was notified of this incident. Measures taken to deter future gull landing and feeding included requiring the controller to monitor areas that may be screened with the support of landfill staff in constructing additional access roads. Therefore, given the limited number of incidents and the responses to the observations noted above, the control program continues to be successful. Gulls Approaching the Landfill and Flying Past the Landfill The falconer conducting the gull control documented the numbers of gulls that approached and flew past the landfill. These observations are presented in Appendix 1 and summarized in Table 1. It is important to correctly interpret the data in Table 1 and Appendix 1. The numerical estimates of daily numbers of gulls are not estimates of the numbers at the landfill or even the numbers approaching the landfill. Many of the gulls in the totals were birds that flew past the landfill without visiting it. The numbers of such gulls were usually higher during the influxes of migrants and during periods of stormy weather that drove the gulls inland from the coast. Over the three years of the study, the number of flocks of gulls that approached or flew past the landfill ranged from 6.3 to 11.8 per day during the November-March period in each year, or a little over one flock per hour. The average flock size ranged from 7 to 21 birds during each of the three years. These are very small numbers when compared to the large numbers that used to feed at the landfill before the control program began. The results indicate that the gull flight lines from gull night roosts in the delta or on San Francisco Bay no longer passed over the airport on route to Forward Landfill but rather had moved further north en route to Foothill and North County landfills. Observations by LGL Personnel LGL personnel conducted spot checks at the Forward Landfill. There were 9-11 visits per month and each visit was about 3 to 3.5 hours long. During the periods 1-10 October 2012 and 15 April-15 May 2013, the LGL biologist was present on the site for hours on 8 and 21 days, respectively during which he performed gull control using a model airplane glider. The results of all of these visits are presented in Appendix 2 and summarized in Table 2. The data gathered by the LGL personnel were consistent with the observations by the falconers on the same days (Table 1). In fact, the falconers generally recorded more birds because they were always searching for distant gulls approaching the landfill and they were on site earlier in the morning when more gulls approached the landfill. Therefore, it is again concluded that the data collected by the falconer/controllers are reliable and unbiased. 1 Letter from LGL Limited to Lewis Engineering dated June 21, December 2013

10 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Table 2. Summary of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill Month # of # of # of gulls # of # of # flocks # gulls surveys hours feeding at control gulls flying past flying past landfill/ events/ controlled/ landfill/ landfill/ 3 hours 3 hours 3 hours 3 hours 3 hours 2012 October* October** November December *** January February *** March April April* May* * Control using model airplane glider **Falconry program began on October 15, 2012 and ended on April 13, 2013 *** 2 gulls on ground for 20 minutes on Sunday, Dec 16; 3 gulls feed for 5 min twice on Feb 7. There was a reduction in the numbers of gulls approaching or passing by the Forward Landfill over the three years with the falconry control program in place. During the period, there was an average of 1.0 flocks per hour of observation by the independent observer. This number declined in the second year ( ) to 0.4 flocks per hour. During the third year ( ), the number of flocks of gulls approaching the landfill declined further to an average of 0.2 flocks per hour. Observations at Forward Landfill Weekends The surveys in the previous two years determined that gulls did not use the Forward Landfill on Saturday afternoons or Sundays when the landfill was closed and the controllers were not present. To confirm this finding, the landfill was surveyed on Sunday on 18 November and 16 December 2012 (Appendix Table 2). No gulls fed at the landfill during those surveys although 2 gulls were on the ground for 20 minutes during the 3.25 hour observation period on 16 December. Therefore, the pattern of gulls not feeding at the Forward Landfill when the landfill was closed and the waste was covered continued in winter Observations at Other Landfills In order to interpret the results from Forward Landfill, it was necessary to examine the numbers of gulls that occurred at other municipal solid waste landfills in the area that did not have intensive gull control programs in place. Two such landfills were examined by LGL personnel: Foothill Landfill and North County Landfill. Each of these landfills had some bird control 6 30 December 2013

11 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California measures (pyrotechnics) that were used sporadically and North County used remote-controlled model airplanes and gliders a few mornings per week. However, the control efforts at the two landfills were by no means comparable to the program at Forward Landfill. Each landfill survey covered about a 3-hour period. The North County Landfill is located approximately 18.5 miles NNE of the Forward Landfill (Figure 2). It was surveyed on 27 occasions from 4 September 2012 to 12 April 2013 (Table 3). Very small numbers of gulls were present in September with an average of 59 gulls per survey on 4 surveys with a peak of 140 on 25 September (Table 3). The numbers of gulls at the landfill increased in October with an average of 1,158 gulls on each of 4 surveys and a peak of 3,200 gulls on 25 October. The average numbers per survey at North County Landfill were 3,133 in November (n = 3 surveys, peak 4,400 on 7th); 2,267 in December (n = 3, peak 3,800 on 26th); 2,633 in January (n = 3, peak 3,000 on 22nd); 2,750 in February (n = 4, peak 4,200 on 19th), 1,433 in March (n = 3, peak 1,700 on 8th); and 310 in April (n=3, peak 650 on 5th (Table 3). The gulls began to return north in March and the numbers at the landfill declined through to 0 on 12 April. Figure 2. Locations of North County Landfill and Foothill Landfill 7 30 December 2013

12 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California 8 30 December 2013 Table 3. Surveys of North County Landfill near Stockton, California Date Time of Maximum Species Comments Survey # of Gulls 2012 Sep 4 08:00-11:15 4 flew over without landing Sep 11 08:00-11:15 80 CA Gulls feeding. CA (100%) Sep 18 08:00-11:15 12 CA Gulls landed but did not feed before flying away Sep 25 08:00-11: CA Gulls feeding. CA (100%) (100 adults, 40 YOY) Oct 2 08:00-11:30 12 CA One flock landed but did not feed Oct 9 08:00-11:10 21 CA Flock of 21 flew over but did not land Oct 16 08:00-11:15 1,400 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (90%), WE (10%) - 45% YOY Oct 29 09:00-12:00 3,200 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (90%), WE (10%) - 45% YOY Nov 7 08:00-11:00 4,400 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); control with gliders moves gulls off Nov 12 07:00-10:00 3,400 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); control with gliders moves gulls off Nov 26 07:00-10:00 1,600 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (78%), WE (22%); control with gliders moves gulls off Dec 5 07:30-12:20 2,400 CA, WE Gulls circle site but move off when pyrotechnics and gliders used Dec 19 08:00-10: CA, WE Gulls not feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); control with gliders moves gulls off Dec 26 08:00-12:00 3,800 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); control with gliders moves gulls off 2013 Jan 11 07:00-12:00 2,800 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) during period Jan 22 08:00-12:00 3,000 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) during period Jan 29 08:00-12:00 2,100 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) during period Feb 1 07:00-12:00 2,800 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) - all fly by to Foothill LF Feb 12 08:00-12:15 2,200 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) - min. estimate Feb 19 08:00-12:15 4,200 CA, WE Partial control. CA (80%), WE (20%). Strong wind and rain Feb 26 08:00-12:15 1,800 CA, WE Gulls prevented from feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%) during period Mar 8 07:00-12:00 1,700 CA, WE All fly by to Foothill LF due to control. Return after control ends. Mar 22 07:00-12:00 1,200 CA, WE Gulls feed after control ends. CA (80%), WE (20%). High winds. Mar 29 07:00-12:00 1,400 CA, WE No gulls fed while control present. Gulls flew to Foothill LF. Heavy fog Apr 5 07:00-12: CA, WE No gulls fed while control present. Gulls flew to Foothill LF Apr 10 08:00-12: CA, WE No gulls fed while control present. Gulls flew to Foothill LF Apr 12 07:00-09:30 0 CA, WE No gulls approach landfill

13 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Gull use of the North County Landfill has increased over the three year study period. During the November through March period, the average numbers of gulls per survey have increased from 709 in , to 1,574 in , to 2,462 in The migration of the last gulls out of the area occurred later in the spring of 2012 (early May) than in 2011 or 2013 (early April). The Foothill Landfill is located approximately 20.5 miles ENE of the Forward Landfill. It was surveyed 26 times from 3 September 2012 to 22 April Numbers of gulls were small (15 per survey) on 4 surveys in September. Numbers remained small in October with an average of 1.5 birds per survey on two surveys with only 3 present on 29 October. Numbers increased markedly in November with an average of 3,100 gulls (n = 2 surveys, peak 3,800 on 14 November). Numbers in December at Foothill Landfill averaged 1,800 (n = 2, peak 2,400 on 3 rd ). In January 2013, the average was 3,533 per survey (n = 3, peak 6,200 on 17 th ). In February, there were 2,350 gulls per survey (n = 4, peak 3,200 on 25 th ). The overall numbers of gulls at Foothill Landfill was higher in than in There were 11 usable surveys conducted at Foothill Landfill in the November-March period of (Davis 2011). On those surveys there was an average of 1,077 gulls present per survey with a peak of 3,120 on 22 March During the November 2011 through March 2012 period (Davis 2012), there were 17 surveys conducted with an average number of gulls per survey of 2,087 per survey. In the present study, there was an average of 2,450 gulls on 14 surveys during the November 2012 to March 2013 period (Table 4). Thus, the average numbers of gulls at the Foothill Landfill has increased over the three year period. The results from North County and Foothill landfills clearly indicate that significant numbers of gulls use these landfills even though there were sporadic control efforts at each of the landfills. In both cases, there were significantly more gulls present than there were in the vicinity of the Forward Landfill during the same period. In addition, the gulls at North County and Foothill Landfills were feeding whereas those at Forward Landfill were scared away before they could feed. Therefore, the numerical data are not directly comparable. Furthermore, the numbers for North County and Foothill landfills are the averages of the peak numbers per survey. The closest comparisons from Forward Landfill are the averages of the peak numbers in Appendix 1. For example, over the five month period (November-March.), the average peak number of gulls in the vicinity of the Forward Landfill was 45 gulls compared to the 2,450 at Foothill Landfill and 2,461 at North County that were actually feeding at those landfills. Also, the gulls at Forward Landfill scared away quickly or were flying past the landfill whereas the gulls at the other two landfills were present there for most of the day. Where Did the Gulls from Forward Landfill Go? The question was asked where did the gulls that formerly fed at Forward Landfill go when they were prevented from feeding at that landfill. A detailed assessment of this question has not been conducted because it would have required intensive effort to collect baseline data in previous years before the control program began. Clearly, many of the gulls from Forward now go to other landfills in the region and feed at other areas. All of the natural feeding areas on waterbodies and in fields are still used by gulls. In addition, other anthropogenic or human created feeding sites are used. For example, gulls are using the Waste Transfer Station in south Stockton, the Town of Manteca, and the Stockton Sanitation Ponds December 2013

14 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Table 4. Surveys of Foothill Landfill near Stockton, California Date Time of Maximum Species Comments Survey # of Gulls 2012 Sep 3 08:00-11:15 8 CA Flock circles for 12 minutes and then flies to W Sep 10 08:00-11:15 32 CA Only 2 on ground; two flocks (22, 8) circle and fly off Sep 17 08:00-11:15 0 Sep 24 08:00-11:15 18 CA pyros fired by workers Oct 15 12:00-15:15 0 Oct 29 12:30-16:00 3 CA Gulls not feeding, flew off Nov 6 12:00-14:30 2,400 Circling over landfill due to many pyros fired by workers Nov 14 11:00-14:20 3,800 Gulls feeding between bouts of pyros fired by workers Dec 3 09:00-12:20 2,400 CA,WE Gulls feeding when pyros not used. CA (75%), WE (25%) Dec 19 13:00-16:00 1,200 Gulls circling overhead due pyros fired by workers 2013 Jan 3 13:30-16: CA, WE Gulls feeding among pyro shots. CA (80%), WE (20%) Jan 17 11:00-14:15 6,200 CA, WE Gulls feedingamong pyro shots by workers. CA (85%), WE (15%) Jan 21 09:00-12:00 3,600 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (90%), WE (10%). Pyros used by workers with little effect Feb 4 12:00-15:00 2,600 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (85%), WE (15%). Pyros start when observer arrives Feb 14 13:00-16:00 2,400 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); Pyrotechnics being used Feb 18 12:00-15:00 1,200 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (85%), WE (15%); Pyrotechnics being used all day Feb 25 14:00-17:00 3,200 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); No pyros used. Gulls leave to W Mar 4 08:00-11:45 n/a CA, WE Heavy use of pyros. No gull count. Mar 18 09:00-12:00 2,400 CA, WE CA (80%), WE (20%); Pyros used when observer present but not later Mar 25 13:00-16: CA, WE Many gulls have left and gone to North County to feed. Mar 28 08:00-11:00 1,500 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (85%), WE (15%); arrive from W. Pyros used Apr 2 08:00-11:00 1,400 CA, WE Gulls feeding. CA (80%), WE (20%); Pyros used when observer present Apr 9 08:00-11:00 20 CA, WE Heavy use of pyros. No gull count. Apr 22 08:00-11:30 0 CA, WE No gulls present

15 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Gull Behavior at Night Gulls spend the night at communal roosts on large bodies of water where they occur in dense flocks. The use of the night roosts is traditional with particular roosts being used year after year. Gulls do not feed at inland terrestrial areas at night and they do not feed at landfills at night. The latter fact has been demonstrated at many landfills. The best documented case is the Atlantic County Utilities Authority where waste is disposed of at night. There has not been a single gull seen at that coastal landfill during over 13 years of operation (Davis and Hixon 2011). Because of this nocturnal behavior, it is not necessary to control gulls at night at the Forward Landfill. History of Bird Strikes at Stockton Metropolitan Airport (SCK) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains an extensive data base documenting wildlife/aircraft collisions at airports throughout the U.S. The FAA data base includes records beginning in 1990 and contained over 142,603 strike records by the end of As of 31 December 2013, the data base contained records of 45 bird strikes associated with the Stockton Airport. It is well known that not all bird strikes are reported but the important strikes (those that affect flight, cause damage, etc.) are more likely to be reported than are strikes that cause no damage and often are not even detected by the flight crew. It is apparent that the airport has been much more diligent in reporting strikes in the past three years with 25 (56%) of the 45 strikes since 1990 recorded during that three-year period compared to 20 strikes (44%) in the previous 21 year period. A summary printout of the 45 strikes at the Stockton Metropolitan Airport is included as Table 5. The Forward Landfill has been operating during the entire 24-year period covered by the FAA data base. For the 20 years before the fall and winter of , there was no bird control program in place at the landfill. Therefore, if the landfill was attracting birds that were a threat to aircraft safety, the strike data from the airport should reflect that risk. Gulls are the group of birds that are attracted to the landfill and could pose a threat to aircraft using the Stockton Airport. The 45 reported strikes (Table 5) are examined in the following paragraphs. Twenty-seven of the strikes involved identified birds that were not gulls. A twentyeighth strike involved a gull carcass that was found on the airport on 28 October 2000; it was assumed to have been struck by an aircraft. Of the 17 strikes that involved unknown birds, 8 involved small birds that could not have been gulls. Of the 9 remaining strikes, 4 involved medium or large unknown birds and 5 involved unknown bird or bat. In theory, any of these 9 strikes could have involved gulls. Two of the four incidents involving birds of unknown size involved military aircraft in June This is a period when gulls are not present in the Stockton area; thus these two strikes undoubtedly did not involve gulls. A third strike occurred at night (8 April 2013) when gulls have returned to the coast. A fourth strike occurred on 8 October 1991 when a military KC135 struck a bird on its landing roll at SCK. It is possible that the bird may have December 2013

16 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California Table 5. Reported bird strikes at Stockton Metropolitan Airport; (Data downloaded from FAA Wildlife Strike Database.) Date Airport Airline Aircraft Bird Species 12/13/2013 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Red-tailed Hawk 11/19/2013 Stockton Metro Business C-340 Red-tailed Hawk 11/19/2013 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Rock Pigeon 10/15/2013 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown European Starling 06/20/2013 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Unknown bird-small 04/08/2013 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Unknown bird 02/22/2013 Stockton Metro Military C-12 Unknown bird or bat 12/02/2012 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Unknown bird-small 02/23/2012 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Western Meadowlark 02/07/2012 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Horned Lark 01/24/2012 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Burrowing Owl 12/31/2011 Stockton Metro Business BE-400 BJET Unknown bird 12/05/2011 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Horned Lark 11/18/2011 Stockton Metro Government Lockheed C-130 Western Meadowlark 09/15/2011 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Turkey Vulture 07/30/2011 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Barn Owl 06/28/2011 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Barn Owl 05/28/2011 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Horned Lark 05/27/2011 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 American Kestrel 04/18/2011 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Red-tailed hawk 02/15/2011 Stockton Metro Privately Owned C-414 White-tailed kite 01/02/2011 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-83 Unknown bird-small 12/20/2010 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Barn owl 08/02/2010 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Tree Swallow 01/16/2010 Stockton Metro Business PA-46 Malibu Unknown bird - large 12/28/2009 Stockton Metro Business Learjet-45 Unknown bird - medium 12/15/2008 Stockton Metro Government Lockheed C-130 Unknown bird - small 09/09/2008 Stockton Metro Business Citation X Unknown bird - small 08/09/2008 Stockton Metro Business BE-400 BJET Unknown bird - small 01/23/2008 Stockton Metro Allegiant Air MD-80 Unknown bird - medium 08/17/2006 Stockton Metro Military T-6A Black vulture 06/19/2006 Stockton Metro Military KC-10A Unknown bird or bat 06/08/2006 Stockton Metro Military C-130H Unknown bird or bat 08/15/2003 Stockton Metro Business Citation X Hawks 05/10/2001 Stockton Metro Military KC-135E Unknown bird - small 11/20/2000 Stockton Metro Business BE-90 King Unknown bird - small 11/02/2000 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Great horned owl 10/28/2000 Stockton Metro Unknown Unknown Gulls 04/23/2000 Stockton Metro Business Citation II Unknown bird - large 01/18/2000 Stockton Metro Military T-38A Horned lark 01/11/2000 Stockton Metro Business C-340 Sparrows 08/09/1999 Stockton Metro Business C-152 Owls 03/31/1997 Stockton Metro Unknown BD-19 Ducks 01/26/1993 Stockton Metro Business HWKR SD-125 Barn owl 10/08/1991 Stockton Metro Military KC-135R Unknown bird or bat December 2013

17 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California been a gull resting on the airport runway. The fifth strike involved a business jet on its landing roll on 31 December The flight crew reported the strike at the time and must have seen the bird. Had it been a gull, it likely would have been reported as such or at least as a medium or large bird. A runway check was performed immediately after the incident but no carcass was found, again suggesting that a gull was not involved. There were two strikes reportedly involving large birds and two involving birds of medium size. There was no information on the species involved although it should be noted that gulls are fairly easy to identify as gulls, if they are seen. Of the two incidents involving large birds, the first occurred on 23 April 2000 when most gulls have left the Stockton area. This involved a Cessna Citation II jet that struck a bird at 2000 ft while on climbout from Runway 29. The aircraft was west of the airport at the time. It made a precautionary landing with a small amount of damage. Given the time of year and the altitude of the strike, it is unlikely that a gull was involved. The second strike of an unknown large bird occurred on 16 January 2010 and involved a single-engine Piper 46 Malibu aircraft that was at an elevation of 2500 ft, 8-10 miles west of SCK on climbout from Runway 29. Given the altitude, it is unlikely that a gull was involved and given the location, it is unlikely that a bird from the landfill, which is east of the airport, was involved. The two incidents involving unknown birds of medium size are discussed in this paragraph. The first involved an MD-80 twin-engine passenger jet that struck a bird at 400 ft while still over the airport on climbout from Runway 29R on 23 January The pilot advised of the strike and continued on his flight with no damage to the aircraft. The second incident involved a Learjet 45, a small twin-engine business jet. The aircraft was on approach to Runway 29R in rain and fog on 28 December It broke out of the clouds and struck a bird over the runway. There was no damage and the strike had no effect on the flight. In conclusion, of the 45 strike reports from Stockton Metropolitan Airport beginning in 1990, only one definitely involved a gull (carcass only) and three others might have involved gulls. Even allowing for significant under-reporting of bird strikes, four strikes at SCK in over 24 years with no damage reported indicates that the uncontrolled Forward Landfill was not posing a significant threat to aircraft using the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Twenty-three of the reported bird strikes at SCK occurred since the gull control program was instituted at Forward Landfill. These strikes involved Barn Owls (3), a Burrowing Owl, a White-tailed Kite, Red-tailed Hawks (3), a Turkey Vulture, an American Kestrel, Horned Larks (3), Western Meadowlarks (2), a Rock Pigeon, an European Starling, unidentified small birds (4), and two unidentified birds. No gulls were involved and none of the birds struck were attracted to the area by the landfill. Conclusions The studies reported here were designed to assess whether the gull control program at the Forward Landfill continued to be effective in eliminating any hazard to aircraft caused by the attraction of birds to the landfill. The control program continued to be virtually completely effective at preventing gulls from feeding at, or otherwise using, the Forward Landfill. This was a huge reduction from the estimated 3,000 gulls that were present at the Forward Landfill in March December 2013

18 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California 2010 when the pilot control program began. Observations at North County Landfill and Foothill Landfill indicated that large numbers of gulls continued to feed at these partially controlled landfills. The study reported here has documented the continued complete effectiveness of the gull control program at Forward Landfill. The program is not experimental but rather it is fullyoperational using control techniques that are well-established and are used operationally and effectively at several landfills. The conversion of the Forward Landfill to a fully-controlled facility will insure that no bird hazard is created by the landfill in the future. Addendum Landfill staff noted that gulls appeared in the Stockton area on 24 July of To insure that a hazard to aircraft was not created, Greg Prindle, LGL s independent monitor was retained to provide gull control using remote-controlled model aircraft. He provided control on 7 days between 27 July and 14 August. The numbers of gulls was small with a maximum of 16 at one time. Control was maintained using the model aircraft. References Davis, R.A Assessment of the effectiveness of the bird control program at the Forward Landfill, Manteca, California Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON, for Forward Landfill, Inc., Manteca, CA. 26 p. Davis, R.A Demonstration of the continued effectiveness of the bird control program at the Forward Landfill, Manteca, California Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON, for Forward Landfill, Inc., Manteca, CA. 24 p. Davis, R.A. and B. Hixon Night disposal of municipal solid waste at the ACUA Landfill 156 month report: 15 December 1997 to 14 December Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON, for the Atlantic County Utilities Authority, Egg Harbor Township, NJ. 174 p December 2013

19 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California APPENDICES December 2013

20 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1. Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Oct 2012 Fri 26 FS gull sp. 2 and 1 dispersed by falcon Sat 27 FS gull sp. 20 and 1 dispersed by falcon Mon 29 FS gull sp. 7 flocks dispersed by falcon and 1 by pyro Tues 30 FS gull sp. 2 singles controlled by falcon; flock of 26 flew past Wed 31 FS gull sp. 1 and 2 dispersed by falcon Nov 2012 Thurs 1 FS gull sp. 2 and 3 dispersed by falcon; rest were fly-bys Fri 2 FS gull sp. 13 and 1 dispersed by falcons; 5, 3 and 1 were fly-bys Sat 3 FS gull sp. 6 and 4 dispersed by falcon; 1, 7, 17, 15 and 1 were fly-bys Mon 5 FS gull sp. 13, 13, 1 and 2 dispersed by falcon; 3, 3, 7 and 4 were fly-bys Tues 6 FS gull sp. 11 and 1 dispersed by falcon; flock of 11 flew past Wed 7 FS gull sp. 1 and 20 dispersed by falcon; flocks of 2, 12 and 1 were fly-bys Thurs 8 FS gull sp. 10 flocks controlled by falcons and 6 by pyros - very windy; 9 flocks were fly-bys Fri 9 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (71 birds) controlled by falcons; 5 flocks (121 birds) were fly-bys Sat 10 FS gull sp. 5 and 8 dispersed by falcon; flocks of 14, 7, 7, 25 and 13 were fly-bys Mon 12 FS gull sp. 10 flocks (127 birds) controlled by falcons and 6 (52) by pyros; rest were fly-bys Tues 13 FS gull sp. flocks of 3 and 3 were flybys Wed 14 FS gull sp. flocks of 3 and 2 dispersed by falcon; flock of 3 was a fly-by Thurs 15 FS gull sp. flocks of 1 and 8 dispersed by falcon; two singles were fly-bys Fri 16 FS gull sp. flocks of 1, 6, 50, 10, and 8 dispersed by falcons; flock of 3 by pyro; 1,3,3 and 60 fly-bys Sat 17 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (143 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (117) controlled by pyro; 304 fly-bys Mon 19 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (37 birds) dispersed by falcon; 6 (37) by pyros; 5 flocks (17 birds) fly-bys Tues 20 FS gull sp. 6 flocks (13 birds) dispersed by falcon; 2 (11) by pyros; 6 flocks (23 birds) fly-bys Wed 21 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (18 birds) dispersed by falcon; 1 (10) by pyros; 8 flocks (63 birds) fly-bys Thurs 22 FS gull sp. Flock of 3 dispersed by falcon; 5 flocks (31 birds) were fly-bys Fri 23 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (19 birds) dispersed by falcon; 4 flocks (13) by pyros; 2 flocks (6 birds) fly-bys Sat 24 FS No gulls present. Fog Mon 26 FS gull sp. 6 flocks (31 birds) dispersed by falcon; 3 flocks (25) by pyros; 2 flocks (21 birds) fly-bys

21 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1 (continued). Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Tues 27 FS gull sp. Two single birds controlled by pyro; 2 flocks (3 birds) were fly-bys Wed 28 FS gull sp. 10 flocks (126 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (95) by pyros; 8 flocks (44) were fly-bys Thurs 29 FS gull sp. 13 flocks (72 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (3) by pyros; 5 flocks (33) were fly-bys Fri 30 FS gull sp. 1 flock (2) controlled by falcon; 21 flocks (179) by pyros; 2 flocks (16) were fly-bys - rain Dec 2012 Sat 1 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (133 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (9) by pyros; 2 flocks (8) were fly-bys Mon 3 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (110 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (26) by pyros; 4 flocks (39) were fly-bys Tues 4 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (7 birds) controlled by falcon; 5 flocks (15 birds) were fly-bys Wed 5 FS gull sp. 16 flocks (169 birds) controlled by pyros; 3 flocks (27) were fly-bys. Heavy rain Thurs 6 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (23 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (3) by pyros; 1 flock (1) was a fly-by Fri 7 FS gull sp. 6 flocks (18 birds) were all fly-bys Sat 8 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (20 birds) controlled by pyros. Weather was foggy Mon 10 FS gull sp. 1 flock of 3 controlled by falcon; 1 flock or 2 was a fly-by. Foggy Tues 11 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (6 birds) were both fly-bys Wed 12 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (4 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (5) by pyros; 2 flocks (3) were fly-bys Thurs 13 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (5 birds) controlled by pyros. Weather was foggy Fri 14 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (7 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (11 birds) were fly-bys Sat 15 FS gull sp. 1 flock (2 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (2 birds) was a fly-by Mon 17 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (24 birds) controlled by falcon; 12 flocks (33) by pyros; 3 flocks (9) were fly-bys Tues 18 FS gull sp. 1 flock (2 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (2 birds) were fly-bys Wed 19 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (2 birds) were both fly-bys Thurs 20 FS no gulls seen Fri 21 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (4 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (16) by pyros; 10 flocks (33) were fly-bys Sat 22 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (23 birds) controlled by falcon; 7 flocks (91) by pyros; 3 flocks (38) were fly-bys Mon 24 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (47 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (13) by pyros; 6 flocks (46) were fly-bys Wed 26 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (76 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (12) by pyros; 1 flock (3) was a fly-by Thurs 27 FS gull sp. 1 flock (3 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (8) controlled by pyros. Foggy Fri 28 FS gull sp. 1 flock (4 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (14) by pyros; 5 flocks (13) were fly-bys Sat 29 FS gull sp. 1 flock (1 bird) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1) by pyros; 2 flocks (7) were fly-bys Mon 31 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (28 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (4) by pyros; 4 flocks (18) were fly-bys

22 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1 (continued). Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Jan 2013 Wed 2 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (15 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (2) by pyros; 2 flocks (9) were fly-bys Thurs 3 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (6 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (2 birds) were fly-bys Fri 4 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1 bird) was a fly-by Sat 5 FS gull sp. Single gull controlled by falcon Mon 7 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (34 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (11) by pyros; 2 flocks (12) were fly-bys Tues 8 FS gull sp. Single gull controlled by falcon Wed 9 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (8 birds) controlled by pyros; 2 flocks (3 birds) were fly-bys Thurs 10 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (6 birds) controlled by falcon Fri 11 FS gull sp. 1 flock (2 birds) controlled by pyros; 2 flocks (6) were fly-bys Sat 12 FS gull sp. 1 flock (2 birds) was a fly-by Mon 14 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (70 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1 bird) was a fly-by Tues 15 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (6 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (3 birds) were fly-bys Wed 16 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (14 birds) controlled by falcon Thurs 17 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (7 birds) controlled by falcon Fri 18 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (27 birds) controlled by falcon Sat 19 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (12 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1 bird) was a fly-by Mon 21 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (20 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1) by pyros; 4 flocks (25) were fly-bys Tues 22 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (14 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (2 birds) were fly-bys Wed 23 FS gull sp. 1 flock (4 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (7 birds) were fly-bys Thurs 24 FS gull sp. 8 flocks (45 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (19) by pyros; 2 flocks (7) were fly-bys Fri 25 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (6 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (18 birds) were fly-bys Sat 26 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (5 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (14 birds) were fly-bys Mon 28 FS gull sp. 15 flocks (113 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (8) by pyros; 7 flocks (32) were fly-bys Tues 29 FS gull sp. 1 flock (1 bird) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (3) by pyros; 4 flocks (22) were fly-bys Wed 30 FS gull sp. 1 flock (1 bird) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (31) were fly-bys Thurs 31 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 birds) controlled by falcon Feb 2013 Fri 1 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (7 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (15) were fly-bys Sat 2 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (17 birds) controlled by falcon; 7 flocks (57) were fly-bys

23 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1 (continued). Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Mon 4 FS gull sp. 11 flocks (53 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (8) by pyros; 4 flocks (9) were fly-bys Tues 5 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (27 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (3) by pyros; 5 flocks (35) were fly-bys Wed 6 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (6 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (5) were fly-bys Thurs 7 FS gull sp. 9 flocks (21 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (4) were fly-bys Fri 8 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (32 birds) controlled by falcon; 1 flock (1) by pyros; 4 flocks (15) were fly-bys Sat 9 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (96 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (45) were fly-bys Mon 11 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (13 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (13) by pyros; 7 flocks (59) were fly-bys Tues 12 FS gull sp. 9 flocks (31 birds) controlled by falcon; 10 flocks (18) by pyros Wed 13 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (26 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (26) were fly-bys Thurs 14 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (25 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (116) were fly-bys Fri 15 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (78 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (14) by pyros; 4 flocks (19) were fly-bys Sat 16 FS gull sp. 1 flock (5 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (13) by pyros; 7 flocks (77) were fly-bys Mon 18 FS gull sp. 12 flocks (237 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (22) by pyros; 3 flocks (26) were fly-bys Tues 19 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (130 birds) control by falcon; 14 flocks (354) by pyros; 1 flock (12) was a fly-by Wed 20 FS gull sp. 9 flocks (57 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (15) by pyros; 6 flocks (63) were fly-bys Thurs 21 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (26 birds) controlled by falcon; 5 flocks (33) by pyros; 3 flocks (24) were fly-bys Fri 22 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (32 birds) controlled by falcon; 5 flocks (28) by pyros; 4 flocks (40) were fly-bys Sat 23 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (10 birds) controlled by falcon; 3 flocks (27) by pyros; 1 flock (8) was a fly-by Mon 25 FS gull sp. 11 flocks (99 birds) control by falcon; 17 flocks (176) by pyros; 14 flocks (63) were fly-bys Tues 26 FS gull sp. 11 flocks (26 birds) controlled by falcon; 6 flocks (10) by pyros; 4 flocks (34) were fly-bys Wed 27 FS gull sp. 17 flocks (125 birds) control by falcon; 6 flocks (19) by pyros; 13 flocks (56) were fly-bys Thurs 28 FS gull sp. 10 flocks (115 birds) control by falcon; 3 flocks (4) by pyros; 9 flocks (42) were fly-bys Mar 2013 Fri 1 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (73 birds) control by falcon; 4 flocks (37) by pyros; 25 flocks (197) were fly-bys Sat 2 FS gull sp. 12 flocks (176 birds) control by falcon; 7 flocks (54) by pyros; 7 flocks (64) were fly-bys Mon 4 FS gull sp. 6 flocks (124 birds) control by falcon; 7 flocks (30) by pyros; 7 flocks (69) were fly-bys Tues 5 FS gull sp. 1 flock (1 bird) control by falcon; 6 flocks (10) by pyros; 5 flocks (16) were fly-bys Wed 6 FS gull sp. 13 flocks (77 birds) control by falcon; 5 flocks (10) by pyros; 15 flocks (90) were fly-bys

24 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1 (continued). Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Thurs 7 FS gull sp. 8 flocks (33 birds) control by falcon; 2 flocks (7) by pyros; 18 flocks (166) were fly-bys Fri 8 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (10 birds) control by falcon; 3 flocks (3) by pyros; 7 flocks (32) were fly-bys Sat 9 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (11 birds) control by falcon; 1 flock (4) by pyros; 11 flocks (74) were fly-bys Mon 11 FS gull sp. 9 flocks (49 birds) control by falcon; 13 flocks (45) by pyros; 6 flocks (31) were fly-bys Tues 12 FS gull sp. 8 flocks (41 birds) control by falcon; 8 flocks (13) by pyros; 13 flocks (53) were fly-bys Wed 13 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (10 birds) control by falcon; 1 flock (7) by pyros; 3 flocks (14) were fly-bys Thurs 14 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (12 birds) controlled by falcon; 4 flocks (16) were fly-bys Fri 15 FS gull sp. 10 flocks (62 birds) control by falcon; 4 flocks (6) by pyros; 13 flocks (125) were fly-bys Sat 16 FS gull sp. 8 flocks (74 birds) controlled by falcon; 9 flocks (63) were fly-bys Mon 18 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (52 birds) control by falcon; 4 flocks (11) by pyros; 8 flocks (48) were fly-bys Tues 19 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (13 birds) control by falcon; 1 flock (1) by pyros; 6 flocks (33) were fly-bys Wed 20 FS gull sp. 6 flocks (10 birds) controlled by falcon; 7 flocks (70) were fly-bys Thurs 21 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (2 birds) controlled by falcon; 8 flocks (53) were fly-bys Fri 22 FS gull sp. 1 flock (12 birds) controlled by falcon; 7 flocks (43) were fly-bys Sat 23 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (7 birds) controlled by falcon; 5 flocks (52) were fly-bys Mon 25 FS gull sp. 16 flocks (68 birds) control by falcon; 11 flocks (74) by pyros; 4 flocks (12) were fly-bys Tues 26 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (29 birds) controlled by falcon; 7 flocks (18) were fly-bys Wed 27 FS gull sp. 1 gull flew by Thurs 28 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (127 birds) controlled by falcon; 2 flocks (8) were fly-bys Fri 29 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (5 birds) flew by Sat 30 FS gull sp. 1 gull flew by Apr 2013 Mon 1 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (22 birds) control by falcon; 1 flock (6) by pyros; 3 flocks (7) were fly-bys Tues 2 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 birds) control by falcon; 2 flocks (2) by pyros; 1 flock (4) was a fly-by Wed 3 FS gull sp. 3 flocks (4 birds) control by falcon; 2 flocks (30) were fly-bys Thurs 4 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 biirds) controlled by pyros Fri 5 FS gull sp. a single gull controlled by falcon Sat 6 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 birds) were fly-bys Mon 8 FS gull sp. 5 flocks (7 birds) controlled by pyros; 1 flock (2) was a fly-by

25 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 1 (concluded). Summary of Daily Falconry Logs Forward Landfill. Total Peak Date Obs # of # of # of flocks gulls gulls Species Notes Tues 9 FS gull sp. 7 flocks (58 birds) control by falcon; 2 flocks (8) by pyros; 2 flocks (7) were fly-bys Wed 10 FS gull sp. 2 flocks (3 birds) control by falcon; 1 flock (3) was a fly-by Thurs 11 FS gull sp. 4 flocks (8 birds) were fly-bys Fri 12 FS no gulls seen all day Sat 13 FS no gulls seen all day

26 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 2. Results of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill Date Time of # of # of # of Survey hours control gulls Species Notes events Oct 2012 Mon 1 GP 06:30-12: CA 28 fly East; 21 from W controlled by glider; no feeding Tues 2 GP 06:30-11: CA flocks 20 and 42 controlled by gliders; no feeding Wed 3 GP 06:30-12: CA flocks of 12, 14, 2 and 4 controlled by gliders; no feeding Thurs 4 GP 06:30-12: CA flocks of 1 and 1 controlled by gliders - no feeding; flocks of 2 and 13 flew by Fri 5 GP 06:30-12: CA 1 gull controlled - no feeding; flock of 3 fly by Mon 8 GP 06:30-12: CA flocks of 5, 4, 2, 5 and 28 controlled by gliders; no feeding Tues 9 GP 06:30-12: CA flocks of 8 and 10 controlled by gliders - no feeding; one flock of 2 flew by Wed 10 GP 06:30-12: CA flocks of 2, 7 and 4 controlled by gliders - no feeding; flock of 12 fly by Falconry Control Program began on October 15 Thurs 18 GP 08:00-11: CA flock of 3 controlled by falcon; flock of 2 fly by to E Wed 24 GP 09:00-12: CA flocks of 1 and 4 controlled by pyros; flock of 2 fly by from W Nov 2012 Fri 2 GP 12:00-15: WE Flock of 2 fly E Wed 7 GP 09:00-12: CA One flies by site Fri 9 GP 12:30-15: No gulls seen Sat 10 GP 09:00-12: CA 2 flocks of 2 fly by Tues 13 GP 11:00-14: CA One group of 3 flies north of LF heading E Thurs 15 GP 13:00-16: No gulls seen Sun 18 GP 09:00-12: No gulls seen Tues 20 GP 12:00-15: No gulls seen Sat 24 GP 9:00-12: CA 1 gull lands for 20 sec and flies off; Flocks of 3 and 2 fly past site heading E Dec 2012 Mon 3 GP 13:00-16: CA One flock of 3 - controlled by falconer; 3 flocks (28,10,12) fly W, N of site - no control Thurs 6 GP 09:00-12: CA A pair scared off with a whistler Mon 10 GP 12:00-15: CA A pair scared off by falcon. Gulls (20) attracted to prison construction site to north of LF

27 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 2 (continued). Results of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill Date Time of # of # of # of Survey hours control gulls Species Notes events Thurs 13 GP 08:00-11: CA 2 groups (6 and 2) fly past the LF site. 40 gulls attracted to dumpsters at prison site Fri 14 GP 14:00-17: CA 3 circle and then fly off Sun 16 GP 09:00-12: CA 2 on ground for 20 min; 4 circle for 7 min, then fly E; 2 circle for 10 min and then fly off Mon 17 GP 09:00-12: CA 1 gull comes from N, circles, and leaves Thurs 20 GP 13:00-16: No gulls seen Fri 21 GP 13:00-16: CA Two groups (2 and 3) circle briefly (4 and 7 min) and then fly off; One flies over to NE Mon 24 GP 09:00-12: CA Circle once - from prison dumpsters Thurs 27 GP 10:00-13: CA One gull from prison dumpsters scared off by one whistler Jan 2013 Thurs 3 GP 09:00-12: CA Controlled by falconer Fri 4 GP 13:30-16: CA 12 gulls from W fly into prison site. 2 gulls from prison land at Forward for 2 min, leave Mon 7 GP 08:00-11: No gulls seen or heard in heavy fog Thurs 10 GP 11:30-14: CA A flock of 4 controlled by falconer; Two approach from prison site, circle 4 min then return Mon 14 GP 10:00-13: CA Two flocks of 3 pass over heading E; A flock of 20 circles west of the LF site and leaves Thurs 17 GP 07:00-10: CA Two flocks (6 and 5) pass by heading East Sat 19 GP 08:00-11: CA Fog heavy. One flock of 3 passes by Mon 21 GP 13:00-16: Over 200 gulls at the dumpsters at the prison construction site Thurs 24 GP 09:00-12: CA Two flocks (3 and 6) fly by heading East Mon 28 GP 08:00-11: CA Group of 2 controlled by whistler; small flocks heading E, north of LF; 30 at prison site Thurs 31 GP 11:00-14: No gulls seen Feb 2013 Mon 4 GP 08:00-11: CA Flocks of 8, 2, 4 controlled by falcon (1) and pyros (2); Flock of 4 flies past to E, N of LF

28 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 2 (continued). Results of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill Date Time of # of # of # of Survey hours control gulls Species Notes events Thurs 7 GP 09:00-12: CA 3 gulls feed for 5 min and again; 3 gulls controlled by falcon; 2 gulls circle and leave Mon 11 GP 08:00-11: CA A pair and two single gulls controlled by pyros; a flock of 3 circled and flew away on own Thurs 14 GP 09:00-12: CA Flock of 12 controlled by pyros; two flocks of 8 flew past without circling Sat 16 GP 10:00-13: No gulls seen Mon 18 GP 08:00-11: CA Flocks of 2, 24 and 45 arrived from S, controlled by pyros; flock of 38 controlled by falcon Thurs 21 GP 10:00-13: No gulls seen Mon 25 GP 10:00-13: CA Flocks of 6 and 1 controlled by pyros; flock of 7 controlled by falcon; two groups of 2 left Thurs 28 GP 08:00-11: CA Flocks of 4, 2 and 6 controlled by pyros; flocks of 6 and 1 fly by without circlingno control Mar 2013 Tues 5 GP 12:00-15: CA Flocks of 1 and 2 circle over site and then fly off; no control needed Thurs 7 GP 09:00-12: CA Flocks of 2, 1 and 1 controlled with pyros; flock of 2 circles at 400 ft and then moves off Tues 12 GP 10:00-13: CA Groups of 2 and 1 controlled by whistlers Mon 18 GP 13:00-16: CA Group of 2 controlled with pyro; Group of 2 land for 2 min - no feed; 1 circles, flies off Thurs 21 GP 10:00-13: No gulls seen Mon 25 GP 09:00-12: CA Flock of 6 controlled by falcon; flocks of 12 and 8 controlled by pyros; flock of 4 flies over Tues 26 GP 11:00-14: No gulls seen Thurs 28 GP 12:00-15: No gulls seen Sat 30 GP 10:00-13: No gulls seen Apr 2013 Tues 2 GP 12:00-15: CA 2 fly W north of LF; 1 flies over LF to prison area Mon 8 GP 10:00-13: CA Groups of 2 and 1 circle but leave on own toward prison area Sat 13 Last Day of Gull Control by Falconer Mon 15 Control with Gliders Begins

29 Bird Control Program Forward Landfill Manteca, California December 2013 Appendix 2 (concluded). Results of independent surveys of the Forward Landfill Date Time of # of # of # of Survey hours control gulls Species Notes events Mon 15 GP 06:00-12: CA Flocks of 2, 4 and 6 pass over heading E; Group of 2 controlled by glider Tues 16 GP 08:00-11: No gulls seen Wed 17 GP 06:00-12: CA Flocks of 2 and 2 scared off by glider; Flocks of 4, 1 and 6 flew past LF headed E Thurs 18 GP 06:00-12: CA Flocks of 4,2,,4 and 8 scared off by glider; Flock of 2 may have fed after control ended Fri 19 GP 06:00-12: CA/WE Flocks of 6, 2, 4, 1, 3 and 4 scared off by glider; Flock of 4 circles, flies N to prison site Tues 23 GP 06:00-12: CA Flocks of 2, 6 and 12 controlled by gliders; Flock of 4 passed over and head to E Wed 24 GP 06:00-13: CA Flocks of 4, 2 and 3 scared off by glider; two flew past LF heading E at 10:07 Thurs 25 GP 06:00-13: CA Flocks of 2, 3 and 1 scared off by glider; Flock of 4 passes LF heading E at 11:30 Fri 26 GP 06:00-12: CA/WE Flocks of 1 and 2 scared off by glider; Flock of 2 passes LF heading E at 06:22 Mon 29 GP 06:00-12: CA Flocks of 4, 1 and 4 scared off by glider Tues 30 GP 06:00-12: CA Flock of 2 scared off with glider and flock of 4 controlled by pyro; Single flies past at 07:04 May 2013 Wed 1 GP 06:00-12: CA Flock of 4 CA juveniles scared off by glider; Group of 2 pass over without circling-06:48 Thurs 2 GP 06:00-12: CA Flock of 5 scared off by glider; Group of 2 pass over without circling - 10:00 Fri 3 GP 06:00-12: CA Single adult CA controlled by glider and single passes over without stopping at 07:42 Tues 7 GP 06:00-12: CA Single adult CA controlled by glider; Group of 2 passes over without stopping at 08:00 Wed 8 GP 06:00-12: No gulls seen Thurs 9 GP 06:00-12: No gulls seen Fri 10 GP 06:00-12: CA Group of 2 CA adults scared off by glider Mon 13 GP 06:00-12: No Gulls seen Tues 14 GP 06:00-12: CA Group of 2 juvenile CA scared off by glider Wed 15 GP 06:00-12: No gulls seen Wed 15 Last Day of Gull Control using Gliders

30 May 3, 2013 Erin Fanning Environmental Manager Forward, Inc S. Austin Road Manteca, CA Re: Biological Surveys at the Forward Landfill, San Joaquin County Dear Erin: The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of biological surveys conducted by WRA, Inc. (WRA) at and adjacent to the Forward Landfill (hereafter landfill) north of the City of Manteca in San Joaquin County, California, on April 30, Specifically, WRA conducted the following surveys: A habitat assessment and survey for burrowing owl (BUOW; Athene cunicularia) in the landfill s WMU FU-13 area (the location of new landfill cell to be constructed). A BUOW habitat assessment and survey in the landfill s Expansion Area, located to the immediate south and west of the landfill site. A survey for gulls (family Laridae) at the landfill. All observations were made by WRA wildlife biologist Jason Yakich. The individual field efforts are each discussed in more detail below. WMU FU-13 area WMU FU-13 is a roughly square-shaped area of land within the northeastern portion of the landfill, approximately 25 acres in size, where construction of a new cell for waste storage is planned (Figure 1, attached). The area is surrounded entirely by land that has been modified for landfill purposes and is highly disturbed. The current active face of the landfill (area where trash is being deposited and consolidated) was located within 1,000 feet to the west at the time of the survey. Burrowing owl background BUOW is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly Department of Fish and Game) Species of Special Concern, as well as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern. This species inhabits open areas with sparse or non-existent tree or shrub canopies; typical habitat is annual or perennial grassland, although human-modified areas such as agricultural land and airports are also used. BUOW is dependent on burrowing mammals to provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting. In

31 northern California, BUOW is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Manmade substrates such as pipes or debris piles may also be occupied in place of burrows. In the San Joaquin Valley, the species is both a winter visitor and a year-round resident; individuals of the latter group generally show strong site fidelity. The greater nesting period is from February through July. Prior to conducting the survey, CDFW s Natural Diversity Database and ebird.com (a publiclyaccessible online bird observation database) were searched to determine the nearest documented BUOW occurrence(s) to the landfill. According to the Natural Diversity Database, the nearest documented BUOW occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles to the north of the landfill, and there are several other occurrences within 4.0 miles to the north and northwest. The nearest ebird observation is approximately 1.9 miles to the northwest, at the Stockton Airport (also reflected in the Natural Diversity Database). Methods Survey methodology was informed by guidelines developed by the Burrowing Owl Consortium and adopted by CDFW, corresponding both to habitat assessment and a take avoidance survey (pre-construction survey) as described in the updated 2012 protocol 1. The area to be surveyed was indicated by markers already installed in the field, and maps provided by landfill personnel. From 9:15 to 10:30 AM, WMU FU-13 and surrounding areas within 200 feet were traversed on foot to determine the general suitability for BUOW, to locate burrows (or other suitable substrates), and to search for BUOW or sign of its presence. BUOW sign consists of feathers, regurgitated pellets and/or whitewash (feces stains), and is typically found near the entrances to occupied burrows. BUOW foraging perches often show these characteristics as well. All burrows and comparable refugia found were carefully examined for signs of BUOW occupation. Results No BUOW or indication of this species presence was observed during the survey. Burrows that appeared to be constructed by ground squirrels were observed in two portions of the surveyed area, specifically near the northern and western perimeters along respective manmade slopes that are situated below steeper, barren graded slopes currently buffering the active landfill area to the west. Approximately 40 burrows in total were noted. Both areas where burrow clusters were observed were grown to dense ruderal vegetation (weeds, etc.) that was at least two feet in height throughout and often greater than five feet. Many of the burrows in both areas appeared dilapidated, and no ground squirrels were observed throughout the survey. The remainder of the WMU FU-13 area consisted nearly entirely of a flat, graded area with heavily compacted fill material. The greater WMU FU-13 area is unlikely to support BUOW for the following reasons: Most of the area consists of heavily compacted and disturbed fill material with no burrows or similar refugia present. The very limited areas where burrows are present feature dense weedy vegetation that is at least two feet in height, effectively precluding utilization by BUOW. 1 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Game. March 7,

32 Expansion Area The Expansion Area as defined here is the parcel of land immediately south and west of the current landfill that is roughly square-shaped and approximately 170 acres in size (Figure 1). The Expansion Area is flat with an elevation comparable to surrounding, non-landfill land parcels. It is bordered by the landfill to the north and east, a canal and agricultural lands to the south, and agricultural lands to the west. Methods Methodology used for the Expansion Area was similar to that of the WMU FU-13 area. The Expansion Area was traversed both by vehicle and on foot, from 10:40 AM to 12:15 PM. All burrows and similar refugia were carefully examined for any indication of BUOW presence. Adjacent roads and canals on the surrounding land parcels (either under active cultivation, or part of the landfill) were also examined visually. Results No BUOW or indication of this species presence was observed during the survey. Virtually the entire Expansion Area is currently under active row-crop cultivation or in a state of harvest/immediate post-harvest (harvest activities were occurring during the survey). Dirt roads around the perimeter and through the center (running east-west) and small associated areas with chemical tanks, piping and similar structures are the only portions of the Expansion Area that are not cultivated and/or in a post-harvest state, and thus have any potential to support BUOW due to substrate suitability and lack of vegetation. No ground squirrels or burrows were observed along the dirt roads and associated, small nondisced/cultivated areas within the vast majority of the Expansion Area, as well as the surrounding parcels. Ground squirrel burrows were observed only in the northwestern corner of the Expansion Area, adjacent to an artificial water basin lying immediately to the north. Approximately 60 burrows were found directly underneath the edge of an approximately 150- foot linear strip of concrete and an associated chain-link fence separating the water basin from the Expansion Area. Many of these burrows were dilapidated, i.e., caved in or otherwise unsuitable for squirrel or owl occupation. Approximately one-third of the burrows appeared to be maintained, although no ground squirrels were observed. All burrows in the area were carefully examined; no BUOW sign was observed, and there was no indication that this species is present at the site. Furthermore, the chain link fence directly above the row of burrows limits the direction of ingress/egrees and may be a deterrent to BUOW. No other potentially suitable BUOW refugia were noted in the Expansion Area with the exception of some loose metal pipes on the central-eastern perimeter; these pipes were examined and were empty. Recommendations WRA concludes that BUOW is not currently present within the Expansion Area, and has not observed BUOW or sign of the species during previous surveys conducted there and in other portions of the landfill site in 2007, 2009, 2010 and However, additional surveys may be required prior to major land use alterations within the Expansion Area. WRA recommends that the Expansion Area should continue to be regularly disced and/or cultivated, which will preclude BUOW occupation over most of the site. In the northwestern corner of the Expansion Area where ground squirrel burrows are currently present, vegetation along the chain link fence should be planted or allowed to grow to a height of approximately 36" 3

33 above the ground per recommendations in Section of the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. Vegetation that is maintained in this state will preclude BUOW presence. Gull survey Methods The survey was conducted from the high vantage point in the southern portion of the site where no active landfill activities are currently taking place, and most previous gull surveys by WRA have been conducted (Figure 1). Nearly all of the landfill property was visible from this area, including the active face located approximately 0.3 mile to the north. Observations were made using binoculars, a spotting scope (with 60x zooming capability) as well as the naked eye. The active face and other portions of the landfill were observed continuously from 12:30 to 2:30 PM for a total of two hours, with the primary goal of enumerating and identifying to species any gulls present. Weather conditions were favorable to the survey, with partly cloudy skies, warm temperatures (approximately 65º F) and wind less than 8.0 mph throughout the survey. All wildlife species observed at the landfill during the survey were noted. Results No gulls were observed throughout the survey, neither in association with the landfill or simply flying over the site. Five to ten blackbirds (red-winged [Agelaius phoeniceus] and/or Brewer s [Euphagus cyanocephalus]) were loafing and foraging on the ground near the active face throughout the observation period. A handful of common ravens (Corvus corax) were also observed in the vicinity of the active face. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like additional information or have questions about any of these survey efforts. Sincerely, Jason Yakich Wildlife Biologist Tel: x124 yakich@wra-ca.com Attachment: Figure 4

34 April 30, 2013 Survey Areas Forward Landfill San Joaquin County, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\16000\ \GIS\ArcMap\SurveyAreas_ mxd Feet 1,000 Date: May 2013 Map By: Derek Chan Base Source: ESRI/Bing Maps