### Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for



## USDA National Wildlife Research Center -

Staff Publications

University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 



# Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport

Personnel

Edward C. Cleary ∗ 

### Richard A. Dolbeer †

∗ Staff Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
† National Coordinator, Airports Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm usdanwrc/133

# Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports

A Manual for Airport Personnel

Prepared by 

## Edward C. Cleary

Staff Wildlife Biologist U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20591, USA 

## Richard A. Dolbeer National Coordinator, Airports Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 6100 Columbus Avenue Sandusky, OH 44870, USA

Second Edition, July 2005The Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspec tion Service, Wildlife Services, produced the second edition of this manual. The first edition was published December 1999. The U.S. Departments of Trans portation and Agriculture prohi bit discrimination in all their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marita l or family status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact one of the authoring agencies.i



### TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CHAPTERS .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................ xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................137
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND WEB SITES .......................................................139
GLOSSARY ...............................................................................................................143
ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................................149
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................151Table of Contents ii



## LIST OF CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE WILDLIFE STRIKE PROBLEM .....................1
CHAPTER 2: THE FAA NATIONAL WI LDLIFE STRIKE DATABASE FOR CIVIL AVIATION ....................................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................5
2.2 Reporting wildlife strikes ..............................................................................6
2.3 Management of the database ......................................................................6
2.4 Use of and access to information in the database .......................................7
2.5 Summary of wildlife strike records, 1990-2003 ............................................8
2.5.a Strike frequency ..........................................................................9
2.5.b Types of wildlife involved ...........................................................13
2.5.c Characteristics of strikes ...........................................................13
2.5.d Aircraft components struck and damaged .................................13
2.5.e Effects of wildlife stri kes on aircraft and flights ..........................14
2.6 Selected examples of wildlife strikes .........................................................17
2.7 Conclusions ...............................................................................................22
CHAPTER 3: AGENCIES AND ORGANI ZATIONS IMPACTING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT ON AIRPORTS ................................................23
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................23
3.2 Federal agencies .......................................................................................24
3.2.a U.S. Department of Transpor tation, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................24
3.2.a.i Mission ................................................................................24
3.2.a.ii Authority ..............................................................................24
3.2.a.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................24
3.2.a.iii.a Office of Airport Safety and Standards ......................................24
3.2.a.iii.b Wildlife hazard assessments .....................................................25
3.2.a.iii.c Wildlife hazard management plans ...........................................25
3.2.a.iii.d Advisory Circulars (150/5200 Series) ........................................25
3.2.b U.S. Department of Agricu lture, Wildlife Services .....................26
3.2.b.i Mission ................................................................................26
3.2.b.ii Authority ..............................................................................26
3.2.b.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................26
3.2.c U.S. Department Of Defense .....................................................27
3.2.c.i Mission ................................................................................27
3.2.c.ii Authority ..............................................................................27
3.2.c.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................27
3.2.d U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................28Table of Contents List of Chapters iii

3.2.d.i Mission ................................................................................28
3.2.d.ii Authority ..............................................................................28
3.2.d.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................28
3.2.e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .....................................28
3.2.e.i Mission ................................................................................28
3.2.e.ii Authority ..............................................................................28
3.2.e.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................28
3.2.e.iii.a Landfills .....................................................................................29
3.2.e.iii.b Pesticides ..................................................................................29
3.2.f U.S. Department of Interior, U. S. Fish And Wildlife Service ......29
3.2.f.i Mission ................................................................................29
3.2.f.ii Authority ..............................................................................29
3.2.f.iii Role and responsibility ........................................................30
3.3 State agencies ...........................................................................................30
3.3.a State wildlife management agencies .........................................30
3.3.b State environmental protection agencies ..................................31
3.3.b.i Landfill siting permits and inspections .................................31
3.3.b.ii Pesticide registration ...........................................................31
3.3.b.iii Pesticide applicator licensing ..............................................31
3.4 Airports ......................................................................................................31
3.4.a Airport operator .........................................................................31
3.4.b Air Traffic Control ......................................................................32
3.4.c Pilots .........................................................................................32
3.5 Bird Strike Committee - USA .....................................................................33
CHAPTER 4: FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES IMPACTING AIRPORT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ..................................35
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................35
4.2 Summary of applicable federal regulations ................................................36
4.2.a Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 ........................36
4.2.b Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 258.10 ...................36
4.2.c Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 199 ...............36
4.2.c.i Depredation permitting r equirements and procedures ........37
4.2.c.ii Standing depredation orders ...............................................37
4.2.d The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (U.S. Code 603-711; 40 Statute 755) ........................................38
4.2.e The Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, as amended (7 U.S. Code 426-426c; 46 Statute 1468) .................................38
4.2.f Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S. Code 136; Public Law 104.317) ....................39List of Chapters Table of Contents iv

4.3 Departmental policies ................................................................................39
4.3.a FAA Advisory Circulars .............................................................39
4.3.a.i 150/5200-32A. Reporting wildlife aircraft strikes ................39
4.3.a.i 150/5200-33A. Hazardous wildlif e attractants on or near airports ................................................................................39
4.3.a.ii 150/5200-34. Construction or establishment of landfills near public airports .............................................................40
4.3.b FAA, Airports Division: Airpor t Certification Program Policies and Guidance ............................................................................40
4.3.b.i Policy No. 77. Initiation of wildlife hazard assessments at airports. ...........................................................................40
4.3.b.ii Policy No. 78. Section 7 consultation on endangered or threatened species. .............................................................40
4.3.b.iii Policy No. 79. Review of airport wildlife hazard management plans. ............................................................40
4.3.b.iv Policy No. 82. Waste dis posal facility coordination. ...........41
4.3.c FAA, Airports Division, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Certalerts relating to airport wildlife management ...41
4.3.c.i Certalert No. 98-05. Grasse s attractive to hazardous wildlife .................................................................................41
4.3.c.ii Certalert No. 04-09. The relationship between FAA and USDA/WS. ..........................................................................41
4.3.c.iii Certalert No 04-16. Deer hazards to aviation and deer fencing. ...............................................................................41
4.3.d USDA, Wildlife Services Directive 2.305, Wildlife Hazards To Aviation .....................................................................................41
4.3.e Memorandum of Understanding: FAA and USDA/WS ..............42
4.3.f Interagency Memorandum of Agreement ..................................42
CHAPTER 5: RECOGNIZING HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS .....................................................................................43
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................43
5.2 ...44 Separation criteria for hazardous wildlife attract ants on or near airports

5.2.a Airports serving piston-powered aircraft ....................................44
5.2.b Airports serving turban-powered aircraft ...................................44
5.2.c Protection of approach or departure airspace ...........................45
5.3 Land-use practices that potentia lly attract hazardous wildlife ....................45
5.3.a Waste disposal operations ........................................................45
5.3.a.i Siting new municipal solid wa ste landfills subject to AIR 21 ........................................................................................45
5.3.a.ii Siting new municipal solid wa ste landfills not subject to AIR 21 .................................................................................47Table of Contents List of Chapters v

5.3.a.iii Considerations for existing waste disposal facilities within the limits of separation criteria ..................................47
5.3.b Trash transfer stations ...............................................................48
5.3.c Composting operations on or near airport property ...................48
5.3.d Underwater waste discharges ...................................................49
5.3.e Recycling centers ......................................................................49
5.3.f Construction and demolition debris facilities .............................49 5.3.g Fly ash disposal .........................................................................49
5.4 Water management facilities .....................................................................50
5.4.a Existing storm water management facilities ..............................50
5.4.b New storm water management facilities ....................................51
5.4.c Existing wastewater treatment facilities .....................................52
5.4.d New wastewater treatment facilities ..........................................52
5.4.e Artificial marshes .......................................................................52
5.4.f Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal ..............................53

5.5 Wetlands ...................................................................................................53

5.5.a Existing wetlands on or near airport property ............................53
5.5.b New airport development ..........................................................54
5.5.c Mitigation for wetland impacts from airport projects ..................54
5.5.c.i On-site mitigation of wetland functions ...............................54
5.5.c.ii Off-site mitigation of wetland functions ...............................55
5.5.c.iii Mitigation banking ...............................................................55
5.6 Dredge spoil containment areas ................................................................55
5.7 Agricultural activity ....................................................................................55
5.7.a Crop production .........................................................................55
5.7.b Livestock production ..................................................................56
5.7.c Aquaculture ...............................................................................56
5.7.d Alternative uses of agricultural land ...........................................56
5.8 Golf courses, landscaping and other land-use considerations ..................57
5.8.a Golf courses ..............................................................................57
5.8.b Landscaping and landscape maintenance ................................57
5.8.c Other hazardous wildlife attractants ..........................................58
5.9 Synergistic effects of surrounding land uses .............................................58
CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AT AIRPORTS ...........................................................................................59
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................59
6.2 Wildlife hazard assessment .......................................................................60
6.2.a Requirement for wildlife hazard assessment .............................60
6.2.b Necessary elements of a wildlife hazard assessment ...............61List of Chapters Table of Contents vi

6.2.c Duration of wildlife hazard assessment and basic survey techniques .................................................................................63
6.3 Wildlife hazard management plan .............................................................64
6.3.a Requirement for wildlife hazard management plan ...................64
6.3.b. National Environmental Policy Act review .................................65
6.3.c Necessary elements of a wild life hazard management plan. .....66
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AT AIRPORTS ................................................................................................81
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................81
7.2 Monitoring and record keeping ..................................................................82
7.2.a Hazard assessments, plans, and studies ..................................82
7.2.b Daily log of wildlife control activities ..........................................82
7.2.c Daily log of wildlife strikes .........................................................83
7.2.d Records of significant management actions taken ....................85
7.2.e Summary reports by month and year ........................................85
7.2.f Training .....................................................................................86
7.3 Assessment of wildlife hazard management plan ......................................86
7.4 Airport wildlife hazards working group .......................................................87
7.4.a Function ....................................................................................87
7.4.b Membership ...............................................................................87
7.4.c Meetings ....................................................................................88
7.4.d Meeting reports .........................................................................88

7.5 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................89
CHAPTER 8: WILDLIFE HAZARD MANA GEMENT TRAINING FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL .............................................................................................99
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................99
8.2 Training ...................................................................................................100
8.2.a Bird identification .....................................................................100
8.2.b Mammal identification ..............................................................102
8.2.c Basic life histories and behav ior of common species ..............102
8.2.d Wildlife and environment al laws and regulations .....................103
8.2.e Wildlife control techniques .......................................................104
8.2.f Record keeping and strike reporting ........................................105
8.3 Sources of training ..................................................................................106
8.4 Wildlife hazard management library ........................................................107
8.5 Field guides and reference books ...........................................................107 CHAPTER 9: WILDLIFE CONTROL STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES AT AIRPORTS ..............................................................................................111
9.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................111
9.2 Wildlife control strategies .........................................................................113Table of Contents List of Chapters vii

9.2.a Aircraft flight schedule modification .........................................114
9.2.b Habitat modification and exclusion ..........................................114
9.2.b.i Food ..................................................................................114
9.2.b.ii Cover ................................................................................115
9.2.b.iii Water ................................................................................117
9.2.b.iv Exclusion techniques ........................................................118
9.2.b.iv.a Exclusion of birds ....................................................................118
9.2.b.iv.b Exclusion of mammals .............................................................119
9.2.c Repellent techniques ...............................................................120
9.2.c.i Wildlife patrols and runway sweeps in vehicles ................121
9.2.c.ii Chemical repellents for birds ............................................121
9.2.c.iii Chemical repellents for mammals .....................................123
9.2.c.iv Audio repellents for birds ..................................................123
9.2.c.v Audio repellents for mammals ..........................................124
9.2.c.vi Visual repellents for birds ..................................................125
9.2.c.vii Visual repellents for mammals ..........................................126
9.2.c.viii Trained falcons and dogs to repel birds ............................126
9.2.c.ix Radio-controlled model aircraft to repel birds ...................126
9.2.c.x Nonlethal projectiles to repel birds ....................................127
9.2.d Wildlife removal techniques .....................................................127
9.2.d.i Capturing birds and mammals ..........................................127
9.2.d.i.a Chemical capture of birds ........................................................128
9.2.d.i.b Live-trapping birds ...................................................................128
9.2.d.i.c Chemical capture of mammals ................................................129
9.2.d.i.d Live-trapping mammals ...........................................................129
9.2.d.ii Killing birds and mammals ................................................129
9.2.d.ii.a Destroying eggs and nests ......................................................130
9.2.d.ii.b Shooting birds .........................................................................130
9.2.d.ii.c Shooting mammals ..................................................................131
9.2.d.ii.d Oral toxicants for birds .............................................................132
9.2.d.ii.e Contact toxicants for birds .......................................................132
9.2.d.ii.f Toxicants for mammals ...........................................................133 9.2.d.ii.g Fumigants for mammals ..........................................................134
9.2.d.ii.h Lethal traps for mammals ........................................................134
9.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................134
9.4 Other sources of information ...................................................................135Table of Contents viii



## LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Source of information for repor ted wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003...................................................................................................7 Table 2-2. Person filing repor t of wildlife strike to civ il aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. ........9 Table 2-3. Number of repor ted wildlife strikes to civil aircraft by type of operator, USA, 1990 –2003. ........................................................................................9 Table 2-4. Number of reported bird, mamma l, and reptile strikes to civil aircraft by USA state, including the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico (PR), USA-possessed Pacific Islands (PI), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (VI), 1990–2003. ................................................................................................10 Table 2-5. Number of reported strike s, strikes with damage, and strikes having a negative effect-on-flight (EOF) for t he five most commonly struck bird species groups and two most commonly struck mammal groups, USA, 1990–2003. ................................................................................................11 Table 2-6. Number of reported bird and ma mmal strikes to civil aircraft by month, USA, 1990–20031. ...................................................................................12 Table 2-7. Reported time of occurrence of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. ................................................................................................12 Table 2-8. Reported phase of flight at time of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. ................................................................................................13 Table 2-9. Number of reported bird strikes to civil aircraft by height (feet) above ground level (AGL), USA, 1990–2003 ........................................................14 Table 2-10. Civil aircraft components r eported as being struck and damaged by wildlife, US A, 1990–20 03...........................................................................15
Table 2-11. Number of civil aircraft with reported damage resu lting from wildlife strikes, U SA, 1990–20 03. ..........................................................................16 Table 2-12. Reported effect-on-flight (EOF ) of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. ................................................................................................16 Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. ...............................................75 Table 7-1. Example of a daily log of wildlife contro l activiti es. ....................................91 Table 7-2. Example of a Wildlife Strike Log for recording bird or other wildlife remains found within 200 feet of runway centerline that, in the judgment of wildlife control personnel, were killed as a result of interacting with an aircra ft........................................................................................................93 Table 7-3. Example of a form to prov ide monthly summary of wildlife control activiti es.....................................................................................................95 Table 7-4. Example of a form to provide annual summary of wildlife control activities derived from monthly reports (Table 7- 3). Modify each airport’s form to reflect the common control activities undertaken during the year. The data may also be pres ented graphica lly.....................................................97 Table 8-1. Ranking of 25 species groups as to relative hazard to aircraft (1=most hazardous) based on three criteria (damage, major damage, and effect-Table of Contents List of Tables ix

on-flight), a composite ranking based on all three rankings, and a relative hazard score. Data were derived from the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, January 19 90–April 20 031......................................................101Table of Contents x



## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Number of reported bird (N = 51,154) and mammal (N = 1,272) strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. An additional 67 strikes involving reptiles were also reported fo r this 14-year period. ...................................8 Figure 5-1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated , or miti gated......................................................... 46Table of Contents xi



## LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Names, Addresses, and Phone Numbers: .........................................153
Federal Aviation Administration .......................................................................155 FAA National Headquarters ..................................................................155 FAA Alaska Region Headquarters ........................................................155 FAA Central Region Headquarters .......................................................156 FAA Eastern Region Headquarters ......................................................156 FAA Great Lakes Region Headquarters ...............................................157 FAA New England R egional Headquarters ...........................................157 FAA Northwest Mountain Region Headquarters ...................................158 FAA Southern Region Headquarters ....................................................158 FAA Southwest Region Headquarters ..................................................159 FAA Western Pacific Region Headquarters ..........................................159
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services ........................................................................161 Headquarters ........................................................................................161 Operational Support Staff .....................................................................161 Eastern Region .....................................................................................161 Western Region ....................................................................................163 National Wildlife Research Center ........................................................165 NWRC Field Stations ............................................................................165 APPENDIX B: Animal Damage Contro l Act, 2 March 1931, as amended ..................167 APPENDIX C: FAA Advisory Circulars ......................................................................171 AC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes .......................................173
AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attr actants On Or Near Airports ..........179
AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Estab lishment of Landfills Near Public Airports ...............................................................................................203 AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design. Appendix 19. Minimum Distances Between Certain Airport Features And An y On-Airport Agriculture Crops. ........211 APPENDIX D: FAA, Office Of Airport Safety And Standards, Program Policies And Guidance — Airport Certific ation Program – 14 CFR 139 ........................213 Policy No. 77: Initiation of Wildlif e Hazard Assessments at Airports ................215 Airport Certification Program – 14 CFR 139 Program Policy And Guidance .................................................................................217 Policy No. 78: Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species ...............................................................................................217 Airport Certification Program - 14 CFR 139 Program Policy And Guidance .................................................................................221 Policy No. 79: Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plans .............221 Policy No. 82 Waste Disposal Facility Coordination ........................................225List of Appendicies Table of Contents xii

APPENDIX E: FAA, Office Of Airpor t Safety And Standards, Certalerts ...................229
No. 98-05: Grasses Attracti ve To Hazardous Wildlife ......................................231
No. 04-09: Relationshi p Between FAA And WS ..............................................233 No. 04-16: Deer Hazard to Aircraft and Deer Fencing .....................................237 APPENDIX F: USDA, Wildlife Services Direc tive 2.305 Wildlife Hazards To Aviation .................................................................................................................239 APPENDIX G: Memorandum Of Understanding Be tween United States Department Of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration And United States Department Of Agriculture, Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. (No. 12-34-71-0003-MOU) ...........................................243 APPENDIX H: Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Forc e, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes ......................................................................................................249
APPENDIX I: FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Ot her Wildlife Strike Report ............................265
APPENDIX J: Gull Facts For Ai rport Wildlife Control Personnel ................................271 APPENDIX K: Assessing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans At Civil Airports.........275 APPENDIX L: Aviary And Field Evaluations Of Various Wildlife Control Products And Strategies For Airports ......................................................................293 APPENDIX M: A Wetland Banking Mitigation Strategy For FAA ...............................315 APPENDIX N: Liability Issues For Airport Managers Related To Wildlife Hazards...327 APPENDIX O: Summary of Studies on Veget ation Management for North American Airfields ....................................................................................................335 Appendix P: Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.337 .............................3431



## CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION T O THE WILDLIFE STRIKE PROBLEM

Birds and aircraft are increasingly competing for ai rspace in crowded skies, as demonstrated over the threshold of runway 31R at Ferihegy Airpor t, Budapest, Hungary, 15 June 2004 (photo © Adam Samu, used with permission).

Throughout history, humans have been intrigued and inspired by the beauty of birds and their ability to fly. Birds first took to the air about 150 million years ago. Humans first began to share their airspace only 100 y ears ago. Unfortunately, when aircraft and birds attempt to use the same airspace at the same time, collisions occur. Birds are not the only wildlife problem for aircraft. Deer, coyotes, and even alligators wandering onto runways can create serious problems for departing and landing aircraft. Aircraft collisions with wildlife, also commonl y referred to as wildlife strikes, annually cost the civil aviation indus try in the USA at least $500 million in direct damage and associated costs and over 500, 000 hours of aircraft down time. Although the economic costs of wildlife strikes are extr eme, the cost in human lives lost when aircraft crash as a result of strikes best illustrates the need fo r management of the wildlif e strike problem. This manual is designed to inform airport per sonnel about the scope of the wildlife strike problem and to serve as a ready referenc e on legal authority, regulations, and the development, implementation, and evaluation of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans for airports.Introduction Chapter 1 2

The first powered flight by the Wright Brothers occurred in December 1903, and the wildlife strike problem began shortly thereafter. On 7 September 1905, the first reported bird strike, as recorded by Oliver Wright in his diary, occurred when his aircraft hit a bird (probably a red-winged blackbird) as he flew over a cornfield near Dayton Ohio. The first reported mammal strike occurred on 25 July 1909 at the start of Louis Bleriot's historic first flight across the English Channel from Les Baraques, France. During engine warm-up of his Bleriot XI aircraft, a farm dog ran into the propeller. On 3 April 1912 Calbraith Rodgers, the first person to fly acro ss the continental USA, was also the first to die as a result of a wildlife strike w hen his aircraft struck a gull along the coast of Southern California. Since those first wild life strikes, aircraft designs and performance have changed radically, and wildlife populations and air traffic have increased. As a result, at least 122 civil aircraft have been destroyed and over 255 civilian lives have been lost worldwide due to wildlife strikes from 1960 to 2004. During this same period, wildlife strikes have resulted in at least 333 military aircraft destroyed and over 150 military personnel killed.

Oliver Wright recorded the first bird strike in 1905 in Ohio, less than 2 years after the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight.

The onset of the jet age revolutionized ai r travel, but magnifi ed the wildlife strike problem. Early piston-powered aircraft were noisy and relatively slow. Wildlife could usually avoid these aircraft, and strikes that di d occur typically resulted in little or no damage. However, modern jet aircraft are fast and relatively quiet, and their engine fan blades are often more vul nerable than propellers to wild life-strike damage. When turbine-powered aircraft collide with birds or other wildlife, serious structural damage and engine failure can occur. Multiple-engi ne damage from the ingestion of flocks of birds is of particular concern as the fleet of two-engine passenger aircraft increases in the USA. In 1969, 75% of the 2,100 passenger aircraft had 3 or 4 engines. In 1998, the fleet had grown to 5,400 primarily turbine-pow ered aircraft, of which only 30% had three or four engines. By 2008, the fleet will consist of about 7,000 aircraft, and less than 10% will have three or four engines. Air travel has become commonplace in the USA. Aircraft have also assumed a vital role in tactical and logistical military operations. These factors have resulted in increased air traffic. For example, commercial air move ments in the USA increased about 3% per year between 1985 and 2004. Coincidentally, human use of the skies has increased during an extremely successful period of wildlife management in North America. Aggressive natural resource and environm ental protection programs by public and private wildlife managem ent groups have contributed to impressive increases inChapter 1 Introduction 3

populations of many large-bodied species such as alligators, cormorants, cranes, deer, geese, gulls, herons, pelicans, raptors (falc ons, hawks, eagles, and owls), vultures, and wild turkeys. At the same time, many of these species (e.g., Canada geese, coyotes, deer, and turkeys), have expanded into suburban and urban areas, including airports, and are thriving in response to protection and changes to habitats in these areas. Almost all of these species have body masse s over 4 pounds (1.8 kg), which exceed the airframe and engine certification standards for wildlife strikes. These concurrent increases in air traffic and wildlife populations contribute to an increased probability of damaging wildlife strikes. These two fact ors, combined with the increased speed, quietness, and vulnerability of modern aircraft, interact to form the basis of the wildlife strike problem that airport managers face. As a final factor, airport managers also face increased concerns about airpor t liability in the aftermath of damaging wildlife strikes (see Appendix N).
Wildlife strike probl ems at individualairports result from these abovedescribed factors interacting at the local level. The nature and magnitude of the problem an individual airport faces will depend on many factors, including air traffic type and volume, local and migratory wildlife populations, and local wildlife habitat conditions. Wildlife is attracted to an airport environment because desirable food, water, or habitat is present. The majority of wildlife strikes occur within the immediate airport environment: 74% of all strikes occur at or below 500 f eet above ground level (A GL). Eighteen of the 19 civil and military large-transport aircraft destroyed because of bird strikes between 1960 and 2004 resulted from strikes that occu rred on the airport. Therefore, most wildlife involved in strikes is using the air port or its immediate vicinity, and the most logical place to begin correcting the problem is on and near the airport.

The resident Canada goose population in the US A increased at an annual rate of 8% per year between 1980 and 2004. Notice that the tall grass does no t deter Canada geese from grazing and loafing at the airport (photo by M. Begier, USDA).

Airport sponsors and managers have a legal re sponsibility under federal regulations (Title 14 Code of Federal R egulations, part 139 [14 CFR, part 139]) to ensure the airport maintains a safe operating environment. As par t of this responsibility, they must assess the risk and magnitude of the wildlife strike problem for their airport (14 CFR, part 139.337). This assessment must include accura te and complete reporting of all strike incidents, assessment of wildlife using t he airport environment, and assessment of wildlife habitat available to wildlife on the ai rport. Based on airport conditions and assessed strike risk, airport personnel might need to devise a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for reducing strike risk and o ccurrence. Airport personnel must then act to implement and periodically evaluate the plan.Introduction Chapter 1 4

This manual contains a compilation of in formation to assist airport personnel in conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and in the development, implementation, and evaluation of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. This manual includes specific information on the nature of wildlife strikes, legal aut hority, government agency roles and responsibilities, regulations, wildlife management techniques, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, and sources of help and information. It is emphasized that this manual provides only a starting point for addressing wildlife hazard issues on airports. Wildlife management is a complex, evolving, and public-sensitive discipline, and ecological conditions vary widely across the USA. Therefore, the assessment of wildlife hazards, the devel opment of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, and the im plementation of management actions by airport personnel must be under consultation by qua lified wildlife biologist s trained in wildlife damage control. While on approach to a southern USA airport in March 2003, this PA-34 aircraft struck a pair of redbreasted mergansers at 800 feet AGL. The birds penetrated both windshields. The pilot was not hurt.5



## CHAPTER 2: THE F A A NA TIONAL WILDLIFE STRIKE DA T

ABASE FOR CIVIL A V IA TION

Each autumn, clouds of greater snow geese a rrive at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia, and elsewhere along the Atlantic coast of USA from their Arctic breeding grounds in Canada and Greenland. The greater snow goose populati on increased from about 50,000 birds in 1966 to over 700,000 birds in 2004 (photo © Brian K ennedy/briankennedy.net, used with permission).



### 2.1 I NTRODUCTION
Before a problem can be solv ed, the problem must first be understood. A necessary first step toward understanding the complex probl em of aircraft collisions with wildlife is the collection and analysis of dat a from actual wildlife strike events. This chapter provides an overview of the structur e and management of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Wildlife Strike Database for Civil Aviation. The chapter emphasizes the need for accurate reporting of wildlife strikes and the methods for reporting strike events. A statistical summary of reported wildlife strikes for civil aircraft (1990—2003) is also presented to demonstrate the types of information obtained from the database. Finally, a list of selected individual strike cases provides an overview of the nature and magnitude of the wildlif e strike problem in the USA.

.Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 6



### 2.2 R EPORTING WILDLIFE STRIKES
The FAA has a standard form (Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report [see Appendix I]) for the voluntary reporting of bird and other wildlife strike s with aircraft. To improve the ease of reporti ng, strikes can also be reported via the Internet ( http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov)

. Pilots, airport operations, aircraft main tenance personnel, or anyone else who has knowledge of a strike should report strikes. It is important to include as much information as possible on Form 5200-7. The identification of t he species of wildlife struck is particularly important. Bird strike remains that cannot be identified by airport personnel can often be identified by a local biologist or, by sending feather remains (with Form 5200-7) to—

For Material Sent via Express Mail Service: For Material Sent via U.S. Postal Service:

Feather Laboratory Feather Laboratory Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution, Div. of Birds NHB, E610, MRC 116 PO Box 37012
10 th & Constitution Ave. NW NHB, E610, MRC 116 Washington DC 20560-0116 Washington DC 20013-7012

(Identify as “safety investigation material”) (Not recommended for priority cases)

The Smithsonian does not charge for feather identification services when the feathers are accompanied by an FAA Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report (FAA Form 5200-7). Please send whole feathers if available, as diagnostic characteristics are often found in downy barbules at feather base. If available, include wings, breast, and tail feathers. Beaks, feet, bones, and talons are also useful diagnostic materials. Do not send entire bird carcasses through the mail.

Chapter 7 and Appendix I provide more details on strike reporting. Analyses of wildlife strike data have proven invaluable in determining the magnitude, nature, and severity of the wildlife strike problem. The database provides a scientific basis for identifying risk factors; justif ying, implementing, and defending corrective actions at airports; and judgi ng the effectiveness of those corrective actions. The database is also of critical value to engine manufacturers and aeronautical engineers.


### 2.3 M ANAGEMENT OF THE DATABASE

The FAA National Wildlife Strike Databas e is managed by the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA) under terms of an Interagency Agreement with the FAA. All strike reports are sent to Wildlife Services for entry into the database after review by the staff Wildlif e Biologist at the F AA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards. At the Wildlife Services office, a database manager edits each strike report and consolidates multiple reports for the same strike before entering the data.Chapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 7

Contacts with persons making reports are some times made for clarification of details. In addition to FAA Form 5200-7, strike repor ts are also obtained from other sources (Table 2-1). After entry into the database, the original reports are filed chronologically for future reference if necessary. There are approximately 52,500 strike records for civil aircraft in the database for 1990 through 2003.

In addition to the civil aviation strike reports, strike reports for military aircraft in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) database (where the strike occurred at joint use civil/military airports) have been merged into the FAA database (approximately 6,000 from 1990 to 2003). Civil and military strikes are labeled so analyses can be done with data combined or separated.


### 2.4 U SE OF AND
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
IN THE DATABASE
Maintaining a consistent record of wildlife strikes at an airport is essential for defin ing the wildlife hazard level and for evaluating the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, as discussed in Chapter 7. In addition to their internal use at the airport, t he strike reports, when incorpor ated into the National Wildlife Strike Database, provide a means for engineer s, biologists, and safety analysts to better understand national and regional tr ends in strikes and thereby develop, justify, and defend more effective management programs and wildlife-resistant aircraft and engines. For example, the database has been extremel y useful in identif ying which wildlife species are most commonly involved in stri kes, the seasonal pattern of strikes for various species, the extent and types of damage resulting from strikes, and which aircraft types and components are most vulner able. It is emphasized that for annual reports and other publicly releas ed analyses, the strike records in the national database are summarized statistically at the regional or national level for trends. Comparisons among individual airports, commercial air ca rriers, or engine manufacturers are not made.

Table 2-1. Source of informati on for reported wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003.

Source 14-year total % of total known

FAA Form 5200-7 1 (Paper) 31,497 60 FAA Form 5200-7E (Electronic) 2 2

, 9 4 8 6 Airline report 7,003 13 Multiple 3 4

, 7 0 4 9 Airport report 2,861 5

Other 4 1

, 0 5 9 2 Engine manufacturer 793 2 Aircraft Incident Report 720 1 Preliminary Aircraft Incident Report 628 1 Aviation Safety Reporting System 152 <1 Aircraft Incident Preliminary Notice 60 <1 National Transportation Safety Board 57 <1

U.S. Air Forc e BASH program 11 < 1

T o t a l 5 2

, 4 9 3 1 0 0

1 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report.

2 Electronic filing of reports ( http://wildlife-mitigation.tc .faa.gov ) began in April 2001. In 2001, <1% of reports were filed electronically compared to 21% in 2002 and 29% in 2003.

3 More than one report was filed for the same strike.

4 Various sources, such as news media and Commercial Incident Reports.Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 8

Selected strike records and data fields are av ailable to the public and aviation industry online at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov . The general public can access information on the number of strikes by y ear, state, and species of wildlif e. Engine manufacturers, commercial airlines, and airports, with a pa ssword supplied by the FAA, can access strike reports involving their company or airport. USDA Wildlife Services biologists and FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors c an access strike reports for airports in the state or region, respectively, where they work.



### 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 700019901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003No.ofreportedstrikes Ma mma l s
Bi r d s

Figure 2-1. Number of reported bird (N = 51,154) and mammal (N = 1,272) strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003. An additional 67 strikes invo lving reptiles were also reported for this 14-year period.



## 2.5 S UMMARY OF WILDLIFE STRIKE RECORDS 

## , 1990–2003
The FAA's Office of Airport Safety and St andards, in cooperation with USDA Wildlife Services, publishes an annual report, Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States . This report contains a detailed analysis of strike data from 1990 to the most recent year. Copies of the annual repor t can be downloaded from the FAA's Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Website at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov

.Chapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 9

The following section presents a summary analysis of reported wildlif e strikes to civil aircraft in the USA for 1990 through 2003 to provide an overview of the types of information obtained from the databas e. Reports were received from 1,212 air ports encompassing all 50 states and some U.S. territories and from 170 foreign airports w hen U.S. registered aircraft were involved in a strike. Because less than 20% of all strike s have been reported to the FAA and many reports received by the FAA did not include cost or damage data or were filed before aircraft damage was fully assessed, the number of strikes and associated cost data compiled from the voluntary reporting program greatly underestimate the magnitude of the problem.



### 2.5. A 

### S TRIKE FREQUENCY

For the 14-year period (1990–2003), 52,493 strikes were reported to the FAA. Birds were involved in 97.4% of the repor ted strikes, mammals in 2.4%, and reptiles in less than 0.2% (Figure 2-1).

Table 2-2. Person filing report of wildlife

s t rik e to c i vil airc raft, USA, 1990–2003.
Person filing report 14-year total % of total known
Airline operations 11,313 28

P i l o t 1 0

, 7 6 2 2 7

T o w e r 6

, 6 7 2 1 7

Carcass found 1 5

, 8 0 9 1 5 Airport operations 3,971 10

O t h e r 1

, 5 2 0 4

Total known 40,047 100

Unknown 12,446

T o t a l 5 2

, 4 9 3

1 Airport operations personnel found wildlife remains within 200 feet of a runway centerline that appeared to have been struck by aircraft and no strike was reported by pilot, tower, or airline.

The number of strikes annually reported tripled from 1990 (1 ,739) to 2000 (5,979). From 2000 to 2003, reported strikes plateaued at about 6, 000 per year with 5,940 strikes reported in 2003 (Figure 2-1). We suggest that the steady increase in reports for 1990 to 2000 was the result of several factors: an increased awareness of the wildlife strike i ssue, an increase in aircraft operations, an increase in populations of hazardous wildlife species, and an increase in the num ber of strikes. The plateau in reported strikes from 2000 to 2003 might be related to a slight (<6%) decline in air traffic after the events of September 2001 and to more aggressive wildlife hazard managem ent programs at airports. Table 2-3. Number of reported wildlife strikes to civil aircraft by type of operator, USA, 1990–2003.

Type of operator 14-year total % of total known

C o m m e r c i a l 3 8

, 0 0 5 8 4

B u s i n e s s 5

, 5 9 6 1 2

P r i v a t e 1

, 5 6 7 4

G o v e r n m e n t / P o l i c e 2 6 6 < 1

Total known 45,434 100

U n k n o w n 7

, 0 5 9

T o t a l 5 2

, 4 9 3

Most (66%) of the 52,493 strike reports fil ed during the 14-year period were submitted using the paper (60%) or electronic (6%) version of FAA Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report . Since the online version of this form became available in April 2001, use of the electronic reporting system has climbed dramatically . Almost 28% of the strike reports filed in 2003 were done using this system (Table 2-1).Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 10

Table 2-4. Number of reported bird, mammal, and rept ile strikes to civil aircraft by USA state, including the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico (PR), USA-possessed Pacific Islands (PI), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (VI), 1990–2003.

R e p o r t e d s t r i k e s R e p o r t e d s t r i k e s
S t a t e B i r d s M a m m a l s R e p t i l e s T o t a l S t a t e B i r d s M a m m a l s R e p t i l e s T o t a l

A K 3 9 3 1 4 0 4 0 7 N C 9 9 7 2 0 0 1

, 0 1 7
A L 4 8 9 1 2 0 5 0 1 N D 1 2 1 3 0 1 2 4

A R 2 2 2 1 3 0 2 3 5 N E 4 6 1 1 3 0 4 7 4

A Z 7 1 2 5 1 0 7 6 3 N H 2 9 7 1 0 0 3 0 7
C A 4

, 3 2 5 5 4 0 4

, 3 7 9 N J 1

, 4 2 7 6 7 7 1

, 5 0 1
C O 1

, 2 9 0 5 9 0 1

, 3 4 9 N M 9 4 2 0 9 6
C T 5 6 1 1 6 0 5 7 7 N V 2 4 8 3 0 2 5 1

D C 1

, 3 0 7 3 0 0 1

, 3 3 7 N Y 2

, 9 0 3 9 6 1 0 3

, 0 0 9

D E 3 6 1 0 3 7 O H 1

, 6 2 6 5 3 0 1

, 6 7 9
F L 3

, 6 2 2 4 9 4 0 3

, 7 1 1 O K 4 7 0 1 9 2 4 9 1
G A 8 6 6 1 5 0 8 8 1 O R 8 1 0 8 0 8 1 8

H I 1

, 0 4 7 4 0 1

, 0 5 1 P A 1

, 9 6 2 6 3 0 2

, 0 2 5
I A 3 3 5 1 2 0 3 4 7 P I 8 0 0 0 8 0

I D 1 0 2 5 0 1 0 7 P R 8 5 0 5 9 0

I L 2

, 5 2 1 7 1 1 2

, 5 9 3 R I 2 0 9 7 0 2 1 6
I N 5 2 7 1 1 0 5 3 8 S C 2 4 8 1 2 0 2 6 0

K S 1 4 8 5 0 1 5 3 S D 8 2 6 0 8 8

K Y 1

, 2 0 3 1 2 0 1

, 2 1 5 T N 1

, 3 2 8 1 5 0 1

, 3 4 3
L A 9 4 9 1 8 1 9 6 8 T X 3

, 4 1 6 6 0 0 3

, 4 7 6

M A 6 8 4 1 2 0 6 9 6 U T 5 3 5 1 0 0 5 4 5
M D 5 5 6 4 0 0 5 9 6 V A 7 3 5 4 2 0 7 7 7
M E 1 5 7 8 0 1 6 5 V I 6 7 0 0 6 7
M I 1

, 2 4 8 7 0 0 1

, 3 1 8 V T 4 1 1 0 4 2

M N 4 3 5 1 3 0 4 4 8 W A 7 8 5 1 1 0 7 9 6
M O 1

, 0 4 0 2 6 0 1

, 0 6 6 W I 4 3 7 4 3 0 4 8 0

M S 1 7 1 4 0 1 7 5 W V 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 6 8
M T 6 1 5 0 6 6 W Y 3 9 4 0 4 3

T o t a l known 1 4 4

, 6 3 3 1

, 2 4 3 6 6 4 5

, 9 4 2 Foreign 2 9 8 3 8 0 9 9 1
U n k n o w n 5

, 5 3 8 2 1 1 5

, 5 6 0

T o t a l 5 1

, 1 5 4 1

, 2 7 2 6 7 5 2

, 4 9 3

1 Strikes were reported at 1,212 airports in the USA.

2 Strikes to USA air carriers were reported at 170 foreign airports.Chapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 11

Table 2-5. Number of reported strikes, strikes with damage, and strikes having a negative effect-onflight (EOF) for the five most commonly st ruck bird species groups and two most commonly struck mammal groups, USA, 1990–2003. Reported strikes Strikes with damage Strikes with EOF

Species group 14-year total % of total known 14-year total % of total known 14-year total % of total known

Birds
Gulls 5,323 25 891 28 710 30 Doves/pigeons 2,966 14 245 8 264 11 Raptors 2,666 12 537 17 351 15
Waterfowl 2,217 10 1,023 32 477 20 Blackbirds/starlings 2,210 10 131 4 156 7
All other known 6,302 29 390 12 406 17

Total known 21,684 100 3,217 100 2,364 100
Unknown 29,470 3,483 1,952
Total birds 51,154 6,700 4,316

Mammals Artiodactyls 1 643 51 524 94 339 85 Carnivores 2 312 25 23 4 48 12
All other known 305 24 11 2 10 3

Total known 1,260 100 558 100 397 100
Unknown 12 6 6
Total mammals 1,272 564 403

1 Deer and elk, respectively, comprised 614 and 8 of the 643 strikes with artiodactyls.

2 Coyotes and foxes, respectively, comprised 150 and 59 of the 312 strikes with carnivores.

Pilots and airline personnel filed 28% and 27% of these 52,493 reports, respectively (Table 2-2). About 84% of the reported strikes involved commercial aircraft; the remainder involved business, private, and mi scellaneous aircraft (Table 2-3). California, Florida, and Texas had the most (3,416–4,325) bird strike reports (Table 2-4). Twelve other states each had over 1,000 bird strikes reported. New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas each had 60 or more mammal strikes.Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 12

Table 2-6. Number of reported bird and mamma l strikes to civil aircraft by month, USA, 1990–2003 1

. All birds All mammals Deer only 2

Month 14-year total % of total k n o w n 14-year total % of total k n o w n 14-year total % of total known

J a n 1

, 9 6 9 4 6 0 5 2 7 4
F e b 1

, 8 0 6 4 5 0 4 2 1 3
M a r 2

, 7 1 2 5 7 3 6 3 1 5
A p r 3

, 5 3 7 7 8 3 7 4 0 7
M a y 4

, 7 2 9 9 6 5 5 2 7 4
J u n 3

, 8 0 6 7 1 0 2 8 4 5 7
J u l 5

, 6 7 8 1 1 1 2 7 1 0 5 0 8
A u g 6

, 8 4 5 1 3 1 5 4 1 2 5 0 8 S e p 6

, 9 1 9 1 4 1 5 0 1 2 6 4 1 0 O c t 6

, 6 8 5 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 8 5 1 4
N o v 4

, 1 0 0 8 1 6 8 1 3 1 2 6 2 1
D e c 2

, 3 6 8 5 6 9 5 4 8 8

T o t a l 5 1

, 1 5 4 1 0 0 1

, 2 7 2 1 0 0 6 1 4 1 0 0

1 In addition, 67 strikes with reptiles were repor ted, of which 16 (24%) occurred in September.

2 Deer strikes were comprised of 574 white-tailed deer, 24 mule deer, and 16 deer not identified to species. Other wild ungulates repor ted struck (but not included in this column of table) were 8 elk, 7 pronghorns, 7 moose, and 1 caribou.

Table 2-7. Reported time of occurrence of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003.

B i r d s M a m m a l s

Time of day 14-year total % of total k n o w n 14-year total % of total known

D a w n 1

, 5 6 7 4 2 3 3
D a y 2 2

, 6 3 2 6 3 2 0 0 2 4
D u s k 1

, 9 2 2 5 8 1 1 0
N i g h t 9

, 5 6 2 2 7 5 3 6 6 4

Total known 35,683 100 840 100
U n k n o w n 1 5

, 4 7 1 4 3 2
Total 1 5 1

, 1 5 4 1

, 2 7 2

1 In addition, 67 strikes with reptiles were reported: 56 for which the time was not reported, 6 during the day, 3 at night, 1 at dawn, and 1 at dusk.Chapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 13



### 2.5. B 

### T YPES OF WILDLIFE INVOLVED Gulls (25%), doves (14%), r aptors (12%), and waterfowl ( 10%) were the most frequently struck bird groups (Table 2-5). Gulls were in volved in more than twice as many strikes as waterfowl (5,323 and 2,217, respectively). Waterfowl, however, were involved in more damaging strikes (1,023 or 32% of all damaging strikes in which the bird type was identified) than were gulls ( 891 or 28% of all damaging strikes in which the bird type was identified). Gulls were responsible for the greatest number of bi rd strikes (710 or 30%) that had a negative effect-on-flight.
The most frequently struck mammals were Artiodactyls—primarily deer (51%)—and Carnivores—primarily coyotes (25%, Table 2- 5). Artiodactyls were responsible for 94% of the mammal strikes that resulted in dam age and 85% of the mamma l strikes that had a negative effect-on-flight. In all, 38 i dentified species of mammals were reported struck; 17 identified species caused damage.



### 2.5. C 

### C HARACTERISTICS OF STRIKES

M o s t b i r d s t r i k e s ( 5 1 % ) occurred between July and October (Table 2-6); 63% occurred during the day (Table 2-7); 58% occurred during the landing (descent, approach, or landing roll) phase of flight; and 39% occurred during takeoff and climb (Table 2-8). About 61% of the bird strikes occurred when the aircraft was at a height of 100 feet or less above ground level (AGL), 74% occurred at 500 feet or less AGL, and 92% occurred at or below 3,000 feet AGL (Table 2- 9).
Most mammal strikes (50%) occurred between August and November with 35% of deer strikes concentrated in October and Novem ber (Table 2-6). Most mammal strikes (64%) occurred at night (Table 2-7), 52% occurred during the landing roll, and 33% occurred during the takeoff run. About 10% of the reported mammal strikes occurred while the aircraft was in the air, e.g., w hen the aircraft struck deer with the landing gear or encountered bats (Table 2-8). Table 2-8. Reported phase of flight at time of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003.

B i r d s Mammals

Phase of flight 14-year total % of total known 14-year total % of total known

P a r k e d 2 4 < 1 0 0

T a x i 1 6 1 < 1 2 4 3

T a k e o f f r u n 7

, 8 1 0 2 0 3 1 8 3 3

C l i m b 7

, 3 2 7 1 9 2 6 2

En route 1,148 3 1 <1

D e s c e n t 1

, 4 6 3 4 4 < 1

A p p r o a c h 1 5

, 0 6 5 3 8 8 2 8

L a n d i n g r o l l 6

, 4 6 1 1 6 4 9 8 5 2

Total known 39,459 100 953 100

Unknown 11,695 319

Total 1 51,154 1,272

1 In addition, 67 strikes with reptiles were reported.



### 2.5. D 

### A IRCRAFT COMPONENTS STRUCK AND DAMAGED The aircraft components most commonly r eported as struck by birds were the nose/radome, windshield, engi ne, wing/rotor, and fuselage (Table 2-10). AircraftWildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 14

engines were the component most frequently r eported as being damaged by bird strikes (33% of all damaged components). Of the 7,511 aircraft engines reported as being struck by birds, 34% (2,591) were damaged (Table 2-10).
There were 6,761, 350, 10, and 5 incidents in which one, two, three, and four engines, respectively, were struck by birds on a singl e aircraft. There were 2,424, 80, 1, and 1 incidents in which one, two, three, and four engines, respectively, were damaged by birds on a single aircraft.

Aircraft components most commonly reported as struck by mammals were the landing gear, propeller, and wing/rotor. These same components ranked highest for the parts most often reported as damaged by mammals (Table 2-10).



### 2.5. E 

### E FFECTS OF WILDLIFE
STRIKES ON AIRCRAFT AND
FLIGHTS
For the 14-year period, 7,265 reports (17% of known total) indicated the strike damaged one or more aircraft components (Table 2-9), and 4,726 reports (15% of known total) indicated the strike had a negative effect on the flight (Table 2-11). Only 2,630 strike reports provided an estimate of the aircraft down time (total = 455,931 hours, average = 173 hours/incident), and 1,759 reports provided an estimate of the direct or ot her costs (total = $195,034,000, average = $147,000/incident). Of the 1,759 reports providing a damage cost estimate, 1,637 provided an estimate of direct aircraft damage (total = $169,045,000, average = $103,000/incident), and 595 pr ovided an estimate of other monetary losses (total = $25, 989,000, average = $44,000/incident). Table 2-9. Number of reported bi rd strikes to civil aircraft by height (feet) above ground level (AGL), USA, 1990–2003.
Height of strike (feet AGL) 14-year total % of total known % c u mulative total

0 1 4

, 4 7 1 4 1 4 1

1

- 1 0 0 6

, 7 1 6 1 9 6 1

1 0 1

- 2 0 0 1

, 7 0 4 5 6 5

2 0 1

- 3 0 0 1

, 1 2 6 3 6 9

3 0 1

- 4 0 0 6 8 2 2 7 1

4 0 1

- 5 0 0 1

, 2 0 4 3 7 4

5 0 1

- 6 0 0 3 3 3 1 7 5

6 0 1

- 7 0 0 2 6 2 1 7 6

7 0 1

- 8 0 0 5 6 1 2 7 7

8 0 1

- 9 0 0 1 8 6 1 7 8

9 0 1

- 1

, 0 0 0 1

, 0 0 2 3 8 1

1

, 0 0 1

- 2

, 0 0 0 2

, 5 7 0 7 8 8

2

, 0 0 1

- 3

, 0 0 0 1

, 5 1 7 4 9 2

3

, 0 0 1

- 4

, 0 0 0 7 7 6 2 9 5

4

, 0 0 1

- 5

, 0 0 0 5 7 5 2 9 6

5

, 0 0 1

- 1 0

, 0 0 0 1

, 0 6 2 3 9 9

1 0

, 0 0 1

- 2 0

, 0 0 0 2 3 7 < 1 9 9

2 0

, 0 0 1

- 3 0

, 0 0 0 1 1 < 1 9 9

> 3 0

, 0 0 0 1 < 1 1 0 0

Total known 34,996 100

U n k n o w n 1 6

, 1 5 8

T o t a l 5 1

, 1 5 4

Assuming all reported wildlife-aircraft strikes that had an adverse effect on the aircraft and/or flight engendered similar amounts of down time and/or monetary losses and that these reports are all of the damaging strikes t hat occurred, wildlife st rikes cost the U.S. civil aviation industry a minimum of 118,663 hours per year of aircraft down time andChapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 15

$100.58 million in monetary losses ($70.68 million per year in direct costs and $29.90 million per year in associated costs). Fu rther, assuming a 20% reporting rate, the annual cost of wildlife-aircraft stri kes to the U.S. civil aviation industry is estimated to be in excess of 593,317 hours of aircraft downt ime and $502.91 million in monetary losses ($353.42 million per year in di rect costs and $149.49 million per year in associated costs).

Table 2-10. Civil aircraft components reported as being struck and damaged by wildlife, USA, 1990–2003.

Birds (14-year total) Mammals (14-year total)

Aircraft component Number st ruck % of
t o t a l Number damaged % of
t o t a l Number st ruck % of
t o t a l Number damaged % of total

R a d o m e / n o s e 1 2

, 0 4 4 2 6 1

, 2 0 1 1 5 6 9 6 6 5 6

W i n d s h i e l d 8

, 1 4 5 1 8 4 8 2 6 1 6 1 1 1 1

E n g i n e ( s ) 7

, 5 1 1 1 1 6 2,591 1 3 3 9 8 8 9 5 9

W i n g / r o t o r 6

, 2 4 3 1 4 1

, 7 5 1 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 4

F u s e l a g e 5

, 7 2 6 1 2 2 7 5 3 8 2 7 9 1 9

Landing g e a r 2

, 2 5 2 5 2 4 9 3 4 5 2 3 7 2 3 9 2 4

P r o p e l l e r 1

, 4 1 5 3 1 5 3 2 1 6 9 1 4 1 5 7 1 5

T a i l 6 9 3 2 3 0 5 4 3 7 3 4 5 4

L i g h t 3 8 6 1 3 0 5 4 1 5 1 2 2 2

O t h e r 1

, 6 7 5 4 6 3 1 8 1 4 6 1 2 1 4 8 1 4

Total 2 4 6

, 0 9 0 1 0 0 7

, 9 4 3 1 0 0 1

, 2 2 8 1 0 0 1

, 0 1 4 1 0 0

1 There were 7,126 bird-strike incidents in which a total of 7,511 engines were reported as struck (6,761 incidents with one engine struck, 350 with tw o engines struck, 10 with three engines struck, and five with four engines struck). In 2,506 (35%) of these 7,126 strike in cidents, a total of 2,591 engines were damaged (2,424 incidents with one engine damaged, 80 with two engines damaged, one with three engines damaged, and one with four engines damaged).

2 In addition, 67 strikes with reptiles were report ed; 15 indicated the part struck and 5 indicated the strike damaged an aircraft component: Windshield (1 struck, 1 damaged), Wing/rotor (1 struck, 1 damaged), Fuselage (1 struck, 1 damaged), Landing gear (10 struck, 0 damaged), Tail (1 struck, 1 damaged), Other (1 struck, 1 damaged).Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 16

Table 2-11. Number of civil aircraft with report ed damage resulting from wildlife strikes, USA, 1990–2003.

R e p o r t e d s t r i k e s B i r d s M a m m a l s T o tal 1

Damage category 2 14-y ear total % of total know n 14-y e a r total % of total know n 14-y e a r t o t a l % of total know n N o n e 3 6

, 1 2 2 8 4 3 4 8 3 8 3 6

, 4 8 1 8 3
D a m a g e 6

, 7 0 0 1 6 5 6 4 6 2 7

, 2 6 5 1 7

M i n o r 3

, 6 5 9 9 2 6 2 2 9 3

, 9 2 1 9
U n c e r t a i n 1

, 1 8 4 3 3 9 4 1

, 2 2 3 3
S u b s t a n t i a l 1

, 8 4 5 4 2 4 7 2 7 2

, 0 9 3 5 Destroy e d 1 2 < 1 1 6 2 2 8 < 1

Total k n o w n 4 2

, 8 2 2 1 0 0 9 1 2 1 0 0 4 3

, 7 4 6 1 0 0
U n k n o w n 8

, 3 3 2 3 6 0 8

, 7 4 7
T o t a l 5 1

, 1 5 4 1

, 2 7 2 5 2

, 4 9 3

1 Included in totals are 67 strikes involving reptiles in w h ich 11 reports indicated no dam age, 55 failed to report damage (if any ), and 1 report ed substantial damage.

2 T he damage codes and descriptions follow the International Civil Aviation Organiz a tion Bird Strike Information System (1989): Minor = the aircraft can be rendered airw orthy by simple repairs or repl acements and an extensive inspection is not necessary ; Uncertain = the aircraft w a s damaged, but details as to t he extent of the damage are lacking; Substantial = the aircraft incurs damage or structural failu re that adversely affect s the structure strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that w ould normally requi re major repair or replacement of the affected component (specifically excluded ar e bent fairings or cow lings; small dents or puncture holes in the skin; damage to w i ng tips, antenna, tires, or brakes; and engine blade damage not requi ring blade replacement); Destroy ed

= the damage sustained makes it inadvisable to re store the aircraft to an airw orthy condition.

Table 2-12. Reported effect-on-flight (EOF) of wildlife strikes to civil aircraft, USA, 1990–2003.

R e p o r t e d s t r i k e s B i r d s M a m m a l s T o tal 1

Effect-on-flight 2 14-y ear total % of total know n 14-y ear total % of total know n 14-y ear total % of total know n N o n e 2 6

, 4 9 3 8 6 3 1 5 4 4 2 6

, 8 2 1 8 5
N e g a t i v e e f f e c t 4

, 3 1 6 1 4 4 0 3 5 6 4

, 7 2 6 1 5 Precautionary l a n d i n g 2

, 2 3 5 7 6 3 9 2

, 2 9 9 7
A b o r t e d t a k e o f f 1

, 0 7 2 4 1 3 0 1 8 1

, 2 0 2 4
E n g i n e shutdow n 2 5 1 1 2 2 3 2 7 3 1
O t h e r 7 5 8 3 1 8 8 2 6 9 5 2 3

T o t a l k n o w n 3 0

, 8 0 9 1 0 0 7 1 8 1 0 0 3 1

, 5 4 7 1 0 0
U n k n o w n 2 0

, 3 4 5 5 5 4 2 0

, 9 4 6
T o t a l 5 1

, 1 5 4 1

, 2 7 2 5 2

, 4 9 3

1 Included in totals are 67 strikes involving reptiles in w h ic h 13 reports indicated no effect -on-flight, 47 failed to report on effect-on-flight (if any ), 1 reported a precautionary landi ng, and 6 reported “other”.

2 Effect-on-flight: None = flight c ontinued as scheduled, although delay s and other cost caus ed by inspections or repairs may have been incurred after landing; Aborted takeo ff = pilot aborted the takeoff; Precautionary landing = pilot landed at other-than-destination airport after strike; Engine shut dow n = pilot shut dow n the engine or the engine stopped running because of strike; Other = miscellaneous effects, such as reduced speed because of shattered

w i ndshield, emergency landing at destinat ion airport, or crash landing; Unknow n = report did not give sufficient information to determine an effect- on-flight (Dolbeer et al. 2000).Chapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 17



### 2.6 S ELECTED EXAMPLES OF WILDLIFE STRIKES
Below are descriptions of some wildlife strikes t hat are either of historic interest, have influenced flight safety, or are typical of dam aging strikes in recent years in the USA.
7 September 1905. From the Wright Brother s diaries, “Orville ... fl ew 4,751 meters in 4 minutes 45 seconds, four complete circles. Twice passed over fence into Beard's cornfield. Chased flock of birds for tw o rounds and killed one whic h fell on top of the upper surface and after a time fell off when swi nging a sharp curve.” This was the first reported bird-aircraft strike. Because of the location near Dayton, Ohio, and time of year, the bird struck was probably a red-winged blackbird.
25 July 1909. During engine warm-up for Louis Bleriot's historic first flight across the English Channel from Les Baraques, France, a farm dog ran into the propeller of the Bl eriot XI aircraft. This was the first reported terrestrial wildlife (mammal) strike.
3 April 1912 . Calbraith Rogers, the first person to fly across the continental USA, was also the first to die as a result of a wildlife strike. On 3 April 1912, Rodgers’ Wright Pusher struck a gull, causing the aircraft to crash into the surf at Long Beach, California. Rodgers was pinned under the wreckage and drowned.

Calbraith Rogers and his aircraft the Vin Fizz following his fatal encounter with a gull (photo courtesy National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, SI Neg. No. A-43520-E).

4 October 1960. A Lockheed Electra turbo-prop i ngested European starlings into all four engines during takeoff from Boston Logan Airport (Massachusetts). The plane crashed into Boston Harbor, k illing 62 people. Following this accident, the FAA initiated action to develop minimum bird ingesti on standards for turbine-powered engines.
26 February 1973. On departure from Atlanta's Peacht ree-Dekalb Airport (Georgia), a Lear 24 jet struck a flock of brown-headed cowbir ds attracted to a nearby trash disposal area. Engine failure resulted. The airc raft crashed, killing seven people and seriously injuring one person on the ground. This incident prompted the FAA to develop guidelines for the location of solid waste di sposal facilities on or near airports.

12 November 1975. On departure roll from John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York), the pilot of a DC-10 aborted takeoff after ingesting gulls into one engine. The plane ran off runway and caught fire as a re sult of engine fire and overheated brakes. The resultant fire destroyed the aircraft. All 138 people on board, airline personnel trained in emergency evacuation, evacuated safely (see photo page 18). Following this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended the FAA evaluate the effect of bird ingestion on large, hi gh-bypass, turbofan engines and the adequacy of engine certification standards. The FAA initiated a nationwide data collection effort to document bird strike and engine ingestion events.Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 18

25 July 1978. A Convair 580 departing Kalamazoo Airport (Michigan) ingested one American kestrel into an engine on takeoff. The aircraft auto-feathered and crashed in a nearby field, in juring 3 of the 43
passengers.

18 June 1983 . The pilot of a Bellanca 1730, landing at Clifford, Texas, saw two “buzzards” on final approach. He added power and maneuvered to avoid them, then continued approach. This resulted in a landing beyond the intended point. The middle of the runway was higher than either end; therefore, the pilo t was unable to see a large canine moving toward the landing area until aircraft was halfway down the runway. A go-around was initiated, but the lowered landing gear hit some treetops c ausing the pilot to loose control. The aircraft came to rest in a m ilo field about 250 yards from initial tree impact after flying through additional trees. The aircraft suffer ed substantial damage, and two people in the aircraft were seriously injured.

This DC-10 was destroyed by fire when several herring gulls were ingested into an engine during takeoff from JFK International Airport, Novembe r 1975 (see story on page 17; photo courtesy Por t Authority New York and New Jersey).

6 January 1985. A Beechcraft King Air 90 departing Smith Reynolds Airport (North Carolina) at dusk hit a large feral dog on the runway just at rotation. The aircraft suffered substantial damage.

17 March 1987. A Boeing-737 struck an 80-pound deer at Chicago O’Hare (Illinois) airport. The aircraft suffered over $114,000 in damage.

5 November 1990. During takeoff at Michiana Regi onal Airport (Indiana), a BA-31 flew through a flock of mourning doves. Severa l birds were ingested in both engines, and takeoff was aborted. Both engines were destr oyed. Cost of repai rs was $1 million, and time out of service was 60 hours.

30 December 1991. A Citation 550, taking off from Angelina County Airport (Texas), struck a turkey vulture. The strike caus ed major damage to the #1 engine and resulting shrapnel caused minor damage to the wing and fuse lage. Cost of repairs was $550,000 and time out of service was 2 weeks.
2 February 1992. A Piper Cherokee struck a deer at rotation during takeoff from Sandstone Municipal Airport (MN). The pilot attempted to turn ba ck to the airport but collided into trees just sout h of airport. The aircraft was destroyed and the pilot seriously injured.

3 December 1993. A Cessna 550 struck a flock of gees e during the initial climb out of DuPage County Airport (Illinois). The pilo t heard a loud bang, and the aircraft yawed to the left and right. Instruments showed loss of power to the #2 engine and a substantial fuel leak on the left side. An emergen cy was declared, and the aircraft landed atChapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 19

Midway Airport. The cost to repair two engines was $800,000, and ti me out of service was about 3 months.

21 October 1994. A Cessna 210 struck a coyote duri ng the landing roll at Higginsville Industrial Municipal Airport (Missouri) at night. The nose gear collapsed and the propeller hit the runway, resulting in major damage to the engine and crankshaft.

3 June 1995. An Air France Concorde, at about 10 feet AGL while landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York), ingested one or two Canada geese into the #3 engine. The engine suffered an uncontained fa ilure. Shrapnel from the #3 engine destroyed the #4 engine and cut several hydraulic lines and control cables. The pilot was able to land the plane safely, but the runway was closed for several hours. Damage to the Concorde was estimated at over $7 million. The French Aviation Authority sued the Po rt Authority of New York and New Jersey and eventually settled out of court for $5.3 million. 22 September 1995. A U.S. Air Force Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft (modified Boeing 707) crashed, killi ng all 24 on board, after ingesting four Canada geese into the #1 and #2 engines during takeoff from Elmendorf Air Force Base (Alaska). This was the first crash of an AWACS plane since the Air Force began using them in 1977.

5 October 1996. A Boeing-727 departing Washington Reagan National Airport (District of Columbia) struck a flock of gulls just a fter takeoff, ingesting at least one bird. One engine began to vibrate and was shut down. A burning smell entered the cockpit. An emergency was declared, and the aircraft, carrying 52 pa ssengers, landed at Washington Reagan National. Several engine blades were damaged. A USAF AWACS airc raft s i milar to this was los t in 1995 and 24 airmen were killed when Canada geese

were struck just after rotation. The USAF was aware of geese living on the airbase, yet had taken no direc t action to eliminate the birds (photo courtesy USAF).

7 January 1997. An MD-80 aircraft struck over 400 bla ckbirds just after takeoff from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (Texas ). Almost every part of the plane was hit. The pilot declared an emergency and retur ned to land without event. Substantial damage was found on various parts of t he aircraft, and the #1 engine had to be replaced. The runway was cl osed for 1 hour. The birds had been attracted to an unharvested wheat field on the airport.
9 January 1998. While climbing through 3,000 feet, following takeoff from Houston Intercontinental Airport (Texas), a Boeing-727 struck a flock of snow geese with three to five birds ingested into one engine. The engi ne lost all power and was destroyed. The radome was torn from aircraft and leading edges of both wings were damaged. The pitot tube for the first officer was torn o ff. Intense vibration was ex perienced in the airframe and the noise level in the cockpit increased to the point that communicationWildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 20

among crewmembers became difficult. An emergency was declared. The flight returned safely to Houston with major damage to aircraft.
22 February 1999. A Boeing-757 departing Cincinnati/No rthern Kentucky International Airport (Kentucky) had to return and make an emergency landing after hitting a large flock of starlings. Both engines and one wing received extensive damage. About 400 dead starlings were found on the runway area.
7 February 2000. An American-owned cargo co mpany’s DC-10-30 departing Subic Bay, Philippines, ingested a fruit bat into one engine at 250 feet AGL. The aircraft returned to the airport. Five damaged fan blades had to be replaced. Time out of service was 3 days. Total repair and related costs exceeded $3 million.
21 January 2001. An MD-11 departing Portland Inter national Airport (Oregon) ingested a herring gull into the #3 engine during the takeoff run. The engine stall blew off the nose cowl that was sucked back into the engine and shredded. The engine had an uncontained failure. The pilot aborted takeoff and blew two tires. The 217 passengers were safely deplaned and rerouted to other flights. Smit hsonian Feather Lab identified bird.

09 March 2002. A Canadair RJ 200 at Dulles International Airport (Virginia) struck two wild turkeys during the takeoff roll. One shattered the windshield spraying the cockpit with glass fragments and remains. Another hit the fuselage and was ingested. There was a 14-by 4-inch section of fuselage skin damaged below the windshield seal on the flight officer’s side. The cost of repairs was estimated at $200,000. Time out of service was at least 2 weeks.

19 October 2002 . A Boeing 767 departing Logan International Airport (Massachus etts) encountered a flock of over 20 double-crested cormorants. At least 1 cormor ant was ingested into the #2 engine. There were immediate indications of engine surgi ng followed by compression stall and smoke from the engine. The engine was shutdown. An overweight landing with one engine was made without incident. The nose co wl was dented and punctured. There was significant fan blade damage with abnormal engi ne vibration. One fan blade was found on the runway. The aircraft was towed to the ramp. Hydraulic lines were leaking, and several bolts were sheared off inside engine. Many pieces fell out when the cowling was opened. The aircraft was out of service for 3 da ys. The cost of repairs was $1.7 million.

One of the two turkeys that penetrated a Canadair RJ 200 fuselage below the windshield; parts of the bird entered the cockpit.

8 January 2003 . A Bombardier de Havilland Dash 8 collided with a flock of lesser scaup at 1,300 feet AGL on appr oach to Rogue Valley International Airport (Oregon). At least one bird penetrated the cabin and hit the pilot who turned control over to the first officer for landing. Emergency power switched on when the birds penetrated theChapter 2 Wildlife Strike Database 21

radome and damaged the DC power system and instruments systems. The pilot was treated for cuts and released from the hospital. 4 September 2003. A Fokker 100 struck a flock of at least five Canada geese over the runway shortly after takeoff at LaGuardia Airport (New York), ingesting one or two geese into the #2 engine. Engine vibration occurred. The pilot was unable to shut the engine down with the fuel cutoff lever, so the fire handle was pulled and the engine finally shut down, but the vibration continued. The flight was diverted to nearby JFK International Airport where a landing was made. The NTSB found a 20- by 36-inch wide depression on the right side of nose behind radome. Maximum depth was 4 inches. Impact marks were found on the right wing. A fan blade separated from the disk and penetrated the fuselage. Several fan blades were deformed. Holes were found in the engine cowling. Bird re mains were recovered and identified by Wildlife Services.
17 February 2004 . A Boeing 757 during a takeoff ru n from Portland International Airport (Oregon) hit five mallards and re turned with one engine out. At least one bird was ingested, and parts of five birds were collected from the runway. Engine damage was not repairable, and the engine had to be replaced. The cost was $2.5 million, and time out of service was 3 days.
15 April 2004. An Airbus 319 climbing out of Portland International Airport (Oregon) ingested a great blue heron into the #2 engine, causing extensive damage. The pilot shut the engine down as a precaution and made an emergency landing. The runway was closed 38 minutes for cleaning. The flight was cancelled. The engine and nose cowl were replaced. Time out of service was 72 hours. The damage totaled $388,000.

14 June 2004. A Boeing 737 struck a great horned owl during a nighttime landing ro ll at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport (Pennsylvania). The bird severed a cable in the front main gear. The steering

This picture shows a close-up of the #2 engine from the Fokker-100 that ingested Canada geese on 4 September 2004.

This is the #1 engine of the MD-80 after ingesting a t least 1 double-crested cormorant on 16 Septembe r 2004. (See story on page 22.)Wildlife Strike Database Chapter 2 22

failed, and the aircraft ran off the runway and became stuck in mud. Passengers were bused to the terminal. Two nose wheels, two main wheels, and brakes were replaced. The aircraft was out of service 24 hours. The cost was estimated at $20,000.
16 September 2004. A MD 80 departing Chicago O’Hare (Illinois) hit several doublecrested cormorants at 3,000 f eet AGL and 4 miles from ai rport. The #1 engine caught fire and failed, sending metal debris to the ground in a Chicago neighborhood. The aircraft made an emergency landing back at O’Hare with no injuries to the 107 passengers. (See photo on page 21.)

24 October 2004. A Boeing 767 departing Chicago O’Hare (Illinois) hit a flock of birds during the takeoff run. A compressor sta ll caused the engine to flame out. A fire department got calls from loca l residents who reported seeing flames coming from the plane. The pilot dumped approximately 11,000 ga llons of fuel over Lake Michigan before returning to land. Feathers found in engine were sent to the Smithsonian, Division of Birds, for identification.

Besides having the potential to cause damaging strikes, small mammals, such as this prairie dog at a southwestern USA airport, can create problems b y burrowing, gnawing on wiring, and serving as a food attractant for large birds of prey. 

### 2.7 C ONCLUSIONS

Wildlife strikes can cause serious damage to aircraft and the occasional loss of human life. Because most strikes occur on or near airports, airpor ts are the logical locations to place emphasis in addressing the problem. The following chapters and appendices, coupled with guidance from professional wildlife biologists trained in wildlife damage management, provide the information needed to develop, implement, and evaluate wildlife hazard management programs to minimize the likelihood of wildlife strikes on airports.23



## CHAPTER 3: AGENCIES AND ORGANIZA TIONS IMP ACTING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT ON AIRPORTS

In December 2002, this Dash-8 struck a deer while landing at a southeastern USA airport. The impac t caused the nose gear to collapse. The white-tail ed deer population in the USA increased from a low of about 350,000 in 1900 to at least 24 million in 2004.



### 3.1 I NTRODUCTION
Wildlife management is a comp lex mixture of science, ex perience, and art, regulated and implemented by various federal, stat e, and local governmental agencies. Overlapping federal, state, and local regulations enforced by various governmental organizations protect wildlife and associated wildlife habitat. This chapter provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and organizations that influence wildlife management on or near airports.Agencies and Organizations Chapter 3 24



### 3.2 F EDERAL AGENCIES



### 3.2. A 

### U.S. D EPARTMENT OF 

### T RANSPORTATION 

### , F EDERAL 

### A VIATION 

### A DMINISTRATION



### 3.2. A



### . I 

### M ISSION

The mission of the Federal Aviation Administra tion (FAA) is to provide a safe, secure, and efficient global aviation system that c ontributes to national security and the promotion of U.S. aviation. As the leading authority in the international aerospace community, the FAA is responsive to the dy namic nature of custom er needs, economic conditions, and environmental concerns.



### 3.2. A



### . II 

### A UTHORITY
Since 1970, Section 612 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1432), has empowered the FAA Administrator to issue airport operating certificates to airports serving certain air carriers and to establish minimum safety standards for the oper ation of those airports. Some of these regulations and policies directly involve the management of wild life and wildlife hazards on and/or near airports.



### 3.2. A



### . III 

### R OLE AND
RESPONSIBILITY Among its other responsibilities, the FAA is responsible for enforcement of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 (14 CFR 139). To carry out this role, the FAA has responsibilities for various aspects of aviation that include air navigation, air traffic control, aviation certification and regulation, aviation security, environmental impact minimization, and aviation research and development.

High-profile species such as bald eagles presen t special problems for airport managers (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).

The FAA roles and responsibilities relating to wildlife hazards and their associated human health and safety concerns are addre ssed in 14 CFR 139.337. The FAA's Office of Airport Safety and Standards' 150/5200 seri es Advisory Circulars (AC), Program Policy and Guidance, and Certalerts further clarify this information.

3.2. A

. III

. A O FFICE OF A IRPORT S AF ET Y AND S TANDARDS A staff wildlife biologist is assigned to t he Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC. The biologi st works with airport operat ors and certificate holders through the FAA regional and district offices in matters related to wildlife hazards on airports. Responsibilities of the staff wild life biologist include reviewing development plans of all certificated airports to minimize wildlife hazards; managing the wildlife aircraft strike database designed to document the history of r eported strikes at airportsChapter 3 Agencies and Organizations 25

throughout the USA and its territories; and servi ng as an internal consultant to the FAA on the appropriateness of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, wildlif e hazard research, and other wildlife m anagement issues of concern to the FAA. The FAA staff wildlife biologist examines all wildlife aircraft strike reports submitted to the FAA. Copies of major strike reports (14 CFR 139.337(b)(1-4)), together with the strike history for the particular airport, are forwarded to the appropriate FAA regional personnel. See also FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards' Policies and Program Guidance Policy No. 79, Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Managem ent Plans (Appendix D).

3.2. A

. III

. B W ILDLIFE HAZARD
ASSESSMENT S Operators of certif icated airports are required by regulation to c onduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment when specific wildlife events occur, as discussed in Chapter 6 (14 CFR 139.337(b)(1-4), see Appendix P). FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards ' Program Policy and Guidance No. 77, Initiation of Wildlife Hazard Assessm ents at Airports (Appendix D), establishes the procedures followed by FAA Airport Certif ication Safety Inspectors when it is determined that an airport needs to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Under terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (USDA/ WS, Appendix G), the USDA/WS program can provide assistance with the conduct of Wildlife Hazard Assessments and the development of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards' Certalert No. 04-09, Relati onship Between FAA and WS (Appendix E), further clarifies the roles of, and rela tionship between, the FAA and USDA/WS with regard to wildlife hazards on or near airports. See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the contents of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment.

A irport operators are required to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment when wildlife capable of causing substantial aircraft damage are observed to have

access to the aircraft movement area (photo courtes y USDA).

3.2. A

. III

. C W ILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLANS

The FAA Administrator considers the Wildlife Hazard Assessment, aeronautical activity at the airport, views of the airport operator and its users, and other pertinent factors in determining whether a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is needed (14 CFR 139.337(d)(1-6), see Appendix P). See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the contents of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

3.2. A

. III

. D A DVISORY C IRCULARS (150/5200 S ERIES ) The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to systematically inform the aviation public of nonregulatory material of interest. The st andards, practices, and suggestions containedAgencies and Organizations Chapter 3 26

in AC are recommended by the FAA for use by the operators and sponsors of all publicuse airports. An AC provides guidance and information in its designated subject area and/or shows methods acceptable to the F AA Administrator for complying with 14 CFR 139. Unless incorporated into regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. FAA Advisory Circulars germane to airport wildlife issues can be found in Appendix C.



### 3.2. B 

### U.S. D EPARTMENT OF 

### A GRICULTURE 

### , W ILDLIFE 

### S ERVICES



### 3.2. B



### . I 

### M ISSION

The mission of the U. S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services (USDA/ WS) is to provide federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. USDA/WS helps manage wildlife to reduce damage to ag riculture, natural resources, and property; minimizes potential threats to human health and safety; and assists in the protection of threatened and endangered species.



### 3.2. B



### . II 

### A UTHORITY The primary statutor y authority for the USDA/WS program is the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426-426c; 46 Statute 1468)(See Appendix B). USDA/WS has the authority to manage migratory bird damage only as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations and under permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service (USFWS) (50 CFR 21). USDA/WS does not have the authority to issue migratory bird depredation permits.

Bayberry bushes produce fruits that often attrac t large flocks of tree swallows along the east coast o f the USA during fall migration. Identifying and removing such preferred food plants is an importan t part of a wildlife hazard management control program (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).



### 3.2. B



### . III 

### R OLE AND RESPONSIBILITY Wildlife is a public resource greatly valued by the citizens of the USA. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural and industria l resources, pose risks to human health and safety, and impact other natural res ources. USDA/WS has the federal responsibility to help resolve conflicts that occur when human activity and wildlife are in proximity to one another. USDA /WS has primary responsibility of responding to threats caused by migratory birds.
Wildlife Services Directive 2.305, Wildlife Hazards to Aviation (Appendix F), provides guidance for USDA/WS wildlife biologists in pr oviding technical assistance or direct control to airport managers, state aviation agenc ies, the aviation industry, the FAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) on hazards caused by wildlife to airport safety.
USDA/WS assists federal, st ate, and local agencies; air port managers; the aviation industry; and the military in r educing wildlife hazards on and in the vicinity of airportsChapter 3 Agencies and Organizations 27

and air bases according to the Memor anda of Understanding with the FAA (Appendix G) and Department of Defense and guidelines published elsewhere. In addition, it is the responsibility of US DA/WS personnel that observe existing or potential wildlife hazards at air ports or air bases to imm ediately notify the appropriate aviation authorities. USDA/WS may enter into cooperative agreements to develop Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans and to conduct direct wildlife hazard reduction programs. These activities are performed pursuant to agreements that are funded by c ooperating entities. USDA/WS biologists may provide training fo r airport and air base personnel in wildlife and hazard identification and the safe and pr oper use of wildlife c ontrol equipment and techniques.

Birds are not the only wildlife that pilots must watch out for. Proper fencing would have prevented this incident. USDA/WS biologists may provide recommendations and assistance to airport managers and air base commanders in obtaining federal, state, and local permits to remove protected wildlife species.



### 3.2. C 

### U.S. D EPARTMENT 

### O F 

### D EFENSE



### 3.2. C



### . I 

### M ISSION The U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the USA.



### 3.2. C



### . II 

### A UTHORITY The USDOD is the successor agency to the Na tional Military Estab lishment created by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401). It was established as an executive department of the Government by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 with the Secretary of Defense as its head (5 U.S.C. 101). The USDOD’s primary authority is established under 32 CFR 1-2900.



### 3.2. C



### . III 

### R OLE AND RESPONSIBILITY Each military department (Departm ent of the Navy includes the U.S. Marine Corps) is separately organized under it s own Secretary and functi ons under the authority, direction, and control of t he Secretary of Defense. The commanders of unified and specified combat commands are responsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense for accomplishing the military mi ssions assigned to them and exercising command authority over forces assigned to them. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) Bird Aircraft St rike Hazard (BASH) Team, HQ Air Force Safety Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, oversees the USAF wildlife strike reduction efforts. The BASH team mainta ins a wildlife strike database for strikesAgencies and Organizations Chapter 3 28

involving USAF aircraft (http://afsafety.a f.mil/afsc/Bash/home.html) similar to the database maintained by the FAA for civil aircraft (Chapter 2).



### 3.2. D 

### U.S. A RMY 

### C ORPS OF 

### E NGINEERS



### 3.2. D



### . I 

### M ISSION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is charged with a wide range of functions related to water resources. Among thes e is the protection of navigation and safeguarding the nation’s water resources.



### 3.2. D



### . II 

### A UTHORITY Regulatory authorities of the COE include Section 10 of t he Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), whic h prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a COE permit; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), which regulates the ex cavation and discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S.; and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, which regulates deposition of fill material into
ocean waters.

Recognizing that landfills can attract hazardous birds, the USEPA requires municipal solid waste landfills to be operated in a manner that does not pose a hazard to aviation safety (photo by E. Cleary, FAA). 

### 3.2. D



### . III 

### R OLE AND RESPONSIBILITY The COE regulatory branch administers a permit system under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All proposed management actions involving any wetland habitat modification or excavation of fill material from or discharged into waters of the USA must be evaluated for Section 404 applicability and permit requirements. Projects requiring permits might require mitigation of impacted resources.



### 3.2. E 

### U.S. E NVIRONMENTAL 

### P ROTECTION 

### A GENCY



### 3.2. E



### . I 

### M ISSION

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency (USEPA) is to safeguard the nation’s environment.



### 3.2. E



### . II 

### A UTHORITY The USEPA was established in 1970 in respons e to concerns about polluted air and rivers, unsafe drinking water, endangered spec ies, and waste disposal. The USEPA's primary regulatory responsibilities are established under 40 CFR 1-799.



### 3.2. E



### . III 

### R OLE AND RESPONSIBILITY USEPA functions include setting and enf orcing environmental standards andChapter 3 Agencies and Organizations 29

regulations related to air and water polluti on, hazardous wastes, pesticides, and toxic substances. The USEPA’s mission is acco mplished through partnerships with state and local governments. USEPA responsibilities in clude pesticide registration and regulation and siting and construction of wastewater treat ment and solid waste disposal facilities, which are permitted through state and local agencies. The FAA and USDA/WS may be consulted by airport authorit ies or state and local agencies to review impacts of proposed USEPA-regulated projects on aviation safety.

3.2. E

. III

. A L ANDFILLS Approval or disapproval of a landfill site is the responsib ility of the USEPA, state and local governing bodies, and zoning boards. Other federal agencies, such as the FAA and USDA/WS, may only comment as to w hether they would consider the proposed landfill to be compatible or non-compat ible with their mission requirements.

3.2. E

. III

. B P EST ICIDES Before any pesticide may be used, it must be registered with the USEPA and with the appropriate state pesticide regulating authority. Pesticides are generally classified as either restricted use or general use. Restricted-use pesticides may only be sold to and used by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certific ation. There are few restrictions on who may purchase or use general-use pesticides.Persons who want to use restricteduse pesticides, apply any pesticide to the land of another, or apply any pesticides for hire must be a Certified Applicator or worki ng under the direct supervision of a Certified Applicator, and then only use pesticides covered by the Cert ified Applicator’s ce rtification (see state EPA below).

A s one facet of an integrated hazardous wildlife management program, licensed falconers ma y occasionally use trained raptors, such as this peregrine falcon, at airports to repel other birds (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).



### 3.2. F 

### U.S. D EPARTMENT OF 

### I NTERIOR 

### , U.S. F ISH 

### A ND 

### W ILDLIFE 

### S ERVICE



### 3.2. F



### . I 

### M ISSION

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice (USFWS) is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fish and wildlife and their habi tats for the continuing benefit of all people.



### 3.2. F



### . II 

### A UTHORITY The USFWS has management aut hority for migratory birds and federally listedAgencies and Organizations Chapter 3 30

threatened and endangered wildlife species. The USFWS primary regulatory responsibilities are established under 50 CFR 1-199.



### 3.2. F



### . III 

### R OLE AND RESPONSIBILITY The USFWS is responsible for the conser vation and enhancement of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain ma rine mammals, anadromous fishes, and wetlands. The USFWS also manages the Na tional Wildlife Refuge System, enforces federal wildlife laws, and conducts biological reviews of the environmental impacts of development projects. The USFWS renders biological opinions on proposed federal activities that might impact federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. These opinions are solicited through a “Section 7 consultation”, as required under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Statute 884, as amended).

Most mammals are protected by state wildlife agencies, and it is generally necessary to obtain a State Depredation Permit before taking these species on an airport. The firs t step in obtaining such a permit is to contact the nearest office of USDA Wildlife Services (see Appendix A). 

### 3.3 S TATE AGENCIES
Specific state r egulations and their enforcement are not addressed in this manual because of their wide variability. The following general comments are provided as background information. Consult state and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over wildlife and natural resources, environmental protection, health, law enforcement, transportation, and others as applicable, when working with airport wildlife issues.



### 3.3. A 

### S TATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES Wildlife management author ity for resident nonmigratory birds, terrestrial mammals, freshwater fish, reptiles, and other taxa rest with state wildlife management agencies. These agencies establish the take and possessi on regulations for all state-protected species. States set their migratory game- bird hunting seasons and bag limits within the guidelines established by the USFWS. States also may list certain wildlife and plant species as threatened or endanger ed that are not considered as such at the federal level.
Persons needing to take state-protected spec ies outside of the l egal hunting season or beyond the established bag limits to promote airport safety mu st first secure a stateChapter 3 Agencies and Organizations 31

depredation permit. Contact the nearest USDA /WS office (Appendix A) for assistance in obtaining any necessary state depredation permits.



### 3.3. B 

### S TATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCIES



### 3.3. B



### . I 

### L ANDFILL SITING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS

With concurrence from t he USEPA, state EPAs, local governing bodies, and zoning boards have the final responsibility for issu ing landfill permits. It is also a state responsibility to inspect all landfills to ens ure compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations.



### 3.3. B



### . II 

### P ESTICIDE REGISTRATION Before a pesticide may be sold or used, it must be register ed with the USEPA and with the respective state’s pesticide regulatory agen cy. Special Local Need (SLN) registered pesticides may only be used in the state—and in some cases, the specific geographical location—for which the SLN registration has been issued.



### 3.3. B



### . III 

### P ESTICIDE APPLICATOR LICENSING
With USEPA concurrence, each st ate is responsible for establishing pesticide applicator licensing requirements and applicator training procedures. The retail sale and use of restricted-use pesticides is limited to Certified Applicators or persons working under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification.
Anyone who uses restricted-use pesticides, applies any pesticides for hire, or applies any pesticide to the land of another must be a Certified Applicator or work ing under the direct supervision of a Cert ified Applicator, and may only use pesticides covered by the Certified Applicator's certification.


### 3.4 A IRPORTS



### 3.4. A 

### A IRPORT OPERATOR The operator of a ce rtificated airport 1 must demonstrate that the airport is properly and adequatel y equipped and programs are in place to provide a safe airport- operating environment in accordance with all sections of 14 CFR 139 subpart D. Included in this regulation is the need to address

1 Airports that have received an Airport Operating Ce rtificate from the FAA, issued under 14 CFR 139, to operate a Class I, II, III, or IV airport.

Within 2 weeks of completion, starlings and pigeons had started roosting in this canopy constructed ove r the passenger drop-off area at a major USA airpor t (photo by S. Gordon).Agencies and Organizations Chapter 3 32

wildlife hazard issues, conduct Wildlife Ha zard Assessments, and develop Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, as conditions dictate.
In accordance with its Airpor t Certification Manual and t he requirements of section 139.337(a), each certificate holder must take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detect ed. An important part of th is process is establishing procedures for airport employ ees or tenants to report hazar dous wildlife on or near the air operation areas (AOA) to the appropriate airport personnel.



### 3.4. B 

### A IR 

### T RAFFIC 

### C ONTROL Air traffic control personnel must report any unsafe conditions, including hazardous wildlife on or near the AOA, to the appropriate airport personnel anytime they are observed.
Also, to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances, air traffic controllers are required to—

• Issue advisory information on pilot-reported, tower-reported,or radar-observed and pilotverified bird activity;

• Relay bird activity information to adjacent facilities and to Flight Service Stations (FSS) whenever it appear s the wildlife hazard will become a factor in the area (FAA Order 7110.65, 2-1-22).



### 3.4. C 

### P ILOTS
Pilots have a responsibility to report all unsafe conditions on or near an airport, including birds or other wildlife that could pose a threat to aircraft safety. Pilots and other airline or airport personnel should report all known wildlife strikes. Strikes can be reported electronically at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov

. Wildlife strikes can also be reported by completing and mailing FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report (Appendix I). No postage is required if this form is mailed within the USA. This form can be downloaded and printed fr om the above website and duplicated as needed. All strike reports are closely screened and edit ed to prevent duplicate entries in the Pilots using uncontrolled airports need to be alert to the possibility of wildlife on the runway. This Learjet was destroyed when it struck two deer on landing at a southern USA airport, January 2001. In 2004, there were 3,344 airports in the FAA’s National Plan o f Integrated Airport Systems; less than 650 had an ai r traffic c ontrol tower.Chapter 3 Agencies and Organizations 33

database.


### 3.5 B IRD 

### S TRIKE 

### C OMMITTEE 

### –USA
Bird Strike Committee–USA (BSC–USA) was formed in 1991 to facilitate the exchange of information, promote the collection and analysis of accurate wildlife strike data, promote the development of new technologies for r educing wildlife hazards, promote professionalism in wildlife management programs on airpor ts through training and advocacy of high standards of conduct of ai rport biologists and bird patrol personnel, and serve as a liaison to similar organizations in other countries.

Bird Strike Committee USA is directed by a 9- to 12-person steering committee consisting of two to three members each from the FAA, USDA /WS, DOD, and the aviation industry. The organization meets annually, in conjunction with Bird Strike Committee Canada, at an airport in the USA or Canada. There are generally four parts to a BSC–USA meeting. Part 1 is classroom and field training sessions on wildlife control at airports, which cover both civil and military aviation. Part 2 consists of the presentation of technical papers and posters. Part 3 comprises exhibits and demonstrations with v endors. Part 4 is a field trip that generally covers the host airport and surrounding areas to observe management programs and habitat issues related to wildlife and aviation safety. Participation in the annual meetings is open to any person interested in reducing wildlife hazards to aviation and in environmental and land-use issues related to airports. BSC–USA does not charge membership fees; however, a registration f ee is charged for attendance at annual meetings. Between 1990 and 2003, deer were responsible fo r 16 (76 percent) of the mamma l st rikes t hat result ed in injury or death and for 23 (77 percent) of the 30 deaths or injuries resulting from wildlife strikes with civil aircraft in the USA (photo by S. Wright, USDA).

Additional information about BSC–USA c an be found at BSC–USA's website: http://www.birdstrike.org

.Agencies and Organizations Chapter 3 34

This page intentionally left blank35



## CHAPTER 4: FEDERAL REGULA TIONS AND DEP ARTMENT AL POLICIES IMP ACTING AIRPORT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Four men escaped unhurt when their Learjet 36 struck an elk and caught fire during takeoff at a western USA airport in December 2002. The pilot was able to bring the plane to a stop in a marsh jus t off the end of the runway and evacuate the aircraft before it was destroyed by fire.



### 4.1 I NTRODUCTION
Wildlife is often prot ected by overlapping federal, stat e, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, enforceable by a diversity of governmental organizations. Chapter 3 provided an overview of the roles and respons ibilities of the various agencies. This chapter will discuss some of the more import ant federal regulati ons and departmental policies that influence wildlife management on or near airports.Regulations and Policies Chapter 4 36



### 4.2 S UMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS



### 4.2. A 

### T ITLE 

### 14, C ODE OF 

### F EDERAL 

### R EGULATIONS


### , PART 

### 139
14 CFR 139 governs the certification and operat ion of land airports that serve any scheduled or unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier that is conducted with an aircraft having a seating capacity of more than 9 passengers. Part 139.337 (Appendix P) speaks specifically to the air port operator’s responsibilities when dealing with the reduction of wildlif e strike hazards on and around airports. A detailed discussion of Part 139.337 can be found in Chapter 6.



### 4.2. B 

### T ITLE 

### 40, C ODE OF 

### F EDERAL 

### R EGULATIONS


### , PART 

### 258.10
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA), recognizing that birds can be attracted in large numbers to municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) and recognizing the potential threat posed by birds to airc raft safety, requires owners or operators of new MSWLF units—or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF units that are located within 10,000 feet of any airpor t runway used by turbojet ai rcraft or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway used only by piston-type aircraft—to demonstrate successfully that such units do not create hazardous conditions for aircraft. The USEPA also requires any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 statute miles of a runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the airport operator of the proposal.



### 4.2. C 

### T ITLE 

### 50, C ODE OF 

### F EDERAL 

### R EGULATIONS


### , PARTS 

### 1

TO 

### 199
These regulations govern the management of feder ally protected wildlife within the Un ited States and its territories based on the authority established in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see below). These regulations also es tablish procedures for issuing permits to take federally protected species. In general, a federal depredation permit, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), must be obtained before any non-game migratory birds may be taken, or before any migratory game birds may be taken outside of the normal hunting season or beyond established bag limits.

Because of conservation efforts by governmen t agencies and private organizations, many wildlife species once on the brink of extinction are now on the road to recovery. This juvenile bald eagle, hatched in New York, was rescued after a storm in Indiana. Management of migratory bird species is the responsibility of the USFWS (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).

Federal law protects all migratory bi rds, including their nests and eggs:
"A migratory bird [is]...any bird whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity,Chapter 4 Regulations and Policies 37

which belongs to a species listed in sect. 10. 13 [of 50 CFR] or whic h is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consist, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird, or any par t, nest, or egg there of." (50 CFR 10.12). This list includes almost all native bird species in the Unit ed States, with the exception of nonmigratory game birds, such as turkeys and grouse, and some introduced game birds, such as pheasants and chukars. Exotic and feral s pecies, such as graylag geese, muscovy ducks, European starlings, house (English) s parrows, and rock doves (pigeons), are not listed in 50 CFR 10.13 and ar e therefore not protect ed by federal law.
In addition to federal protection, all states protect migratory birds as well as game birds, such as pheasants, turkeys, grouse, and partri dges. States might or might not protect exotic or feral species.
With the exception of f ederally listed or proposed th reatened or endangered species, federal law does not protect terrestrial mamma ls, reptiles, or other wildlife taxa (e.g., deer, coyotes, raccoons, groundhogs, snakes, turtles, and freshwater fish). Protection of thes e wildlife groups is left to the individual states.



### 4.2. C



### . I 

### D EPREDATION PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS AND
PROCEDURES Persons wishing to take migratory birds, nests, or eggs as part of an airport wildlife m anagement program must first secure a depredation permit from the USFWS. Some state wildlife management agencies may require that a state permit be obtained also.Persons wishing to take stateprotected species must first secure a permit from their respective state wildlife management agency. For assistance in obtaining feder al and state depredation permits, contact the local U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Se rvices (USDA/WS) office (Appendix A). Blackbirds traveling to and from roosting sites nea r

an airport can create hazardous conditions fo r aircraft. A f ederal permit is not required to control blackbirds when "concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health hazard or othe r nuisance” (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).



### 4.2. C



### . II 

### S TANDING DEPREDATION ORDERS Federal law allows people to protect t hemselves and their property from damage caused by migratory birds. Provided no effort is made to kill or capture the birds, a depredation permit is not required to merely scare or herd depredating migratory birds other than endangered or threatened species or bald or golden eagles (50 CFR 21.41).
In addition, certain species of migratory birds may be killed or captured without a federal permit under specific circumstances, most of wh ich relate to agricultural situations. A Standing Depredating Order that has applicability at airpor ts relates to blackbirds and related species:Regulations and Policies Chapter 4 38

“A federal permit shall not be required to control yellow-headed, red-winged, rusty and Brewer's blackbird, cowbirds, all grackles , crows, and magpies, when found committing or about to commit depredation upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health hazard or other nui sance ...“ (50 CFR 21.43).
However, state laws may not mirror federal law in this respect. For example, in Ohio, crows may not be killed in any circumstances, outside of the state crow-hunti ng season, without a state-issued depredation permit, and blackbirds may not be killed on Sundays.
Persons wishing to take any other migratory birds, or to take migratory birds in situations other than those described above, must first secure a federal Migratory Bird Depredation Permit from the USFWS, and in some case a State Depredation Permit. The first step in obtaining the necessary permits is to contact the nearest USDA/WS state office (Appendix A).

This Navy T-44A suffered a turkey vulture strike to the right horizontal stabilizer during a routine training flight in October 2002 in Texas. The T-44A is the U.S. Navy’s version of a Beechcraft King Air 90, a twin turboprop corporate and utility transport aircraft. The turkey vulture population in the USA increased a t a mean annual rate of over 2% from 1980–2004.



### 4.2. D 

### T HE 

### M IGRATORY 

### B IRD 

### T REATY 

### A CT OF 

### 1918, AS AMENDED 

### (U.S. C ODE 

### 603–711; 40 S TATUTE 

### 755)

The United States of Amer ica, Canada, the United Mexi can States, Russia and Japan are signatories to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This act provides the statutory foundation for the federal prot ection and management of migrat ory birds in the United States (50 CFR, Parts 1–199).



### 4.2. E 

### T HE 

### A NIMAL 

### D AMAGE 

### C ONTROL 

### A CT OF 

### 1931, AS AMENDED 

### (7 U.S. C ODE 

### 426–426 C 

### ; 46 S TATUTE 

### 1468)

This act authorizes and directs the Secretar y of Agriculture to manage wildlife injurious to agricultural interests, other wildlife, or human health and safety, including wildlife hazards to aviation (Appendix B). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services (USDA/WS) is the agency that carri es out this mandate. USDA/WS, because of the experience, training, and background of its personnel, is recognized throughout the world for expertise in dealing with wildlife damage management issues. USDA/WS has an active presence in all U.S. states and territories. USDA/WS also has a National Wildlife Research Center in Colorado and eight regional research field stations.Chapter 4 Regulations and Policies 39



### 4.2. F 

### F EDERAL 

### I NSECTICIDE 

### , F UNGICIDE


### , AND 

### R ODENTICIDE 

### A CT


### , AS AMENDED 

### (7 U.S. C ODE 

### 136; P UBLIC 

### L AW 

### 104.317)
This act, administered by USEPA, governs the registration, l abeling, classification, and use of pesticides. Any substance used as a pesticide must be registered with the USEPA and with the respective state pesticide-regulatory agency. Anyone wishing to use restricted-use pesticides, applying any pesticides to the land of another, or applying any pesticides for hire, must be a Certified Applicator, or working under the direct supervision of a Certified Applicator, and then may only use pesticides covered by the Certified Applicator 's certification.


### 4.3 D EPARTMENTAL
POLICIES



### 4.3. A 

### FAA A DVISORY 

### C IRCULARS
The FAA recommends that public-use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in all applicable Advisory Circulars (AC). Holders of Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139), may use the standar ds, practices, and recommendations contained in an AC to comply with the airpor t management requirements of Part 139. In general, airports that have received federal grant-in-aid assistance must use the standards presented in an AC. See Appendix C fo r copies of the current version (as of July 2005) of AC mentioned in this Manual. AC are revised on an irregular schedule. Copies of revised AC can be accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/arp/

This engine on an A320 ingested a great blue heron on departure from a western USA airport in 2002. The pilot observed the bird just prior to impact. The aircraft made an emergency landing with the engine
out. The engine and nose cowl were replaced. The
runway was closed for 38 minutes while fire trucks washed the debris from the runway (photo courtes y S. Gordon).



### 4.3. A



### . I 

### 150/5200-32A. R EPORTING WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKES



### . This AC explains the import ance of reporting wildlife strikes. It also examines recent improvements in the FAA’s Bi rd/Other Wildlife Strike Repor ting system, how to report a wildlife strike, what happens to the wildlife st rike report data, how to access the FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database, and the FAA’s Feather I dentification Program.



### 4.3. A



### . II 

### 150/5200-33A. H AZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR
AIRPORTS



### . This AC provides guidance on locating certain land uses having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife to or in the vicinity of pub lic-use airports. It also provides guidance on the placement of new air port development projects (inc luding airport construction, expansion, and renovation) pertaining to aircra ft movement in the vicinity of hazardousRegulations and Policies Chapter 4 40

wildlife attractants.



### 4.3. A



### . III 

### 150/5200-34. C ONSTRUCTION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF LANDFILLS NEAR
PUBLIC AIRPORTS



### . This AC provides guidance on meeting the r equirements of Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106–181) (AIR 21), which prohibits the construction or establishment of a new Municipal Solid Waste Landfill within 6 statute m iles of certain public-use airports. Before these prohibitions apply, both the airport and the landf ill must meet very specific conditions. These restrictions do not apply to airports or landfills located within the state of Alaska (see § 5.3. A

. I of this manual).



### 4.3. B 

### FAA, A IRPORTS 

### : A IRPORT 

### C ERTIFICATION 

### P ROGRAM 

### P OLICIES

AND 

### G UIDANCE Program Policies and Guidance documents provide FAA personnel with interpretations of and directions for applying various aspects of federal regulations related to aviation safety. See Appendix D for Program Policies and Guidance related to airport wildlife management.



### 4.3. B



### . I 

### P OLICY 

### N O 

### . 77. I NITIATION
OF WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS
AT AIRPORTS



### . Between 1990 and 2003, vultures were involved in 374 reported wildlife strikes to US civil aircraft; 219 (59%) of those strikes caused damage to the aircraft. Vultures readily feed at landfills (photo by M. Colunga, Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares).

This policy establishes the procedures for FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors to follow when it is determined that an air port needs to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment to address an airport wildlife hazard.



### 4.3. B



### . II 

### P OLICY 

### N O 

### . 78. S ECTION 

### 7 CONSULTATION ON ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES



### . This policy establishes the procedures for coordinating and documenting FAA compliance with the Endangered Species Act when requiring an airport operator to develop, submit for approval, and implement a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.



### 4.3. B



### . III 

### P OLICY 

### N O 

### . 79. R EVIEW OF AIRPORT WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT
PLANS



### . This policy establishes the procedures to be followed when an incident occurs that would initiate a Wildlife Hazard Assessm ent under 14 CFR 139.337(b)(1-4), and directs Airport Certification Safety Inspectors to review an airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to ensure that it meets all requirement s of 14 CFR 139.337(e) and (f), as part of their preparation for a certification inspection.Chapter 4 Regulations and Policies 41



### 4.3. B



### . IV 

### P OLICY 

### N O 

### . 82. W ASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY COORDINATION



### . This policy establishes the procedures for coordinating and documenting FAA determinations on developing new, or expanding ex isting, waste disposal sites within 5 miles of a public-use airport.



### 4.3. C 

### FAA, A IRPORTS 

### , O FFICE
OF 

### A IRPORT 

### S AFETY AND 

### S TANDARDS 

### , C ERTALERTS
RELATING TO AIRPORT WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT Certalerts provide non-directive advisory or cautionary information dealing with aviation safety to the aviation community. See Appendix E for Certalerts dealing with aviation wildlife hazards.



### 4.3.c. I 

### C ERTALERT 

### N O 

### . 98-05. G RASSES ATTRACTIVE TO
HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE



### . This Certalert warns airport operators against the use of millet and any other lar ge-seed producing grasses or other plants attractive to hazar dous wildlife for revegetat ion of construction sites or other disturbed areas on the airport

T h is retention pond, located less than 2,000 feet from the main runw ay at a major USA airport, had 3 duck and 1 Canada goose nests w hen survey ed in 2002 (photo by E. Cleary

, F AA).



### 4.3. C



### . II 

### C ERTALERT 

### N O 

### . 04-09. T HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

### FAA AND 

### USDA/WS.

This Certalert clarifies the roles of and relationship between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States D epartment of Agricultur e, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA/WS) with regards to wildlife hazards on or near airports.



### 4.3. C



### . III 

### C ERTALERT 

### N O 

### 04-16. D EER HAZARDS TO AVIATION AND DEER FENCING



### . In light of recent incident s where a Learjet landing at an airport in Alabama and a Learjet departing an airport in Oregon were des troyed after colliding with deer or elk, airport operators are reminded of the importance of cont rolling deer and other wild ungulates on and around airfields.



### 4.3. D 

### USDA, W ILDLIFE 

### S ERVICES 

### D IRECTIVE 

### 2.305, W ILDLIFE 

### H AZARDS 

### T O 

### A VIATION This directive provides general guidelines for USDA/WS technical and direct control assistance to airport managers, state avia tion agencies, aviation industry, FAA, and Department of Defense about hazards caused by wildlife to airport safety (Appendix F).Regulations and Policies Chapter 4 42



### 4.3. E 

### M EMORANDUM OF 

### U NDERSTANDING 

### : FAA AND 

### USDA/WS
A Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and USDA/WS (No. 12-14-71-0003-MOU), establishing a cooperative relationship between the two agencies, has been in effect since 1989. The FAA relies heavily on the assistance of USDA/WS for resolving problems involving wildlife hazards to aviation at airports (Appendix G).



### 4.3. F 

### I NTERAGENCY 

### M EMORANDUM OF 

### A GREEMENT
The Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S Department of Ag riculture/Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (finalized Ju ly 2003) to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their mi ssions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contri buting to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the Unit ed States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation’s valuable environmental resources (Appendix H). A well-maintained fence, at least 10-feet high with no gaps at the bottom, is the primary defense to keep dee r and other large animals off the airport’s AOA. Deer can easily jump fences that are only 6 feet high (right) (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).43



## CHAPTER 5: RECOGNIZING HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE A TTRACT ANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS

A Eurasian crane penetrated the windshield of this Israeli helicopter in March 2003. In the USA, vultures and waterfowl have been responsible for the mo st losses of military aircraft to bird strikes.



### 5.1 I NTRODUCTION
Land-use practices and habitat are the key fa ctors determining t he wildlife species and the size of wildlife populations that are attracted to airport environments. The recognition and control of those land-use practices and habitats on or near airports that attract hazardous wildlife are fundamental to effective Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. The FAA (through Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, Appendix C) pr ovides guidance on locating certain land uses that have the potential to attract haz ardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport development projects (incl uding airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft movem ent near hazardous wildlife attractants.Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 44



### 5.2 S EPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON
OR NEAR AIRPORTS
The minimum separation criteria out lined below are recommended for land-use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vi cinity of airports. Please note that these criteria include land uses that cause move ment of hazardous wild life onto, into, or across the approach or departure airspace, ai r operation area (AOA), loading ramps, or aircraft parking area of airports.
The basis for the separation criteria contained in this section can be found in existing FAA regulations. The separation distances are basedon (1) flight patterns of pistonpowered aircraft and turbinepowered aircraft, (2) the altitude at which most strikes happen (81 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 92 percent occur under 3,000 feet above ground level), and (3) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. The recommended separation distances are diagramed in Figure-5-1.



### 5.2. A 

### A IRPORTS SERVING
PISTON



### - POWERED AIRCRAFT
Airports that do not sell Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent require ments for specific land uses, a minimum separation distance of 5,000 feet is recommended at these airports for known hazardous wildlife attractants or for new ai rport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This di stance is to be maintained between an airport’s AOA, loading ramps, and aircra ft parking areas and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 5-1 depicts this separat ion distance measured fr om the nearest AOA.

Piston engines are not as susceptible to bird-strike damage as turbine engines. However, other parts o f piston-powered aircraft can be severely damaged. This Rockwell Commander, flying at 1,500 feet AGL and 130 knots, struck a large bird. This was the second damaging bird strike this aircraft had suffered in less than 10 years (photo courtesy B. McKinnon, Transpor t Canada).



### 5.2. B 

### A IRPORTS SERVING TURBAN



### - POWERED AIRCRAFT Airports selling Jet-A fuel normally serve turbine-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific l and uses, a minimum separation distance of 10,000 feet is recommended at these airports for known hazardous wildlife attractants or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport’s AOA, loading ramps, and aircraft parking areas and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 5-1 depicts this separation distance measured from the nearest AOA.Chapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 45



### 5.2. C 

### P ROTECTION OF APPROACH OR DEPARTURE AIRSPACE
For all airports, a minimum separation dist ance of 5 statute miles is recommended between the farthest edge of the airport’s AOA and known hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlif e movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Figure 5-1 depicts this separation distance measured from the nearest AOA.


### 5.3 L AND



### - USE PRACTICES THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS

WILDLIFE
The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment vary considerably, depending on several factors, including land-use practices on or near theairport. This section discusses landuse practices having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety.



### 5.3. A 

### W ASTE DISPOSAL
OPERATIONS Municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) are known to attract large numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. Because of this, these operations, when located within the s eparations identified in the siting criter ia in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C), are considered incompatible with safe airport operations. Because most agricultural crops attract birds at some point during their production cycle, the FA A recommends against allowing farming on airpor t property (photo by R. DeFusco, BASH, Inc.).



### 5.3. A



### . I 

### S ITING NEW MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO 

### AIR 21

Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106–181) (AIR 21) prohibits the construction or establishment of a new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of cert ain public-use airports. Before these prohibitions apply, both the air port and the landfill must meet the very specific conditions described below. These restrictions do not appl y to airports or landfills located within Alaska.Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 46

PE RI ME TER A

PE RI METE R B Apro n P a r k i ng Ar ea Ru nw ay Tax i wa y Ru n w a y

Taxi way

PE RI ME TER C

Perimeter A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attract ants must be 5,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
Perimeter B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
Perimeter C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure, and circling airspace.
Figure 5-1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated.Chapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 47

The airport must (1) have received a federal grant(s) under 49 U.S. C. § 47101, et. seq.; (2) be under control of a public agency; (3) serve some scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 s eats; and (4) have total annual enplanements consisting of at least 51 percent of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats. The proposed MSWLF must (1) be within 6 mile s of the airport, as measured from airport property line to MSWLF property li ne, and (2) have started construction or establishment on or after April 5, 2001. Public Law 106–181 only limits the construction or establishment of some new MSWLF. It does not limit the expansion, either vertical or horizontal, of existing landfills. Consult the most recent version of AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishm ent of Landfills Near Public Airports (Appendix C), for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions.



### 5.3. A



### . II 

### S ITING NEW MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS NOT
SUBJECT TO 

### AIR 21
If an airport and MSWLF do not meet the restrictions of Public Law 106– 181, do not locate new MSWLF within the separation distanc es identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Measure the separation distances from the closest point of the air port’s AOA to the closest planned MSWLF cell. It is widely recognized that open-faced, putrescible
waste landfills attract gulls. However, these landfills also attract other birds hazardous to aviation. Ove r 5,000 starlings were counted at this Midwestern US A landfill (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).



### 5.3. A



### . III 

### C ONSIDERATIONS FOR EXISTING WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF SEPARATION CRITERIA Do not locate airport development projects that would increase the number of aircraft operations or accommodate lar ger or faster aircraft near MSWLF operations within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (s ee above and Appendix C). In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 258.10, owners or operators of exis ting MSWLF units that are located within the separati ons listed in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) must demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. To claim successfully that a waste-handling fa cility sited within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) does not attract hazardous wildlife and does not threaten aviation, the developer must establish convincingly that the facility will not handle putrescible material other than in fully enclosed transfer stations (see 5.4.b, below).
In their effort to satisfy the EPA requirement, some putre scible-waste facility proponentsWildlife Attractants Chapter 5 48

might offer to undertake experimental measur es to demonstrate t hat their proposed facility will not be a hazard to aircraft. To date, no such facility has been able to demonstrate an ability to reduc e and sustain hazardous wildlife to levels that existed before the putrescible-waste l andfill began operating. For this reason, the FAA does not consider the demonstration of experimental wildlife control at putrescible-waste landfills within the separation distanc es specified in AC 150/5200- 33A to be an acceptable alternative to locating the landf ill beyond the separation distances.



### 5.3. B 

### T RASH TRANSFER STATIONS Enclosed waste-handling facilities that rece ive garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided they are not located on ai rport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Do not handle or store putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife at these facilities. Trash transfer facilit ies that leave the main doors open during normal operations, are open on one or more sides, that temporar ily store uncovered quantities of municipal solid waste outside, that use semi -trailers that leak or have trash clinging to the outside, or that do not control odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable) do not meet the FAA’s definition of fully enclosed trash transfer stations. The FAA considers these facilities incompatible wit h safe airport operations if they are located closer than the separation distances specified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).

Open-sided trash transfer st ations attract gulls, starlings, and other birds that can pose a hazard to aviation safety. Any waste-management facility tha t has exposed putrescible waste must not be located closer to an airport than the separation distance specified in AC 150/5200-33A (Appendix C) (photo by L. Henze, USDA).



### 5.3. C 

### C OMPOSTING OPERATIONS ON OR NEAR AIRPORT PROPERTY Composting operations that acc ept only yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, or branches) generally do not attract hazardous wild life. Sewage sludge, woodchips, and similar material are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. The compost, however, mu st never include food or other municipal solid waste. Do not locate composting operations on air port property. Do not locate off-airport property composting operations closer than t he greater of the fo llowing distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA, loading ramp, or aircra ft parking space or the distance called for by airport design requirements (see AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design). This spacing is meant to prevent material, personnel, or equipment from penetrating any Object Free Area (OFA), Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Thres hold Siting Surface (TSS), or Clearway. Monitor composting operations located in proxim ity to the airport to ensure that steam orChapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 49

thermal rise does not adversely affect air tr affic. On-airport disposal of compost byproducts is not recommended.



### 5.3. D 

### U NDERWATER WASTE DISCHARGES The underwater discharge of any food waste (e .g., fish processing offal) within the separations identified in AC 150/15200- 33A (see above and Appendix C) is not recommended because it could attract scavenging hazardous wildlife.



### 5.3. E 

### R ECYCLING CENTERS Recycling centers that accept previously sorted non-food items, such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, or aluminum, are, in most cases, not attractive to hazardous wildlife and are acceptable.



### 5.3. F 

### C ONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS FACILITIES

Small recycling bins and compactor stations, properly maintained so that putrescible waste is covered at all times, are generally not attractive to birds (photos by E. Cleary, FAA).

Construction and demolition debris (C&D) l andfills do not generally attract hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, adm it no putrescible waste, and are not co-located with other putrescible waste di sposal operations. C&D landfills have similar visual and operational char acteristics to putrescible waste disposal sites. When co-located with putrescible wast e disposal operations, C&D landfills are more likely to attract hazardous wildlife bec ause of the similarities between these disposal facilities. Site C&D landfills co -located with other putrescible waste disposal operations outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).



### 5.3. G 

### F LY ASH DISPOSAL

The incinerated residue from resource recove ry power/heat-generating facilities that are fired by municipal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally not a wildlife attractant because it no longer contains putrescible matter. Landfills accepting only fly ash are generally not considered to be wildlife attract ants and are acceptable as long as they are maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible wa ste of any kind, and are not co-located with other disposal operati ons that attract hazardous wildlife.Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 50

Since varying degrees of waste consumption are a ssociated with general incineration (not resource recovery power/heat-generating fa cilities), the FAA considers the ash from general incinerators a regular waste dis posal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife attractant if disposed of within the separation criteria outlined in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).


### 5.4 W ATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
Drinking water intake and treatment facilities, storm water and wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use, and ponds that result from mining activities often attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife. To prevent wildlife hazards, land-use developers and ai rport operators might need to develop management plans, in compliance with loca l and state regulations, to support the operation of storm water management facilities on or near public-use airports to ensure a safe airport environment. Water detention basins at airports, such as French-drain system at an eastern US this



### 5.4. A 

### E XISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES On-airport storm water management facilities a llow the quick removal of surface water, including discharges related to aircraft deicing, from impervious surfaces, such as pavement and terminal/hangar building roofs. Existing on-airport det ention ponds collect storm water, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they slowly release water after storms, they create standing bodies of water that can attract hazardous wildlife. Using appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques, airport management should take immediate corrective actions to address any wildlife hazards arising from existing storm water or other such fa cilities located on or near an airport (14 CFR 139.337 (a)). Develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist. Where possible, modify storm water det ention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm. Avoi d or remove retent ion ponds and detention ponds featuring long-term stor age to eliminate standing water. Design or modify A airport, should be designed to completely drain within 48 hours after the design storm even t (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

This storm water basin was designed to drain within 48 hours following a major storm even t (the design storm). The rip-rap lining helps prevent vegetation growth and bird use of the pond (photo courtesy FAA).Chapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 51

detention basins to remain totally dry between ra infalls. Where constant flow of water is anticipated through the basin, or where any portion of the basin bottom may remain wet, include a concrete or paved pad and/or ditch/sw ale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide cover and food for wildlife.
When it is not possible to dr ain a large detention pond completely, use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to deter birds and other hazardous wildlife. When physical barrier s are used, carefully evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Be fore installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office.
Encourage off-airport storm water treatment facility operators to in corporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into storm water treatment facility operating practices when their facility is locat ed within the separation criteria specified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).



### 5.4. B 

### N EW STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES Design and operate off-airport storm water management systems lo cated within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) so as not to create above-ground standing water. Design, engineer, construct, and maintain on-airport storm water detention ponds for a maximum 48–hour detention period for the design storm and so the ponds remain completely dry between storms. Use steep-sided, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basins to fac ilitate the control of hazardous wildlife. When it is not possible to place these ponds away from the AOA, use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to prevent access of hazardous wildlife to open water and minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions. When physical barriers are used, carefully evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Offi ce. Eliminate all v egetation in or around detention basins that provides food or cover for hazardous wildlife. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, use underground storm water inf iltration systems, such as French drains or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife.

Floating plastic balls can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the site. FAA approval is required before physical barriers may be used over ponds at certificated airports (photo

c ourtes y Wildlife Materials

, Inc

. ).Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 52



### 5.4. C 

### E X I STING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Immediately correct any wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment or similar facilities locat ed on or near the airport (14 CFR 139.337). Encourage wastewat er treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Encourage wastewat er treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, consider the existence of wastewater tr eatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and av oid such sites when practicable. In tropical regions, cattle egrets appear to fill the ecological niche occupied by gulls at waste management facilities in North America. Over 13,000 cattle egrets were seen at this sewage treatment and landfill complex near Mexico City (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).



### 5.4. D 

### N EW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

Do not construct new wastewater treatment facilities or associat ed settling ponds within the separations identified in AC 150/ 15200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Wastewater treatment facilit ies are “any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes.” The definition includes any pretreatment involv ing the reduction of the amount of pollutants or the elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such pollut ants into a publicly owned treatment works (wastewater treatment facility). Consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife during the site-location analysis fo r wastewater treatment facilitie s if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site. Oppose such fa cilities if they are within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).



### 5.4. E 

### A RTIFICIAL MARSHES
In warmer climates, wastewater treatment fac ilities sometimes employ artificial marshes and use submergent and emer gent aquatic vegetation as natural filters. These artificial marshes may be used by various species of bird s, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for nesting, feeding, or roosting. Do not establish artificial marshes within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).Chapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 53



### 5.4. F 

### W ASTEWATER DISCHARGE AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL Do not discharge of wastewat er or sludge on airport proper ty because it may improve soil moisture and quality on unpaved areas and lead to improved turf growth that can be an attractive food source for many species of animals. Also, the turf requires more frequent mowing, which in turn might mutilate or flush insects or small animals and produce thatch, both of which can attract haz ardous wildlife. In addi tion, the improved turf might attract grazing wildlife, such as deer and geese. Problems might also occur when discharges saturate unpaved airport areas . The resultant soft, muddy conditions can severely restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in a timely manner.


### 5.5 W ETLANDS
Wetlands provide a variety of functions and c an be regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Wetlands typically attract diverse s pecies of wildlife, including many that rank high on the list of hazardous wildlife species (Table 7-1).

This photo is from a National Wildlife Refuge located adjacent to a major USA airport (note air traffic control tower in background). These incompatible land uses were established years ago, before the FAA had set minimum separation distances. In this type of situation, both the airport manager and the refuge manager must be extra vigilant and ready to respond to rapidly developing wildlife hazard If questions exist as to whether an area qualifies as a wetland, contact the local division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or a wetland consultant qualified to delineate wetlands. A MOA among six federal agencies was signed in 2003 (Appendix H) to fac ilitate, among other things, resolution of wetland management issues at airports without compromising aviation safety related to wildlife hazards.



### 5.5. A 

### E XISTING WETLANDS ON OR
NEAR AIRPORT PROPERTY

conditions (photo by E. Cleary, FAA). If wetlands are located on or near airport property, be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public-use airports, immediately correct, in cooperation with loca l, state, and federal regulatory agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing wetl ands located on or ne ar airports. Where required, a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) will outli ne appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Develop m easures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist.Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 54



### 5.5. B 

### N EW AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT Whenever possible, locate new airports using the separations from wetlands identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Where alternative sites are not practicable, or when expanding an existing airpor t into or near wetlands, in consultation with a wildlife damage management bi ologist, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers, and the state wildlife ma nagement agency, evaluate the wildlife hazards and prepare a WHMP that indi cates methods of minimizing the hazards.



### 5.5. C 

### M ITIGATION FOR WETLAND IMPACTS FROM AIRPORT PROJECTS Wetland mitigation might be necessary when wetland disturbances result from new airport development projects or projects required to correct wildlife hazards from wetlands. Wetland mitigation must be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. Locate wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wild life outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200- 33A (see above and Appendix C).



### 5.5. C



### . I 

### O N



### - SITE MITIGATION OF
WETLAND FUNCTIONS The FAA may consider exceptions to locating mitigation activities outside the separations identified in AC 150/5200- 33A (see above and Appendix C) if the affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or ground water recharge, which cannot be replicated when moved to a di fferent location. Using existing airport property is sometimes the only feasible way to achieve the mitigation ratios mandated in regulatory orders and settlement agreements with the resource agencies. Conservation easements are an additional means of providing mitigation for project impacts. Typically the airport operator continues to own the property, and an easement is created stipulating that the property will be maintai ned as habitat for state or federally listed species.

This water body at a major west coast USA airpor t should be removed because it provides ideal habita t for waterfowl and wading birds hazardous to aircraft. However, the water has also been designated as critical habitat for the endangered Riverside fair y shrimp. Airports must work closely with multiple federal and state agencies to resolve such conflicts (Photo by T. Pitlik, USDA)

Mitigation must not inhibit the airport operator ’s ability to effectively control hazardous wildlife on or near the mitigation site or effectiv ely maintain other aspects of safe airport operations. Avoid enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA may review any onsite mitigation propos als to determine compatibility with safe airport operations. In cooperation with a wildlife damage management biologist, evaluate any wetland mitigation projects that are needed to protect unique wetland functions and that must be lo cated in the separation crit eria in AC 150/5200-33A (seeChapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 55

above and Appendix C) before the mitigation is implemented. Develop a WHMP to reduce any identified wildlife hazards.



### 5.5. C



### . II 

### O FF



### - SITE MITIGATION OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS Site wetland mitigation projects that mi ght attract hazardous wildlife outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) unless they provide unique functions that must remain ons ite (see 2-4c(1)). A gencies that regulate impacts to or around wetlands re cognize that it might be necessary to split wetland functions in mitigation schemes. Therefor e, regulatory agencies may, under certain circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations.



### 5.5. C



### . III 

### M ITIGATION BANKING Wetland mitigation banking is the creation or re storation of wetlands in order to provide mitigation credits that can be used to offs et permitted wetland lo sses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance replacement for permitted wetland losses; consolidating small projec ts into larger, better-designed and managed units; and encouraging integration of wetl and mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigated outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200- 33A (see above and Appendix C) can still be located within the same watershed. Wetland mitigation banks meeting the separati on criteria offer an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. Working with local watershed management agencies or organizations, develop mitigation banking for wetland impacts on airport property. See Appendix M for a more detailed discussion of this issue.


### 5.6 D REDGE SPOIL
CONTAINMENT AREAS
Do not locate dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilit ies) within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) if the containment area has standing water or the spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife.

During the first winter following its completion, ove r 20,000 Bonaparte's gulls used this dredge spoil containment area (far right of photo) constructed nex t
to an airport on Lake Erie's shoreline. The airport’s main runway can be seen to the left (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).



### 5.7 A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITY



### 5.7. A 

### C ROP PRODUCTION Because most, if not all, agricultural cr ops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production, do not use airport pr operty for crop production, including hayWildlife Attractants Chapter 5 56

crops, within the separations identifi ed in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).
If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of the ai rport, then the airport must follow the crop distance guidelines listed in the table titled "Minimum Distances bet ween Certain Airport Features and Any On-Airport Agricult ural Crops" found in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Appendix 19. Avoid production of cereal grains and sunflowers. Weigh the cost of wildlife control and potential accident s against the income produced by the onairport crops when deciding whether to allow crops on the airport.



### 5.7. B 

### L IVESTOCK PRODUCTION Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy operations, hog or chicken production facilities, or egg-laying operations) often attrac t flocking birds, such as starlings, that pose a hazard to aviation. T herefore, keep such facilities outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of any livestock operation within these separations. Do not graze free-ranging livestock on airport property because the animals might wander onto the AOA. Livestock feed, water, and manure might attract hazardous birds.



### 5.7. C 

### A QUACULTURE
Aquaculture activiti es (e.g., catfish, trout, bait fish production) conducted outside of fully enclosed buildings are inherently attractive to a variety of birds. Existing aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) must have a program developed to reduce the attractivene ss of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Oppose t he establishment of new aquaculture facilities/activities within the separati ons listed in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C).

Various fish-eating birds are attracted to aquaculture facilities as demonstrated by these great egrets at a southern USA catfish pond complex. Attempts to repel the birds using propane exploders failed because the birds habituated to the s ound (photo by D. LeBlanc, USDA).



### 5.7. D 

### A LTERNATIVE USES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND Some airports are surrounded by vast ar eas of farmed land within the distances specified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Seasonal uses of these agricultural lands for activities such as waterfowl hunting can cr eate a hazardous wildlife situation. Rice farmers, for example, mi ght flood their land during waterfowl hunting season and obtain additional revenue by renti ng out duck blinds. The duck hunters,Chapter 5 Wildlife Attractants 57

using decoys and calls, draw in large numbers of birds, creating a threat to aircraft safety. It is recommended that a wildlif e damage management biologist review, in coordination with local farmers and airport management, these types of seasonal land uses. Restrictions to seasonal land uses that are incompatible with aviation safety should be incorporated into the WHMP.


### 5.8 G OLF COURSES


### , LANDSCAPING


### , AND OTHER LAND



### - USE
CONSIDERATIONS



### 5.8. A 

### G OLF COURSES The large grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses are attractive to hazardous wildlife, particularl y Canada geese, mallards, and gulls. These species can pose a threat to aviation safety. Do not site new golf courses within the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C). Existing golf courses located within these separations must develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that ar e hazardous to aviation safety. Ensure these golf courses are monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of haz ardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, take corrective actions immediately.



### 5.8. B 

### L ANDSCAPING AND
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Depending on geographic location and plant selection and spacing, airport landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. Approach landscaping with caution, and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements. In cooperation with a wildlife damage management biologist, review all landscaping plans. Monitor all landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, take corrective actions immediately. Turf grass areas can be highly attractive to a variety of hazardous wildlife species. Research conducted by the USDA/WS National Wildlife Research Center has shown that no one grass management regime will deter all species of hazardous wildlife in all situations. In cooperation with a wildlife damage management biologist, develop airport turf grass m anagement plans on a prescription basis, depending on the airport’s geographic location and the type of hazardous wildlife likely to frequent the airport. S ee Chapter 9 and Appendix O for more information on vegetation management. Trees and shrubs that produce fruits that are attractive to birds, such as these pyracanthas at a
western USA airport, should not be used in Dense stands of evergreen trees also should be avoided as the landscape designs on airport property.
y provide ideal roosting sites for flocks of starlings and blackbirds (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).Wildlife Attractants Chapter 5 58

Ensure that plant varieties attractive to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. Do not plant disturbed areas or areas in need of re-v egetating with seed mixtures containing millet or any other large-seed pr oducing grass. Prevent plant maturation and seed head production on airport property already planted with seed mixtures containing millet, rye grass, or other la rge-seed producing grasses by t he use of disking, plowing, or another suitable agricultural practice. Fo llow the specific reco mmendations for grass management and seed and plant sele ction made by the State University Cooperative Extension Service, the local office of US DA/Wildlife Services, or a qualified wildlife damage management biologist. Consi der developing and implementing a preferred/prohibited plant species list, reviewed by a wildlife damage management biologist, which has been designed for the geographic location to reduce the attractiveness to hazardous wildlife for landsc aping airport property. Avoid installation of ponds, fountains, reflecting pools, and other water bodies as part of an airport’s landscaping scheme.



### 5.8. C 

### O THER HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS Other specific land uses or activities (e .g., sport or commercial fishing, shellfish production or harvesting), per haps unique to certain regions, have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. R egardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public-use airport, airpor t operators must take prompt remedial action to protect aviation safety.


### 5.9 S YNERGISTIC EFFECTS
OF SURROUNDING LAND USES
There might be circumstances where two (or more) different land uses that would not, by themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants or that are located outside of the separations identified in AC 150/5200-33A (see above and Appendix C) that are in such an alignment with the ai rport as to create a wildlife corridor directly through the airport and/or surrounding airspace. An example of this situation might involve a lake located outside of the separation criteria on the east side of an airport and a la rge hayfield on the west side of an airport—land uses that together could create a flyway for Canada geese directly across the airspace of the airport. There are numerous examples of such si tuations; therefore, airport operators and the wild life damage management biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP.

This open dumpster at a park 0.5 mile from a wes t coast USA airport served as a strong attractant fo r gulls, pigeons, and crows. Airports must work with surrounding landowners and local governments to prevent bird attractants near airports (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).59



## CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS A T AIRPORTS

The pilot of this Cessna 172 made a Mayday call to a nearby Air Traffic Control Tower in Texas afte r hitting a bird (likely a vulture) with the left wing at 800 feet AGL on 8 July 2003. The pilot attempted to make an emergency landing in a field but lo st control and crashed, killing him and his passenge r (photo courtesy of FAA).



### 6.1 I NTRODUCTION
In recognition of the increased risk of seri ous aircraft damage or t he loss of human life that can result from a wild life strike, greater emphasis is being placed on preparing airport Wildlife Hazard Managem ent Plans that effectively deal with the problem. This heightened awareness and increased effort has raised many questions about the preparation and content of an FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for an airport. The specific events that trigger a Wildlife Hazard Assessment and the specific issues that a Wildlife Ha zard Management Plan must address for FAA approval and inclusion in the airport’s Air port Certification Manual (ACM)Developing Control Programs Chapter 6 60

are described in 14 CFR 139.337 (Appendix P).
It is important to note that regardless of whether a Wildlif e Hazard Assessment has ever been required or a Wildlife Hazard M anagement Plan has been developed, airport operators must be ready to deal with hazardous wildlife on or near the airport. The airport operator must be prepared to take immediate action to deal with unexpected incursions of hazardous wildlife into the AO A, loading ramps, or parking areas (14 CFR 139.337(a)).

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

( a )

. I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i t s A i r p o r t Certification Manual and the requirements of this section, each certificate holder shall take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected. Public-use airport operators need to be aware of any hazardous wildlife attractants on or near their airport, even if a wildlife strike has never been reported from the airport. Airport personnel need at least a minimal understanding of wildlife hazard control issues.



### 6.2 W ILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENT

The Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower is a good place to start a Wildlife Hazard A ssessment. The tower presents an excellent overview of the airport and provides an opportunity to talk to ATC personnel about wildlife they have seen on the airport (photo by A. Gosser, USDA). The first step in prepar ing an airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. The Wildlife Hazard Assessment, conducted by a wildlife damage management biolog ist, provides the scientific basis for the development, implementation, and refi nement of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Though parts of the Wildlife Hazard Assessment may be incorporated directly in to the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, they are two separate documents.



### 6.2. A 

### R EQUIREMENT FOR WILDLIFE
HAZARD ASSESSMENT Title 14 CFR 139.337(b)( 1–4) requires that, in a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate holder must ensure that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment is conducted when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport:

1. An air carrier aircra ft experiences multiple wildlife strikes;

2. An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife;Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 61

3. An air carrier aircraft experienc es an engine ingestion of wildlife; or
4. Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is obs erved to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area. The following provides a point-by-point co mment on the regulatio ns concerning the events that trigger a wildlife hazard assessment.

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(b) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate holder shall ensure that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment is conducted when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport. A wildlife hazard assessment, conducted by a qualified wildlife damage management biologist, must be conducted if—

(b) (1) An air carrier aircraft experiences a multiple wildlife strike Aircraft strikes more than one animal (geese, starlings, bat s, deer, coyotes, etc.). (b) (2) An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife. As used in this par agraph, substantial damage means damage or structural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component The definition of subs tantial damage is taken directly form the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual on the International Civil Aeronautics Organization Bird Strike Information System.

(b) (3) An air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or Wildlife is ingested into a turboprop, turbofan, or turbojet engine. Engine damage does not have to result from the ingestion. (b) (4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft
movement area. Airports with a standing Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), announcements on their Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS), or comments in Airport/Facility Directory (A/FD) warning pilots of wildlife hazards on or near the airport meet this condition.



### 6.2. B 

### N ECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENT Title 14 CFR 139.337 (c)(1–5) provides specif ic guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. The following is a point-by-point commentDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 62

on each section of the regulations concerni ng the factors to be addr essed in a Wildlife Hazard Assessment.

14 CFR 139.337 Comments
(c) The Wildlife Hazard Assessment ... shall be conducted by wildlife damage management biologist ... having training or experience in wildlife hazard management at airpor ts ... or working under the direct supervision ... The Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) is to be conducted by someone having the following qualifications:
Education: Meets U.S. Office of Personal Management standards for GS-486 Wildlife Biologist. Work experience: Has prepared a WHA acceptable to the FAA. Has prepared a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan acceptable to the FAA. Or, is working under the direct supervision of someone who meets the above requirements. (c) cont. ... the Wildlife Hazard Assessment shall contain: (c) (1) Analysis of the event or circumstances that prompted the study. Who, what, when, w here, why of the situation prompting the WHA. (c) (2) Identification of the wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal

occurrences. What wildlife species have access to the airport? What are their legal status, movement patterns, and seasonal patterns? Refer to Table 7-1 for a ranked listing of hazardous species. Pay particular attention to those species considered the most hazardous occurring on or near the airport. (c) (3) Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife. Wildlife are attracted to an airport because something exists on or near the airport that they desire, su ch as large open areas where they can loaf in relative safety; abundant food or water; and escape, loafing, or nesting cover. These attractants need to be identified and evaluated.Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 63

14 CFR 139.337 Comments
(c) (4) Description of the wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. This is a judgment ca ll best made by a professional wildlife management biologist trained in dealing with airport issues. Hitting 3-4 swallows is much less hazardous than hitting one 12-pound Canada goose (see Table 7-1). ( c ) ( 5 ) R e c o m m e n d e d a c t i o n s f o r reducing identified wild life hazards to air carrier operations. The biologist prepar ing the WHA must provide prioritized recommendations for mitigating the hazardous wildlife attractants identified in (c)(3).



### 6.2. C 

### D URATION OF WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND BASIC SURVEY
TECHNIQUES In conducting a Wildlife Hazard Assessment 14 CFR Part 139.337 (c)(2) requires the “identification of the wildlif e species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences.” In most cases, this requirement dictates that a 12-month assessment be conducted so the seasonal patterns of birds and other wildlife using the airport and surrounding area during an annual cycle can be properly documented. Most r egions of the USA have dramatic seasonal differences in numbers and species of migratory birds. Even for non -migratory wildlife, such as deer and resident Canada geese, behavior and movement patterns can change significantly among seasons. Observations of wildlife at an airport and surrounding areas limited to a few days in a single season generally cannot adequately assess hazardous wildlife issues and associated habitat attractants.
In order to adequat ely identify “the wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences” during a Wildlife Hazard Assessment, the FAA and USDA/WS recommend that standardized survey procedures be used. These st andardized procedures should provide an objective assessment of haz ardous wildlife in the airpor t environment that can be repeated in future years for comparative purposes. One objective procedure for assessing bird populations, based on No rth American Breeding Bird Survey methodology, is the establishment of standar dized survey points about 1⁄2 mile apart throughout the AOA (10-20 survey points are generally recommended depending on

During the WHA, special attention must be paid to the presence of domestic animals on the airport. This Beachcraft Baron struck an 80-pound dog (chow) during a night departure. The center landing gear collapsed and both propellers struck the ground.Developing Control Programs Chapter 6 64

size of airport). Assigning each bird or bird flock observed during a point count to a grid location can be useful in further refining spat ial distributions of birds on the airport. Additional survey points may be established in nearby off-airport areas (e.g., taxicab lot, golf course, or city park) suspected of a ttracting hazardous birds that move across the AOA. Standardized counts of birds should be made at each of these survey points at least twice monthly. In addition, spec ialized surveys might be needed as part of the overall assessment to document large-to-mid-sized mammals, such as deer or jackrabbits (from vehicle using spotlight or night vision equipment), and small mammals, such as voles and mice (snap traps), on the airport. These specialized mammal surveys should be conducted at least twice during a 12-month WHA.


### 6.3 W ILDLIFE HAZARD
MANAGEMENT PLAN



### 6.3. A 

### R EQUIREMENT FOR

WILDLIFE HAZARD
MANAGEMENT PLAN When complete, the Wildlife Hazard Assessment is submitted to the FAA for evaluation and determination whether a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan needs to be developed for the airport. In reaching this decision, t he FAA will consider the Wildlife Hazard Assessment, the aeronautical activity at the airport, the views of the certificate holder and airport users, and any other pertinent information (14 CFR 139.337 (d)(1–6)). At a minimum, it is recommended that the airport manager develop and implement a plan to deal with any hazardous wildlife attractants or situations identified in the Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Bodies of open water adjacent to airports, such this as drainage canal, are often magnets for waterfowl and wading birds. Note the shallow slope that allows birds easy access in and out of the water. Such canals should be covered if possible or diverted awa y from the airport (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).

If the FAA determines that a Wildlife Ha zard Management Plan is needed, the airport operator must then formulate and implement a Wildlife Hazard M anagement Plan, using the Wildlife Hazard Assessment as the basis for the plan (14 CFR 139.337 (e)(1–3)). At the same time, the FAA regional coordinator will contact the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ecological Services Field Office and request information about the presence of federally lis ted or proposed endangered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat on or near the airport. (See FAA Airport Certification Program, Progr am Policy and Guidance No. 78, Section-7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species, Appendi x D.) The USFWS response will be forwarded to the airport operator to be tak en into account when preparing the required plan.Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 65

If federally listed or pr oposed endangered or threatened spec ies or designated or proposed critical habitat are present, the ai rport operator must prepare a Biological Assessment (50 CFR 402.13) assessing t he impacts of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan on these specie s or habitats. The Biological Assessment and draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan must be s ubmitted to the FAA for review and approval. Airport management may request the wildlife bi ologist who prepared the Wildlife Hazard Assessment to assist with t he preparation of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and to review the finished plan. However, only the airport operator can commit airport resources (time, money, pers onal), and the ultimate respons ibility for the development and implementation of the pl an rests with the airport oper ator. When the plan is completed the airport operator must submit the draft plan, together with a copy of the Biological Assessment, to the FAA for approval. The FAA will conduct any needed Section 7 consultations with the USFWS.



### 6.3. B 

### . N ATIONAL 

### E NVIRONMENTAL 

### P OLICY 

### A CT

REVIEW The FAA’s approval of a draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is covered by the categorical exclusion in FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 308e. Before the FAA approves a draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, the FAA must determine whether or not the draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan involves extraordinary circumstances (see FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 303c and 304).

• If a draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan does not involve extraordinary circumstances, the FAA may categorically exclude the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan under FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 308e.

• If a draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan involves extraordinary ci rcumstances, the FAA may require the airport sponsor to prepare an EA, or the FAA may prepare an EIS. The presence of a threatened or endangered species

on an airport, such as this nesting California leas t tern, would c ons titute extraordinary circumstances and require preparation of either an Environmental A ssessment or an Environmental Impact Statemen t before the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan could receive FAA approval (photo courtesy of USFWS, NTCT Image Library).

Once a draft Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is approved, the plan is returned to the airport sponsor for inclusion in the air port’s Airport Certific ation Manual and is enforceable.Developing Control Programs Chapter 6 66



### 6.3. C 

### N ECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN The goal of an airport’s Wildlife Hazard M anagement Plan is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equi pment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport. The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan must accomplish the following:

A s part of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, pilots should be reminded to conduct a pre-flight inspection o f their aircraft for bird nesting material, especially if the aircraft is parked outside or has not been used for some time (photo courtesy USDA). • Identify personal responsible for implementing each phase of the plan,

• Identify and provide information on hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport,

• Identify appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard,

• Prioritize appropriate management measures,

• Recommend necessary equipment and supplies,

• Identify training requirements for the airport personnel who will implement the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, and

• Identify when and how the plan will be reviewed and updated. It is often helpful for the airport manager to appoint a Wildlife Hazards Working Group that periodically reviews t he airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and the plan’s implementation to make recommendations for further refinements or modifications (see Chapter 7).
14 CFR 139.337 (f)(1–7) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a Wildlife Hazard M anagement Plan. The following table details how the requirements of Part 139.337 (f) (1–7) are to be address ed in an FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (see also Appendix E).Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 67

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f). The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan shall include at least the following :

(f) (1) A list of the individuals having authority and responsibility for implementing each aspect of the plan. Assign or delegate specific responsibilities for various sections of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to various airport departments, such as—

• Airport Director

• Operations Dept.

• Maintenance Dept.

• Security Dept.

• Planning Dept.

• Finance Dept.

• Wildlife Coordinator

• Wildlife Hazards Working Group

• Local law enforce ment authorities that might provide wildlife law enforcement and other support include —

o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

o State Wildlife Agency

o City Police

o County SheriffDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 68

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (2) A list prioritizing the following actions identified in the wildlife hazard assessment and target dates for their initiation and completion: Provide a prioritized list of problem wildlife populations and wildlife a ttractants (food, cover, and water) identified in the WHA, proposed mitigation actions, and target starting and completion dates. A list of completed wildlife population management projects and habitat modification projects designed to reduce the wildlife strike potential can be included to provide a history of work already accomplished. It is helpful to group attractants by areas and ownership.
Airport property:

• Air Operations Area (AOA)

• Within 2 miles of AOA

• Airport structures
Non-airport property

• Within 2 miles of AOA

• Within 5 miles of AOA

(f) (2) (i) Wildlife population management; Address species-specific population management plans (e.g., deer, gulls, geese, and coyotes):

• Habitat modification

• Resource protection

• Repelling/exclusion

• Removal Chapter 9 provides a discussion of the various wildlife control methods.Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 69

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (2) (ii) Habitat modification; and Food/prey management:

• Rodents

• Earthworms

• Insects

• Grain/seeds

• Garbage—handling, storage

• Handouts (feeding wildlife)
Vegetation management:

• AOA vegetation

• Drainage ditch vegetation

• Landscaping

• Agriculture
Water management:

• Permanent Water

• Wetlands

• Canals/ditches/streams

• Holding ponds

• Sewage (glycol) treatment ponds

• Other water areas

• Ephemeral water

o Runways, taxiways, aprons

o Other wet areas
Airport buildings:

• Airfield structures

• Abandoned structures

• Terminal

• Airport constructionDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 70

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (2) (ii) [cont.] [and] land use changes. i. e., Elimination of agricultural activities on or near the airport, su rface mining, urban development, creation of off-airport storm water management systems.

(f) (3) Requirements for and, where applicable, copies of local, state, and federal wildlife control permits. Certain species of wildlife might be protected at all le vels of government— local, state, and f ederal—or might not be protected at all, depending on location and species. Address t he specific species involved and their legal status in this section. Describe the wildlife management permitting requirements and procedures for all levels of government having jurisdiction, i.e.—

• Federal – 50 CFR, Parts 1 to 199.

• State – Fish and Game Code (or equivalent)

• City, county – ordinances

• If pesticides are to be used, the following are also needed:

o Pesticide-use regulations:

o Federal: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

o State (varies by state)

o Pesticide-use licensing requirements

o State regulations Summaries are generally adequate. It is not necessary to quote chapter and verse of federal, state, and local laws and regulations.Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 71

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (4) Identification of resources that the certificate holder will pr ovide to implement the plan. Provide information identifying what resources the airport will supply in terms of—

• Personal

• Time

• Equipment (e.g., radios, vehicles, guns, traps, propane cannons, etc.)

• Supplies (e.g., pyrotechnics)

• Pesticides (restricted/non-restricted use)

• Application equipment

• Sources of supply for equipment and supplies

(f) (5) Procedures to be followed during air carrier operations that at a minimum includes—

(f) (5) (i) Designation of personnel responsible for implementing the procedures; Who, when, what circumstances:

• Wildlife Control Personnel

• Wildlife Coordinator

• Operations Dept.

• Maintenance Dept.

• Security Dept.

• Air Traffic Control

(f) (5) (ii) Provisions to conduct physical inspections of the aircraft movement areas and other areas critical to successfully manage known wildlife hazards before air carrier operations begin; Who, when, how, what circumstances:

• Runway, taxiway sweeps

• AOA monitoring

• Other areas attractive to wildlifeDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 72

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (5) (iii) Wildlife hazard control measures; and Who, what circumstances, when, and how are Wildlife Control Personnel contacted? What methods are to be used to—

• Repel

• Capture

• Kill

(f) (5) (iv) Ways to communicate effectively between personnel conducting wildlife control or observing wildlife hazards and the air traffic control tower. Training in communication procedures
Equipment needed
Radios, cellular phones, lights

(f) (6) Procedures to review and evaluate the wildlife hazar d management plan annually or following an event described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, including: At a minimum, hold annual meetings, or meet after an event described in 139.337(a)(1–3) with repr esentatives from all airport departments involved in wildlife hazard management efforts and the wildlife damage management biologist who did the original Wildlife Hazard Assessment.

(f) (6) (i) The plans effectiveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards on and in the airport’s vicinity and: Input from all airport departments, Air Traffic Control, and the wildlife biologist as to effectiveness of the plan. Good records are required for evaluating the effectiveness of a program (see Chapter 7).

(f) (6) (ii) Aspects of the wildlife hazards described in the wildlife hazard assessment that should be reevaluated. For example—

• Number of times wildlife seen on AOA.

• Requests for wildlife dispersal from air traffic control, pilots, or others.

• Increased number of strikes.Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 73

14 CFR 139.337 Comments

(f) (7) A training program conducted by a qualified wildlife damage management biologist to provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully carry out the wildlife hazard management plan requi red by paragraph (d) of this section. Training for—

• Wildlife control personnel

• Other airport personnel

• Pesticide user training and certification (See Chapter 8)

(g) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for wildlife hazard management at ai rports that are acceptable to the Administrator. AC 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near AirportsDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 74

This page intentionally left blankChapter 6 Developing Control Programs 75

Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. Page 1 of 5

Airport Name (LOCID)

City: State: FAA Region:

Wildlife Hazard Assessment Evaluation

Elements Reference 14 CFR 139.337 Complete Comments

The wildlife hazard assessment ... shall contain at least the following: (c)

Analysis of event(s) or circumstances that prompted the
assessment. (c) (1)

Identification of the wildlife species observed, and ... . (c) (2)

description of species numbers, (c) (2)

description of species local movements, (c) (2)

description of daily occurrences, (c) (2)

description of seasonal

occurrences. (c) (2)

Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife. (c) (3)

Description of wildlife hazard to air carries operations. (c) (4)

Recommendations for mitigation of identified wildlife attractants. (c) (5)Developing Control Programs Chapter 6 76

Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. Page 2 of 5

Airport Name (LOCID)

City: State: FAA Region:

Determination of Need for Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

Elements Reference 14 CFR 139.337 Complete Comments

Review of Wildlife Hazard Assessment. (d)

Wildlife Hazard Assessment. (d) (1)

Actions recommended in WHA. (d) (2)

Aeronautical activity. (d) (3)

Certificate holder’s views. (d) (4)

Airport users’ views. (d) (5)

Other factors. (d) (6)

Development of Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to be required by FAA. Yes No

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation needed. Yes No

Letter sent to USFWS. Yes No Date sent

USFWS response received. Yes No Date received
USFWS response forwarded to airport sponsor, if positive. Yes No Date sent

FAA Official making this determination: Signature DateChapter 6 Developing Control Programs 77

Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. Page 3 of 5
Airport Name (LOCID) City: State: FAA Region:
Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Evaluation

Elements Reference 14 CFR 139.337 Complete Comments

The plan shall include at least the following: (f)

A list of the individuals having authority and responsibility for implementing each aspect of the plan (Airport and non-airport personnel). (f) (1)

A list prioritizing the following actions identified in the wildlife hazard assessment and, target dates for their initiation and completion: (f) (2)

Wildlife population management; (f) (2) (i)
Habitat modification; and (f) (2) (ii) Land-use changes. (f) (2) (iii) Requirements for and, where applicable, copies of local, state, and federal wildlife control permits (Including pesticide use, where applicable). (f) (3)

Identification of resources that the certificate holder will provide to implement the plan. (f) (4)

Procedures to be followed during air carrier operations that at a minimum includes: (f) (5)Developing Control Programs Chapter 6 78

Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. Page 4 of 5

Airport Name (LOCID)

City: State: FAA Region:

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Evaluation (Continued)

Elements Reference 14 CFR 139.337 Complete Comments

Designation of personnel responsible for implementing the procedures; (f) (5) (i)

Provisions to conduct physical inspections of the aircraft movement areas and other areas critical to successfully manage known wildlife hazards before air carrier operations begin; (f) (5) (ii)

Wildlife hazard control measures; and (f) (5) (iii)

Ways to communicate effectively between personnel conducting wildlife control or observing wildlife hazards and the air traffic control
tower. (f) (5) (iv)

Procedures to review and evaluate the wildlife hazard management plan annually or following an event described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, including: (f) (6)

The plans effectiveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards on and in the airport’s vicinity and: (f) (6) (1)Chapter 6 Developing Control Programs 79

Table 6-1. Airport Wildlife Hazard Review Worksheet. Page 5 of 5

Airport Name (LOCID)

City: State: FAA Region:

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Evaluation (Continued)

Elements Reference 14 CFR 139.337 Complete Comments

Aspects of the wildlife hazards described in the wildlife hazard assessment that should be reevaluated. (f) (6) (ii)

A training program conducted by a qualified wildlife damage management biologist to provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully carry out the wildlife hazard management plan required by paragraph (d) of this section. (f) (7)

FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for wildlife hazard management at airports that are acceptable to the Administrator. (g)

Section 7 Consultation completed with USFWS. Yes No Date completed

NEPA coordination. Yes No

Categorical exclusion. Yes No

EA/EIS required. Yes No

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan approved by:
Signature DateDeveloping Control Programs Chapter 6 80

This page intentionally left blank81



## CHAPTER 7: EV ALUA TING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS A T AIRPORTS

This engine suffered major damage after ingesting a large bird on departure from a midwestern US A airport. A UV emitting "black light" flashlight can be useful in detecting organic remains from birds in the engine.



### 7.1 I NTRODUCTION
Wildlife populations on and in the vicinity of ai rports are constantly changing in response to changes in land use, st ate and federal management po licies, and environmental factors. In addition, wildlife mi ght adapt or habituate to contro l strategies that were once effective, or they might develop new behav ioral or feeding patterns on or near the airport. New wildlife control technologies might become availabl e, or established products or techniques might be withdrawn or banned. Finally, there might be changes in wildlife control and management personnel at an airport. Once a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is in place, develop a process to evaluate the plan at least annually.Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 82

Update the plan as needed, based on the annual evaluation (14 CFR 139.337 [f][6]). This chapter outlines a means of conducting such evaluations.


### 7.2 M ONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING
The importance of accurate monitoring and record keeping cannot be overemphasized. Without consistently maintained records of wildlife activity, wildlif e strikes, and wildlife management actions, the proper evaluation of a program is impossible. Without evaluation, no assessment of the effe ctiveness of a progr am can be made. Furthermore, without accurate records and proper evaluation, it might be difficult to justify and defend certain management actions, su ch as wildlife removal, or to defend the airport during litigation in the aftermath of a damaging wildlife strike (see Appendix N).



### 7.2. A 

### H AZARD ASSESSMENTS


### , PLANS


### , AND STUDIES As discussed in Chapter 8, to facilitate access and reduce losses, keep all reference books, such as wildlife field guides, videos, posters, and other training and educational materials, in a specific location. For ready reference, have copies of Wildlife Hazard Assessments, Wildlife Hazard Management Pl ans, and other relevant wildlife studies conducted at the airport availabl e at this site. Ideally, locate the wildlife library at the site where information on wildlife control acti vities and wildlife strikes is entered into logs, files, and databases.

Sweep nets can be used to monitor and identify inse ct populations, such as Japanese beetles, tha t attract gulls and other birds to an airport so pesti cide applications and other control strategies can be implemented in a timely manner (phot os by T. W. Seamans, USDA).



### 7.2. B 

### D AILY LOG OF WILDLIFE CONTROL ACTIVITIES Maintain a daily log of wildlife activity and management actions; im portant factors to record include—

• Date, time, and location on airport where wildlife is observed.

• Species of wildlife and approximate numbers.Chapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 83

• Control actions taken and response of wildlife.
Record this information on a standard form (see Table 7-1 for an example of a daily log form) that can be used by wildlife control personnel at the site where the activity takes place. If a form is not ava ilable, record the information in a log book kept at the operations base. The use of a standardized form or recording format, such as that presented in Table 7- 1, is strongly recommended. The informati on recorded will be most useful if it is summarized into monthly and annual statisti cs (see below). Use of a standardized format allows this summarization to be easily done. The use of computerized database systems customized to provide summaries of wildlife control activities is recommended.



### 7.2. C 

### D AILY LOG OF WILDLIFE
STRIKES Maintaining a consistent record of wildlife strikes is essential for defining the wildlife hazard le vel for an airport and for evaluating the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. In addition to maintaining these strike records for internal use at the airport, surface-mail (using FAA Form 5200-7) or electronically submit strike reports to the FAA (http://wildlife.mitigation.tc.faa.gov). The FAA will incorporate the information into the National Wild life Strike Database (Chapter 2).
As defined in the glossary, a wildlife strike has occurred when— This Saab 340 hit a deer on landing at a Midwes t USA airport in April 2000, ripping the engine from its mountings (photo courtesy Northwest Airlines).

1. A pilot reports striking one or more birds or other wildlife;

2. Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike;

3. Personnel on the ground report seeing an airc raft strike one or more birds or other wildlife;

4. Bird or other wildlife rema ins are found within 200 feet of the centerline of a runway, unless another reason for the ani mal's death is identified;

5. The animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (e.g., aborted takeoff or landing, high-s peed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with animal).Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 84

Top Left. Bird s t rik e remains on an airc raft. Top Right. Strike remains being collected. (Smithsonian feather identification specialists refer to the collected material as “snarge.”) Low e r Left. Smithsonian feather identification specialis t preparing snarge to identify the bird. Low e r Right. Micrograph of a downy feather recovered from the snarge. The feather belongs to a mallard (photos by: Top – M. Begier, USDA; Botto m – C. Dove, Smithsonian Institution).

Record each strike event under categories 1-3 or 5 (reported strike) on FAA Form 5200- 7 (Appendix I) and mail (the form is pre-addr essed and franked on t he back side) or transmit electronically to the FAA. Send phot ocopies of the form that do not have the address and frank on the back to—

Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-310 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591Chapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 85

Copies of this form (with the address and frank) can be downloaded and printed from http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov. T he form also can be filled out and filed electronically at this site. When filling out Form 5200-7, include as much of the information requested as is available. Typically, not all informati on requested on the form will be available or known, but the report is valuable even if some information is missing. For category 4 strikes (wildlife remains found but no report of strike ), a log of these incidents should be maintained with the date, location, number, and species of animals struck recorded (Table 7-2). A copy of this log should also be mailed monthly to the FAA at the above address, or these strikes should be reported individually on FAA Form 5200-7 with a notation that a carcass wa s found but no strike was reported.
For all strike reports, make every effort to have the wildlife correctly identified to species. Freeze specimens that cannot be readily identified in a labeled bag until a local wildlife expert can be consulted. If only feather remains are available, mail them to the Smithsonian Institution Feather Lab for identification (see instructions and address in Chapter 2, and in Advisory Circular 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes , Appendix C). There is no charge for this identification service. Please include a copy of the strike report or other relevant information with the bird remains to assist the feather experts in identifying the bird.



### 7.2. D 

### R ECORDS OF SIGNIFICANT
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN In addition to maintaining a daily log of wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes, it is import ant to keep records of other preventative management actions that might not be part of the daily routine of wildlife control. Examples of such actions might be installing or repairing fenc ing, thinning trees, clearing construction debris, applying pesticides or repellent s, conducting grass-height management, installing netting in hangers or wires over ponds, and regrading pavement or grass areas to eliminate standing water. In addition, activities such as writing letters to catering services about proper storage of food waste are also important management actions. Documenting these activities in some type of summary file or table can aid in determining the total cost and effectiv eness of the wildlife control program.

One approach to controlling rodent populations a t airports is the periodic treatment of grass areas with zinc phosphide-treated bait. The application must be under the supervision of a person certified in vertebrate pest control (P hoto by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).



### 7.2. E 

### S UMMARY REPORTS BY MONTH AND YEAR Periodically summarize information from the Daily Wildlife Control Activities log and from wildlife strikes records to provide baseline data for analyzing and evaluating theEvaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 86

wildlife control program. A logical approach is to conduct monthly summaries that are then incorporated into an annual report. These summaries do not need to be complex but must reflect the level of activity for the common control techniques deployed. For example, monthly summaries of pyrotechnics fired, runway sweeps to clear birds, distress call deployments, birds and mammals removed by species, and wildlife strikes by species would be useful (Table 7-3). Prepare a short paragraph outlining other significant activities during t he month, such as repairing a fence, meetings with airport tenants about wildlife issues (e.g ., feeding birds in taxi stand area), or regrading an area to remove standing water. Prepare an annual report (Table 7-4) by combining data from the monthly reports. It is emphasized that Tables 7-3 and 7-4 are only presented as examples to provide guidance in dev eloping a format to summarize data. A particular airport might use methods not listed in Tables 7-3 and 7-4, such as falconry, radio-controlled model airplanes, dogs, or pr opane cannons. The important point is that there must be an objective, numerical documentation of wildlife control methods deployed and wildlife strikes occurring on the air port. The use of a computer database program can be extremely helpful in producing these summary reports.



### 7.2. F 

### T RAINING
Maintain and annually summarize a record of all training that wildlife control personnel have received. Include attendance at conferences, courses and workshops (e.g., firearms safety),self-study courses, and specialized onthe-job training.


### 7.3 A SSESSMENT OF
WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT

PLAN
All FAA approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plans must be reviewed at least annually or following an event that would normally trigger a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (see 14 CFR 139.337 (b)(1-4) and 139.337 (f)(6)). The review must include: the plan's effect iveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards on and in the vicinity of the airport, and aspec ts of the wildlife hazar ds described in the Wildlife Hazard Assessment that should be reevaluated (14 CFR 139.337 (f)(6)). The wildlife damage management biologi st that helped prepare t he plan and a sub-group from the Airport’s Wildlife Hazard Working Group should conduct this review.

All airport management, as well as airport operations and maintenance personnel, need a basic understanding of wildlife aircraft strike issues on thei r airport. Specialized courses in managing wildlife hazards at airports, taught by recognized experts, provide a practical way of doing this. The FAA and USDA/WS can provide this type of training (photo b y C. Steves , FAA).

Appendix K describes a simple system (modi fied from Seubert 1994) for assessing a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan at an airpor t. Five assessment categories are used to indicate the adequacy of a Wildlife Ha zard Management Plan and how well the plan is being implemented:Chapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 87

Category 1. Management functions related to wild life hazards on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 2. Bird control on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 3. Mammal control on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 4. Management of habitat and food s ources on airport property related to wildlife hazards. Category 5. Land uses and food sources off of the airport potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport. Within Categories 1- 4 (activities on the airport), a series of elements are listed that are evaluat ed as either “Satisfactory”, “Unsatisfactory”, “Needs Improvement”, or “Not Applicable”. For Category 5 (off-airport attractants), the elements are scored on a scale of 0 (not present) to 3 (site creates significant wildlife hazard for airport; action should be taken). Those elements deemed “Unsat isfactory” or “Needs Improvement” (in Categories 1- 4) or that are scored 2 or 3 (in Category 5) are t hen commented on in a summary form. The elements listed within each categor y are not intended to cover every possibility at every airport. The elements can be modified or expanded to meet situations unique to an airport. Wetlands on airport provide both habitat and food fo r wildlife. Such areas can be eliminated through wetland mitigation programs (photo by E. Cleary, FAA).



### 7.4 A IRPORT WILDLIFE HAZARDS WORKING GROUP



### 7.4. A 

### F UNCTION Wildlife hazard management on an airport oft en requires communication, cooperation, and coordination among various gr oups on the airport and with va rious local, state, and federal agencies and private entitie s. For many airports, the establishment of a Wildlife Hazards Working Group (WHWG) will greatly fa cilitate this communication, cooperation, and coordination.



### 7.4. B 

### M EMBERSHIP Include a representative from each of the key groups and agencies that have a significant involvement or inte rest in wildlife issues on the ai rport in the WHWG. Airport groups might include representat ives from security, maintenance, operations, and air traffic control. From government, repres entatives from the st ate wildlife agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA /WS might be appropriate. Include representatives from any facilit y near the airport that signifi cantly attracts wildlife (suchEvaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 88

as a landfill or wildlife refuge).
In general, do not exceed 10 peopl e in the core WHWG. This will keep meetings from becoming unwieldy. In addition to regular members, invite people with specialized knowledge, interest, or concerns to the m eetings as appropriate. Typically, someone from airport management chairs the WHWG. The chair can be rotated among various airport departments.



### 7.4. C 

### M EETINGS
At least annually hol d a meeting of the WHWG to conduct a general review of the overall wildlife hazard management program for the airport and to discuss special issues or problems as needed. Include the following in the general discussion:

• Strike trends and significant strike events (based on data summarized using formats in Tables 7-3 and 7- 4).

• Source of wildlife causing strike problems.

• Wildlife control activities (based on data and commentary summarized using formats in Tables 7-3 and 7-4.

• Wildlife Hazard Management Plan evaluation (based on most recent assessment using format in Appendix K). Airports should establish a Wildlife Hazards Working Group (WHWG) that meets at least annually to facilitate communication, cooperation, and coordination among the various agencies and airpor t departments. The WHWG also provides a forum to review and update the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Special issues to be discussed might include projected impacts of land-use changes on or near the airport, trends in populations or behavior of various species of wildlife, wildlife removal permits, evaluation of new wild life control technologi es, and clarification of roles and responsibilities. A good way to end the meeting might be with a field demonstration of a wildlife management activity on the airport or a site visit to a nearby wildlife attractant (e.g., sewage treatment facility) that might need addressing. Special meetings of the entire WHWG or a subgroup mi ght be needed after significant strike events or other developments affecting wildlife hazards if a r egular meeting is not scheduled for the near future.



### 7.4. D 

### M EETING REPORTS Make arrangements to have minutes taken and a summary report written for each meeting. Include in the report a list of attendees, decisions made by the group, deadlines and responsible parties for task assignm ents, and a list of cr itical issues that were not resolved.Chapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 89



### 7.5 S UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Periodic evaluations of an ai rport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and the activities undertaken to implem ent the plan are critical because of the dynamic nature of wildlife hazards and control technologies. The foundation for these evaluations is the maintenance of consistent record s of wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes. The use of standardized formats for keeping these records, such as those presented in Tables 7-1 to 7-4, permits easy compilation of events and activities into monthly and annual statistical and narrative summaries. Once these summaries are available, objective examinations and comparisons can be made of trends in strikes, wildlife activities, control methods deployed, and other factors. A ll wildlife carcasses found during aircraft movemen t

area Unless

wildlife strike and recorded in the inspections should be removed immediately.

another reason for the animal’s death can be determined, the incident should be reported as a airport’s wildlife strike database (photo courtesy USDA).

An objective, standardized format for asse ssing a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and its implementation is pres ented in Appendix K. This format allows an outside biologist or evaluation group to systematically review the actions being taken and make recommendations in areas where improvement is needed. The availability of summary statistics, such as provided through records main tained in Tables 7-1 to 7-4, is essential for this assessment. Finally, the establishment of a WHWG pr ovides an excellent means of improving communication, coordination, and cooperati on among the diverse groups involved in wildlife hazard management on an airport. The WHWG also can provide an important forum for reviewing, evaluating, and impr oving an airport’s wildlife hazard management
program.Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 90

This page intentionally left blankChapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 91

Table 7-1. Example of a daily log of wildlife control activities.

Airport M o n t h Y e a r

W i l d l i f e

D a t e T i m e Location (Grid) Species N o. Control

m e t h o d R e s u l t s / c o m m e n t s I n i t i a l sEvaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 92

This page intentionally left blankChapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 93

Table 7-2. Example of a W ildlife Strike Log for recording bird or other wildlife remains found within 200 feet of r unway centerline that, in the judgment of wildlife control personnel, were killed as a result of interacting with an aircraft.

Airport Month Year

Date Time found Species Runway Location on
runway Was strike reported 1 ? Comments

1 If strike was reported, complete FAA Form 5200-7.Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 94

This page intentionally left blankChapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 95

Table 7-3. Example of a form to provide monthly summary of wildlife control activities.

Airport Month Year

Control activity (modify list as appropriate) This month Same month

last
year Comments (list wildlife dispersed or removed by species and method)

No. of pyrotechnics fired

No. of times distress calls deployed

No. of runway sweeps to clear birds

No. of wildlife removed

Miles driven by wildlife patrol

No. of reported strikes

No. of reported strikes with damage

No. of carcasses found (no strike reported)

Summary paragraph of other wildlife control activities:Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 96

This page intentionally left blankChapter 7 Evaluating control Programs 97

Table 7-4. Example of a form to provide annual summary of wildlife control activities derived from monthly reports (Table 7- 3). Modify each airport’s form to reflect the common control activities undertaken during the year. The data may also be presented graphically.

Airport Year

Number of:

Month Pyrotechnics

fired Times distress

calls deployed Runway sweeps to clear birds Wildlife dispersed Wildlife removed 1 Miles driven

by wildlife patrol Reported strikes 2 Reported strikes

with damage Carcasses found (no

strike reported) 2

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

1 Provide separate list by species and method.

2 Provide separate list by species.Evaluating Control Programs Chapter 7 98

This page intentionally left blank99



## CHAPTER 8: WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL

Populations of most bird species weighing ov er 4 pounds have increased dramatically in the US A since 1980. These large birds can cause subst antial damage when struck by aircraft (photo courtes y USAF).



### 8.1 I NTRODUCTION
The management of wildlife is a complex endeavor that often attracts public interest. Once an assessment of hazards has been completed and a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan has been developed, the plan must be implemented by well-trained and knowledgeable individuals if it is to be successful in reducing wildlife strikes and accepted by the public. Depending on the size of an airport and the leve l of wildlife hazard, the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan may be implemented by a single airport employee undertaking wildlife control activities on an occasional “as needed” basis or by a full-time wildlife biologist with a staff of oper ations personnel providing continuous bird patrols.Training Chapter 8 100

Some of the personnel involved in these c ontrol activities, hereafter referred to as wildlife control personnel (WCP), might not have formal educati on in wildlife biology. All WCP must have sufficient training to be kno wledgeable in the basic principles of wildlife management and in the identificat ion, behavior, general life hist ory, and legal status of the hazardous species in the area. WC P also must be trai ned in the proper implementation or deployment of various control strategies and techniques outlined in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Finally, an awareness of endangered and threatened wildlife species that might visit or reside on the airport is critical.


### 8.2 T RAINING
The following areas of training and levels of skill are suggested for WCP implementing control activities on airports under a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. It is emphasized that, once a plan is in place, in addition to the training provided to WCP, there must be periodic oversight and review of the plan and its implementation by a professional biologist trained in wildlife damage control (14 CFR 139.337 (f)(7)).



### 8.2. A 

### B IRD IDENTIFICATION There are over 600 species of birds that reside in or migrate through the USA. Many of these species, such as gulls, have quite different plumage pattern s and bill colors as subadults (year of hatching up to 3 years in some species) t han as adults (as an exam ple, see Appendix J for a fact sheet on North American gulls). Some birds, such as laughing gulls, European starlings, and black-bellied plover s, have different summer and winter plumage patterns and bill colors. In other s pecies, such as northern harriers and redwinged blackbirds, males and females appear qui te different. Some species are present in an area all year, ot hers only in migration (spring, fall), and others only in winter or in summer. All species have unique vocalizations, behaviors, and habitat preferences that are useful in field identification. Thus , to become an expert in field identification of all bird species at a lo cation requires many years of training and practice. WCP require basic training so they can identify, in all plumages, commonly seen hazardous birds, as well as those rare r species that are considered hazardous when present or are of concern because of endangered- or threatened-species status. Table 8-1 provides a list of the relative hazard of various species groups based on the percent of reported strikes that c ause damage or an effect-on-flight.

Training, provided by recognized experts, should include classroom instruction, fieldwork, and attendance at conferences, such as Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada (photo by C. Steves, FAA).Chapter 8 Training 101

Table 8-1. Ranking of 25 species groups as to relative hazard to aircraft (1=most hazardous) based on three criteria (damage, major dam age, and effect-on-flight), a composite ranking based on all three rankings, and a relative hazard score. Data were derived from the FAA National Wildlif e Strike Database, January 1990–April 2003 1

. Ranking by criteria

Species group Damage 2 Major damage 3 Effect on flight 4 Composite ranking 5 Relative hazard score 6

Deer 1 1 1 1 100

Vultures 2 2 2 2 64

Geese 3 3 6 3 55
Cormorants/pelicans 4 5 3 4 54

Cranes 7 6 4 5 47
Eagles 6 9 8 6 41

Ducks 5 8 10 7 39
Osprey 8 4 8 8 39
Turkey/pheasants 9 7 11 9 33

Herons 11 14 9 10 27
Hawks (buteos) 10 12 12 11 25

Gulls 12 11 13 12 24
Rock pigeon 13 10 14 13 23

Owls 14 13 20 14 23
Horned lark/snow bunting 18 15 15 15 17

Crows/ravens 15 16 16 16 16
Coyote 16 19 5 17 14
Mourning dove 17 17 17 18 14

Shorebirds 19 21 18 19 10
Blackbirds/starling 20 22 19 20 10

American kestrel 21 18 21 21 9

Meadowlarks 22 20 22 22 7

Swallows 24 23 24 23 4
Sparrows 25 24 23 24 4
Nighthawks 23 25 25 25 1

1 Excerpted from the Special Report for the FAA, Ranking the Hazard Lev el of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003. Refer to this report for additional expl anations of criteria and method of ranking.

2 Aircraft incurred at least some damage (destroyed, substantial, minor, or unknown) from strike.

3 Aircraft incurred damage or structural failure that adversely affected the structure strength, performance, or flight characteristics and that would normally require major repai r or replacement of the affected component, or the damage sustained makes it inadvisable to rest ore aircraft to airworthy condition.

4 Aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other.

5 Relative rank of each species group was compared with ev ery other group for the three va riables, placing the species group with the greatest hazard rank for > 2 of the 3 variables above the nex t highest ranked group, then proceeding down the list.

6 Percentage values, from Tables 3 and 4 in Footnote 1 of the Special Report , for the three criteria were summed and scaled down from 100, with 100 as the score for the spec ies group with the maximum summed values and the greatest potential hazard to aircraft.Training Chapter 8 102

Binoculars are essential for detailed, clos e-up observations sometimes necessary for identification as well as for the detection and i dentification of birds or other wildlife at a distance. Provide WCP with a quality pair of binoculars, and train WCP in their use.
Equip each WCP with his or her own bird ident ification field guide, to be carried in the vehicle while on patrol. As a learning aid, encourage WCP to make annotations in their field guides regarding behavior or appearance next to identified birds. There are a number of excellent field guides available from bookstores, some of which are listed at the end of this chapter. There are also bird identification guides available on CDs that provide useful life history information and vocalizations.



### 8.2. B 

### M AMMAL IDENTIFICATION
Unlike birds, there are typically only a few mammal species of importance on an airport. Train WCP to identify, not only by sight but also by sign (e.g., tracks, burrows, and fecal material), the common large and mid-sized mammals (e.g., deer, raccoons, woodchucks, coyotes) that live around the airport. Train WCP to identify signs (e.g., trails in grass, burrows) indicative of a population eruption of field rodents, such as voles, deer mice, or rats. A survey by a biologist using snap traps might be necessary to identify the species and relative abundance of rodents occupying various airpor t habitats. In addition, rodent species can be identified by examinati on of skull remains in pellets (boluses) regurgitated by hawks and owls. These pellets are oft en found on the ground beneat h perching sites used by raptors. Grass areas at airports often contain several species of small mammals that are an attractive food fo r hawks, owl, herons, and egrets. Vagrant shrews, deer mice, gray-tailed voles, and Townsend’s voles (left to right) were all captured during one night o f trapping at a western USA airport in September 2003 (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Citations for field guides covering mammals and their tracks throughout the USA are provided at the end of this chapter. In additi on, there are many st ate and regional field guides for identifying mammals and their si gns. A good field guide to mammals is a necessary part of any airport’s hazardous wildlife control library.



### 8.2. C 

### B ASIC LIFE HISTORIES AND BEHAVIOR OF COMMON SPECIES In addition to learning to identify the haz ardous birds and mammals on the airport, WCP should have some understanding of the biology and behavior of these species. This information will make the job of wildlife haz ard management more interesting and be useful in anticipating problems and deploying control measures more effectively.
For each species of bird, it is important to k now if it is present year round or only in summer, in winter, or during mi gration. For example, in wh ich habitats and at what timeChapter 8 Training 103

of year do locally breeding bird species nest and when are young fledged from nests? What are the daily movement patterns bet ween roosting, feeding and loafing areas in relation to the airport? What are the feeding behaviors and food pr eferences of each species on the airport? Which habitats does each species prefer? How does weather influence the presence and behavior of various species on the airport? How does each species react to approaching aircraft and to va rious repellent devices? By being observant and noting the behavior of these hazardous species, useful insights can be gained that will lead to more effective habi tat management or repellent strategies. Most bird and mammal field guides provide information on geographic range, feeding habits, and habitat preferences for each species. Alsop (2001), Sibley (2001), and Ehrlich et al. (1988) provide concise summari es of life history information (nesting, feeding, habitat preferences) for most bird s in North America. Appendix J provides some life history facts for various gull species in the USA. Such books and fact sheets provide an exce llent starting point for knowledge about a species. However, the most useful information will come from careful observation of what the birds and mammals are doing on your airport.



### 8.2. D 

### W ILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
AND REGULATIONS As presented in Chapter 4, there is a complexity of federal and state la ws protecting wildlife and regulating the issuance of permits to take (capture or kill) individual s causing problems. In addition, environmental laws and regulations regarding pesticide applications, drainage of wetlands, and endangered species must be considered in implement ing Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. All WCP should have a basic understanding of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) whereby almost all native migratory birds are protected regardless of their abundance (see C hapter 4). WCP must understand that federal and often state permits must be issued before protected species can be taken on an airport. WCP must know that wild mammals are regul ated at the state level, which may require permits for activities invo lving removal (killing or trapping/relocating). Non-native birds, such as pigeons, house sparrows, and starlings, and gallinaceous game birds, such as turkeys, grouse, and pheasants, are not protected by the MBTA but often have state protecti on. WCP involved in taking any wildlife species must have a clear understanding of which s pecies have no legal protection and, for all others, the species and numbers allowed to be taken under permits issued. Permits also will list the methods of removal allowed and accept able procedures for disposing of removed wildlife. Detailed records must be maintained of wildlife taken under permit. Canada geese have adapted to nesting on rooftops, often well away from wate r (photo courtesy USDA).Training Chapter 8 104



### 8.2. E 

### W ILDLIFE CONTROL TECHNIQUES Chapter 9 provides a brief description of most wildlife control techniques used on airports. WCP will need training to deploy these techniques safely and effectively.

The use of pyrotechnics, such as cracker she lls fired from a 12-gauge shotgun (left) or screamers fired from a pistol launcher, should be part of an airport’s integrated management program to disperse hazardous birds. Occasional lethal control by s hooting might be necessary to reinforce pyrotechnics and other nonlethal dispersal techniques used agai nst common species such as gulls and Canada geese. Permits and proper training must be in plac e before lethal control is implemented (photos b y R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Firearm s

. It is critical that only personnel trai ned in the use of firearms, authorized under depredation permit, and knowledgeable in fiel d identification of the target and similar-looking non-target species are allow ed to use firearms on the airport. Skill, experience, and the proper equipment are needed to be safe and to maximize the effectiveness of a shooting program , whether it is to remove specific problem animals or to kill one or more individuals to reinforce repellent techniques. All discharged shell casings are potential Foreign Object Debris (FOD) and must be picked up.
Pyrotechnics. Pyrotechnics can cause injury or damage if discharged incorrectly or carelessly. For example, serious inju ries have occurred when pyrotechnics were accidentally discharged inside vehicles. Proper equipment (safety glasses, ear protection) and training is essential for safe us e of pyrotechnics. In addition, training is needed to deploy the correct pyrotechnic for each situation and wildlife species and to minimize habituation. It is cr itical that pyrotechnics (and ot her repellent devices) not be deployed in situations where the birds or mammals might be flushed into the path of departing or arriving aircraft.
Pesticide application. WCP applying restricted-use pes ticides, applying pesticides for hire, or applying pesticides to the land of another must be Certif ied Applicators orChapter 8 Training 105

working under the direct supervision of a Ce rtified Applicator and then may only use pesticides covered by the Certified Applic ator's certification. Proper application equipment and safety clothing mu st be used. Detailed records of pesticide applications must be maintained. For information on the training requirements for becoming a Certified Pesticide Applicator, contact the State University Cooperative Extension Service.
Distress call tapes, propane cannons, and m i scellaneous techniques. A s emphasized in Chapter 9, a major problem in the us e of repellent techniques or devices is habituation of the wildlife species to the threats. These techniques all require training for their proper deployment. The most critical factor for most repellent devices is that they be deployed sparingly and appropriately when the target wildlife is present and be reinforced occasionally by a real threat such as shooting. More detailed information on the use of various repellent devices is presented in Chapter 9 and Hygnstrom et al. (1994).

Propane cannons can be used as part o f an integrated program to disperse birds from airports. However, birds quickly habituate to the loud bangs if the cannons are used continuously and not integrated with othe r frightening devices (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).



### 8.2. F 

### R ECORD KEEPING AND STRIKE REPORTING A key component of a Wildlif e Hazard Management Plan is developing a system to (1) document the daily activiti es of WCP, (2) log information about wildlife numbers and behavior on the airport, and (3) reco rd all wildlife strikes with aircraft. This information is essential to document the effo rt being made by the airport in reducing wildlife hazards. The information is also extremely useful during periodic evaluati ons of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and when revisions to the plan are proposed. Instruct WCP on the importance of record keeping and train them to record this information in a standardized format. Chapter 7 provides mo re details about record keeping and wildlife strike reporting.Training Chapter 8 106



### 8.3 S OURCES OF TRAINING
Wildlife control workshops at airports. Books, manuals, and videos can provide a starting point for building skills to manage hazardous wildlife on air ports. However, hands-on training is essential to develop the necessary skills and confidence to successfully and safely carry out wildlife contro l activities. Workshops on airport wildlife control offered by the USDA/WS or other ent ities are an excellent means of obtaining training in wildlife identification, legal i ssues, and the deployment of various control techniques specific for a given airport or region of the country. These workshops can be held for all WCP at a single airport or at a centralized airport with participants coming from airports throughout the state or region.

A special classroom and field training program in t he proper and safe use of pyrotechnics to disperse birds was provided at the 2002 and 2004 meetings of Bird Strike Committee–USA/Canada (photos by R. DeFusco).

Contact the Wildlife Services office in y our state (Appendix A) for more information.

Bird Strike Com m i ttee USA m eetings. Bird Strike Committee–USA (BSC–-USA) holds joint meetings annually with Bird Strike Committee Canada at a USA or Canadian airport. This annual meeting provides an exce llent forum to discuss the latest issues and techniques in wildlife control for airports. The meeting includes a field trip to the host airport with demonstrations by vendors and wildlife specialists of various wildlifeChapter 8 Training 107

control equipment and techniques. Chapter 3 provides more information on BSC–USA. Information on annual meetings, as well as information on various aspects of wildlife hazard management for airports, c an be found at BSC–USA’s web site: www.birdstrike.org. Hunter safety and firearm s courses. Require airport personnel who will be using firearms to complete a hunter safety or firearms safety course. The state wildlife agency can provide information on these courses.

Miscellaneous courses and activities. Many universities and some community colleges offer courses in ornithology, principles of wildlife management, pr inciples of wildlife damage control, or other re lated topics. Local Audubon Society chapters or park districts sometimes offer works hops or short courses in fiel d identification of birds. Participation in conservation organization acti vities, such as Christmas Bird Counts and spring migration counts, is an excellent means of building bird identification skills and developing contacts with local wildlife experts.


### 8.4 W ILDLIFE HAZARD
MANAGEMENT LIBRARY
Establish a designated location for reference books, such as wildlife field guides, videos, posters, and other training and educational materials and the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan if one has been developed. Ideally, locate this wildlife library at the site where information on wildlife control activities and wildlife strikes is entered into logs, files, and databases.


### 8.5 F IELD GUIDES AND
REFERENCE BOOKS
There are many excellent field guides and reference books for learning about wildlife. To provide examples, a selection of books that cover North America or large regi ons of the USA is listed below. This list is not intended as an endorsement of these books to the exclusion of others. There are also m any field guides for individual states and specialized books for various wildlife species or species groups.

Birds and mammals are not the only wildlife groups that can cause problems on airports. This 7-foo t alligator wandered onto the runway at a southern USA airport in September 2002, threatening both aircraft and personnel. The alligator was relocated unharmed. For the 14-year period 1990–2003, reports of 15 alligator-aircraft strikes with civil aircraf t were received by the FAA (photo by J. Metcalf).Training Chapter 8 108

Field Guides–Birds
Bull, J., J. Farrand, Jr., and, L. Hogan. 1994. National Audubon Society field guide to North Am erican birds: Eastern region. Alfred Knopf, New York, New York. 796 pages. 2nd edition. National Geographic Society. 2002. Field guide to the birds of North Am erica. National Geographic Society, Washington, District of Columbia. 480 pages. 4th edition.

A irports should maintain a small library of field guides that can be referenced by biologists and operations personnel to identify and learn about birds, mammals, plants, and insects found on the airport. These field guides should be located with the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and other related documents (photo by B. Washburn, USDA). Griggs, J. L. 1997. All the birds of North Am erica: Am erican Bird Conservancy’ s field guide. Harper Collins, New York, New York. 172
pages. Peterson, R. T. 1998. A field guide to the birds: a com p letely new guide to all the birds of Eastern and Central North Am erica. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. 384 pages. 4th edition.
Peterson, R. T. 1990. A field guide to Western birds: a com p letely new guide to field m a rks of all species found in North Am erica west of the 100th m e ridian and north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. 431 pages. Reissue edition.
Robbins, C. S., B. Bruun, and H. S. Zim. 1983. Birds of North Am erica. Golden Press, New York, New York. 360 pages.

Field Guides - Mammals
Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1998. A field guide to the m a m m a ls: North Am erica north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Ne w York, New York. 3rd edition. 289 pages. National Audubon Society. 2000. N ational Audubon Society field guide to North Am erican m a m m a ls (revised and expanded). Alfred Knopf, New York, New York. 937 pages.
Elbroch, M. 2003. Mam m a l tracks and sign: A guide to North Am erican species. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 792 pages.
Murie, O. J. 1954. A field guide to anim a l tracks. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. 374 pages.Chapter 8 Training 109

Life Histories
Alsop, F. J., III. 2001. Birds of North Am erica, Eastern Region (751 pages), Western Region (752 pages). DK Publishing, Inc., New York, New York.

An examination of the stomac h contents of aircraft-struck birds found on runways can o ften identify food sources that are attracting the birds to the airport. A chicken neck and undigested French-fried potato found in this laughing gull stomach indicated a nearby source of uncovered garbage (photo by G. E. Bernhardt, USDA). Ehrlich. P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’ s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North Am erican birds, including all species that regularly breed north of Mexico. Simon and Schuster, New York. 785 pages. Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer (editors). 1982. Wild

m a m m a ls of North Am erica. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1,147 pages. Sibley, D. A. 1991. The Sibley guide to bird life and behavior. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. 580 pages.Training Chapter 8 110

This page intentionally left blank111



## CHAPTER 9: WILDLIFE CONTROL STRA TEGIES AND TECHNIQUES A T AIRPORTS

A B-767 departing an east coast USA airport in October 2002 ingested at least one double-crested cormorant into the #2 engine. Parts of t he engine broke loose and penetrated the engine casing, resulting in an uncontained engine failure. The st rike also damaged the landing light and leading edge of the right wing. The cormor ant population increased at an annual rate of 7% in the USA from 1980

– 2004.



### 9.1 I NTRODUCTION
No airport or aircraft type is immune from t he hazards of wildlife stri kes. Many species of birds and mammals have been involved in dam aging strikes (Chapter 2). A flock of starlings suddenly rising from the ground, a l one kestrel hovering in search of prey, a pair of Canada geese taking flight after grazi ng in the infield, or a deer bounding across a runway—all can result in significant airc raft damage or in extrem e cases, a crash and loss of human lives. In addition to strikes, wildlife that are roos ting, nesting, or burrowing on airports can cause structural damage to buildings, equipment, and aircraft as well as nuisance and health problems for workers and passengers.112 Control Techniques Chapter 9

As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 about the conduct of Wildlife Hazard Assessments and development of Wildlife Ha zard Management Plans, the first step in solving any wildlife damage problem is to answer the following nine questions for each species:

1. What are the wild life doing that make the cont rol of their numbers or damage necessary? The type of activity that needs to be controlled will determine both the severity of the problem and the type of control methods used.

2. Which species of wildlife are causing the problem? Accura te identification of the exact species is critical because different species often require different management techniques.

3. Why are the wildlif e on the airport? Are they attracted to the airport for food, water, or shel ter; or are they just flying over the airport from nighttime roosting sites to daytime feeding sites? The answer to this question will determine, to a large extent, the most appropriate control methods to use.

4. What are the daily and seasonal movement patterns of the wildlife among feeding, loafing, and roosting/nesting areas? Try to identify the times of day and seasons of year, as well as locations on airport, where the wildlife pose the most critical threat to aviation safety and where they are most vulnerable to management actions.

5. What is the legal status at the federal, state, and lo cal levels of the problem species? All wildlife species are not afforded equal legal protection by all levels of government. There should be zero tolerance for nesting b y Canada geese and other large birds at airports. Permits should be in place so any nests discovered can be destroyed immediately and adult nesting birds dispersed or removed (photo by R. White, USDA).

6. What effective and legal management methods are available? In wildlife hazard management, effective and legal are not necessarily synonymous.

7. How selective are these control methods? T he objective is to control only the target wildlife, not every species in the area.

8. How much will it cost to apply the select ed control methods? The cost of control might dictate which methods are practical, given the seriousness of the threat caused by the species.Chapter 9 Control Techniques 113

9. What are public attitudes toward the pr oblem wildlife species and the hazards that these species pose? Public opinion also may influence the type of management actions taken.
This chapter pres ents the overall approach to be taken when managing wildlife hazards on air ports. Once the overall approach is established, the chapter outlines the strengths and weaknesses of various wildlife control methods recommended for use on airports, as well as certain methods that should not be us ed. This chapter is not the final word on this subject. Wildlife damage contro l is a dynamic field, and new products, technologies, and innovations are continuously being introduced. In addition, changes in the legal status of control techniques, chemical registrations, and wildlife species occur at the federal and state leve l. Thus, this chapter is only a starting point for information on wildlife control techniques. Elimination of wildlife habitat and attractants on o r near airports will reduce wildlife strikes. Exposed I beams, such as used in the canopy over the passenger pick-up area at a Midwestern USA airport, make ideal roosting habitat for flocks of European starlings (photo by R. White, USDA).

It is recommended that this c hapter be used in conjunction with the two-volume manual Prevention and Control of Wildlife Dam age published in 1994 by Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska at Lincoln (see full ci tation at end of this chapter). This manual, written by various experts in the field of wildlife damage control, provides detailed information on the techniques, equipment, chem ical registrations, species-specific management recommendations, and sources of suppl y for the various control strategies presented in this chapter. This manual is also available online in a periodically updated version at: ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/solutions/handbook/.


### 9.2 W ILDLIFE CONTROL STRATEGIES
Four basic control strategies are avail able to solve wildlife problems on airports:

1. Aircraft flight schedule modification;

2. Habitat modification and exclusion;

3. Repellent and harassment techniques; and

4. Wildlife removal. Integrate all four control strategies into the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan as appropriate.114 Control Techniques Chapter 9



### 9.2. A 

### A IRCRAFT FLIGHT SCHEDULE MODIFICATION Although not generally practical for regular ly scheduled commercial traffic on larger airports, there may be various situations when flight schedules of some aircraft can be adjusted to minimize the chance of a strike with a wildlife species that has a predictable pattern of movement. Fo r example, pilots could be advised not to depart duri ng a 20-minute period at sunrise or sunset during winter when large flocks of blackbirds cross an airpor t going to and from an offairport roosting site. In sit uations such as at Midway Atoll where albatrosses and other seabirds are abundant during parts of the year, scheduling nighttime arrivals and departu res, when birds are not flying, might be the only means of avoiding strikes. Finally, air traffic contro llers on occasion might need to temporarily close a runway with unusually high bird activity or a large mammal (e.g., deer) incursion until wildlife control pers onnel can disperse the animals.



### 9.2. B 

### H ABITAT MODIFICATION AND EXCLUSION Habitat modification means changing the environment to make it less attractive or inaccessible to the probl em wildlife. All wildlife require food, cover, and wate r to survive. Any action that reduces, eliminates, or excludes one or more of these elements will result in a proportional reduction in the wildlife population at the airport. Habitat modifications to make the airport and surrounding area as unattractive as possible to hazardous wildlife must be the foundati on of every airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Poles and other structures that are

no longer in use should be removed from airport property. Such structures make ideal perching sites for hawks and owls searching fo r prey. The pellets at the base of this pole are undigested fur and bones of rodents that were regurgitated b y red-tailed hawks (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Initially, management actions to reduce food, cover, and water on an airport might be expensive. However, when costs are amortiz ed over several years, these actions might be the least expensive approach to reducing wild life populations on the airport. Once a habitat modification is done correctly, it is gener ally not necessary to go back and do it again. Also, these control methods are generally well accepted by the public and minimize the need to harass or kill wildlife on the airport.



### 9.2. B



### . I 

### F OOD

Some of the more common urban food source s for birds on and near airports include handouts from people in taxi stands and parks, grain elev ators, feed mills, sewer treatment plants, and improper ly stored food wast e around grocery stores, restaurants, and catering services. Rural food sources attr active to birds include sanitary landfills, feedlots, certain agricultural crops (especia lly cereal grains and sunflower), and spilled grain along road and rail rights-of-way.Chapter 9 Control Techniques 115

Be aware of food attractants for birds that exist on and in proximity to the airport. On the airport, require bird-proof storage of food waste, prohi bit bird feeding, and promote good sanitation and litter control programs. Because most, if not all, agricultural crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production, the FAA recommends against the use of airport property for agricultural production, including hay crops, within the separations identif ied in Chapter 5, § 5.2. If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of t he airport, then the airport must follow the crop distance guidelines listed in the table titled "Minimum Distances between Certain Airport Features and Any On-Airport Agricultural Crops" found in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design , Appendix 19 (see Appendix C). Weigh the cost of wildlife cont rol and potential accidents against the income produced by the on-airport crops when deciding whether to allow crops on the airport (AC 150/5200- 33A) (see Chapter 5 and Appendix C). For nearby off-airport areas, work closely with local governmental entities and landowners to discourage land-use practices and activities that provide food sources for problem bird species.

Gulls and other birds concentrate at locations where people regularly provide food such as bread and seeds. Feeding birds should be prohibited on and in the vicinity of airports ( photo by R. White, USDA).

Do not use trees and other land scaping plants for the street si de of airports that produce fruits or seeds attractive to birds. On airside areas, the large expanses of grass and forbs can sometimes provide ideal habitat fo r rodent and insect populations that attract raptors, gulls, other bird species, and ma mmalian predators such as coyotes. In addition, grasses allowed to produce seed heads can provide a desirable food source for doves, blackbirds, and other flocking species. The management of airside vegetation to minimize rodents, insects, and seeds might be complex, requiring insecticide, herbicide, and rodenticide applic ations; changes in vegetation cover; and adjustments in mowing schedules (e.g., mowing at night to minimize bird feeding on insects exposed by the mowing). Such management plans will need to be developed in conjunction with professional wildlife biologists and horticu lturists knowledgeable with the local wildlife populations, vegetation, and growing conditions (see below).



### 9.2. B



### . II 

### C OVER All wildlife require cover for resting, roosti ng, escape, and reproduc tion. Non-migratory Canada geese in urban areas, left undisturbed, will establish territories on corporate lawns, golf courses, and even building r oofs associated with nearby ponds. Pigeons, house sparrows, and European starlings use building ledges, abandoned buildings, open girders and bridge work, and dense vegetati on for cover. Blackbirds use marsh116 Control Techniques Chapter 9

vegetation, such as cattails, for nesting and roosting. Many bird problems can be solved by eliminating availability of such ar eas either through removal or by exclusion.
Take care when selecting and spacing plants for airport landscaping. Avoid plants that produce fruits and seeds desired by birds. Also avoid the creation of areas of dense cover for roosting, especially by European starlings and blackbirds. Thinning the canopy of trees, or selectively removing trees to increase their spacing, can help eliminate bird roosts that form in trees on airports. The management of an airport’s airside ground cover to minimize bird activity is a controversial subject in North America. The general recommendation, based on studies in England in the 1960s and 1970s, has been to maintain a monoculture of grass at a height of 6-10 inches (Transport Canada) or 7-14 inches (U.S. Air Force). Tall grass, by interfering with visibility and ground movements, is thought to discourage many spec ies of birds from loafing and feeding. However, the limited studies conducted in North America hav e not provided a consensus of opinion on the utility of tall-gr ass management for airpor ts. For example, Canada geese do not appear to be discouraged by ta ll grass. In addition, maintenance of tall grass can result in increased rodent populations, a food sour ce for raptors. Finally, maintenance of monotypic, uniform stands of tall grass is difficult and expensive on many airports because of varying so il conditions and the need for fertilizer and herbicide applications. Arid regions in t he western USA cannot maintain tall grass without irrigation.

The maintenance of monotypic, uniform stands of tall (e.g., 10-inch) grass is difficult and expensive at mos t airports, requiring fertilizer, herbicides, and wate r (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

A promising approach to reducing wildlife attrac tion to airport ground cover, irrespective of the height, is the use of v egetation that is undesirable or m ildly toxic to wildlife. For example, there are varieties of fescue grass that contai n fungal endophytes. Some of these endophytes are unpalatable to grazing birds, such as geese, as well as to rodents and deer. These endophytic grasses might also support fewer insect numbers. Other ground cover, such as wedelia or Bermuda gr ass, might be appropriate for subtropical airfields. Finally, artificial (synthetic) turf in selected areas might be useful in providing a more sterile environment for wildlife at airports.
Until more research is comp leted, no general guidelines on grass height or vegetation type for airside ground cover will be made. See Appendix O, Summary of Studies on Vegetation Management for No rth American Airfields, for a literature review of the current state of knowledge on airport gr ass management. Consult with professionalChapter 9 Control Techniques 117

wildlife hazard management biologi sts and horticulturists to develop a vegetation type and mowing schedule appropriate for the growing conditions and wildlife at the location. The main principles to follow are to use a vegetation cover and mowing regime that do not result in a build-up of rodent numbers or the production of seeds, forage, or insects desired by birds. Finally, dense stands of trees and undergrowth on airport property c an provide excellent cover for deer, coyotes, nesting geese and r aptors, roosting bla ckbirds, rodents, and other wildlife. In general, clear or at least su fficiently thin these habitats to eliminate the desired cover and to allow easy visual and physi cal access by wildlife control personnel. Remove all unnecessary posts, fences, and other structures t hat can be used as perches by raptors and other birds. Piles of construction debris and discarded equipment, unmowed fence rows, and other unmanaged areas are not only esthetically unpleasing but typically provide excellent cover for commensal rodents (rats and house mice) and den sites for woodchucks, feral dogs and coyotes. Eliminate such areas on airports.



### 9.2. B



### . III 

### W ATER Water acts as a magnet for birds; therefore, eliminat e all standing water on an airport to t he greatest extent possible. Fill or m odify to allow rapid drainage of depressions in paved and vegetated areas, and disturbed areas at construction sites that accumulate standing water after rain. This is particularl y important at coastal airports where fresh water is highly attractive to birds for drin king and bathing. Do not establish retention ponds, open drainage ditches, outdoor fountains and other wetland sites on or adjacent to airports. Standing water is a strong attractant to waterfowl, gulls, and wading birds such as egrets and herons. A irport managers should strive to eliminate all standing water (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Where possible, modify storm water det ention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm. Avoi d or remove retention ponds and detention ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate standing water. Design detention basins to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Where c onstant flow of water is anticipated through the basin, or where any portion of the bas in bottom might remain wet, design the detention facility to include a concrete or paved pad and/or ditch/swale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that might provide nesting habitat.
When it is not possible to dr ain a large detention pond completely, use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to deter birds and other hazardous wildlife. Evaluate the use of physical barriers and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physica l barriers over detenti on ponds on Part 139118 Control Techniques Chapter 9

certificated airports, obtain approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office.
Encourage off-airport storm water treatment facility operators to incorporate appropria te wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into their operating practices w hen the facility is located within the separation criteria specified in AC 150/15200-33A (see 5-2 above and Appendix C).



### 9.2. B



### . IV 

### E XCLUSION TECHNIQUES

Birds are permanently excluded from this storm
water detention facility through the use of a floating permeable barrier (Photo courtesy Industrial & Environmental Concepts, Inc.). If food, water, or cover cannot be eliminated by habitat modification, then actions can sometimes be taken to exclude the wildlife from the desired resource. Exclusion involves the use of physical barriers to deny wildlife access to a particular area. As with habitat modification, exclusi on techniques, such as installing a covered drainage ditch instead of an open ditch, can initially be costly. However, exclusion provides a permanent solution that is not only environmentally friendly, but when amortized ov er many years, might act ually be the least expensive solution.

9.2. B

. IV

. A E XCLUSION OF BIRDS Architects should consult biologists during the design phase of buildings, hangers, bridges, and ot her structures at airports to minimize exposed areas that birds can use for perching and nesting. For example, tubular steel beams are much less attractive as perching sites for starlings and pigeons th an are I-beams. If desirable perching sites are present in older structures, access to these sites (such as rafter and girded areas in hangers, warehouses, and under bridges) often can be eliminated with netting. Curtains made of heavy-duty plastic sheeting, cut into 12-inch strips, and hung in warehouse or hanger doorways, can discourage birds from entering these openings. Anti-perching devices , such as spikes, can be installed on ledges, roof peaks, rafters, signs, posts, and ot her roosting and perching areas to keep certain birds from using them. Changing t he angle of building ledges to 45 degrees or

Light posts and other structures in taxicab lots a t airports can be fitted with anti-perching devices to discourage gulls and other birds from using the area. Feeding of birds should also be prohibited on airport property.Chapter 9 Control Techniques 119

more will deter birds. However, it is emphas ized that incorporatin g bird exclusion or deterrence into the design of structures is the most effective, long-term solution. Gull and waterfowl use of retention ponds and drainage ditches can be reduced with over-head wire systems. A system of wires spaced 10 feet apar t or in a 10- x 10-foot grid will discourage most gulls and waterfowl from landing. Similar wire systems have been successfully used to keep gulls off r oofs and out of landfills and crows out of electrical substations. When it is desirable to eliminate all bird use, netting can be installed over small ponds and similar areas. However, birds are sometimes tangled in the netting and maintenance problems arise with high winds and freezing weather. Complete coverage of ponds with plastic, 3-inch diameter “bird balls” or floating mats will completely exclude birds and yet allow evaporation of water. Designing ponds with steep slopes will discourage wading birds such as herons. Use of culverts to totally cover water in drainage ditches is recommended whenever possible.

9.2. B

. IV

. B E XCLUSION OF MAMMALS Institute a “zero tolerance” policy for deer, livestock, and other large mammals in the AOA because of their severe threat to aviation safety (see Table 8-1). The best, albeit most costly, procedure for excluding these animals off the AOA is proper fencing. The FAA recommends a 10- 12 foot chain link fence with 3-strand barbed wire outriggers. In some cases, an airport might be able to use an 8-foot chain link fence with 3- strand barbed outriggers, depending on the amount of deer activity in the area (see Certalert No. 04-16, Appendix E). A 4-f oot skirt of chainlink fence material, attached to the bottom of the fence and buried at a 45 o angle on the outside of the fence will prevent animals from digging under the fence and reduce the chance of washouts. This type of fencing also greatly increases airport security. There are also numerous electric-fence designs fo r excluding deer, discussed in Hygnstrom et al. (1994), that are not as costly as permanent fencing but have drawbacks in safety

A well-maintained fence, at least 10-feet high with no gaps at the bottom, is the primary defense to keep deer and other large animals off of the AOA at airports. Gates must also be close-fitting, and water drains under the fence must be equipped with exclusion devices (top photo by E. Cleary, FAA).120 Control Techniques Chapter 9

and maintenance. Properly install and maintain all fencing. Keep the fence line right -of-way free of excess vegetation. Patrol the fence line at least daily, and fix any washout s, breaks, or other holes in the fence as soon as they are disco vered. Take immediate action to remove any deer or other large mammals observed on or near the AOA. Cattle Guards are widely used to prevent hoofed livestock from traversing across fenced areas through permanent openings maintained for vehicular access. These devices, if at least 15 feet in length perpendi cular to the fence, will prevent deer from entering through gated areas on airports.



### 9.2. C 

### R EPELLENT TECHNIQUES
Repellent and harassment techniques are designed to make the area or resource desired by wildlife unattractive or to make the wildlife uncomfortable or fearful. Long term, the cost-effectiveness of repelling wildlife usually does not compare favorably with habitat modification or exclusion techniques . No matter how many times wildlife are driven from an area that attracts them, they or other individuals of their species will return as long as the attract ant is accessible. However, habitat modifications and exclusion techniques will never completely rid an airport of problem wildlife; therefore, repellent techniques are a key component of any wildlife hazard management plan. Under low-light conditions, specially designed lasers can be effective in dispersing geese, cormorants, and other bird species.

Repellents work by affecting the animal's s enses through chemical, auditory, or visual means. Habituation or acclimation of bird s and mammals to most repellent devices or techniques is a major problem. When us ed repeatedly without added reinforcement, wildlife soon learn that the repe llent devices or techniques are harmless. The devices become a part of their “background noise”, and they ignore them. Critical factors to be recogniz ed in deploying repellents are—

1. There are no “silver bullets ” that will solve all problems;
2. Likewise, there is no standar d protocol or set of proced ures that is best for all situations. Repelling wildlife is an art as much as a science. The most important factor is having motivated, trai ned, appropriately equipped personnel who understand the wildlife situat ion on their airport;
3. Each wildlife species is unique and will often respond differently to various repellent techniques. Even within a group of closely related species, such as gulls, theChapter 9 Control Techniques 121

various species will often respond differently to various repellent techniques; and
4. Habituation to repellent techniques can be minimized by— a) using each technique sparingly and appr opriately when the target wildlife is present, b) using a variety of repellent te chniques in an integrated fashion, and c) reinforcing repellents with occasional le thal control (with necessary permits in place) directed at abundant problem species such as gulls or geese.
Advances in electronics, remote sensing c apabilities, and computers are resulting in the development of “intelligent” syst ems that can automatically deploy repellent devices (e.g., noisemakers, chemical sprays) when targeted wildlife enter a designated area. These devices might help reduce habituation and increase effectiveness of repellents in some situations. However, these devices will never replace the need for trained people on the ground to respond appropriately to incurs ions by a variety of highly adaptable, sentient wildlife species.



### 9.2. C



### . I 

### W ILDLIFE PATROLS AND RUNWAY SWEEPS IN VEHICLES Regular patrols of airside areas to dis perse birds and other hazardous wildlife are a critical component of an int egrated program of wildlife hazar d management on airports. Often, driving a vehicle toward the wildlife will be enough to cause the wildlife to disperse, especially if the driver has been deploying repellent and removal techniques and strategies as outlined below. Regular patrols and sweeps also permit wildlife control personnel to learn the daily movement patterns, habitat preferences, and behavior of wildlife on the airport. This information can be useful in determining wildlife attractants on the ai rport that need to be removed (e.g., low areas that gather standing water after rains) and in anticipating problem situations. All wildlife carcasses found during runway sweeps should be removed, identified to species, and documented on a wildlife strike log for carcass remains (Table 7-2).



### 9.2. C



### . II 

### C HEMICAL REPELLENTS FOR
BIRDS Chemical repellents, toxicants, and capturing agents must be registered with t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or Food and Drug Administration (F DA) before they can be used to manage wildlife on airports. Products must also be r egistered in each state. Hygnstrom et al. (1994) provides a listing of chemical produc ts, by active ingredient and by company

Chemical repellents, such as methyl anthranilate, can be applied to temporary pools of standing water on airports to repel birds until the water evaporates. The preferred long-term solution is to improve drainage to avoid standing water after significant rain events (photo courtesy USDA).122 Control Techniques Chapter 9

name, registered for birds and mammals. The following chemical repellents, listed by active ingredient, are presently available for use on airports. Perching structures (polybutenes). Several commercial products are available in liquid or paste form. These sticky formulations ma ke birds uncomfortable when they alight on them, encouraging the birds to look elsewhere to perch or roost. To be effective, all perching surfaces in a problem area must be treated, or the bi rds will move a short distance to an untreated surface. Under no rmal conditions, the effective life of these materials is 6 months to 1 year. Dusty environments can substant ially reduce the life expectancy. Once the material loses effectiveness, it is necessary to remove the old material and apply a fresh coat. Applying t he material over duc t tape, rather than directly to the building ledge or ra fter surface, will facilitate clean up. Turf feeding (m ethyl anthranilate, anthraquinone). There are two chemicals presently (2005) registered as bird repellents for turf (grass). One repell ent is an anthraquinone formulation for repelling geese from tur f. Anthraquinone apparently acts as a conditioned-aversion repellent with birds. Birds ingesting food treated with anthraquinone become slightly ill and develop a post-ingestion aversion to the treated food source. Birds visually identify anthr aquinone in the UV light spectrum and become conditioned to avoid the treated food source. Because of its conditioned-aversion properties, anthraquinone use does not require treatment of t he entire airfield, but only areas where birds are grazing and/or higher ri sk areas such as runway approaches.
The other repellent is methyl anthranilate, an artificial grape flavoring commonly used in foods and beverages. Birds have a taste av ersion to methyl anthranilate, apparently reacting to it in much the same way t hat mammals react to concentrated ammonia (smelling salts). Methyl anthranilate is registered under formulations as a feeding repellent for geese and other birds on turf.
Both anthraquinone and methyl anthranilate products are liquid formulations applied by sprayer to the vegetation. Effectiveness of these sprays in repelling geese can be variable, depending on growing conditions, rainfall, mowing, and availability of alter nate feeding areas. In general, repellency based on conditioned aversion is longer lasting than repellency based on taste. Water (m ethyl anthanilate). Methyl anthranilate formulations are also available for application to pools of standing wa ter on airports and at other locations to repel birds from drinking and bathing. This application is probably best for temporary pools of water after rainfall, where repellency of only a few days is needed.

A recent study showed that predator urines (coyote, bobcat) had no influence on deer movements along established trails or at feeding sites (photo by T. Seamans, USDA).

General area (fogging wit h m e thyl anthanilate). A methyl anthranilate formulation isChapter 9 Control Techniques 123

also available for use in fogging machines (thermal or mechanical) to disperse birds from hangers, lawns, and other areas. Frightening agent (Avitrol [4-Am i nopyridine]). Avitrol is register ed for repelling pigeons, house sparrows, black-birds, grackles, co wbirds, starlings, crows, and gulls from feeding, nesting, loafing, and roosting sites. Birds eating Avitrol-treated baits react with distress symptoms and calls, behavio rs that frighten away other birds in the flock. Avitrol, although register ed as a “frightening agent”, is lethal to the birds that eat treated baits. Therefore, recognize that Avitrol is a toxic to the birds that consume treated bait. Avitrol-treated bait is diluted with untreated bait so most bird s in the flock do not ingest treated bait. The primary use of Avitrol at airports has been in pigeon control around buildings. The use of Avitrol requires kno wledge of the feeding patterns of the birds, proper prebaiting procedures to ensure bait acceptance and avoidance of non-target species, and removal of dead birds after treatment.



### 9.2. C



### . III 

### C HEMICAL REPELLENTS FOR MAMMALS

There are a number of taste and odor repellents marketed to repel deer, rabbits, and other mammals from browsing on vegetation (Hygnstrom et al. 1994). These include products that ar e applied directly to the vegetation and general area (odor) repellents (e.g., predator urine). Some of these products might be appropriate for short-term protection of valuable landscaping plants and fruit trees. However, their use on airports to repel or discourage deer or other mammals is not recommended because they are unlikely to have any influence on wildlife movements in the airport operating area.



### 9.2. C



### . IV 

### A UDIO REPELLENTS FOR BIRDS Propane cannons. Propane cannons (exploders) generate a shotgun-sounding blast. In general, bird s quickly habituate to cannons that detonate at systematic or random intervals throughout the day. Thus, to ensure they remain effective, use cannons sparingly and only when birds are in the area. Reinforcement by occasional killing a few birds (of common species such as gulls and Canada geese under an appropriate permit) with a shotgun might also enhance effectiv eness. Systems designed so cannons placed around an airport can be detonated remotely on demand by radio signal when birds are in the area are a useful means of reducing habituation.

In most cases, birds rapidly adapt to and then ignore recorded distress calls and othe r noises produced by electronic auditor y devices. Such devices, as shown on the pole in the photo, can be useful only if used sparingly as part of an integrated program o f bird dispersal (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Distress-call and electronic noise-generating system s. Recorded distress calls are available for common birds on airports, such as gulls, crows, and starlings. Such calls,124 Control Techniques Chapter 9

broadcast from speakers mounted on a vehicle, will often initially draw the birds toward the sound source to investigate the threa t. The birds then can be dispersed by pyrotechnics or by using a shotgun to s hoot an occasional bird. As with propane cannons, distress calls routinely broadcast from stationary speakers, with no associated follow-up stimuli that pr ovide additional fear or stress, hav e little utility. Birds also habituate rapidly to other el ectronic sound systems that gener ate a variety of synthetic sounds from stationary speakers.

Shell crackers and other pyrotechnics. There are a variety of projectiles that can be fired from breech-loaded shotguns or from specialized launchers to provide an auditory blast or scream, as well as smoke and flashing light, to frighten birds. Some of the newer cartridges have ranges of up to 300 yards. These pyrotechnics, when used skillfully in combination with other harassment techniques and limited lethal control (shooting via shotgun), can be very useful in driving birds off of an airport. An advantage of these pyrotechnic devices is that they require a person to fire the projectile, thus ensuring that they are deployed directly at the ta rget birds and that the birds associate the pyrotechnic with a threat (person). Taxidermy mounts of coyotes deployed to move in the wind might be useful as part of an integrated program to disperse Canada geese and other birds from airports. Such effigies must be used sparingly and moved to various locations to prevent habituation. Permanentl y mounted effigies have little det errent effect (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

Ultrasonic devices . Ultrasonic (i.e., above the sound range detected by humans) devices have not proven to be effective bird r epellents. In fact, most birds do not detect frequencies as high as humans can detect, mu ch less frequencies above the level of human detection. During tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center, pi geons showed no response when exposed within 10 feet to a fully functional, high-frequen cy sound generating device. Do not deploy these devices in hangers or other airport settings to deter birds.



### 9.2. C



### . V 

### A UDIO REPELLENTS FOR MAMMALS Probably the most commonly used audio scaring device for deer is the propane cannon. However, deer rapidly habit uate to propane cannons. Their use on airports to repel deer and other mammals from runways is not recommended except for short-term (i.e., several days), emergency situations until a more permanent solution (fencing or deer removal) can be achieved. Other electroni c noise-generating devices also have proven ineffective in repelling deer or other mammals for more than a few days. Pyrotechnics also provide only short-term repellency for mammals.Chapter 9 Control Techniques 125



### 9.2. C



### . VI 

### V ISUAL REPELLENTS FOR BIRDS Most visual repellents are simply a variat ion on an ancient theme—the scarecrow. In general, visual repellents, such as hawk effigi es or silhouettes, eye-spot balloons, flags, and Mylar reflecting tapes, have shown only short-term effectiveness and are inappropriate for use as a long-term solution to bird problems on airports. Most shortterm success achieved with these devices is lik ely attributable to "new object reaction" rather than to any actual fri ghtening effect produced by them. For example, in a test in Ohio, a flag with a large eye-spot was ex posed to pigeons in an abandoned building. As soon as the flag was put up, the pigeons left the building, giving the impression that the eye-spot was highly repell ent to the birds. However, within 24 hours, the pigeons returned. From then on, the pigeons behav ed in a completely normal fashion and showed no interest in, or reaction to, the flag.

One visual deterr ent that has been successfully used in recent years is the display of dead birds in a “death pose.” Several experiments and field demonstrations have shown that a dead turkey vulture (freeze-dried taxidermy mount with wings spread), hung by its feet in a vulture roosting or per ching area, will cause vultures to abandon the si te. Initial trials using dead gulls and ravens suspended from poles have also shown promising results in dispersing these species from feeding and resting sites. The dead bird must be hung in a “death pose” to be effective. Dead birds lying supine on the ground or in the roost are generally ignored or might even attract other birds. Permits must be in place before federally protected migratory birds can be obtained and used as “dead-bird deterrents.” Research is under way to determine if artificial “dead-bird effigies” can be developed that will be just as effective as the taxidermy mounts.
Another new concept in visual repellency that has shown utility in recent years is the use of hand-held laser dev ices that project a 1-inch diameter red beam to disperse birds. These devises have been used successfully to disperse birds such as Canada geese, double-crested cormorant s, and crows from nighttime roosting areas in reservoirs and tr ees. Advantages are effectiveness at long range (over 1⁄4 mile) and lack of noise. Laser s have also shown some effectiveness in dispersing birds from hangers. Effectiveness is diminished or nonexistent in daylight

The successful use of border collies to repel birds requires a high degree of dedication and commitment by the handlers. Jet was among the first border collies to successfully work a t an airport to control birds.126 Control Techniques Chapter 9

conditions. As with the use of firearms, t he use of lasers in an airport environment obviously requires caution.



### 9.2. C



### . VII 

### V ISUAL REPELLENTS FOR MAMMALS For the most part, visual repellents such as flags and effigies have proven ineffective for repelling mammals. Their use is not re commended for keeping deer or other mammals off airports. Red lasers (see above) we re ineffective in dispersing deer.



### 9.2. C



### . VIII 

### T RAINED FALCONS AND DOGS TO REPEL BIRDS Trained falcons and other birds of prey have been used intermittently on various airports in Europe and North America to disperse birds since the late 1940s. The advantage of falconry is that the birds on the airport are exposed to a natural predator for which they have an innate fear. The disadvantage is that a falconry program is often ex pensive, requiring a number of birds that must be maintained and cared for by a crew of trained, highly motivated personnel. Furthermore, the effectiveness of falconry programs in actually reducing strikes has been difficult to evaluate. Blokpoel (1976) outlined the following summary of falconry for airports that is still a good overall assessment: (1) properly trained bird s of prey of the right species for the job at hand, used regularly and persistent ly by skilled and conscientious personnel, are effective in cleari ng birds from airfields during daylight and good weather; (2) for good results, daily oper ations on a year-round basis are required in most cases, (3) several falcons are requi red to have at least one bird ready at all times, and (4) to obtain, train, operate, and care for falcons, a staff of at least two fulltime, well-trained personnel is required.

Radio-c ontrolled airc raft, s u c h as this Robo-FalconTM, can be useful as part of an integrated program in dispersing birds from airports and landfills. Considerable training is required to operate these devices in the airport environmen t (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).

The use of trained dogs, especially border collie s, to chase geese and other birds from golf courses, airports, and other sites is a recent development. As with falcons, the advantage is exposure to a natural predator. Li kewise, the disadvantag e is that the dog must be under the control of a trained person at all times, and the dog must be cared for and exercised 365 days a year. A dog will have little influence on birds that are flying over the airport.



### 9.2. C



### . IX 

### R ADIO



### - CONTROLLED MODEL AIRCRAFT TO REPEL BIRDS Radio-controlled (RC) model aircraft, which provide both visual and auditory stimuli, occasionally have been used to harass birds on airports. One advantage is that the RC aircraft is under the control of a person and can be directed precisely to herd the birdsChapter 9 Control Techniques 127

away from the airport runway. A sec ond advantage is that the RC aircraft can be deployed on an “as needed” basis with little maintenance needed between flights. Some RC aircraft have been designed to mimic t he appearance of a falcon and even to remotely fire pyrotechnics. The disadvant age is that a trained per son is required to operate the RC aircraft in an airport environmen t. Before using RC aircraft, ensure that the radio frequencies used are compatible with other radi o uses in the airfield environment.



### 9.2. C



### . X 

### N ONLETHAL PROJECTILES TO REPEL BIRDS Paint balls and rubber or plastic project iles, fired from pai nt-ball guns and 12-gauge shotguns, respectively, can be used to reinforc e other dispersal techniques employed to repel Canada geese, roosting vult ures, and perhaps other species of birds. With paint balls, a high-quality paint-ba ll gun should be used to provide sufficient accuracy and velocity (typically fired from 20 to 100 feet fr om bird). There are several types of rubber or plastic projectiles (slugs, buck shot, pellets, beads) for use in a shotgun. The proper distance from the bird for firing varies by projectile and species of bird. Personnel using these techniques need to be trained in firearm use and in the use of the particular projectiles being deployed. The objective is to shoot from a sufficient distance so that the projectile induces temporary pain, but no injury, in the bird struck.



### 9.2. D 

### W ILDLIFE REMOVAL
TECHNIQUES
Habitat modification, exclusion, and repellent techniques are the first lines of action in any Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. However, thes e actions will not solve every problem; therefore, hazardous wildlife sometimes must be removed from an airport. Such removal can be accomplished by capturing and relocating or by killing the target animals. With few exceptions, a federal Migratory Bird Depredation Permit, and in many cases a state permit, is required before any migratory birds may be taken (captured or killed). A stat e permit is generally necessary before any state-protected birds or mammals may be taken. Any c apturing or killing must be done humanely and only by people who are trained in wildlife specie s identification and the techniques to be deployed.

Birds of prey, such as this red-tailed hawk, are captured with bal-chatri traps at some USA airports and relocated 50-100 miles from the airport. Studies have shown tha t relocated juvenile hawks typically do not return to the airport. Adult territorial birds will often return (photo courtesy of L. Schafer, USDA).



### 9.2. D



### . I 

### C APTURING BIRDS AND MAMMALS The disposition of live-captured birds and mammals will depend on the legal, political, and social realities of each si tuation. State wildlife agencies are increasingly restrictive128 Control Techniques Chapter 9

about the relocation of captured wild animals, particularly for common species, because of disease concerns and the creation of additional wildlife pr oblems at release sites. When practical, euthanize unprotected bird s, such as pigeons, house sparrows, and European starlings, using procedures reco mmended by the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV). Dispose of common mammals, such as raccoons, woodchucks, and coyotes, captured on airports by following state regulations. Resident Canada geese captured during molt or by nets can be euthanized and donated to soup kitchens or food banks, provided the necessary federal and state permits are in place.

9.2. D

. I

. A C HEMICAL CAPT URE OF BIRDS Alpha Chloralose (A-C) is registered with t he FDA as an immobilizing agent for use in capturing waterfowl, coots, and pigeons. A-C can only be used by people certified to use A-C working under the authority of personnel with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (USDA/WS). A- C, incorporated into br ead baits, is ideal for selectively capturing ducks, geese, and c oots that can be hand-fed at urban ponds and parks. Corn baits are recommended for pigeons or groups of waterfowl or coots that cannot be individually baited. Birds ingesting a clinical dose of A-C can be capt ured in 30- to 90- minutes. Complete recovery normally occurs within 8 hours but can take up to 24 hours.

Cannon or rocket nets are well suited for capturing up to 100 or more waterfowl, pigeons, or gulls in situations where other methods might not be practical. The net must be placed where it can be safely discharged, and the target birds must be trained to feed in front of it. Depending on the situation, prebaiting can take several days. Here, white pelicans are being captured for banding to study migration patterns (phot o by T. King, USDA). 9.2. D

. I

. B L IVE

- T R APPING BIRDS The major advantage of live trapping is selectivity: any non-target birds can be released unharmed. The major disadvantage is that live trapping is often labor intensive. Traps must be tended frequently to remove captured animals and, in the case of cage traps with decoy birds, to provide food and water. Hygnstrom et al. (1994) provides detailed descriptions of various trap designs.
Trapping is used on some airports to remove raptors (hawks and owls) in the aircraft operating area. Bal-chatri , noose carpets, Swedish goshawk, or sliding padded pole traps are typically used. Because r aptors are desirable co mponents of bird communities, most permits for trapping r aptors require that the birds be banded and relocated into suitable habitat at least 50 miles from the airport. Live trapping, using walk-in type traps on roof s or other isolated si tes, can be used to remove pigeons at airports. Euthanize captured pigeons following AAWV guidelines. If relocated, pigeons can fly long distances to return to the site of capture. Net launchers use a blank rifle cartridge to pr opel a net. Fired from the shoulder muchChapter 9 Control Techniques 129

like a shotgun or rifle, net l aunchers can capture individual or small groups of problem birds that can be approached within about 50 feet.

9.2. D

. I

. C C HEMICAL CAPTURE OF MAMMALS Large mammals, such as deer, can be captur ed with tranquilizer guns, but this is generally not a practical or des irable option for airports. Live capture and relocation of deer is not recommended or permitted in most states because deer populations are at or near carrying capacity. Howe ver, in those situations wher e the use of firearms is not safe or practical, the us e of tranquilizer guns might be appropriate. The use of tranquilizer guns requires personnel with a hi gh degree of skill and experience. If used in an airport environment, safeguards must be in place to ensure partially tranquilized deer do not enter runway areas.

9.2. D

. I

. D L IVE

- T R APPING MAMMALS Specialized drop-door traps, drop nets, or rocket net set-ups can be used to live-capture deer, but live-capturing deer generally is not recommended for airport situations for reasons outlined above. However, smaller box-t ype or basket live-traps can be used to capture medium-sized mammals, such as raccoons, woodchucks, beavers, and feral dogs. Leg-hold traps and snares can be used to capture coyotes, feral dogs and

raccoons. Successful mammal trapping, especially with leg-hold traps and snares, requires a high degree of skill and experience. Once set, traps must be checked frequently (at least once every 24 hours and more frequently in hot or cold weather). Trappers must be knowledgeable in procedures for handling and euthanizing mammals. State and local regulations might restrict the use of some types of traps.



### 9.2. D



### . II 

### K ILLING BIRDS AND
MAMMALS In general, killing of wildlife on an airport is the last option deployed after habitat modification, exclusion techniques, and repellent actions have been implemented. However, the management of a wildlif e hazard situation on an airport might require killing a particular animal or require that a local population of a problem species be reduced by lethal means until a long-term, nonlethal solution is implemented (e.g., erection of deer-proof fence, relocation of nearby gull nesting colony). In addition, lethal control of a few individuals is sometimes necessary to reinforce nonlethal frightening techniques. Some lethal control is usually necessary as part of an integrated Wildlife Haza rd Management Plan for an airport.

Hunting during the regular deer season should be encouraged in areas adjacent to airports having dee r problems to reduce the population in the general area. Archery hunting sometimes can be used in areas closed to firearms ( photo by E. Cleary, FAA).

The following information must be developed to ju stify lethal control and to minimize130 Control Techniques Chapter 9

adverse public reaction to a program involving killing:

• Documentation that the wild life species is an economic, safety, or health threat.

• Justification of why nonlethal options are not adequate to solve the problem.

• An assessment of the impact that t he killing will have on local and regional populations of the species (i.e., is the le vel of killing planned likely to result in a significant reduction in numbers of the spec ies at the local or regional level?).

• Assurance that the killing pr ocedure is appropriate (i.e., sa fe, effective, and humane) and specific for the target wildlife species.

• Documentation of the effectiveness of the killing program in helping to solve the problem (e.g., reduction in bird strikes).

• Recommended steps to be taken, if any are feasible, to reduce the need for killing in the future.

9.2. D

. II

. A D EST ROYING EGGS AND
NEST S Do not allow Canada geese, mute swans, and gulls to nest on airport property. Provided the correct permits are in place, destroy (break eggs and remove nest material) any goose, mute swan, or gull nests with eggs found on an airport. Egg addling (oiling, shaking, or puncturing), whereby the birds continue to incubate nonviable eggs, is not recommended for airports. Egg addling encourages the nesting birds (and any nonbreeding birds associated with them) to stay on the airport. At the time of nest destruction, harass the adult birds from the airport. Check the nesting area weekly for renesting until the end of the nesting season (generally the end of June). As an alternative to harassment, it may be better to shoot nesting geese and mute swans (see below). Canada geese should not be allowed to nest o n afte airports. Nests and eggs should be destroyed r appropriate permits are obtained (photo courtesy o f J. B u cknall, US DA ).

Destroy pigeons, starlings, and house sparrows nests whenever they are encountered in airport buildings and structures. Where practical, install physical barriers, as discussed above, to prevent renesting.

Nests of other birds hazardous to avia tion generally also should be destroyed when encountered on airports. Remember that migratory bird nests are protected by federal law and may not be taken without a Depredation Permit. Each situation will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, depending on t he species of bird and level of threat posed, location from runways, bird mo vement patterns, and other factors.

9.2. D

. II

. B S HOOTING BIRDS Shooting birds in an airport environment generally falls into two main categories. First,Chapter 9 Control Techniques 131

pigeons using hangers, bridge gir ders, and other sites can be shot at night with an air rifle. This nighttime shooting is done quiet ly and discretely, with the objective being to disturb the birds as little as possible so that the maximum number can be removed. In the second category of shooting, common bi rds, such as gulls and geese, in the AOA that are not responding to various repellent methods can be shot with a 12-gauge shotgun. Th is shooting is done during daylight in the open so that other birds can witness the action. Shooting a shotgun has several effects on a flock of birds. First, it reinforces other audio or visual repelling techniques. Second, the loud noise, coupled with the death of one or more of the flock member s, can frighten the rest of the flock away . Third, the target birds are permanently removed.
Four cardinal rules apply when using shooting as a control method at airports:

1. Use only personnel who are trained in the use of firearms and who have an excellent knowledge of wildlife identification.

2. Use the proper gun and ammunition for the situation. Compressed CO 2 -powered pellet rifles, with lase r pointers and telescopic sights, are an effective means of removing rock doves (pigeons) from hangers and other structures at airports. Personnel must be properly trained in the use of all pyrotechnic devices and firearms, and their use must be coordinated with airport security (photo by R. A. Dolbeer).

3. Have necessary federal and state wildlife kill permits in place, and keep accurate records of birds killed by species and date.

4. Notify airport security, air traffic control, and, if appropr iate, the local law enforcement authority before instituting a shooting prog ram. Local ordinances against the discharge of firearms within cert ain distances of buildings, or within the city limits, may need to be waived.

9.2. D

. II

. C S HOOTING MAMMALS Adopt a “zero tolerance” for deer on airports . If fencing is inadequate to keep deer off an airport or if deer have gotten inside t he airport’s fence, shooting is the best procedure for removing the deer. Because of inherent safety considerations and to ensure safe and efficient removal, shooti ng on airports must be by professional sharpshooters, using non-ricocheting bullets in rifles equipped with night-vision scopes and noise suppressers. Elevated shooting st ands can be erected on the ground or on a truck bed to direct shots toward the ground. When practical, donate the meat from deer that are removed from airports to charity. Shooting of deer on airports must be coordinated through the state wildlife agency.132 Control Techniques Chapter 9

Encourage hunting during the r egular deer season in areas adjacent to airports with deer problems to reduce the population in t he general area. Archery hunting sometimes can be used in areas closed to firearms.

9.2. D

. II

. D O RAL T O XICANT S F O R BIRDS Currently in the USA, only one oral toxicant, DRC-1339 or St arlicide (active ingredient 3-chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride), is registered with the USEPA for use in bird population management. Starlicide (0.1% active ingredient) is formulated in a pellet bait for use at feedlots to cont rol starlings and blackbirds. DRC-1339 (98% active ingredient) can be formulated with a variety of baits and used to control starlings, pigeons, gulls, ravens, and blackbirds under certain conditions, some of which might be applicable at airports. The control of pigeons around airport buildings and starlings roosting on or near an airport are the situations most likely applicable. Only USDA/WS personnel or persons working under their direct supervision can use DRC-1339.
The use of toxic baits to kill target birds without affecting non-target species requires considerable skill and patience. Daily movement patterns of the target birds am ong feeding, loafing, and roosting sites must be determined so attractive bait sites that are controlled from public access (such as a roof top) can be selected. The proper bait (a highly desired food) must be selected, and the birds then must be prebaited, often for a week or more, to ensure good bait acceptance and that non-target animals are not visiting the bait si te. Proper prebaiting is the most critical step of a successful program . During the baiting period, all uneaten bait must be removed daily. With DRC-1339, birds typica lly die 1 to 3 days after bait ingestion; therefore, areas surrounding bait sites will need to be searched for several days after baiting to remove dead birds.

This is the center portion of a zinc phosphide rodenticide label showing the restricted use statement, target species, and ingredients list. Othe r parts of the label provide important information such as the manufacturer, EPA registration number, and the directions for use. Always read the entire label before using any pesticide.

9.2. D

. II

. E C ONTA CT TOX I CA NTS FOR B I RDS Hollow metal perches containing a wick treat ed with the toxicant fenthion previously were used to control pigeons, house sparro ws, and starlings in and around buildings. The USEPA has phased out the us e of fenthion-treated perc hes because of concerns for secondary poisoning of raptors and mamma lian scavengers feeding on dying birds. No replacement chemical has been registered at this time (2005).
If toxic perches become available, their use outside of buildi ngs is not recommendedChapter 9 Control Techniques 133

because there is no way of pr eventing non-target birds fr om landing on them. Even when used inside buildings, careful placement of perches and monitoring must be done to ensure non-target birds such as swallows are not exposed to the toxicant. Pick up and properly dispose of all dead birds.

9.2. D

. II

. F T OXICANTS FOR MAMMALS Small rodent populations (e.g., voles, house and deer mice, Norway rats) might erupt in grassy and brushy areas or around construction debris on airports, attracting raptors and creating a hazard to aviation. In general, control rodent populations by habitat management (mowing, sanitation, clean-up of brushy areas and piles of debris). However, there might be situations where the use of a rodenticide is appr opriate to reduce rodent populations in airside vegetation. The control of commensal rodents in airport terminal buildings and other facilities will not be discussed here because these jobs are usually handled by private pest control operators. There are two types of rodenticides that might be available for use in airside vegetation, anticoagulants and acute toxicants. Anticoagulants, of which there are several types registered, cause the rodent to die from internal bleeding. Some anticoagulants require multiple feedings to induce sufficient bleeding for death whereas others require only a single feeding. The only acute toxicant registered for abov e-ground treatment of field rodents is zinc phosphide, available in pellet and grain-bait formulations and as a concentrate for specialized bait formulations.

Anticoagulant rodenticides in covered bait stations are being used to control mice and voles in the AOA of this airport in Mexico. The bait stations are checked regularly and old, moldy bait is removed and properl y disposed. This airport also uses falconry as part of its integrated program (photo by R. A, Dolbeer, USDA)

.

Depending on registration label instructions, rodenticide baits can be broadcast in the vegetation or hand-placed in bu rrows and runways. Anticoagulant baits can also be placed in various types of bait containers plac ed in areas of high rodent activity. Care must be taken to minimize non-target bird and mammal exposure with broadcast and hand-placed baits.134 Control Techniques Chapter 9

9.2. D

. II

. G F UMIGANTS FOR MAMMALS Burrowing rodents on airports, such as woodchucks (ground hogs) and prairie dogs, can be killed by fumigation of burrows with either gas cartridges or aluminum phosphide tablets. Gas cartridges, ignited from a burning fuse a fter placement in the burrow, generate carbon monoxide. Aluminum phosphide pellets react with moisture in the burrow to produce phosphine gas. Care must be taken to plug all burrow entrances with sod after placement of the cartri dge or pellets in the burrow. Gas cartridges are a general use, over-the-counter pesticide. Aluminum phosphide pellets can only be applied by certified pesticide applicators and might not be available in all states. As with all pesticides, it is critical to make sure the wildlife species you are treating is covered under the registration for your state.

9.2. D

. II

. H L ET HAL T R APS F O R MAMMALS Depending on state and local laws, Conibear® (body gripping) traps can be used to remove woodchucks, beaver, and other medium-sized mammals that create problems on airports. Neck snares can be used to capture coyotes, beaver, and certain other mammals. The use of these lethal traps require s a high degree of skill and experience to sele ctively capture the target animal. Once set, traps must be checked frequently (at least once every 24 hours and more frequently in hot or cold weather) to euthanize any animals that might be captured but not killed. Trappers must be knowledgeable in procedures for handling and euthanizing captured mammals. Earthworms crawling onto runways after heav y rains can be a strong attractant to gulls and othe r birds. This runway in New Zealand uses sli t drains to block worms from reaching the runway. Other options include brush-sweeping runwa y edges to remove worms and deploying extra personnel to disperse gulls. As of 2005, there

are no chemicals registered in the USA to control earthworms (photo by R. A. Dolbeer, USDA).



### 9.3 C ONCLUSIONS
Habitat modifications to minimize food, cover, and water and physical barriers to exclude wildlife are the foundat ions of wildlife hazard management programs for airports. In addition, an integrated array of r epellent techniques is necessary to disrupt normal behavior and to stress hazardous wildlife t hat attempt to use the airport. These repellent techniques must be used judiciously and backed by real threats to minimize habituation. To this end, le thal control of selected individuals of common species is sometimes necessary to reinforce repellent actions. Furthermore, the management of aChapter 9 Control Techniques 135

wildlife hazard situation on an airport might require removal of a particular animal or group of animals or require that a local populat ion of a problem species be reduced by lethal means until a long-term, nonlethal solution is implemented. Finally, the most critical factor for the success of a wildlife hazard management program is to have motivated and trained professionals who are knowledgeable about the wildlife species attempting to use the airport environment and the techniques used to manage the problems these species create.


### 9.4 O THER SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
For details on techniques, equipment, chemical registrations, species-specific management recommendations, and sources of supply, the reader is referred to— Hygnstrom, S. C., R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. 1994. Prevention and control of wildlife dam age

. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Division, Lincoln, Nebraska. (This 2-volume manual is also available online at ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/ solutions/handbook/.) The management of hazardous wildlife at airports often generates interest from the public and news media. Professional biologists and public relations personnel at airports must be prepared to explain and defend actions taken to protect the flying public wildlife hazards to aviation (photo by R. A. from Dolbeer, USDA).

In addition, Appendix L provides a list of res earch publications by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National W ildlife Research Center (NW RC), documenting results of evaluations of various wildlife control products and strategies. These evaluations were conducted between 1992 and 2004 wit h support from the FAA under an interagency agreement with NWRC. This is not a complete list of all evaluations that have been done on all wildlife control met hods, but it does provide information on many of the control methods discussed in this chapter.136 Control Techniques Chapter 9

Birds and aircraft will always share the skies, and there will always be the risk of collisions. To minimize that risk, airports must be managed to be as unattractive to birds as possible. Integrating various control strategies offers the maximum long-term effectiveness and immediate relief from a hazardous situation and minimizes the need for the use of lethal control methods (photo by B. Washburn, USDA).137



## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank J. L. Seubert (retired), S. E. Wright, and T. W. Seamans of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (USDA/WS ) for assistance in the compilation of this manual and for helpful reviews of earlier drafts. E. LeBoeuf (presently with the U.S. Air Force BASH team); J. Rapol, Airports, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and A. Newman, Embr y-Riddle Aeronautical University, were instrumental in the development of the computerized bird st rike database. B. Castelano and E. Melisky (Airports, FAA) and B. MacKinnon (Airports Group, Transport Canada) also provided helpful comments. Funding for the writing and publishing of this manual was provided to USDA/WS through an inter agency agreement with the FAA, William J. Hughes Technical Center. We thank S. Agrawal, P. Jones, and M. Hoven of the Technical Center for their support.138

This page intentionally left blank139



## SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND WEB SITES

In addition to these publications and web si tes, a list of wildlife field guides and reference books is provided at the end of Chapter 8. Also, a list of publications on wildlife control techniques by the U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center, is provided in Appendix L.
Belant, J. L., S. K. Ickes, and T. W. Seam ans. 1998. Importance of landfills to urbannesting herring and ring-billed gulls. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:11-19.
Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America, third edition. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 540 pages.
Blokpoel, H. 1974. Bird hazards to aircra ft. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 236 pages.
Blokpoel, H., and, G. D. Tessier. 1984. Overhead wires and monofilament lines exclude ring-billed gulls from public plac es. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:55-53 Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. 2004. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990-2003. U.S. Department of Tr ansportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial R eport No. 10, DOT/FAA/AS/00-6(AAS-310). Washington DC USA. 56 pages. ( http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/ ). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html
CFR Title 40, Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, section 258.10, Airport Safety, pages 395-396 (July 2003).
CFR Title 50, Parts 1-100, Wildlife and Fisheries, 494 pages (October 2003).
CFR Title 14, Part 139, Certificati on and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, section 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management, pages 846-847 (June 2004).
Dolbeer, R. A., J. L. Belant, and J. L. Silli ngs. 1993. Shooting gulls reduces strikes with aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:442-450. Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cl eary. 2000. Ranking the hazard level of wildlife species to aviation. Wildlife Societ y Bulletin 28:372-378 (updated in special report to Federal Aviation Administration in 2003 that was incorporated into AC 150/5200-7 [Appendix C].
Dolbeer, R. A., and P. Eschenfelder. 2002. Population increases of large birds, airworthiness standards, and high-speed fli ght: a precarious combination. Pages 273-281 in Proceedings of the 55th International Air Safety Seminar, Dublin, Ireland (Flight Safety F oundation, Alexandria, Virginia). Dunning, J. B. Jr., editor. 1993. CRC H andbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 371 pages. (Body we ights for birds throughout the world) Gill, F. B. 1990. Ornithology. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York, New York. 660 pages.Selected Publications 140

Hygnstrom, S. C., R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. 1994. Prevention and control of wildlife damage . University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Division, Lincoln, Nebraska. (This 2-volume manual is also available online at: ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/ solutions/handbook/)
Knittle, C. E., and R. D. Porter, 1993. Waterfowl damage and control methods in ripening grain: an overview, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 14, Washington, DC. 17 pages.
Linnell, M. A., M. R. Conover, and T. J. Ohashi. 1999. Biases in bird strike statistics based on pilot reports. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:997-1003. MacKinnon, B., R. Sowden, and S. Dudley (Editors). 2001. Sharing the skies: an aviation guide to the management of wildlife hazards. Transport Canada, Aviation Publishing Division, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N8 Canada. 316 pages. Seubert, J. L. 1994. Assessing the impl ementation of wildlif e hazard management programs at civil airports. Proceedings Bird Strike Committee Europe 22:275- 284.
Smith, A. E., S. R. Crav en, and P. D. Curtis. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman Institute P ublication 16, and Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, New York. Transport Canada. 2002. Wildlife Control Procedures Manual. Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch. TP11500E. Ottawa, Ontario. (www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviati on/aerodrome/wildlifecontrol/)

Web Sites:

Bird Strike Committee Canada. www.birdstrikecanada.com/

Bird Strike Committee U SA. www.birdstrike.org/ Prevention and control of wildlife damage (2 -volume manual). University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Division, Lincoln, Nebraska. ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/ solutions/handbook/ Transport Canada. www.tc.gc.ca/civila viation/aerodrome/ wildlifecontrol/ U.S. Department of Agricu lture, Animal and Plant H ealth Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. www.aphis.gov.usda.gov/ws
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force Bird Airc raft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team. http://afsafety.af.mil/afsc/bash/home.html.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov/
U.S. Department of Transpor tation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division. www.faa.gov/arp/.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Feder al Aviation Administration, Wildlife Mitigation and Wildlife Strike Database. http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/.Selected Publications 141

Wright, S. E., R. A. Dolbeer, and A. J. M ontoney. 1998. Deer on airports: an accident waiting to happen. Vertebrate Pest Conference 18:90-95.Selected Publications 142

This page intentionally left blank143



## GLOSSARY

Air carrier . A person who holds or who is r equired to hold an air carrier operating certificate issued under this chapter [Tit le 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139, Certification and Operati on: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers] while operating aircraft having a seating capac ity of more than 10 passengers (14 CFR 139.5).

Air carrier aircraft. An aircraft that is being operated by an air carrier and is categorized as either a large air carrier aircraft if designed for at least 31 passenger seats or a small air carrier aircraft if designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger s eats, as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority (14 CFR 139.5).
Air carrier operation. The takeoff or landing of an air carrier aircraft and includes the period of time from 15 minutes before until 15 minutes after the takeoff or landing (14 CFR 139.5).
Air operations area (AOA). Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area included such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or apron.
Airport. An area of land or other hard surface, excluding water, that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, including any buildings and facilities (14 CFR 139.5).
Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public use airport. Airport Operating Certificate . A certificate, issued under this part [Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139, Certificat ion and Operation: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers], for operation of a Class I, II, III, or IV airport.
Approach or departure airspace . The airspace, within 5 st atute miles of an airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff.

Bird balls . High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites.

Bird hazard . See Wildlife hazard.

Bird strike. See Wildlife strike Carrying capacity. The maximum number of animals of a given species, which a habitat is capable of supporting on a su stained basis. The goal of wildlife management programs on airpor ts is to eliminate or minimize the carrying capacity of habitat for species hazardous to aviation. Categorical exclusion (NEPA) : A category of actions t hat do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effe ct on the human environment (40 CFR, 1508.4).Glossary 144

Certificate holder. The holder of an Airpor t Operating Certificate issued under this part. [Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139, Certificat ion and Operation: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers] (14 CFR 139.5).
Class I airport. An airport certificated to serve scheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft that can also serve unscheduled pa ssenger operations of large air carrier aircraft and/or scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft.
Class II airport. An airport certificated to serve scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft and the unscheduled passenger operati ons of large air carrier aircraft. A Class II airport cannot serve scheduled large air carrier aircraft.
Class III airport. An airport certificated to serve scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft. A Class III airport cannot serv e scheduled or unscheduled large air carrier aircraft. Class IV airport. An airport certificated to serv e unscheduled passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft. A Class IV airport cannot serve scheduled large or small air carrier aircraft.

Concurrent use. Aeronautical property used for compatible non-aviation purposes while at the same time serving the pr imary purpose for whic h it was acquired; and the use is clearly beneficial to the airport. The concurrent use should generate revenue to be used for air port purposes (see Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements , sect. 5h).

Construct a new MSWLF. To begin to excavate, grade l and, or raise structures to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting agency.

Cover. Vegetation covering a ground surface and se rving as shelter for wildlife that are roosting, resting, nesting, or feeding. Cover types. A descriptive term characterizi ng vegetative composition and physical characteristics of a plant community.
Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for short periods of time, generally less than t hen 48 hours (compare with retentions ponds).
Dump. The actively used and unvegetated part of an area where refuse (garbage) is placed and allowed to accumulate on the ground surface without periodic covering or compacting. This incl udes both authorized and unauthorized areas. Establish a new Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. When the first load of putrescible waste is received on-site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill.
Extraordinary circumstances: Environmental conditions asso ciated with an action that is normally categorically excluded and tha t: (1) involves one or more of the circumstances listed in FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 304a through 304k; and may cause a significant environmental effect.
Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of anGlossary 145

organic fuel source. Fly ash typically re sults from the combustion of coal or organic waste used to operate a power generating plant.

Hazardous wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals , reptiles, insects, earth worms), including feral animals and domesticated animals not under c ontrol, that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attr actants to other wildlif e that pose a strike hazard (Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A – Ha zardous Wildlife A ttractants on or Near Airports; 14 CFR 139.3)
Heliport. An airport or an area of an airport used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters (14 CFR 139.3).

Mammal strike. See Wildlife strike.
Migratory Bird. “[A] migratory bird [is] ... any bi rd whatever its or igin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in Section 10.13 [of 50 CFR] or which is a mutati on or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consist, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." (50 CFR 10.12). This list includes almost all native bird species in the United States , with the exception of nonm igratory game birds such as pheasants, turkeys and grouse. Exotic and feral species such as graylag geese, muscovy ducks, European starlings, house (English) sparrows, and rock doves (pigeons) also are not listed in 50 CFR 10.13 and are therefore not protected by federal law.
Migration. The periodic movement of a wildlif e species from one geographic area to another, usually in correlation with seasonal changes in weather. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF). A publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, inject ion well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. An MSWLF may receive other types wastes, such as commercial solid wa ste, non-hazardous sl udge, small-quantity generator waste, and industrial solid wa ste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2. An MSWLF can consist of either a stand alone unit or several cells that receive household waste.

Movement area. The runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airpor t which are used for taxiing or hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas (14 CFR 139.3).

New MSWLF . A municipal solid wast e landfill that was established or constructed after April 5, 2001 (AC 150/5200-34).

Pesticide. (1) Any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, (2) any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant r egulator, defoliant, or desiccant, and (3) any nitrogen stabilizer (7 U.S.C.A. 136[u]).Glossary 146

Piston-powered aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft powered by piston engines. Such aircraft normally use LL-100 fuel.
Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbinepowered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed-wing, piston-powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turbi ne-powered, fixed-wing aircraft would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based at the airport (AC 150/5200-33A).
Public airport. An airport used or intended to be us ed for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of whic h the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuver ing of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(16)).

Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR §257.3-8).
Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste discharges, or similar facilities where activities include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of put rescible material, trash, and refuse. Propane cannon/exploder. A hollow cylinder that produces a loud explosion to frighten wildlife by the ignition of a metered am ount of propane at timed or random intervals or by remote control.
Pyrotechnics. Various combustible projectiles l aunched from a shotgun, pistol or other device that produce noise, light and smoke to frighten wildlife.
Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for long periods of time, generally more then 48 hours (compare with detentions ponds). Runway protection zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground (see AC 150/5300-13). The dimensions of this zone vary with the airport design, aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum. Scheduled operation. Any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air ca rrier for which the air carrier or its representatives offers in advance t he departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CFR part 121 or public charter operations under 14 CFR part 380. Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liqui d residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment wor ks. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solid s removed in primar y, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage does not include ash gener ated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatm ent works (40 CFR 257.2). Also, the de-watered effluent resulting fr om secondary or tertiary treatment ofGlossary 147

municipal sewage and/or industrial wastes, including sewage sludge as referenced in USEPA’s Effluent Guidelines and Standards , 40 CFR Part 401. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid wa ste generated form a municipal, commercial or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water suppl y treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect (40 CFR 257.2).

Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution contro l facility and other discarded material, including, solid liquid, semisolid, or c ontained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agric ultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigati on return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or by product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Statute 923) , (40 CFR 257.2).
Take (of wildlife). To pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any wild animal (50 CFR 10.12).
Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engi nes including turbojets and turboprops but excluding turbo-shaft, rotary -wing aircraft. Such aircraft normally use Jet-A fuel (AC 150/5200-33A).
Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells Jet-A f uel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft.
Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industr ial wastes, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), as defined by Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1937 (P.L. 100-4). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the r eduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alterati on of the nature of po llutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of di scharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW (40 CFR 403.3 [o], [p], [q]).

Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limit ation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenter ate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale , Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants ). As used in this manual wildlife includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the c ontrol of their owners (14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports).

Wildlife attractants . Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or human-made or natural geographic feature, t hat can attract or sust ain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace, AOA, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areasGlossary 148

of an airport. These attractants can in clude but are not limited to architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal si tes, wastewater tr eatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands (AC 150/5200- 33).

Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport (14 CFR 139.3).

Wildlife strike . A wildlife strike has occurred when:
1. A pilot reports striking 1 or more birds or other wildlife;
2. Aircraft maintenance personnel ident ify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike;

3. Personnel on the ground repor t seeing an aircraft strike 1 or more birds or other wildlife;

4. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part are found within 200 feet of a runway center line, unless another reason for the animal's death is identified;

5. The animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted l anding, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision wit h animal) (criteria 1-4 adopted from Transport Canada (MacKinnon et al. 2001).149



## ACRONYMS

AAWV American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

AC Advisory Circular

A-C Alpha-Chloralose

ADC Animal Damage Control (former name of USDA/WS)

AGL Above Ground Level

AOA Air Operations Area

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ATC Air Traffic Control

BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (USAF)

BSCC Bird Strike Committee Canada

BSC-USA Bird Strike Committee USA

C&D Landfills Construction and Demolition Landfills

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FOD Foreign Object Debris, Foreign Object Damage

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of UnderstandingAcronyms 150

MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NIPAS National Integrated Pl an of Airport System

NWRC National Wildlife Research Center (USDA)

OFA Object Free Area

OFZ Obstacle Free Zone

RPZ Runway Protection Zone

TSS Threshold Siting Service

USAF United States Air Force

USCOE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDOD United States D epartment of Defense

USDA/WS United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services

USDOT United States Depar tment of Transportation

USEPA United States Envir onmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WCP Wildlife Control Personnel

WHA Wildlife Hazard Assessment

WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

WHWG Wildlife Hazard Working Group

WS Wildlife Services (USDA)151



## APPENDICES152

This page intentionally left blank.153



## APPENDIX A: Names, Addresses, and Phone Numbers:

(Correct as of 11 July 2004.)Appendix A 154

This page intentionally left blankAppendix A Points of Contact 155



### Federal Aviation Administration

FAA National Headquarters
Airports Division 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591
Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Ben Castellano, Div. Mgr. AAS-300 202-267-8728

Bruce Landry, ANE, ASW AAS-300 202-267-8729

Ed Cleary, Wildlife Haza rd Management AAS-300 202-267-3389

Ed Dorsett, AEA, ASO AAS-300 202-267-8792

Ken Gilliam, Fire Safety Specialist AAS-300 @ ORL/ADO 407-812-6331 ext. 134 Fax: 407-812-6978

Elizabeth Matarese, AAL, AWP AAS-300 202-267-8723

Darryel Adams, ACE, AGL, ANM AAS-300 202-267-8816

F a x : 2 0 2

- 2 6 7

- 5 3 8 3

FAA Alaska Region Headquarters
Airports Division 222 West 7th Avenue, #14

Anchorage, AK 99513
Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Byron K. Huffman, Div. Mgr. AAL-600 907-271-5438

Debbie Roth, Dep. Div. Mgr. AAL-601 907-271-5438

Dave Wahto AAL-605 907-271-3815

Maverick Douglas, Lead Inspector AAL-604 907-271-5444

Stephen Powell AAL-624 907-271-5448

F a x : 9 0 7

- 2 7 1

- 2 8 5 1Points of Contact Appendix A 156

FAA Central Region Headquarters
Airports Division 601 East 12th Street Federal Building Kansas City, MO 64106

Serving: KS, IA, MO, NE
Name Mail Stop Phone Number

George Hendon, Div. Mgr. ACE-600 816-329-2601

Jim Johnson, Br. Mgr. ACE-620 816-329-2624

Glenn Helm ACE-620B 816-329-2617

Mike Mullen, Lead Inspector ACE-620C 816-329-2618

Pat Haynes ACE-620D 816-329-2621

Fax: 816-329-2610

FAA Eastern Region Headquarters
Airports Division One Aviation Plaza 159-30 Rockaway Blvd Springfield Gardens, NY 11434

Serving: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV
Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Bill Flanagan, Div. Mgr. AEA-600 718-553-3330

Harvey DeGraw, Br. Mgr. AEA-620 718-553-3350

Vincent Cimino, Lead Inspector AEA-620 718-553-3348

Dennis O'Donnell AEA-620 718-553-3343

John Green AEA-620 718-553-3342

Guillermo Felix AEA-620 718-553-3345

Evelyn Martinez AEA-620 718-553-3347Appendix A Points of Contact 157

Fax: 718-995-5615

FAA Great Lakes Region Headquarters
Airports Division O'Hare Lake Office Center

2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018

Serving: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, ND, SD, WI

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Jeri Alles, Div. Mgr. AGL-600 847-294-7272

Christina Drouet, Br. Mgr. AGL-620 847-294-7387

John Lott, Lead Inspector AGL-621.1 847-294-7533

Tricia Halpin AGL-621.4 847-294-7160

Jesse Carriger AGL-621.7 847-294-7626

Ignacio Flores AGL-621.5 847-294-7531

Birkely Rhodes, AGL-621.3 847-294-7509

Kenneth Taira AGL-621.2 847-294-7519

Fax: 847-294-8088

FAA New England Regional Headquarters
Airports Division 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

Serving: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

LaVerne Reid, Div. Mgr. ANE-600 781-238-7600

Vacant, Br. Mgr. ANE-620 781-238-7620

Laurie Suttmeier, Lead Inspector ANE-620 781-238-7630

Laurie Hyman ANE-620 781-238-7632

Fax: 781-238-7608Points of Contact Appendix A 158

FAA Northwest Mountain Region Headquarters
Airports Division 1601 Lind Avenue, SW

Renton, WA 98055

Serving: CO, ID, MT , OR, UT, WA, WY

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Lowell Johnson, Div. Mgr. ANM-600 425-227-2600

Matt Cavanaugh, Br. Mgr. ANM-620 425-227-2606

Mark Taylor, Lead Inspector ANM-625 425-227-2625

Don Larson SEA-641 425-227-2652

Lynn Deardorff ANM-621 425-227-1621

Rich Van Allman ANM-627 425-227-2607

Fax: 425-227-1600

FAA Southern Region Headquarters
Airports Division 1701 Columbus Avenue College Park, GA 30337 (Mail Address: P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320)

Serving: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Rusty Chapman, Div. Mgr. ASO-600 404-305-6700

Linda Berkowitz, Lead Inspector ASO-620 404-305-6715

Patrick Rogers ASO-620.K 404-305-6716

Randy Moseng ASO-620.R 404-305-6714

Jack McSwain AS0-620.J 404-305-6718

Jim Price ASO-620.P 404-305-6721

Fax: 404-305-6730Appendix A Points of Contact 159

FAA Southw est Region Headquarters
Airports Division 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298

Serving: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Kelvin Solco, Div. Mgr. ASW-600 817-222-5600

Joe Washington, Br. Mgr. ASW-620 817-222-5620

Bruce Kirkendoll, Lead Inspector ASW-621 817-222-5621

Bill Mitchell ASW-621B 817-222-5625

Julie Netherton ASW-621A 817-222-5624

Ron Hess ASW-622 817-222-5622

John Dougherty ASW-623 817-222-5623

Fax: 817-222-5984

FAA Western Pacific Region Headquarters
Airports Division 15000 Aviation Boulevard Hawthorne, CA 90261 Courier address: use above address Mail address: P. O. Box 92007, World Postal Center, Los Angeles, CA 90009

Serving: AZ, CA, HI, NV

Name Mail Stop Phone Number

Mark McClardy, Div. Mgr. AWP-600 310-725-3600

George Aikens, Br. Mgr. AWP-620 310-725-3620

Bill Critchfield, Lead Inspector AWP-622 310-725-3622

Elizabeth Louie AWP-622.1 310-725-3636

William Long AWP-622.2 310-725-3635Points of Contact Appendix A 160

Fax: 310-725-6849.

San Francisco, CA Office

Gretchen Catron, SFO-676 650-876-2778 ext 676

Ray Cavole SFO-677 650-876-2778 ext 677

Fax: 650-876-2733

Honolulu, HI Office

Ron Simpson HNL-600 808-541-1232

Mack Humphery HNL-621A 808-541-1243

Fax: 808-541-3462Appendix A Points of Contact 161



### USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

Headquarters
U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 

### Room 1624 South Agriculture Building
Washington, DC 20250-3402 

### (mail address: USDA/APHIS/WS

STOP 3402 Washington, DC 20250-3402)

William H. Clay, Deputy Administrator (202) 720-2054 FAX:(202) 690-0053 Operational Support Staff
USDA/APHIS/WS Operational Support Staff 4700 River Road, Unit 87, Room 2D26 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234

Joanne Garrett, Director (301) 734-7921 FAX: (301) 734-5157 Eastern Region
USDA/APHIS/WS Eastern Regional Office 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27606

Charles S. Brown, Regional Director (919) 855-7200 FAX: (919) 855-7215

Alabama Frank Boyd State Director Room 118, Ext. Hall Auburn Univ. AL 36849 (334) 844-5670 FAX: (334) 844-5321

Arkansas Thurman W. Booth State Director 600 W. Capitol Ave. Room 55, Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5382 FAX: (501) 324-7135

C o n n e c t i c u t S e e Massachusetts
D e l a w a r e S e e M a r y l a n d
District of Columbia See Maryland

Florida Bernice Constantin State Director 2820 E. University Ave. Gainesville, FL 32641 (352) 377-5556 FAX: (352)377-5559Points of Contact Appendix A 162

Georgia Douglas Hall State Director School of Forest Res. Univ. of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 (706) 546-5637 FAX: (706) 316-9248

Illinois Kirk Gustad State Director 2869 Via Verde Dr. Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 241-6700 FAX: (217) 241-6702

Indiana Judy Loven State Director Purdue University Smith Hall 901 W. State Street W. Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 494-6229 FAX: (765) 494-9475

Iowa See Missouri Kentucky See Tennessee

Louisiana Dwight LeBlanc State Director P.O. Box 589 Port Allen, LA 70767 (225) 389-0229 FAX: (225) 389-0228

Maine Edwin Butler State Director 81 Leighton Rd, Suite 12 Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 622-8263 FAX: (207) 622-5760

Maryland Kevin Sullivan State Director 1568 Whitehall Road Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 349-8055 FAX: (410) 349-8258

Massachusetts Monte Chandler State Director 463 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-2403 FAX: (413) 253-7577

Michigan Peter Butchko State Director 2803 Jolly Rd, Ste.160 Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 336-1928 FAX: (517) 336-1934
Minnesota See Wisconsin

Mississippi Kris C. Godwin State Director P.O. Drawer FW MS State, MS 39762 (662) 325-3014 FAX: (662) 325-3690

Missouri Ed Hartin State Director 1714 Commerce Court, Suite C Columbia, MO 65202 (573) 449-3033 FAX: (573) 449-4382

New Hampshire John E. McConnell State Director 59 Chenell Dr., Suite 7 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 223-6832 FAX (603) 229-1951

New Jersey Janet Bucknall State Director 140-C Locust Grove Rd. Pittstown, NJ 08867 (908) 735-5654 (908) 735-4513 FAX: (908) 735-0821

New York Richard Chipman State Director 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 477-4837 FAX: (518) 477-4899

North Carolina Jon Heisterberg State Director 6213-E. Angus Dr. Raleigh, NC 27617 (919) 786-4480 ext. 228 FAX: (919) 782-4159

Ohio Andy Montoney State Director 6929 Americana Pkwy. Reynoldsburg, OH
43068 (614) 892-2514 FAX: (614) 892-2519Appendix A Points of Contact 163

Pennsylvania Jason Suckow State Director P.O. Box 60827 Summerdale, PA
17106 (717) 236-9451 FAX: (717) 236-9454

Rhode Island See Massachusetts

South Carolina Noel Myers State Director 400 Northeast Dr. Suite L Columbia, SC 29203 (803) 786-9455 FAX: (803) 786-9472

Tennessee Brett Dunlap State Director 537 Myatt Dr. Madison, TN 37115 (615) 736-5506 FAX: (615) 736-2768

Vermont See New Hampshire Virgin Islands See Alabama

Virginia Martin Lowney State Director P.O. Box 130 21425 Hull Street Rd. Moseley, VA 23120 (804) 739-7739 FAX: (804) 739-7738

West Virginia William Bonwell State Director 730 Yokum Street Elkins, WV 26241 (304) 636-1785 FAX: (304) 636-5397

W i s c o n s i n V a c a n t 750 Windsor Street Sun Prairie, WI 53590 (608) 837-2727 FAX: (608) 837-6754 Western Region
USDA/APHIS/WS Western Regional Office 2150 Center Avenue, Bldg. B, Mail Stop 3W9 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

Jeff Green, (Acting) Regional Director (970) 494-7443 FAX: (970) 494-7455

Arizona David Bergman State Director 8836 North 23 rd Ave. Suite B-2 Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602) 870-2081 FAX: (602) 870-2951

A l a s k a S e e W a s h i n g t o n

California Craig Coolahan State Director 3419-A Arden Way Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 979-2675 FAX: (916) 979-2680

Colorado Michael Yeary State Director 12345 W. Alameda Pkwy. Suite 204Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 236-5810 FAX: (303) 236-5821

Hawaii Pacific Islands Mike Pitzler State Director 3375 Koapaka Street Suite H-420 Honolulu, HI 96819 (808) 861-8576 FAX: (808) 861-8570

Idaho Mark Collinge State Director 9134 W. Blackeagle Dr. Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-5077 FAX: (208) 378-5349
K a n s a s S e e N e b r a s k aPoints of Contact Appendix A 164

Montana Larry Handegard State Director P.O. Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 (406) 657-6464 FAX: (406) 657-6110

Nebraska John Hobbs State Director 5940 S. 58th St. P.O. Box 81866 Lincoln, NE 68501 (402) 434-2340 FAX: (402) 434-2330

Nevada Mark Jensen State Director 4600 Kietzke Lane Bldg. O, Suite 260 Reno, NV 89502 (775) 784-5081 FAX: (775) 784-5874

New Mexico Alex Lara State Director 8441 Washington NE Albuquerque, NM 87113 (505) 346-2640 FAX: (505) 346-2627

North Dakota Phil Mastrangelo State Director 2110 Miriam Circle Suite A Bismarck, ND 58501 (701) 250-4405 FAX: (701) 250-4408

Oklahoma John Steuber State Director 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 521-4039 (405) 521-4040 FAX: (405) 525-5951

Oregon David Williams State Director 6135 NE. 80 th , Suite A8 Portland, OR 97218 (503) 326-2346 FAX: (503) 326-2367
South Dakota See North Dakota

Texas Gary L. Nunley State Director P.O. Box 100410 San Antonio, TX 78201 (210) 472-5451 FAX: (210) 472-5446

Utah Mike Bodenchuck State Director P.O. Box 26976 Salt Lake City, UT 84126 (801) 975-3315 FAX: (801) 975-3320

Washington Roger Woodruff State Director 720 O'Leary Street NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 753-9884 FAX: (360) 753-9466

Wyoming R.F. Krischke State Director P.O. Box 59 Casper, WY 82602 (307) 261-5336 FAX: (307) 261-5996Appendix A Points of Contact 165

National Wildlife Research Center USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC

4101 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154

Richard Bruggers, Director (970) 266-6036 FAX (970) 266-6040 NWRC Field Stations

Hawaii Will Pitt Project Leader USDA/NWRC P.O. Box 10880 Hilo, HI 96721 (808) 961-4482 FAX (808) 961-4776

Utah John Shivik Project Leader USDA/NWRC Room 163, BNR Bldg. Utah State University Logan, UT 84322 (435) 797-2505 FAX (435) 797-0288

W a s h i n g t o n V a c a n t USDA/NWRC 9730-B Lathrop Industrial Drive SW Olympia, WA 98512 (360) 956-3793 FAX (360) 956-3925

Florida Michael Avery Project Leader USDA/NWRC 2820 E. Univ. Ave. Gainesville, FL 32641 (352) 375-2229 FAX (325) 375-5559

Mississippi Scott Barras Project Leader USDA/NWRC P.O. Drawer 6099 MS State, MS 39762 (662) 325-8215 FAX (662) 325-8704

North Dakota George Linz Project Leader USDA/NWRC 211 Miriam Circle, B Bismarck, ND 58501 (701) 250-4469 FAX (701) 250-4408

Ohio Bob Beason Project Leader USDA/NWRC 6100 Columbus Ave. Sandusky, OH 44870 (419) 625-0242 FAX (419) 625-8465

P e n n s y l v a n i a V a c a n t USDA/NWRC c/o Monell Chemical Senses Center 3500 Market St. Phil., PA 19104 (215) 898-5753 FAX (215) 898-2084Points of Contact Appendix A 166

This page intentionally left blank167



## APPENDIX B: Animal Damage Control Act,

2 March 1931, as amendedAppendix B 168

This page intentionally left blank.Appendix B 169

ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL ACT
7 U.S.C. §§ 426-426c, 2 March 1931, as amended 1937 and 1991. Overview. This Act gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authorit y to investigate and control certain predatory or wild animals and nuisance mammal and bird species. Animal Damage Control. T he Secretary is authorized to conduct investigations, experiments, and tests to determine the best me thods of eradication, suppression, or bringing under control mountai n lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, gophers, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, brown tree s nakes, and other animals injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, ani mal husbandry, wild game animals, fur-bearing animals and birds. Another purpos e of these investigations is to protect stock and other domestic animals through the suppression of r abies and tularemia in predatory or other wild animals. The Secretary is also directed to conduct campaigns for the destruction or control of these animals. In carrying out the Act, the Secretary may cooperate with states, individuals, agencies and organizations. § 426. The Secretary is also authorized, except fo r urban rodent control, to control nuisance mammals and birds and those mammal and bird spec ies that are reservoirs for zoonotic diseases. Agreements may be entered into with states, local jurisdictions, individuals, and organizations for this purpose. § 426c.

Brown Tree Snakes. Section 1013 of Public Law 102-237, which amended the Act in 1991, also requires the Secretary to initia te a program to prev ent the inadvertent introduction of the brown tree snake into Ha waii from Guam. The Secretary also is required, to the extent practicable, to take action to prevent the inadvertent introduction of the brown tree snake into other areas of the U.S. from Guam. Public Law 102-190 requires the Secretary of Defense to take action to prevent its introduction by Department of Defense aircraft or vessels. §426 note. Appropriations Authorized. C ongress authorized the Secretary to make expenditures for equipment, supplies, and materials, including t he employment of persons to carry out this Act. § 426b.
Historical Note. Public Law 99-190, approved in 1935, transferred adm inistration of the Act from the Secretary of Ag riculture to the Secretary of the Interior. In 1986 administration of the Act was transferred back to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Ruth Musgraves, et al, Federal Wildlife & Related Laws Handbook, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chapter 4 - Statute Summa ries. Center for Wildlife Law.Animal Damage Control Act Appendix B 170

This page intentionally left blank171



## APPENDIX C: F

A A Advisory CircularsAppendix C 172

This page intentionally left blankAppendix C 173



### AC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

# Advisory Circular

Subject: R EPORTING W ILDLIFE A IRCRAFT S TRIKE S Date: 12/22/04 Initiated by : AAS-300 AC No: 150/5200-32A Change:

1. P URPOSE : This Advisory Circular (AC) explains t he importance of reporting collisions between aircraft and wildlife, more commonly referred to as wildlife strikes. It also examines recent improvements in the Federal Aviati on Administration’s (FAA) Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Reporting system; how to report a wildlife strike; what happens to the wildlife strike report data; how to a ccess the FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database; and the FAA’s Feather I dentification program.

2. B ACKGROUND : The FAA has long recognized the threat to aviation safety posed by wildlife strikes. Worldwide, wildlife strikes cost civil avia tion an estimated $1.2 billion annually. Each year in the U.S., wildlife strikes to U.S. civil aircraft cause about $500 million in damage to aircraft and about 500,000 hours of civil ai rcraft down time. Fo r the period 1990— 2004, over 63,000 wildlife strikes were reported to the FAA. About 97 percent of all wildlife strikes reported to the FAA involve bi rds, almost 3 percent involve mammals and less than 1 percent involved reptiles. Wa terfowl (ducks and gees e), gulls, and raptors (mainly hawks and vultures) are the bird spec ies that cause the most damage to civil aircraft in the United States. Vultures and waterfowl cause the most losses to U.S. military aircraft.
The FAA has initiated several programs to addre ss this important safety issue, including the collection, analysis, and dissemination of wildlife strike data. The FAA actively encourages the voluntary repor ting wildlife strikes.

3. H OW TO R EPORT A W ILDLIFE A IRCRAFT STRIKE :
A wildlife strike has occurred when:

1. A pilot reports striking 1 or more birds or other wildlife
Aircraft maintenance personnel identify ai rcraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike;AC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Strikes Appendix C 174

2. Personnel on the ground report seeing an airc raft strike 1 or more birds or other wildlife;

3. Bird or other wildlife rema ins, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason for the animal's death is identified; and
4. An animal's presence on t he airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with animal) (Transport Canada, Airports Group, Wildlife Control Procedures Manual , Technical Publication 11500E, 1994).
Pilots, airport operations, aircraft main tenance personnel, or anyone else who has knowledge of a strike is encouraged to report it to the FAA. Wildlife strikes may be reported to the FAA using the paper FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Ot her Wildlife Strike Report

, or electronically at the Airport Wildlife Hazard Mitigation web site: http://wildlifemitgation.tc.faa.gov . The FAA’s Bird/Other Wildlif e Strike Report Form can be downloaded or printed from the same web site . Paper copies of Form 5200-7 may also be obtained from the Airports District Offices (ADO’s), Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO’s), and Flight Service Stations (FSS). Copies of the Bird /Other Wildlife Strike Report form are also found in the Ai rman’s Information Manual (AIM).
Paper forms are pre-addressed to the FAA. No postage is needed if the form is mailed in the United States. It is important to in clude as much information as possible on the strike report.

The FAA National Wildlife Strike Database M anager edits all strike reports to insure consistent, error-free data before entering the report into the Database. This information is supplemented with non-duplicated st rike reports from other sources. About every 6 weeks, an updated version of the Database is posted on the web site. Annually, a current version of the Database is forwarded to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for incorporati on into ICAO’s Bird Strike Information System Database.
Analyses of data from the F AA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database has proved invaluable in determining the nature and severi ty of the wildlife st rike problem. The Database provides a scientific basis for identifying risk factor s; justifying, implementing and defending corrective actions at airports; and for judging the effectiveness of those corrective actions. The Database is in valuable to engine manufacturers and aeronautical engineers as they develop new technologies for the aviation industry. Each wildlife strike report contributes to the accuracy of and effectiveness of the Database. Moreover, each repor t contributes to the common goal of increasing aviation safety.

4. A CCESS TO T HE FAA N ATIONAL W ILDLIFE A IRCRAFT S TRIKE D ATABASE : In order to expedite the dissemination of this important info rmation, the FAA has developed procedures for search ing the Database on line at: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov . The public may acce ss the Database without aAppendix C AC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Strikes 175

password and retrieve basic information on the num ber of strikes by y ear, by state, and by species of wildlife.
Access for airport operators, airline oper ators, engine manufac tures, air frame manufactures, and certain other government al agencies requires a password to access the Database and allows retrieva l of more detailed wildlife strike information for their specific area of concern. An airport operator’s access is lim ited to strike information for incidents occurring on its particular airport. Airlines may only access strike records involving aircraft owned or operated by them. Comparisons among individual airports and airlines are not made.
Airline and airport operators, airframe and engine manufactures, or governmental agencies may gain access the FAA National Wild life Aircraft Strike Database by writing the FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist. All wr itten requests should follow the guidelines provided below:

1. On Company Letterhead, request access to the FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database. Include:

a. Your preferred password. (The FAA does not assign passwords. The password should be no more than 8 c haracters, alphanumeric, and case sensitive.)

b. Your contact information. (Tit le, mailing address, phone number, and email address.)

2. Submit the request to: FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist, AAS-300 Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW. Washington, DC. 20591.

3. When the FAA receives the request fo r access to the Database, the request and the password will be entered into the system . Upon completion of the process, the requestor will be notified by e-mail.

The Database is accessible from the Airport Wildlife Hazard Mitigation web page ( http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov ):

5. B IRD I DENTIFICATION : Accurate species identification is critical for bird-aircraft strike reduction programs. Wildlife biologist must know what species of animal they are dea ling with in order to make proper management decisions. The FAA, the U.S. Air Forc e, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Services are worki ng closely with the Feather Identification Lab at t he Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History, to improve the understanding and preventi on of bird-aircraft strike hazards . Bird strike remains that cannot be identified by airport personnel or by a local biologist c an be sent (with FAA Form 5200-7) to the Smithsonian Museum for identification.

Feather identification of birds involved in bi rd-aircraft strikes will be provided free of charge to all U.S. airport operators, all U.S. aircraft owners/operators (regardless ofAC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Strikes Appendix C 176

where the strike happened), or to any foreign air carrier if the strike occurred at a U.S. airport. Please observe the following guidelines for collecting and submitting feather or other bird/wildlife remains for species identificati on. These guidelines help maintain species identification accuracy, reduce turn-ar ound time, and maintain a comprehensive FAA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database.
1. Collect and submit remains as soon as possible.
2. Provide complete information regarding the incident

a. Fill out FAA Form 5200-7 – Bird /Other Wildlife Strike Report.
i. A copy of Form 5200-7 can be downloaded and or printed from: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov

. b. Mail report with feather material (see address below).
c. Provide your contact information if you wish to be informed of the species identification. 3. Collect as much material as possible in a clean plastic/ziplock bag. (Please, do not send whole birds). a. Pluck/pick a variety of feat hers from the wings, tail and body.

b. Do not cut off feathers. This removes the downy region we may need to aid in identification.
c. Include any feathers with distinct colors or patterns.
d. Include any downy “fluff”.
e. Include beaks, feet, and talons if possible.
f. Where only a small amount of material is available, such as scrapings from an engine or smears on wings or windshields, send all of it.

g. Do not use any sticky substance such as tape or post-it notes to attach feathers. 4. Mail the Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report and collected material to the Smithsonian’s Feather Identificati on Lab. They will forward the r eport to the FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist at the FAA’s Office of Airport Safety and Standards.Appendix C AC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Strikes 177

For Material Sent via Express Mail Service: For Material Sent via US Postal Service:

Feather Identification Lab Feather Identification Lab
Smithsonian Institution Sm ithsonian Institution NHB, E610, MRC 116 PO Box 37012
10th & Constitution Ave. NW NHB, E610, MRC 116 Washington, D.C. 20560-0116 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 (This can be identified as “safety investigation material”) (Not recommended for priority cases.)

The species identification turn around time is usually 24 hours from receipt. Once processed, the reports and species identificat ion information are sent to the Database Manager for entry into the F AA National Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database. Persons wishing to be notified of the s pecies identification must include contact information (email, phone, etc.) on the report.

For more information contact The FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist [( 202) 267-3389], or the Smithsonian’s Feather Identif ication Lab [(202) 633-0801].

J. R. White

For David L. Bennett Director of airports Safety and standardsAC 150/5200-32A Reporting Wildlife Strikes Appendix C 178

This page intentionally left blankAppendix C 179



### AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On Or Near Airports

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

# Advisory Circular

Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS Date: July 27, 2004 Initiated by : AAS-300 AC No : 150/5200-33A Change :

1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) prov ides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport development projects (i ncluding airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft movem ent near hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC.

2. APPLICABILITY . The Federal Aviation Admini stration (FAA) recommends that public-use airport operators implement the standar ds and practices contained in this AC. The holders of Airport Operating Certificates i ssued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certif ication of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139), may use the standards, practices, and recommendat ions contained in this AC to comply with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance mu st use these standards. The FAA also recommends the guidance in this AC fo r land-use planners, operators of noncertificated airports, and devel opers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports.

3. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports , dated May 1, 1997.

4. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes:

a. Reorganized outline of the AC.

b. Expanded Table 1 to include updated informa tion from the Special Report for the FAA, “Ranking the Hazard Lev el of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003”.

c. Removed Table 2, which outlined the distances between certain airport features and any on-airport agricultural crops, and relocated the discussion of on-airport agricultural activities to Paragraph 2-6.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 180

d. Added text about the basis for separat ion distances between wildlife hazards and airport movement areas and added Figure 1 depicting the separation distances. e. Added options for wetland mitigation for im pacts from airport projects, including mitigation banking. f. Further recognized the importance of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP).

5. BACKGROUND. Information about the risks posed to aircraft by certain wildlife species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved re porting, studies, documentation, and statistics cl early show that aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife are a serious economic and public safe ty problem. While many species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety , they are not equally hazardous. Table 1 ranks the wildlife groups commonly involved in damaging strikes in the United States according to their relative hazard to aircraft. The ranking is based on the 47,212 records in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database for the years 1990 through 2003. These hazard rankings, in conjunction wit h site-specific WHAs, will help airport operators determine the relative abundance and use patterns of wildlife species and help focus hazardous wildlife management efforts on those species most likely to cause problems at an airport.
Most public-use airports have large tracts of open, undeveloped land that provide added margins of safety and noise mitigation. Thes e areas can also pres ent potential hazards to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). Construct ed or natural areas—such as poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosti ng habitats on buildings, landscaping, odorcausing rotting organic matter (putrescible wa ste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mi ning, or wetlands—can provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even small facilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities, aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, c an produce substantial attractions for hazardous wildlife. During the past century, wildlife-aircraft strike s have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives worldwide, as well as billions of do llars in aircraft damage. Hazardous wildlife attractants on and near airports can jeopardize future airport expansion, making proper community land-use planning essential. This AC provides airport operators and those parties with whom they cooperate with t he guidance they need to assess and address potentially hazardous wildlife a ttractants when locating new facilities and implementing certain land-use practices on or near public-use airports.

6. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL RESOURCE AGENCIES. The FAA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corp s of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Se rvices signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (final signature July 2003) to acknowl edge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies es tablished procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and futureAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 181

environmental conditions contributing to co llisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while prot ecting the Nation’s valuable environmental

resources.

DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and StandardsAC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 182

Table 1. Ranking of 25 species groups as to relative hazard to aircraft (1=most hazardous) based on three criteria (damage, major damage, and effect-on-flight), a composite ranking based on all three rankings, and a relative hazar d score. Data were derived from the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, January 1990–April 2003. 1

Ranking by criteria

Species group Damage 4 Major damage 5 Effect on flight 6 Composite ranking 2 Relative hazard score 3

Deer 1 1 1 1 100

Vultures 2 2 2 2 64

Geese 3 3 6 3 55 Cormorants/pelicans 4 5 3 4 54

Cranes 7 6 4 5 47
Eagles 6 9 7 6 41

Ducks 5 8 10 7 39 Osprey 8 4 8 8 39 Turkey/pheasants 9 7 11 9 33

Herons 11 14 9 10 27 Hawks (buteos) 10 12 12 11 25

Gulls 12 11 13 12 24
Rock pigeon 13 10 14 13 23

Owls 14 13 20 14 23 H. lark/s. bunting 18 15 15 15 17

Crows/ravens 15 16 16 16 16 Coyote 16 19 5 17 14
Mourning dove 17 17 17 18 14

Shorebirds 19 21 18 19 10 Blackbirds/starling 20 22 19 20 10

American kestrel 21 18 21 21 9

Meadowlarks 22 7 20 22 22

Swallows 24 23 24 23 4 Sparrows 25 24 23 24 4
Nighthawks 23 25 25 25 1

1 Excerpted from the Special Report for the FAA, “Ranking the Ha zard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003”. Refer to this report for additional explanations of criteria and method of ranking.

2 Relative rank of each species group was compar ed with every other group for the three variables, placing the species group with the greatest hazard rank for > 2 of the 3 variables above the next highest ranked group, then proceeding down the list.
3 Percentage values, from Tables 3 and 4 in Footnote 1 of the Special Report , for the three criteria were summed and scaled down from 100, with 100 as the score for the species group with the maximum summed values and the greatest potential hazard to aircraft.

4 Aircraft incurred at least some damage (destroyed, substantial, minor, or unknown) from strike.

5 Aircraft incurred damage or structural failure, wh ich adversely affected t he structure strength, performance, or flight characterist ics, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, or the damage sustained makes it inadvisable to restore aircraft to airworthy condition.
6 Aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other.Appendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 183

1-1. INTRODUCTION. When considering proposed land uses, airport operators, local planners, and developers must take into account whether the proposed land uses, including new development projects, will incr ease wildlife hazards. Land-use practices that attract or sustain hazar dous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife strikes.
The FAA recommends the minimum separati on criteria outlined below for land-use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. Please note that FAA criteria include land uses that cause move ment of hazardous wild life onto, into, or across the airport’s approach or departure airs pace or air operations area (AOA). (See the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Section 2-8 of this AC.)

1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports that do not sell Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered ai rcraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a s eparation distance of 5,000 feet at these airports for any of t he hazardous wildlife attrac tants mentioned in Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be ma intained between an airport’s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation dist ance measured from the nearest aircraft operations areas.

1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWE RED AIRCRAFT. Air ports selling Jet-A fuel normally serve turbine-powered airc raft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 10,000 feet at these ai rports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be ma intained between an airport’s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separati on distance from the nearest aircraft movement areas.

1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, D EPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE. For all airports, the FAA recommends a dist ance of 5 statute miles between the farthest edge of the airport’s AOA and t he hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. SECTION 1.

GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS.

The basis for the separation criteria contai ned in this section can be found in existing FAA regulations. The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns of pistonpowered aircraft and turbine-powered aircraft, (2 ) the altitude at which most strikes happen (78 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 90 percent occur under 3,000 feet above ground level), and (3) National Tr ansportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 184

Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated.

PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 5,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine-power ed aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace. PE RI ME TER A

PE RI METE R B Apro n P a r k i ng Ar ea Ru nw ay Tax i wa y R unwa

y

Taxi w a y

PE RI ME TER CAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 185

SECTION 2.

LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRP ORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE

. 2-1. GENERAL. The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment vary c onsiderably, depending on several factors, including land-use practices on or near the air port. This section discusses land-use practices having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety. In addition to the specific considerations outlined below , airport operators should refer to Wildlife Hazard Managem ent at Airports, prepared by FAA and U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA) staff. (This manual is available in Englis h, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA’ s wildlife hazard mitigation web site: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.FAA.gov .). And, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Dam a ge, compiled by the University of Nebraska C ooperative Extension Division. (This manual is available online in a periodically updated version at: ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/solutions/handbook/

. )

2-2. WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. Municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) are known to attract large num bers of hazardous wildlife, partic ularly birds. Because of this, these operations, when located within the s eparations identified in the siting criteria in Sections 1-2 through 1-4, are considered in compatible with safe airport operations.

a. Siting for new municipal solid w aste landfills subject to AIR 21 . Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investm ent and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) (AIR 21) prohibits the construction or establishment of a new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certai n public-use airports. Before these prohibitions apply, both the airport and the landfill must meet the very specific conditions described below. These restrictions do not apply to air ports or landfills located within the state of Alaska.
The airport must (1) have received a F ederal grant(s) under 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et. seq.; (2) be under control of a public agen cy; (3) serve some scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and (4) have total annual enplanements consisting of at least 51 percent of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft wit h less than 60 passenger seats. The proposed MSWLF must (1) be within 6 m iles of the airport, as measured from airport property line to MSWLF property li ne, and (2) have started construction or establishment on or after April 5, 2001. Public Law 106-181 only limits the construction or establishment of some new MSWLF. It does not limit the expansion, either vertical or horizontal, of existing landfills.

NOTE: Consult the most recent version of AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishm ent of Landfills Near Public Airports, for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions

. b. Siting for new MSWLF not subject to AIR 21 . If an airport and MSWLF do not meet the restrictions of Public Law 106-181, the FAA recommends against locating MSWLF within the separation distances identif ied in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. TheAC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 186

e. Composting operations on or near airport property. Composting operations that accept only yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, or branches) generally do not attract hazardous wildlife. Sewage sludge, w oodchips, and similar material are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. The compost, however, must never include food or other municipal solid waste. Composting operations should not be located on ai rport property. Off-airport property composting operations should be located no cl oser than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA or t he distance called for by airport design requirements (see AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design ). This spacing should prevent material, personnel, or equipment from penetrating any Object Free Area (OFA), Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), or Clearway. Airport operators should monitor composting operations located in proximity to the airport to ensure that steam or thermal rise does not adv ersely affect air traffic. On-airport disposal of compost by-products should not be conducted for the reasons stated in 2-3f. separation distances should be measured from the closest poi nt of the airport’s AOA to the closest planned MSWLF cell.

c. Considerations for existing waste dis posal facilities within the limits of separation criteria. The FAA recommends against airport development projects that would increase the number of aircra ft operations or acco mmodate larger or faster aircraft near MSWLF operations loca ted within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 258.10, owners or operators of existing MSWLF units that are located within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must demonstrat e that the unit is designed and operated so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (See Sections 4-3(b) and 4-3(c) of this AC for a discussion of this demonstration requirement.)

d. Enclosed trash transfer stations. Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive garbage behind closed doors; process it via co mpaction, incineration, or similar manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with safe airport operations, prov ided they are not located on airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Thes e facilities should not handle or store putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. Trash transfer fac ilities that are open on one or more sides; that store uncovered quantities of municipal solid wast e outside, even if only for a short time; that use semi-trailers that leak or have tr ash clinging to the out side; or that do not control odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable) do not meet the FAA’s definition of fully enclosed tras h transfer stations. The FAA considers these facilities incompatible with sa fe airport operations if they are located closer than the separation distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.

f. Underwater waste discharges. The FAA recommends against the underwater discharge of any food waste (e.g., fish pr ocessing offal) within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 bec ause it could attract scavenging hazardous wildlife.

g. Recycling centers. Recycling centers that accept previously sorted non-food items,Appendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 187

2-3. WATER MANAG EMENT FACILITIES . Drinking water intake and treatment facilities, storm water and wastewater treat ment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational us e, and ponds that result from mining activities often attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wild life. To prevent wildlife hazards, land-use developers and ai rport operators may need to develop management plans, in compliance with loca l and state regulations, to support the operation of storm water managem ent facilities on or near all public-use airports to ensure a safe airport environment. such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, or aluminum, ar e, in most cases, not attractive to hazardous wildlife and are acceptable.

h. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris facilities. C&D landfills do not generally attract hazardous wild life and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste, and are not co-l ocated with other waste disposal operations. However, C&D landf ills have similar visual and operational characteristics to putrescible waste dispos al sites. When co-located with putrescible waste disposal operations, C& D landfills are more likely to attract hazardous wildlife because of the similarities between these disposal facilit ies. Therefore, a C&D landfill co-located with another wa ste disposal operation should be located outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.

i. Fly ash disposal. The incinerated residue from resource recovery power/heatgenerating facilities that are fi red by municipal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally not a wildlife attractant because it no longer contains putrescible matter. Landfills accepting only fly ash are generally not c onsidered to be wildlife attractants and are acceptable as long as they are mainta ined in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste of any kind, and are not co-located with other disposal operations that attract hazardous wildlife. Since varying degrees of waste cons umption are associated with general incineration (not resource recovery power/heat-generating fa cilities), the FAA considers the ash from general incinerators a regular wast e disposal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife a ttractant if disposed of wit hin the separation criteria outlined in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.

a. Existing storm w a ter management facilities. On-airport storm water management facilities allow the quick removal of surface water, including discharges related to aircraft deicing, from imper vious surfaces, such as pavement and terminal/hangar building roofs. Existing on-airport detention ponds collect storm water, protect water quality, and control r unoff. Because they slowly release water after storms, they create standing bodies of wa ter that can attract hazardous wildlife. Where the airport has developed a WHMP in accordance with Part 139, the FAA requires immediate correction of any wildlif e hazards arising from existing storm water facilities located on or near ai rports, using appropr iate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consul tation with a wildlife damage management biologist.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 188

c. Existing wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that airport operators immediately correct any wildlife hazards aris ing from existing wastewater treatment facilit ies located on or near the ai rport. Where required, a WHMP developed in accordance with Part 139 will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordi ngly, airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment fac ility operators to incorporat e measures, developed in Where possible, airport oper ators should modify storm water detention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention peri od for the design storm. The FAA recommends that airport operators avoid or remove retention ponds and detention ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate st anding water. Detention basins should remain totally dry between rainfalls. Where constant flow of water is anticipated through the basin, or where any portion of the basin bottom may remain wet, the detention facility should include a concrete or paved pad and/or di tch/swale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide nesting habitat.
When it is not possible to drain a large detention pond complete ly, airport operators may use physical barriers, such as bird balls , wires grids, pillows, or netting, to deter birds and other hazardous wildlife. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate thei r use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get approval from t he appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office.
The FAA recommends that airport operat ors encourage off-airport storm water treatment facility operators to incorpor ate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into storm water treatment facilit y operating practices when their facility is located within the separation criteria specified in Sect ions 1-2 through 1-4.

b. New storm water management facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that offairport storm water management systems located within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 be designed and operated so as not to create aboveground standing water. On-airport storm water detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48–hour detention period for the design storm and remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA reco mmends the use of st eep-sided, narrow, linearly shaped water detention bas ins. When it is not possible to place these ponds away from an airport’s AOA, airport operators should use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to prevent access of hazardous wildlife to open water and minimize aircraft-wildlife inte ractions. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate t heir use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. All veget ation in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for haz ardous wildlife should be elimi nated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the FAA encourages the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French drains or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife.Appendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 189

consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Air port operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators s hould consider the existence of wastewater tr eatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoi d such sites when practicable.

a. Existing w e tlands on or near airport property

. If wetlands are located on or near airport property, airport operators shoul d be alert to any wildlife use or habitat d. New w astew ater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds within the separations identifi ed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Appendix 1 defines wastewater treatment facilit y as “any devices and/or syst ems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or li quid industrial wastes.” The definition includes any pretreatment involving the r eduction of the amount of pollutants or the elimination of pollutants prior to introduc ing such pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (wastewater treatment fac ility). During the site-location analysis for wastewater treatment facilit ies, developers should consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and airport operators should voice their opposition to such fa cilities if they are in proximity to the airport.

e. Artificial marshes. In warmer climates, wastewater treatment facilities sometimes employ artificial marshes and use subm ergent and emergent aquatic vegetation as natural filters. These artificial marshes may be used by some species of flocking birds, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for breeding or roosting activities. The FAA strongly recommends against establishing arti ficial marshes within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.

f. Wastew ater discharge and sludge disposal. The FAA recommends against the discharge of wastewater or sludge on air port property because it may improve soil moisture and quality on unpaved areas and lead to improved turf growth that can be an attractive food source for many species of animals. Also, the turf requires more frequent mowing, which in turn may mutilate or flush insects or small animals and produce straw, both of which can attrac t hazardous wildlife. In addition, the improved turf may attract grazing wildlife, such as deer and geese. Problems may also occur when discharges saturate unpaved airport areas. The resultant soft, muddy conditions can severely restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in a timely manner.

2-4. WETLANDS. Wetlands provide a variety of functions and can be regulated by local, state, and Federal laws. Normally, we tlands are attractive to many types of wildlife, including many which rank high on t he list of hazardous wildlife species (Table 1).

NOTE: If questions exist as to whether an area qualifies as a wetland, contact the local division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or a wetland consultant qualified to delineate wetlands

.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 190

changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public-use airports, the FAA recommends immediately correcting, in cooper ation with local, state, and Federal regulator y agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing wetlands located on or near airports. Where required, a WHMP will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techni ques. Accordingly, airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazar dous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist.

b. New airport development. Whenever possible, the FAA recommends locating new airports using the separations from wetlands identified in Sectio ns 1-2 through 1-4. Where alternative sites are not practicabl e, or when airport operators are expanding an existing airport into or near wetlands , a wildlife damage management biologist, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the state wildlife management agency should evaluate the wildlife hazards and prepare a WHMP that indicates methods of minimizing the hazards.

c. Mitigation for wetland imp acts from airport projects. Wetland mitigation may be necessary when unavoidable wetland distur bances result from new airport development projects or projects required to correct wildlife hazards from wetlands. Wetland mitigation must be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation proj ects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations ident ified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. (1) Onsite mitigation of wetland functions. The FAA may consider exceptions to locating mitigation activities outside the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endanger ed species or ground water recharge, which cannot be replicated when moved to a different location. Using existing airport property is sometimes the only feasib le way to achieve the mitigation ratios mandated in regulatory order s and/or settlement agreem ents with the resource agencies. Conservation easem ents are an additional means of providing mitigation for project impacts. Typically the airport operator continues to own the property, and an easement is created stipulat ing that the property will be maintained as habitat for state or Federally listed species.
Mitigation must not inhibit the airport operator’s abilit y to effectively control hazardous wildlife on or near the mitigation site or effectively maintain other aspects of safe airport operations. Enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife must be avoided. The FAA will revi ew any onsite mitigation proposals to determine compatibility with safe airpor t operations. A wildlife damage management biologist should evaluate any wetland mitigat ion projects that are needed to protect unique wetland functions and that must be located in the separation criteria in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 before the mitigat ion is implemented. A WHMP should be developed to reduce the wildlife hazards. (2) Offsite mitigation of wetland functions . The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 unless they provide unique functions that must remain ons ite (see 2-4c(1)). Agencies that regulate impacts to orAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 191

(3) Mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation bank ing is the creation or restoration of wetlands in order to provide mitigation cr edits that can be used to offset permitted wetland losses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance replacement for permitted wetland losses; cons olidating small projects into larger, better-designed and managed units; and encour aging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigat ed outside of the separat ions identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 can still be locat ed within the same watershed. Wetland mitigation banks meeting the separation criteria offer an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. Airport operators should work with local watershed management agencies or organizati ons to develop mitigation banking for wetland impacts on airport property. around wetlands recognize that it may be nec essary to split wetland functions in mitigation schemes. Therefore, r egulatory agencies may, under certain circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations.

2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS. The FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilities) within the separations identifi ed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the containment area or the spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife.

2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. Because most, if not all, agricultural crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phas e of production, the FAA recommends against the used of airport property for agr icultural production, including hay crops, within the separations identifi ed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. . If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of the airport, then t he airport shall follow the crop distance guidelines listed in the table titled "Minimum Distances betw een Certain Airport Features and Any OnAirport Agricultural Cr ops" found in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design , Appendix 19. The cost of wildlife control and potential acci dents should be weighed against the income produced by the on-airport crops when decidi ng whether to allow crops on the airport.

a. Livestock production. Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy operations, hog or chicken production facilit ies, or egg laying operations) often attract flocking birds, such as starlings, t hat pose a hazard to aviation. Therefore, The FAA recommends against such facilities within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Any livestock operation within these separations should have a program developed to reduce the attrac tiveness of the site to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Free -ranging livestock must not be grazed on airport property because the animals ma y wander onto the AOA. Furthermore, livestock feed, water, and manure may attract birds.

b. Aquaculture. Aquaculture activities (i.e. ca tfish or trout production) conducted outside of fully enclosed buildings are inherently attractive to a wide variety of birds. Existing aquaculture facilities/activities withi n the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must have a progr am developed to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviati on safety. Airport operators should also oppose the establishment of new aquacultu re facilities/activities within theAC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 192

2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS. separations listed in Se ctions 1-2 through 1-4.

c. Alternative uses of agricultural land. Some airports are surrounded by vast areas of farmed land within the dist ances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Seasonal uses of agricultural land for activities such as hunting can cr eate a hazardous wildlife situation. In some areas, farmers will r ent their land for hunting purposes. Rice farmers, for example, flood their land dur ing waterfowl hunting season and obtain additional revenue by renting out duck b linds. The duck hunters then use decoys and call in hundreds, if not thousands, of bi rds, creating a tremendous threat to aircraft safety. A wildlife damage management biologist should review, in coordination with local farmers and producer s, these types of seasonal land uses and incorporate them into the WHMP.

a. Golf courses. The large grassy areas and open wa ter found on most golf courses are attractive to hazardous wildlife, par ticularly Canada geese and some species of gulls. These species can pose a threat to aviation safety. The FAA recommends against construction of new golf courses withi n the separations ident ified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Existing golf courses located within these separations must develop a program to reduce the attractiv eness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport oper ators should ensure these golf courses are monitored on a continuing basis for the pr esence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented.

b. Landscaping and landscape maintenance. Depending on its geographic location, landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements. A wildlife damage management biologist should review all landscaping plans. Air port operators should also monitor all landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detec ted, corrective actions should be immediately implemented. Turf grass areas can be highly attractive to a variety of hazardous wildlife species. Research conducted by the USDA Wildlif e Services’ National Wildlife Research Center has shown that no one grass management regime will deter all species of hazardous wildlife in all si tuations. In cooperati on with wildlife damage management biologist, airport operators should develop airport turf grass management plans on a prescription basis, depending on the airport’ s geographic locations and the type of hazardous wildlife likely to frequent the airport
Airport operators should ensure that plant varieties attr active to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. Disturbed ar eas or areas in nee d of re-vegetating should not be planted with seed mixtures containing millet or any other large-seed producing grass. For airport property alr eady planted with seed mi xtures containing millet, rye grass, or other large-seed producing grasses, the FAA recommends disking, plowing, or another suitable agricultu ral practice to prevent plant maturationAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 193

and seed head production. Plantings should follow the specific recommendations for grass management and seed and plant sele ction made by the State University Cooperative Extension Service, the local o ffice of Wildlife Services, or a qualified wildlife damage management biologi st. Airport operators should also consider developing and implementing a pr eferred/prohibited plant s pecies list, reviewed by a wildlife damage management biologist, whic h has been designed for the geographic location to reduce the attractiveness to hazardous wildlife for landscaping airport property.

c. Airports surrounded by w ildlife habitat. The FAA recommends that operators of airports surrounded by woodlands, water, or wetl ands refer to Section 2.4 of this AC. Operators of such airports should provi de for a WHA conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist. This WHA is the first step in preparing a WHMP, where required.

d. Other hazardous w ildlife attractants. Other specific land uses or activities (e.g., sport or commercial fishing, shellfish har vesting, etc.), perhaps unique to certain regions of the country, have the potential to attract hazar dous wildlife. Regardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public-use airport, airport operators must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety.

2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES. There may be circumstances where two (or more) different land uses that would not, by themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants or that are located outside of the separations identified in Sect ions 1-2 through 1-4 that are in such an alignment with the airport as to create a wildlife corridor dire ctly through the airport and/or surrounding airspace. An example of this situation may involve a lake located outside of the separation criteria on the east side of an air port and a large hayfield on the west side of an airport, land uses that together could create a flyway for Canada geese directly across the airspace of the airport. There ar e numerous examples of such situations; therefore, airport operat ors and the wildlife damage m anagement biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 194

SECTION 3.

PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS.

3.1. INTRODUCTION. In recognition of the increased risk of serious aircraft damage or the loss of human life that can result fr om a wildlife strike, the FAA may require the development of a Wildlife Ha zard Management Plan (WHMP) when specific triggering events occur on or near the airport. Part 139.337 discusses the spec ific events that trigger a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and the specific issues that a WHMP must address for FAA approval and inclusion in an Airport Certification Manual.

3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILD LIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS. The FAA will use the WHA conducted in accordance with Part 139 to determine if the airport needs a WHMP. Therefore, persons having t he education, training, and expertise necessary to assess wildlife hazards must conduct the WHA. T he airport operator ma y look to Wildlife Services or to qualified privat e consultants to conduct the WHA. When the services of a wildlife damage management biologist are required, the FAA recommends that land-use developers or airport operators contact a consultant specializing in wildlife damage management or the appropriate state di rector of Wildlife Services.

NOTE: Telephone numbers for the respective USDA Wildlife Services state offices can be obtained by contacting USDA Wildlife Services Operational Support Staff, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, River dale, MD, 20737-1234, Telephone ( 301) 734-7921, Fax (301) 734-5157 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/)

. 3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMEN T AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL. This manual, prepared by FAA and USDA Wildlife Services staff, contains a compilation of informati on to assist airport personnel in the development, implementation, and evaluation of WHMPs at airports. The manual includes specific information on the nature of wildlife strikes, legal authority, regulations, wildlife management techniques, WHAs, WHMPs, and sources of help and information. The manual is available in three languages: E nglish, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from t he FAA’s wildlife hazard mitigation web site: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.FAA.gov/ . This manual only provides a starting point for addressing wildlife hazard issues at airpor ts. Hazardous wildlife management is a complex discipline and conditions vary widel y across the United States. Therefore, qualified wildlife damage management biologists must direct the development of a WHMP and the implementation of managem ent actions by airport personnel.
There are many other resources complement ary to this manual for use in developing and implementing WHMPs. Several are lis ted in the manual's bibliography.
3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 139. Part 139.337(b) requires ai rport operators to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) when cert ain events occur on or near the airport. Part 139.337 (c) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a WHA.

3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD M ANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP). The FAA will considerAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 195

The WHMP must identify hazardous wildlife a ttractants on or near the airport and the appropriate wildlife damage management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard. It must also prioritize the management measures. the results of the WHA, along with the aeronautical activity at the airport and the views of the airport operator and ai rport users, in determining whether a formal WHMP is needed, in accordance with Part 139.337. If the FAA determines that a WHMP is needed, the airport operator must formulate and implement a WHMP, using the WHA as the basis for the plan. The goal of an airport’s Wildlife Hazard M anagement Plan is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equi pment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport.

3-6. LOCAL COORDINATION. The establishment of a Wildlife Hazards Working Group (WHWG) will facilitate the communication, cooperation, and coordination of the airport and its surrounding community necessa ry to ensure the effectiveness of the WHMP. The cooperation of the airport communi ty is also necessary when new projects are considered. Whether on or off the airport, the input from all involved parties must be considered when a potentially haz ardous wildlife attractant is being proposed. Airport operators should also incorporat e public education activities with the local coordination efforts because some activities in the vici nity of your airport, while harmless under normal leisure conditions, can attract wildlife and present a danger to aircraft. For example, if public trails ar e planned near wetlands or in par ks adjoining airport property, the public should know that feeding birds and other wildlife in the area may pose a risk to aircraft.
Airport operators should work with local and regional planning and zoning boards so as to be aware of proposed land-use changes, or m odification of existing land uses, that could create hazardous wildlife a ttractants within the separati ons identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Pay particular attention to proposed land uses involving creation or expansion of waste water treatment facilitie s, development of wetland mitigation sites, or development or expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. At the very least, airport operators must ensure they are on the notification lis t of the local planning board or equivalent review entity for all communities located within 5 miles of the airport, so they will receive notification of any proposed project and have the opportunity to review it for attractiveness to hazardous wildlife.

3-7 COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS. If an existing land-use practice cr eates a wildlife hazard and the la nd-use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immediately e liminated, airport operators must issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and encourage the land–owner or manager to take steps to control the wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 196

4-1. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS.

The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) requires any MSWLF operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 st atute miles of a runway end to notify the appr opriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the airport operator of t he proposal (40 CFR 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills , Section 258.10, Airport Safety ). The EPA also requires owners or operators of new MSWLF units, or lateral ex pansions of existing MSWLF units, that are located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end us ed by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used only by piston-type aircraft, to demonstrate successfully that such units are not hazards to aircraft. (See 4-2.b below.) SECTION 4.

FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS

a. The FAA discourages the development of waste disposal and other facilities, discussed in Section 2, located within t he 5,000/10,000-foot crit eria specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. b. For projects that are located outside the 5,000/10,000-foot cr iteria but within 5 statute miles of the air port’s AOA, the FAA may review development plans, proposed land-use changes, operational changes , or wetland mitigation plans to determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The FAA considers sensitiv e airport areas as those that lie under or next to approach or departure airspace. This brief examination should indicate if further investigation is warranted. c. Where a wildlife damage m anagement biologist has conducted a further study to evaluate a site's compatibility with airpor t operations, the FAA may use the study results to make a determination.

4-2. WASTE MANAG EMENT FACILITIES.

a. Notification of new/exp anded project proposal. Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) limits the construction or es tablishment of new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certain public use airports, when both the ai rport and the landfill m eet very specific conditions. See Section 2-2 of this AC and AC 150/5200-34 for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions.

When new or expanded MSWLF are bei ng proposed near airports, MSWLF operators must notify the air port operator and the FAA of the proposal as early as possible pursuant to 40 CFR 258.Appendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 197

Waste handling facilities w i thin separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. To claim successfully that a waste-handling fa cility sited within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 does not attr act hazardous wildlife and does not threaten aviation, the developer must establish c onvincingly that the facility will not handle putrescible material other t han that as outlined in 2-2b. The FAA strongly recommends against any facility other than that as outlined in 2-2b (enclosed trans fer stations). The FAA will use this information to determine if the facility will be a hazard to aviation.

b. Putrescible-Waste Facilities. In their effort to sati sfy the EPA requirement, some putrescible-waste facility proponents may offe r to undertake experimental measures to demonstrate that their pr oposed facility will not be a hazard to aircraft. To date, no such facility has been able to demonstr ate an ability to reduce and sustain hazardous wildlife to levels that exist ed before the putrescibl e-waste landfill began operating. For this reason, demonstrations of experimental wildlif e control measures may not be conducted in an airport’s AOA.

4-3. OTHER LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES. As a matter of policy, the FAA encourages operators of public use airports who become aware of proposed land use practice changes that may attract hazardous wildlife within 5 statute miles of their airports to promptly notify the FAA. The FAA also encour ages proponents of such land use changes to notify the FAA as early in the planning process as possible. Advanced notice affords the FAA an opportunity (1) to ev aluate the effect of a particular land-use change on aviation safety and (2) to support effort s by the airport sponsor to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to us es that are compatible with the airport.
The airport operator, project proponent, or land-use operator may use FAA Form 7460- 1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration , or other suitable documents similar to FAA Form 7460-1 to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. Project proponents can contact the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office for assistance with the notification process.
It is helpful if the notification incl udes a 15-minute quadrangl e map of the area identifying the location of the proposed acti vity. The land-use operator or project proponent should also forward specific det ails of the proposed land-use change or operational change or expansion. In the case of solid waste landfills, the information should include the type of waste to be handled, how the waste will be processed, and final disposal methods.

a. Airports that have received Fe deral grant-in-aid assistance. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance are required by their grant assurances to take appropriate actions to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations. The FAA recommends that airport operators to the ex tent practicable oppose off- airport land-use changes or practices within the separati ons identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that may attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so may lead to noncompliance with applicable grant assurances. The FAA will not approve the plac ement of airport development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants without appropr iate mitigating measures. Increasing the intensity of wildlife control efforts is not a substitu te for eliminating or reducing a proposedAC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 198

wildlife hazard. Airport oper ators should identify hazardous wildlife attractants and any associated wildlife hazards during any planning process for new airport development projects.

b. Additional coordination. If, after initial review by the FAA, questions remain about the existence of a wildlife hazard near an airport, airpor t operators should consult a wildlife damage management biologist. Such questions may be triggered by a history of wildlife strikes at the airport or the proximity of the airport to a wildlife refuge, body of water, or similar feature k nown to attract wildlife. Once identified, such questions require resolution prio r to the project’s implementation.Appendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 199

8. Establish a new MSWLF. When the first load of putre scible waste is received onsite for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill. APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR.

1. GENERAL . This appendix provides definitions of terms used throughout this AC.

1. Air operations area. Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircra ft. An air operations area includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or
apron.

2. Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public-use airport.

3. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff.

4. Bird balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites.

5. Certificate holder. The holder of an Airport Operat ing Certificate issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.

6. Construct a new MSWLF. To begin to excavate, grade l and, or raise structures to prepare a municipal solid wast e landfill as permitted by t he appropriate regulatory or permitting agency.

7. Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds t hat hold storm water for short periods of time, a few hours to a few days.

9. Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting fr om the complete incineration of an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically resu lts from the combusti on of coal or waste used to operate a power generating plant.

10. General aviation aircraft. Any civil aviation aircraft not operating under 14 CFR Part 119, Certification: Air Carri ers and Commercial Operators.

11. Hazardous w ildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, ma mmals, reptiles), including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of caus ing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard

12. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF). A publicly or priv ately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receiv es household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. An MS WLF may receive other types wastes, such as commercial solid waste, non-haz ardous sludge, small- quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2. An MSWLF can consist of either a stand alone unit or several cells that receive household
waste.

13. New MSWLF . A municipal solid waste landfill t hat was established or constructed after April 5, 2001.AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 200

14. Piston-powered aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft powered by piston engines.

20. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for several months. 15. Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbinepowered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed- wing, piston-powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turb ine-powered, fixed-wing aircra ft would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based at the airport.

16. Public agency . A State or political subdivision of a State, a tax-supported organization, or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(15)).

17. Public airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of which the ar ea used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface m aneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(16)).

18. Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR §257.3-8).

19. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste discharges, or similar facilities wher e activities include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of put rescible material, trash, and refuse.

21. Runway protection zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and pr operty on the ground (see AC 150/5300-13). The dimensions of this zone vary with the air port design, aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum.

22. Scheduled air carrier operation. Any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conduc ted by an air carrier or commercial operator for which the air carrier, commercia l operator, or their representative offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CFR Part 119 or as a public charter operation under 14 CFR Part 380 (14 CFR § 119.3).

23. Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatm ent works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage does not in clude ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerat or or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. (40 CFR 257.2)

24. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liqui d waste generated form a municipal, commercial or industrial wastewater treatm ent plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other su ch waste having similar characteristics and effect. (40 CFR 257.2)

25. Solid waste . Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, waterAppendix C AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports 201

26. Turbine-pow ered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbojets and turboprops but ex cluding turbo-shaft rotary-wing aircraft.

32. Wildlife strike . A wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when: supply treatment plant or air pollution c ontrol facility and other discarded material, including, solid liquid, semisolid, or c ontained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agric ultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or di ssolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation retu rn flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under se ction 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or s ource, special nuclear, or by product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as am ended, (68 Stat. 923). (40 CFR 257.2)

27. Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells Jet-A f uel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft.

28. Wastew ater treatment facility

. Any devices and/or system s used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or li quid industrial wastes, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) , as defined by Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the r eduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alterati on of the nature of po llutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of dischar ging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (See 40 CFR Section 403.3 (o), (p), & (q)).

29. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limit ation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthr opod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or o ffspring thereof (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Im portation of Wildlife and Plants ). As used in this AC, wildlife includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their owners (14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports).

30. Wildlife attractants. Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or humanmade or natural geographic feat ure that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace or the airport’s AO A. These attractants can include architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands.

31. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircra ft collision with wildlife on or near an airport.

a. A pilot reports striking 1 or more birds or other wildlife;

b. Aircraft maintenance personnel ident ify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike;

c. Personnel on the ground report seeing an airc raft strike 1 or more birds or other wildlife;AC 150/5200-33A Hazardous Wildlife Attract ants on or Near Airports Appendix C 202

2. RESERVED d. Bird or other wildlife rema ins, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200 feet of a runway center line, unless another reason for the animal's death is identified;
e. The animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, hi gh-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with anima l) (Transport Canada, Airports Group, Wildlife Control Procedures Manual , Technical Publication 11500E, 1994).Appendix C 203



### AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

# Advisory Circular

SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF LANDFILLS NEAR PUBLIC AIRPORTS Date: 8/26/2000 Initiated by :
AAS-300 AC No : 150/5200-34 Change:

1. Purpose. This advisory circular (AC) c ontains guidance on complying with new Federal statutory requirement s regarding the construction or establishment of landfills

n e a r p u b l i c a i r p o r t s

. 2. Application. The guidance contained in the AC is provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use by persons cons idering the construction or establishment of a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) near a public airport. Guidance contained herein should be used to comply with rec ently enacted MSWLF site limitations contained in 49 U.S.C. § 44718( d), as amended by section 50 3 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century, Pub. L. No. 106-181 (April 5, 2000), "Structures interfering with air comme rce." In accordance with § 44718(d), as amended, these site limitations are not a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a s k a

. In addition, this AC provides guidance for a state aviation agency desiring to petition the FAA for an exemption from the requi rements of § 44718(d), as amended.
3. Related Reading Materials.

a. AC - 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attr actions On or Near Airports, May 1, 1997.

b. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-1998, FAA Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database Serial Report Number 5, November 1998.

c. Report to Congress: Potential Hazard s to Aircraft by Locating Waste Disposal Sites in the Vicinity of Air ports, April 1996, DOT/FAA/AS/96-1.

d. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers.

e. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 258, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria.AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports Appendix C 204

Some of these documents and additional in formation on wildlife management, including guidance on landfills, are available on t he FAA’s Airports web site at www.faa.gov/arp/arphome.htm

.

From 1990 to 1999, waterfowl, gulls and raptors were involved in 77% of the 2,119 reported damaging aircraft-wildlife strikes where the bird was identified. Populations of Canada geese and many species of gulls and rapt ors have increased markedly over the last several years. Further, gulls and Canada geese have adapted to urban and suburban environments and, along with raptors and turkey vultures, are commonly found feeding or loafing on or near landfills. 4. Definitions. Definitions for the specific purpose of this AC are found in Appendix 1.
5. Background. The FAA has the broad authority to regulate and develop civil aviation under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S.C. § 40101, et. seq., and other Federal law. In section 1220 of the F ederal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-264 (October 9, 1996), the Congress added a new provision, section (d), to 49 U.S.C. § 44718 to be enforced by the FAA and placing limitati ons on the construction or establishment of landfills near public airports for the purposes of enhancing aviation safety. Section 503 of the W endell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century (AIR-21), Pub. L. No. 106-181 (A pril 5, 2000) has repl aced section 1220 of the 1996 Reauthorization Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44718 (d), with new language. Specifically, the new provision, § 44718( d), as amended, was enacted to further limit the construction or establishment of a MSWL F near certain smaller public airports. In enacting this legislation, Congress expr essed concern that a MSWLF sited near an airport poses a potential hazard to aircra ft operations because such a waste facility attracts birds. Statistics support the fact that bird strikes pose a real danger to aircraft. An estimated 87 percent of the collisions between wildlife and civil aircraft occurred on or near airports when aircraft are below 2, 000 feet above ground leve l (AGL). Collisions with wildlife at these altitudes are especially dangerous as aircraft pilots have minimal time to recover from such emergencies. Databases managed by FAA and the United Stat es Air Force show that more than 54,000 civil and military aircraft sustained repor ted strikes with wildlif e from 1990 to 1999 (28,150 civil strikes and 25,853 military strikes). Between 1990-1999, aircraftwildlife strikes involving U. S. civil aircra ft result in over $350 million/year worth of aircraft damage and associated losses and over 460,000 hours/year of aircraft down time.

In light of increasing bird populations and aircraft operations, the FAA believes locating landfills in proximity to airpor ts increases the risk of collis ions between birds and aircraft. To address this concern, the FAA issued AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airport s, to provide airport operat ors and aviation planners with guidance on minimizing wildlife attract ant. AC 150/5200-33 recommends against locating municipal solid waste l andfills within five statute mile s of an airport if the landfill may cause hazardous wildlife to move into or through the airport's approach or departure airspace.

6. General. Using guidance provided in the follo wing sections, persons consideringAppendix C AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports 205

While the FAA does not classify airports precisely in this manner, the FAA does categorize airports by the type of airc raft operations served and number of annual passenger enplanements. In particu lar, the FAA categorizes public airports that serve air carrier operations. These airports are known as commercial service airports, and receive scheduled passenger service and hav e 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per
year. construction or establishment of a landfill should first determine if the proposed facility meets the definition of a new MSWLF (see Appendix 1). Section 44718(d), as amended, applies only to a new MSWLF. It does not apply to the expansion or modification of an existing MSWLF, and does not apply in the State of Alaska. If the proposed landfill meets the definition of a new MSWLF, its proximity to cert ain public airports (meeting the criteria specified in Paragraph 8 below) should be determined. If it is determined that a new MSWLF would be located within six miles of such a public airport, then either the MSWLF should be planned for an alternate locati on more than 6 miles from the airport, or the MSWLF proponent should request the appropriate State aviation agency to file a petition for an exemption from the statutory restriction. In addition to the requirements of § 44718(d), existing landfill restrictions contained in AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports (see Paragraph 5, Background) also may be applicable. Airpor t operators that hav e accepted Federal funds have obligations under Feder al grant assurances to operate their facilities in safe manner and must comply with standards prescr ibed in advisory circulars, including landfill site limitations contained in AC 150/5200-33. 7. Landfills Covered by the Statute. The limitations of § 44718(d), as amended, only apply to a new MSWLF (constructed or est ablished after April 5, 2000). The statutory limitations are not applicable where construction or establishment of a MSWLF began on or before April 5, 2000, or to an exis ting MSWLF (received putrescible waste on or before April 5, 2000). Further, an existing MS WLF that is expanded or modified after April 5, 2000, would not be held to the limitations of § 44718(d), as amended. 8. Airports Covered by the Statute. The statutory limitations restricting the location of a new MSWLF near an airport apply to only those airports that are recipients of Federal grants (under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et se q.) and to those that primarily serve general aviation aircraft and scheduled air carrier operations using airc raft with less than 60 passenger seats.

One sub-category of commercial service airports, nonhub primary airports, closely matches the statute requirem ent. Nonhub primary airports are defined as commercial service airports that enpl ane less than 0.05 percent of all commercial passenger enplanements (0.05 percent equated to 328,344 enplanements in 1998) but more than 10,000 annual enplanements. While these enplanem ents consist of both large and small air carrier operations, most are conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats. These airports also are heavily used by gener al aviation aircraft, with an average of 81 based aircraft per nonhub primary airport.
In addition, the FAA categor izes airports that enplane 2,500 to 10,000 passengers annually as non-primary commercial service ai rports, and those ai rports that enplaneAC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports Appendix C 206

3. Serve some scheduled air carrier oper ations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and 2,500 or less passengers annually as general avia tion airports. Both types of airports are mainly used by general aviation but in some instances, they have annual enplanements that consist of scheduled air carri er operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats. Of the non-pr imary commercial service airports and general aviation airports, only those that have scheduled air ca rrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats would be cove red by the statute. The st atute does not apply to those airports that serve only general aviation aircraft operations.
To comply with the intent of the statute, the FAA has identified those airports classified as nonhub primary, non-primary commercial serv ice and general aviation airports that: 1. Are recipients of Federal grant under 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et. seq.;
2. Are under control of a public agency;

4. Have total annual enplanements consisti ng of at least 51% of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats.
Persons considering construction or establis hment of a new MSWLF should contact the FAA to determine if an airport within six st atute miles of the new MSWLF meets these criteria (see paragraph 11 below for informa tion on contacting the FAA). If the FAA determines the airport does meet these criteria, then § 44718(d), as amended, is applicable.
An in-depth explanation of how the FAA collects and cat egorizes airport data is available in the FAA’s National Plan of Int egrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). This report and a list of airports classified as nonhub pr imary, non-primary co mmercial service and general aviation airports (and associated enpl anement data) are available on the FAA’s Airports web site at http://www.faa.gov/arp/410home.htm

. 9. Separation distance measurements. Section 44718(d), as amended, requires a minimum separation distance of six statut e miles between a new MSWLF and a public airport. In determining this distance separ ation, measurements should be made from the closest point of the ai rport property boundary to the closest point of the MSWLF property boundary. Measurements can be made from a perimeter fence if the fence is co-located, or within close pr oximity to, property boundaries. It is the responsibility of the new MSWLF proponent to determi ne the separation distance.
10. Exemption Process. Under § 44718(d), as amended, the FAA Administrator may approve an exemption from t he statute’s landfill location limitations. Section 44718(d), as amended, permits the aviation agency of the st ate in which the airport is located to request such an exemption from the FAA Admi nistrator. Any person desiring such an exemption should contact the av iation agency in the state in wh ich the affected airport is located. A list of state av iation agencies and contact information is available at the National Association of State Avia tion Officials (NASAO) web site at www.nasao.org or by calling NASAO at (301) 588-1286.
A state aviation agency that desires to petit ion the FAA for an ex emption should notify the Regional Airports Division Manager, in writing, at least 60 days prior to theAppendix C AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports 207

establishment or construction of a MSWLF. The petition should explain the nature and extent of relief sought, and contain informa tion, documentation, views, or arguments that demonstrate that an exem ption from the statute woul d not have an adverse impact on aviation safety. Information on contacting FAA Regional Airports Division Managers can be found on the FAA’s web site at www.faa.gov

. After considering all relevant material presented, the Regional Airports Division Manager will notify the state agency within 30 days whether the request for exemption has been approved or denied. The FAA may approve a request for an exem ption if it is determined that such an exemption would have no adverse impact on aviation safety.

11. Information. For further information, please c ontact the FAA’s Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Safety and Cert ification Branch, at (800) 842-8736, Ext. 73085 or via email at WebmasterARP@f aa.gov. Any information, documents and reports that are available on the FAA web site also can be obtained by calling the tollfree telephone number listed above.

DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and StandardsAC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports Appendix C 208

APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS.

e. Municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means publicly or pr ivately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and t hat is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. A MSWL F may receive other types of RCRA subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, small quantity generator waste and industrial so lid waste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2. A MSWLF may consist of either a st andalone unit or several cells that receive household waste.

k. Scheduled air carrier operation means any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conduc ted by an air carrier or commercial operator for 8/26/00 AC 150/5200-34 Appendix 17 which the air carrier, commercial operator, or their representatives offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not incl ude any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CF R Part 119, or is conduc ted as a public charter operation under 14 CFR Part 380 (14 CFR § 119.3). The following are definitions for the specif ic purpose of this advisory circular. a. Construct a municipal solid waste landf ill (MSWLF) means excavate or grade land, or raise structures, to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting authority.
b. Establish a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means receive the first load of putrescible waste on site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill. c. Existing municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means a municipal solid waste landfill that received putrescible wa ste on or before April 5, 2000. d. General aviation aircraft means any civil aviation aircraft not operating under 14 CFR Part 119, Certification: Air carriers and commercial operators.

f. New municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) means a municipal solid waste landfill that was established or cons tructed after April 5, 2000. g. Person(s) means an individual , firm, partnership, corporat ion, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them (14 CFR Part 1). h. Public agency means a State or political subdivision of a St ate; a tax-supported organization; or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(15)).
i. Public airport means an airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of which the area us ed or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface m aneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(16)).
j. Putrescible waste means solid waste whic h contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR § 257.3-8).Appendix C AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports 209

l. Solid waste means any garbage, or refu se, sludge from a wast ewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, se mi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subj ect to permit under 33 U.S.C. § 1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-product materi al as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) (40 CFR § 258.2).AC 150/5200-34 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports Appendix C 210

This page intentionally left blankAppendix C 211



### AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design. Appendix 19.Minimum Distances Between Certain Airport Features And Any OnA i r p o r t A g r i c u l t u r e C r o p s

.

Distance In Feet From Runway Centerline To Crop Distance In Feet From Runway End To Crop Aircraft Approach Category And Design Group 1 Vis ual &> 3⁄4 mile < 3⁄4 m i l e Vis ual &> 3⁄4 mile < 3⁄4 mile Distance In Feet from Centerline Of Taxiw a y

To Crop Distance In Feet from Edge Of Apron To Crop

Category A & B Aircraft

G r o u p I 200 2 4 0 0 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 5 4 0
Group II 53 250 4 0 0 400 3 6 0 0 6 6
Group III 400 400 600 300 93 31
Group IV 400 400 1,000 1,000 130 113 Category C, D & E Aircraft

G r o u p I 530 3 575 3 1,000 1,000 45 40

G r o u p I I 530 3 5753 1,000 1,000 66 53

G r o u p I I I 530 3 5753 1,000 1,000 93 31

G r o u p I V 530 3 5 7 5 3 1

, 0 0 0 1,000 1 3 0 1 1 3

G r o u p V 530 3 5 7 5 3 1

, 0 0 0 1

, 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 3 3
Group VI 530 3 5 7 5 3 1

, 0 0 0 1

, 0 0 0 1 9 3 1 6 7

1 Design Groups are based on wing span, and Ca t e g o r y d e p e n d s o n a p p r o a c h s p e e d o f t h e a i r c r a f t

.

Group I: Wing span up to 49 ft. Category A: Speed less than 91 knots Group II Wing span 49ft. up to 73 ft. Category B: Speed 91 knots up to 120 knots Group III: Wing span 79 ft. up to 117 ft. Category C: Speed 121 knots up to 140 knots Group IV: Wing span 113 ft. up to 170 ft. Category D: Speed 141 knots up to 165 knots Group V: Wing span 171 ft. up to 213 ft. Category E: Speed 166 knots or more Group VI: Wing span 214 ft. up to 261 ft.

3 T hese dimensions reflect the T SS as defined in AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 2. T he T SS cannot be penetrated by
any object. Under these conditions, the T SS is more restri ctive than the OF A, and the di mensions show n here are to prevent penetration of the T SS by crops and farm machinery

. 2 If the runw ay w ill only serve small airplanes (12,500 lb. And under) in Design Group I, this dimension may be reduced to 125 feet; how ever, this dimension should be increased w here necessary to accommodate visual navigational aids that may be install ed. F o r example farming operations shoul d not be allow ed w i thin 25 feet of a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) light box

.AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design, Appendix 19 Appendix C 212

This page intentionally left blank213



## APPENDIX D: F

AA, Office Of Airport Safety And S t andards, Program Policies And Guidance — Airport Certification Program – 14 CFR 139Appendix D 214

This page intentionally left blankAppendix D 215

Airport Certification Program – 14 CFR 139 Program Policy And Guidance 

### Policy No. 77: Initiation of Wildlife Hazard Assessments at Airports

14 CFR 139.337 June 21, 2004

S UBJECT : Initiation of Wildlife Hazard Assessments at Airports.

C ANCELLATION : Program Policy and Guidance Policy Number 53, Initiation of Wildlife Hazard Assessments at Airports, Issued April 25, 1997 is cancelled.

P URPOSE : This policy establishes the procedures Feder al Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Certification Safety Inspectors (ACSI) shoul d follow when it is dete rmined that an airport needs to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to address an airport wildlife hazard.

B ACKGROUND : Populations of wildlife species commonly a ssociated with wildlife/ai rcraft strikes are increasing at a marked rate in the United St ates. For example, the resident Canada goose population quadrupled between 1986 and 2002; white-tailed deer populations increased from 350,000 in 1900 to over 26 million in 2000; and ring-billed gull populations increased 4-fold between 1966 and 1999. The presence of wildlife on and near airports creates a hazard to operating aircraft.

Wildlife/aircraft strikes cause severe dam age to operating aircraft, human injuries and loss of life. It is estimat ed that between 1990 and 2002, wildlife strikes cost U. S. civil aviation over $500 million annually.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, par t 139.337 requires the certificate holder to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment, accept able to the FAA, when a wildlife hazard exist on the airport. This st udy is used by the FAA to determine if a wildlife hazard management plan is needed for the airport. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FAA and USDA Wild life Services (No. 12-34- 71-0003-MOU) establishes a cooperative relationship between these agenc ies for resolving wildlife hazards to aviation. The FAA relies heavily on the a ssistance of Wildlife Services to conduct, review, or contribute to, airport wildlife hazard assessments and airport wildlife hazard management plans.Policy No. 77 Initiation of Wildlife Hazard Assessments at Airports Appendix D 216

Contact the appropriate airport official and inform them of the need for the study.

Review the airport’s certification manual (ACM) to determine what procedures are already in place to meet section 139.337 requirements and the degree of compliance on the part of the airport. Failure of the certif icate holder to fully co mply with all part 139 requirements is a violat ion of the regulation.
Take follow-up actions as needed to insure ti mely initiation and completion of the study, as well as submission of the study results and recommendations.

June 21, 2004

Date P ROCEDURES :
When the FAA determines that a wildlife hazard assessment is needed for a particular airport, the ACSI should:

The certificate holder may look to ADC or to a private party to conduct the required wildlife hazard assessment. T he certificate holder is responsible for consultant selection and initial contact. Because t he wildlife hazard assessm ent is used by the FAA to determine if a wild life hazard management plan is needed for the airport, it should be conducted by persons having t he education, traini ng, and experience necessary to adequately assess any wildlife hazards. Give the airport sufficient ti me (normally no more than 30 days) to make the initial contact and set a date when the study will begin.

Review the study and recommendations to determine if an airport wildlife hazard management plan is needed. Upon completion of the review process, convey the determination to the certificate holder.

OSB

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division217

Airport Certification Program – 14 CFR 139 Program Policy And Guidance 

### Policy No. 78: Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species

14 CFR 139.337 June 21, 2004

S UBJECT : Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species.

C ANCELLATION : Program Policy and Guidance Policy Num ber 57, Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species. Iss ued March 19, 1998 is cancelled.

This policy establishes the procedures for coordinating and documenting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) complianc e with the Endangered Species Act when requiring an airport operator to develop, submit for approv al, and implement a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

B ACKGROUND : Section 7(a)(2) of the E ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) states, in part, that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of Interior, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of des ignated or proposed critical habitat.
The FAA’s action in requiring an airport operat or to develop, submit for approval, and implement a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is consider ed a Federal action, as defined in the Endangered Species Act, and theref ore, subject to section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

P ROCEDURES : P URPOSE :

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons, part 139.337(e), the FAA may direct an airport operator to develop a Wildlife Haza rd Management Plan or to update an existing plan. In these instances, the FAA Regional C oordinator (usually the Airport Certification Safety Inspector responsible for wildlife haz ards) shall contact and request information from the local USFWS Ecological Services Field Office regarding the presence of Federally-listed or proposed s pecies or designated or proposed critical habitat occurring on or near the airport. Form letter #1 (atta ched) shall be used to make this request.Policy No. 78 Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species Appendix D 218

F URTHER C OORDINATION IS R EQUIRED

.

a) The airport operator must prepare a Biological Assessment (50 CFR 402.13) assessing the affects of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan on the Federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat. The Biological Assessment must be submitted to FAA along with the draft plan.

3) The section-7 consultation must be completed before the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is given final FAA approval and returned to the airport operator for inclusion in its Airport Certific ation Manual and implementation.

OSB

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division N O F URTHER C OORDINATION IS R EQUIRED

. If the USFWS indicates there are no Federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat occurring on or near the airport, no further action is required regarding the section 7 consultation.

If the USFWS indicates that Federally-lis ted or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat occur on or near t he airport, the following additional actions must be taken. 1) The FAA Regional Coordinator shall forward the information regarding the presence of Federally-list ed or proposed species or des ignated or proposed critical habitat to the airport so it can take this information into consideration when developing its Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

b) The airport operator may request early c onsultation if it has reasons to believe some of the actions propos ed under the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan may affect Federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat. 2) When the plan is submitted to t he FAA for review and approval, the FAA Regional Coordinator must contact the loca l USFWS Ecological Services Field Office responsible for section 7 consultations and request consultation on the plan. Form letter #2 (attached) shall be used to submit the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to USFWS ES for section-7 consultation.

4) The signature level for both letters is at the discretion of the FAA Regional Office.

June 21, 2004

DateAppendix D Policy No. 78 Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species 219

FORM LETTER #1

As part of the Wildlife Ha zard Management Plan developm ental process, potential impact on federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat will be considered. Therefore, would you provide information concerning the presence of federally-listed or pr oposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat occurring on or near the airport? Request for information regarding the presence of Federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat.

Because of recent wildlife aircraft st rikes at __________ Airport in ______County, ____(State), the Federal Aviation Administrati on (FAA) is requiring the airport develop a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to reduce t he wildlife aircraft strike hazard at the airport.

Please reply to the attention of _________, [and reference file no. ________ ].
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.Policy No. 78 Section 7 Consultation on Endangered or Threatened Species Appendix D 220

FORM LETTER #2 Request for Section 7 Consultation.

At the direction of the F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA), __________ Airport in ______County, ____(State), has developed the attached Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, which is intended to mitigate wildlife ai rcraft strike hazards at the airport.
The actions proposed in the plan may include:

Habitat modifications - reduction/elimination of food, cover, and water attractive to certain wildlife species.
Resource protection - repelli ng of certain wildlife species using physical barriers and/or chemical, audio, and/or visual repellents.
Population management - remova l of certain wildlife species from the vicinity of the airport using non-lethal and lethal means. In accordance with Section 7 of the Endanger ed Species Act of 1973, as amended, the FAA has reviewed the draft plan and has determined that the plan is/is not (select one; consult the FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist if assistance is needed in making the determination of effect.) likely to adversely affect th e following federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat: (list federally-listed or proposed species or designated or proposed crit ical habitat from information provided by USFWS ES, in response to form letter #1).
Please reply to the attention of _________, [and reference file no. ________ ].
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.Appendix D 221

Airport Certification Program - 14 CFR 139 Program Policy And Guidance 

### Policy No. 79: Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plans

14 CFR 139.337 June 21, 2004

S UBJECT : Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plans.

C ANCELLATION : Program Policy and Guidance Policy Number 64, Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, Issued October 4, 1999 is cancelled.

P URPOSE : This policy establishes procedures Airport Ce rtification Safety Inspectors must follow when an incident occurs that requires an operator of a certificated airport to initiate a Wildlife Hazard Assessment, as mandated under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, §139.337(b)(1-4).

B ACKGROUND : Part 139.337 prescribes action t hat a certificate holder must take in response to certain wildlife events. As a reminder , the requirements states: (b) In a manner authorized by t he Administrator, each certific ate holder shall ensure that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment is conducted w hen any of the following events occurs on or near the airport: (1) An air carrier aircraft experi ences multiple wildlife strikes;
(2) An air carrier aircraft experiences subs tantial damage from stri king wildlife. As used in this paragraph, substantia l damage means damage or struct ural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affects the stru ctural strength, perfo rmance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component;
(3) An air carrier aircraft experienc es an engine ingestion of wildlife; or
(4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area.
Recent strike reports received by the Air port Safety and Certific ation Branch (AAS-310) have raised questions regarding complianc e with the standards of §139.337. ToPolicy No. 79 Review of Airpor t Wildlife Management Plans Appendix D 222

resolve this matter, Airport Certification Sa fety Inspectors shall implement the following procedures when notified of any of the events listed in §139.337 (b)(1-4). These procedures are intended to ensur e that certificate holders ta ke appropriate action in response to wildlife strikes/incidents and that t he FAA consistently maintains records of actions taken.

P ROCEDURES : AAS-310 will review all reports of aircraft wildlife strikes. When a strike is reported that would initiate a Wildlife Hazard Assessm ent under §139.337(b)(1-4), a copy of the report, together with the strike history of the airport in question, will be forwarded to the Regional Coordinator, usually the Airport Cert ification Safety Inspector responsible for that region's wildlife hazar d management issues.

When notification is receiv ed from AAS-310, the Regional Coordinator will review the specific airport’s Airport Certification Manual to dete rmine if a Wildlife Hazard Assessment has ever been conduct ed at the airport, and if the results of that study led to the development and implementation of an FAA approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

If a Wildlife Hazard Assessment has never been conducted, the Regional Coordinator will instruct the certificate hol der to undertake the required Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Procedures found in Program Policy and Gui dance Policy # 53, Init iation of Wildlife Hazard Assessments at Airports should be followed. The resu lts of this study, together with other pertinent factors, will be used to determine if a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is needed.

If a Wildlife Hazard Assessment was conduc ted within the last 12 months, but development and implementati on of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan was not required, Regional Coordinat or will review the Wildlife Hazard Assessment and the decision not to require development and implementation of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. In most cases, the certif icate holder should be instructed to develop and submit for FAA approval, a Wildlife Haza rd Management Plan, based on the results of the Wildlife Hazard Assessment.

If the Wildlife Hazard Assessment is more than 12 months old, and no Wildlife Hazard Management Plan was developed, the Regional C oordinator will instruct the certificate holder to begin a new Wildlife Hazard Assessmen t. The results of this study, together with other pertinent factors, will be used to determine if a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is needed. If a FAA approved Wildlife Hazard Management Pl an is in place; the Plan should be reviewed to insure that it meets all r equirements of §139.337(f) . Certalert 97-09, Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Outline provides guidance on what should be in an airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. If the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan does not meet all requireme nts of §139.337(f), the Regional Coordinator will instruct the ce rtificate holder to bring the Plan into compliance with §139.337(f). In some cases, it may be necessary for the certificate holder to under take a new Wildlife Hazard Assessment. If the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan does meet all requirements of §139.337(f), theAppendix D Policy No. 79 Review of Airport Wildlife Management Plans 223

Regional Coordinator will instruct the certificate holder to review the Plan and determine if it needs revision. This review is bes t conducted with the assistance of a Wildlife Damage Management Biologist. Following the review, the certificate holder mu st notify the FAA of the results of their review and any proposed corrective actions or changes to their Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. When approv ed, amendments shall be inco rporated in the Airport Certification Manual. As a reminder, Airport Certification Safety Ins pectors will, as part of the initial or periodic inspection, review an airport's Wildlife Haza rd Management Plan to ensure that is meets all requirements of §139.337(f) Further, Airport Certification Safety Ins pectors will also review remarks on wildlife hazards in the Airport Facility Directory (A FD), Notice to Airm en (NOTAM) system, or the Automatic Terminal Information Service (A TIS). If these remarks warn of wildlife hazards at or around t he airport, the Airport Certificati on Safety Inspector will consider such remarks to have met the criteria of §139.337(b)(4), and ther efore will require the certificate holder to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment, if such a study has not been previously conducted. The results of t he Wildlife Hazard Assessment will be used to determine if a Wildlife Haza rd Management Plan is needed.

OSB June 21, 2004

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division DatePolicy No. 79 Review of Airpor t Wildlife Management Plans Appendix D 224

This page intentionally left blankAppendix D 225

Airport Certification Pr ogram – 14 CFR Part 139 Program Policy And Guidance 

### Policy No. 82 Waste Disposal Facility Coordination

14 CFR 139.337 September 9, 2004

S UBJECT : Waste Disposal Facility Coordination.

P ROCEDURES : C ANCELLATION : Program Policy and Guidance Policy Number 65, Waste Disposal Facility Coordination, Issued October 4, 1999 is cancelled.

P URPOSE : This policy establishes the procedures for coordinating and documenting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determinations on developing new or expanding existing waste disposal sites within 5 miles of a public-use airport. Guidance on siting various types of landfills is provided in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A — Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports , and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-34 — Construction Or Establishm ent Of Landfills Near Public Airports

. B ACKGROUND : The increasing pressure to develop new or expand existing waste disposal sites necessitates coordinating responses to ensure that the agency has a consistent response to these proposals. This practice has been in effect in the Great Lakes and Southwest Regions for several years and has worked well.

When a landfill proponent notifies FAA under Titl e 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 258.10, of a proposal to establish a new or expand an existing landfill, the Regional Coordinator, usually the Airpor t Certification Safety Inspector (ACSI), responsible for waste disposal and wildlife hazar ds in that region will:
Evaluate the proposal and determine whether on not it is compatible with the provisions of AC 150/5200 – 33A, AC 150/5200 – 34, and safe airport operations; Complete a copy of the attached Waste Dis posal Facility Coordination Form, based on that determination, including any recommended permitting conditions; Forward the completed form, together with any supporting material to the FAA Staff Wildlife Biologist (AAS-300) fo r evaluation and coordination. If the potentially affected airport is a joint use facility with military aviation, a courtesyPolicy No. 82 Waste Disposal Facility Coordination Appendix D 226

copy of the completed form, together with any supporting material should be forwarded to the FAA regional military liaison.
Any disagreement between the recommendations of the Regional Coordinator and the Staff Wildlife Biologist will be resolved by consultation between the Region and Headquarters. When agreement is reached, t he Staff Wildlife Biologist will sign the Coordination Form and return a copy to the Regional Coordinator.
All applicable recommended permitting conditions (Section 4 of the Waste Disposal Facility Coordination Form) should be included in the Letter of Determination sent to the proponent or state agency. The completed form will be made a part of the region’s permanent file.

OSB September 9, 2004

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division DateAppendix D Policy No. 82 Waste Disposal Facility Coordination 227

EXAMPLE WASTE DISPOSAL/PROCESSING FACILITY (WD/WP) COORDINATION FORM

SECTION 1 – WASTE DISPOSAL/PROCESSING FACILITY (WD/WP) INFORMATION

Site / Facility Name: File No
Associated City / State:
Check as appropriate

New Site: Expand/Modify Existing Site : Re-Permit Existing Site: Other:
Sanitary Landfill: Waste transfer Station: Demo lition/Construction Debris: Recycling Center:
Compost: Water Treatment/Oxidation: Water Detention/Retention: Other:
Circle as appropriate
Facility will process or store putrescible waste material outdoors:: Y - N
Facility is within 5,000 feet of a public-use airport utilized by piston engine aircraft: Y - N
Facility is within 10.000 feet of a public-use ai rport utilized by turbine engine aircraft: Y - N
Facility is within a 5 mile radius of a public-use airport: Y - N Distance to nearest runway end (FT):
Reported hazardous wildlife activity at airport: Y - N R eported hazardous wildlife activity at facility: Y - N
State EPA licensing requirements: Y - N State EPA enforcement/mitigation procedures: Y - N

USDA/WS evaluation conducted: Y - N Non-hazard: _____ Hazard: _____ (check one)

SECTION 2 - AIRPORT INFORMATION

Associated Public Use Airports:

LOC ID: ATCT: Y - N Military Aviation On-Site: Y - N (If yes, notify FAA regional military liaison)
Type Airport: GA - Com Serv Longest Runway (Ft): Instrument Runway: Y - N Jet fuel Available: Y - N
Total Annual Operations: Piston O perations: Turbine Operations:

SECTIONS 3 – COMPATIBILITY

Proposed wildlife attraction is considered comp atible with provisions of FAA AC 150/5200-33

Concur: Non-concur: Signature: Date:
Supporting documentation, correspondenc e, site maps, etc., attached
AAS-300 agree: Disagree: Signature: Date:

SECTIONS 4 – CONDITIONS FOR CONCURRENCE

1 The WD/PF must be properly supervised to assure that bird populations are not increasing and that appropriate control procedure s are being followed.

2 Any increases in bird activity that might be hazardous to safe aircraft operations will result in prompt mitigation actions and /or closure of the WD/PF.

3 Garbage shall not be handled or stored outside the WD/PF at any time , for any reason, or in a partially enclosed vehicle/struct ure that is accessible to birds or other wildlife.

4 The WD/PF shall be totally enclosed and shall be operated without any outward indications that waste disposal operations are underway indoors.

5 Only non-putrescible demolition/construction waste material will be accepted in the WD/PF.

6 Only composting materials shall be accepted in the referenced WD/PF. No other putrescible materials shall be accepted.

7 The above checked conditions must be clearly defined via state/local licensing procedures associated with establishment of the WD/PF.

SECTIONS 5 – COMMENTSPolicy No. 82 Waste Disposal Facility Coordination Appendix D 228

This page intentionally left blank229



## APPENDIX E: F

AA, Office Of Airport Safety And S t andards, Cert alert sAppendix E 230

This page intentionally left blankAppendix E 231

C E R T A L E R T


### No. 98-05: Grasses Attractive To Hazardous Wildlife

ADVISORY CAUTIONARY NON-DIRECTIVE
FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT AIRPORT WILDLIFE SPECIALIST, AAS-317 (202) 267.3389

DATE: September, 18, 1998 No. 98-05

TO: Airport Operators, FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors

TOPIC: Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife

Recently, several reports have been received of airport owners or airport contractors planting disturbed areas (construc tion sites, re-grading projec ts, etc) with seed mixtures containing brown-top millet. All millets are a major attractant to doves and other seed eating birds.
Doves can be a major threat to aircraft sa fety. In the United States, between 1991 and 1997, doves were involved in 11% of all report ed bird/aircraft strikes, 8% of the reported strikes that resulted in aircraft down time, and 8% of the reported st rikes causing aircraft damage or other associ ated monetary losses.

September 18, 1998 Airport operators should ensur e that grass species and ot her varieties of plants attractive to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. Disturbed areas or areas in need of re-vegetating should not be planted with seed mixtures containing millet or any other large-seed producing grass.
For airport property already planted with seed mixtures containing m illet or other largeseed producing grasses, it is recommended that disking, pl owing, or other suitable agricultural practice be employed to prevent plant maturation and seed head production. For specific recommendations on grass m anagement and seed selection, contact the State University Cooperative Ext ension Service, or the local office of the USDA, Wildlife Services.

OSB

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division D a t eNo. 98-05 Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife Appendix E 232

This page intentionally left blankAppendix E 233

C E R T A L E R T 

### No. 04-09: Relationship Between FAA And WS

ADVISORY CAUTIONARY NON-DIRECTIVE
FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT AIRPORT WILDLIFE SPECIALIST, AAS-317 (202) 267.3389

DATE: August 30, 2004 No. 04-09

TO: Airport Certification Program Inspectors

TOPIC: Relationship Between FAA And WS

C ANCELLATION : Certalert 97-02, Relationship Between FAA And WS, Dated April 25, 1997, is cancelled.

P URPOSE : This Certalert clarifies the roles of, and relationship between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States D epartment of Agricult ure/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (WS) with regards to wildlife hazards on or near airports.

F EDERAL A VIATION A DMINISTRATION The FAA issues airport operati ng certificates for airports serving certain air carrier aircraft under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139. Section 139.337 requires certificated airports having a wildlif e hazard problem to develop and implement a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to manage and control wildlife, which present a risk to public safety, caused by aircraft collisions with wildlife. The FAA relies heavily on the assistance of WS to review and contribute to such plans.

A NIMAL D AMAGE C ONTROL The Animal Damage Control Act of Marc h 2, 1931, (7 USC 426-426c, as amended), charges the Secretary of Agri culture with management of wildlif e injurious to agricultural interests, other wildlife, or human health and safety. Further, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with States, indi viduals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions in the contro l of nuisance mammals and birds, including wildlife hazards to aviation. Because of t he experience, training, and background of its personnel, WS is recognized throughout the world as an expert in dealing with wildlife damage management issues. WS has an acti ve presence in all U.S. states and territories.

M EMORANDUM O F U NDERSTANDING A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) bet ween the FAA and WS (No. 12-4-71-0003- MOU) establishes a cooperative relations hip between these agencies for resolving wildlife hazards to aviation.No. 04-09 Relationship Between FAA and WS Appendix E 234

A GENCY F UNDING Both agencies are funded by congressional appropr iations. The majority of funding for the FAA comes from the Aviation Trust Fund with the remainder coming from the general funds of the U.S. Tr easury. Any revenues generat ed by the FAA are returned to the U.S. Treasury. WS receives a limited amount of f unds from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury that allows it to perform some services for the public good. However, WS’s funding is also based upon its ability to ent er into contracts to provide services and receive reimbursement for the cost of the services. Legislation allows WS to collect this money and return it to the program rather than the general funds of the U.S. Treasury. Consequently, WS may enter into a cooperativ e service agreement with an airport operator for reimbursement of serv ices to perform a wildlife hazard assessment on an airport.

W ILDLIFE H AZARD M ANAGEMENT 14 CFR 139.337(b) requires the certificate holder conduct a wildlife hazard assessment, acceptable to the FAA Administrator, when any of the following events occur on or near the airport: (b) (1) An air carrier aircraft exper iences multiple wildlife strikes:
(b) (2) An air carrier aircra ft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife. As used in this paragraph, subst antial damage means damage or st ructural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affects the st ructural strength, per formance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component;
(b) (3) An air carrier ai rcraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or
(b) (4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area.

The wildlife hazard assessment shall contain at least the following (14CFR 139.337(c)):
(c) (l) An analysis of the events or circ umstances that prompted the assessment. (c) (2) Identification of the wildlife specie s observed and their number s, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences. (c) (3) Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife.
(c) (4) A description of wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. (c) (5) Recommended actions for reducing i dentified wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. The certificate holder may look to WS or to private consultants to conduct the required wildlife hazard assessment. The FAA us es the wildlife hazard assessment in determining if a wildlife hazar d management plan is needed for t he airport. Therefore, persons having the education, training, and experience necessary to adequately assess any wildlife hazards should conduct the assessment. Depending on the availability of resources, WS may conduct a preliminary hazardAppendix E No. 04-09 Relationship Between FAA and WS 235

assessment at no charge to t he certificate holder. The certificate holder should determine in advance if WS will charge to c onduct the preliminary hazard assessment. More detailed assessments may require the cert ificate holder to enter into a cooperative service agreement with WS.

OSB August 30, 2004

Ben Castellano, Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division DateNo. 04-09 Relationship Between FAA and WS Appendix E 236

This page intentionally left blankAppendix E 237

C E R T A L E R T 

### No. 04-16: Deer Hazard to Aircraft and Deer Fencing

ADVISORY CAUTIONARY NON-DIRECTIVE
FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT AIRPORT WILDLIFE SPECIALIST, AAS-317 (202) 267.3389

DATE: December 13, 2004 No. 04-16

TO: Airport Operators, FAA Airport Certification Program Inspectors

TOPIC: Deer Hazard to Aircraft and Deer Fencing

C ANCELLATION : Certalert 01-01. Deer Aircraft Hazard, dated February 1, 2001; and Certalert 02-09. Alternative Deer Fencing, dated De cember 12, 2002, are cancelled.

B ACKGROUND Elevated deer populations in t he United States represent an increasingly serious threat to both Commercial and General Aviation Aircra ft. It is currently estimated that there over 26 million deer in the United States. Because of increasing urbanization and rapidly expanding deer populations, deer are adapting to human environments, especially around airports, where they often find food and shelter. From 1990 to 2004, over 650 deer-aircraft collisions were report ed to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Of these reports, over 500 indicated t he aircraft was damaged as a result of the collision. In light of recent incident s where a Learjet landing at an airport in Alabama and a Learjet departing an airport in Oregon were des troyed after colliding with deer or elk, airport operators are reminded of the importance of c ontrolling deer and other wild ungulates on and around airfields.

P URPOSE Proper fencing is the best way of keeping deer off aircraft movement areas. The FAA recommends a 10-12 foot chain link fence with 3-strand barbed wir e outriggers. In some cases an airport may be able to use an 8-foot chain link fence with 3-strand barbed outriggers, depending upon the a m o u n t o f d e e r a c t i v i t y i n a l o c a l a r e a

. All fencing must be properly installed and mainta ined. A 4-foot skirt of chain-link fence material, attached to the bottom of the fence and buried at a 45 o angle on the outside of the fence will prevent animals from digging under the fence and re duce the chance of washouts. This type of fencing also greatly increases airport security and safety. The fence line right-of-way must be kept free of excess vegetati on. The fence line should be patrolled at least daily, and any washouts, brea ks or other holes in the fence repaired as

s o o n a s t h e y a r e d i s c o v e r e d

.No. 04-16 Deer Hazard to Ai rcraft and Deer Fencing Appendix E 238

Gates should close with less than 6-inch gaps to prevent entry by deer.
When installation of chain link fencing is not feasible due to cost or environmental impacts, other types of fencing may be inst alled. (Cost alone is not an acceptable reason for rejecting the use of chain link fenci ng.) In some cases, electric fencing may offer a suitable alternative. Recent im provements in fencing components and design have greatly increased the effe ctiveness and ease of installation of electric fences. Tests by the USDA, National Wildlife Resear ch Center have shown that some 4 to 6- foot, 5 to 9-strand electric fences designs can be 99% effective at stopping deer. Installation of some of the newer electric fences requires neither specialized equipment nor training and can be accomplished by airport personnel.
In limited situations, the use of non-conductive , composite, frangible electric fence posts and fence conductors may allow the installation of electric fence closer to the aircraft movement area than would normally be a llowed with standard chain link fencing material.

If deer are observed on or near the aircraft movement area, immediate action must be taken to remove them.
Airport operators can contact the nearest USDA, Wildlife Serv ices Office or the State Wildlife Management Agency for a ssistance with deer problems.

OSB December 13, 2004

Ben Castellano Manager Airport Safety & Operations Division Date239



## APPENDIX F: USDA, W ildlife Services Directive 2.305 W ildlife Hazards T o A v iationAppendix F 240

This page intentionally left blankAppendix F 241

United States Departm ent of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
Directive 2.305 4/15/98
Wildlife Hazards To Aviation
1. P URPOSE To provide general guidelines for Wildlife Serv ices (WS) technical and/or direct control assistance to airport manager s, State aviation agencies, aviation industry, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Department of Defense regarding hazards caused by wildlife to airport safety.
2. R EPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS This directive replaces A DC Directive 2.305 dated 04/05/95.
3. P OLICY WS will assist responsible Federal and St ate agencies, airport managers, and the aviation industry in reducing wildlife hazards to airports and air bases according to the APHIS/ADC [WS] Memorandum of Understanding with the FAA and the guidelines set forth in the WS Managing Wildlife Hazards at Airports Manual. WS may enter into cooperative agreement s to conduct wildlife hazard assessments and/or management plans for an airport or air base or to conduct direct control and/or technical assistance activities to minimize hazards caused by wildlife. These activities will be conducted under cooperativ e agreements fully funded by cooperating entities. WS personnel may also provide specific trai ning for airport and air base personnel in wildlife identification and the safe and proper use of wild life damage management equipment and techniques. WS personnel will pr ovide recommendations and assistance to airport managers and air base commanders in obtaining necessary Federal and State permits required to take protected wildlif e species at airports and air bases. Whenever WS personnel observe existing or pot ential wildlife hazards at airports or air bases, appropriate aviation authorit ies will be notified immediately.
4. R EF ERENCES ADC Directive 2.620, ADC Aviation Safety and Operations WS Managing Wildlife Hazards at Airports Manual Memorandum of Understanding between APHIS and FAA (3/21/89) 14 CFR Part 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management

Deputy AdministratorWS Directive 2.305 Appendix F 242

This page intentionally left blank.243



## APPENDIX G: Memorandum Of Underst a nding Between United S t ates Dep a rtment Of T r ansport a tion, Federal A v iation Administration And United S t ates Dep a rtment Of Agriculture, Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service, W ildlife Services. (No. 12-34-71-0003-MOU)Appendix G 244

This page intentionally left blank.Appendix G MOU Between FAA and WS 245

No. 12-34-71-0003-MOU 

### Memorandum of Understanding

between the United States Department of Transportation



### ARTICLE 1

The WS has the authority to enter agreements with States , local jurisdictions, individuals, public and private agencies, organiza tions, and institutions for the control of nuisance wildlife 2 . The WS also has the authority to charge for services provided under such agreements and to deposit the funds colle cted into the accounts that incur the
costs 3

. 

### Federal Aviation Administration

and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) continues the cooperation between the Federal Aviation Administration and Wildlif e Services (WS) for mitigating wildlife hazards to aviation.

A R T I C L E 2
The FAA has the broad authority to regul ate and develop civil aviation in the United States 1 . The FAA may issue Air port Operating Certificates to airports serving certain air carrier aircraft. Issuance of an Air port Operating Certificat e indicates that the airport meets the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 (14 C F R 1 3 9 ) f o r c o n d u c t i n g c e r t a i n a i r c a r r i e r o p e r a t i o n s

.

14 CFR 139.337 requires the holder of an Airport Operating Certificate (certificate holder) to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment (WHA) when specific events occur on or near the airport. A wild life management biologist who has professional training

1 Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, et. seq.

2 The Animal Damage Control Act of Ma rch 2, 1931, as amended, 46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426 – 426b.

3 The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, as amended, 426c to U.S.C. 426 – 426b.MOU Between FAA and WS Appendix G 246

and/or experience in wildlif e hazard management at air ports, or someone working under the direct supervision of such an i ndividual, must conduct the WHA required by 14 CFR 139.337. The FAA reviews all WHAs to determine if the certificate holder must develop and implement a wild life hazard management plan (WHMP) designed to mitigate wildlife hazards to aviation on or near the airport. These regulations also require airport personnel implementing an FAA-approved WHMP to receive training conducted by a qualified wildlif e damage management biologist.

ARTICLE 3 The FAA and the WS agree to the following.

d. The FAA or the certificate holder may seek technical support from WS to lessen wildlife hazards. This help ma y include, but is not limited to, conducting site visits and WHAs to i dentify hazardous wildlife, their daily and seasonal movement patterns and habitat requirements. WS personnel may also provide: a. The WS has the professional expertise , airport experience, and training to provide support to assess and reduce wild life hazards to aviation on and near airports. The WS can also provide the necessary training to airport personnel.

b. Most airports lack the technical exper tise to identify underlying causes of wildlife hazard problems. They can control many of their wildlife problems following proper instruction in c ontrol techniques and wildlife species identification from qualified wildlife management biologists.

c. Situations arise where control of hazardous wildlife is necessary on and off airport property (i.e., roost relocati ons, reductions in nesting populations, and removal of wildlife). This often requi res the specialized technical support of WS personnel.

i. support with developing WHMPs in cluding recommendations on control and habitat management methods designed to minimize the presence of hazardous wildlife on or near the airport; ii. training in wildlife species identific ation and the use of control devices; iii. support with managing hazardous wildlife and associated habitats; and
iv. recommendations on the scope of further studies necessary to identify and minimize wildlife hazards.

e. Unless specifically requested by the ce rtificate holder, WS is not liable or responsible for development, approval , or implementation of a WHMP required by 14 CFR 139.337. Development of a WHMP is the responsibility of the certificate holder. The cert ificate holder will use the information developed by WS from site visits and/ or conducting WHA in the preparation of a WHMP.

f. The FAA and WS agree to m eet at least yearly to review this agreement, identify problems, exchange information on new control methods, identify research needs, and prioritize program needs.Appendix G MOU Between FAA and WS 247

ARTICLE 4 The WS personnel will advise the certificate hol der of their responsibilities to secure necessary permits and/or licenses for contro l of wildlife. This will ensure all wildlife damage control activities are conducted under applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

ARTICLE 5 This MOU defines in general terms, the bas is on which the parties will cooperate and does not constitute a financial obligation to serve as a basis for expenditures. Request for technical, operational, or research assistance that requires cooperative or reimbursable funding will be comple ted under a separate agreement.


### ARTICLE 6
This MOU will supersede all existing MOUs, supplements, and amendments about the conduct of wildlife hazard control pr ograms between WS and the FAA.


### ARTICLE 7

Under Section 22, Title 41, U.S.C., no me mber of or delegate to Congress will be admitted to any share or part of this MO U or to any benefit to arise from it.

ARTICLE 8

This MOU will become effective on the dat e of final signature and will continue indefinitely. This MOU may be amended by agreem ent of the parties in writing. Either party, on 60 days advance written notice to the other party, may end the agreement.

___ OSB Woodie Woodward ___
Associate Administrator for Airports Federal Aviation Administration Date _____ June 20, 2005 ______

___ OSB William H Clay ___ Deputy Administrator for Wildlife Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Date _____ June 27, 2005 _____MOU Between FAA and WS Appendix G 248

This page intentionally left blankAppendix H 249



## APPENDIX H: Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal A v iation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army
, the U.S. Environment a l Protection Agency
, the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, and the U.S. Dep a rtment of Agriculture to Address Aircraf t-W ildlife S t rikesAppendix H 250

This page intentionally left blankAppendix H 251



### Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army
, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes

P URPOSE The signatory agencies know the risks that aircra ft-wildlife strikes pose to safe aviation. This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) acknowledges each signatory agency’s respective missions. Through this MOA, t he agencies establish procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to more effectively address existing and future environmental conditions contributing to ai rcraft-wildlife strikes throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to mi nimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety, while protecting the Nation’ s valuable environmental resources.

B ACKGROUND Aircraft-wildlife strikes are the second leading causes of aviation-related fatalities. Globally, these strikes have killed over 400 people and destroyed more than 420 aircraft. While these extreme events are rare when compared to t he millions of annual aircraft operations, the potential for catastr ophic loss of human life resulting from one incident is substantial. The most recent a ccident demonstrating the grievous nature of these strikes occurred in September 1995, when a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance jet

s t r u c k a f l o c k o f C a n a d a g e e s e d u r i n g t a k e o f f

, k i l l i n g a l l 2 4 p e o p l e a b o a r d

. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States Air Force (USAF) databases contain information on more than 54,000 United States ci vilian and military aircraft-wildlife strikes repor ted to them between 1990 and 1999 1 . During that decade, the FAA received reports indicating that ai rcraft-wildlife strikes, damaged 4,500 civilian U.S. aircraft (1,500 substantially), destroy ed 19 aircraft, injured 91 people, and killed 6 people. Additionally, there were 216 incidents where birds struck two or more engines on civilian aircraft, with damage occurring to 26 percent of the 449 engines involved in these incidents. The FAA esti mates that during the same decade, civilian U.S. aircraft sustained $4 billion worth of damages and a ssociated losses and 4.7 million hours of aircraft downtime due to aircraft-wildlife strike s. For the same period, USAF planes colliding with wildlife resulted in 10 Class A Mishaps 2 , 26 airmen deaths, and over $217

m i l l i o n i n d a m a g e s

.

1 FAA estimates that the 28,150 aircraft-wildlife strike reports it received repr esent less than 20% of the actual number of strikes t hat occurred during the decade.

2 See glossary for the definition of a Class A Mishap and similar terms.Multi Agency MOA Appendix H 252

Approximately 97 percent of the reported civilian aircraft-wildlife strikes involved common, large-bodied birds or la rge flocks of small birds. Almost 70 percent of these events involved gulls, waterfowl, and raptors (Table 1). About 90 percent of aircraft- wildlife strikes occur on or near airports, when aircraft are below altitudes of 2,000 feet. Aircraft-wildlife strikes at t hese elevations are especially dangerous because aircraft are moving at hi gh speeds and are close to or on the ground. Aircrews are intently focused on complex take-off or landing procedures and monitoring the movements of other aircraft in the airport vicinity. Aircrew attention to these activities while at low altitudes o ften compromises their ability to successfully recover from unexpected collisions with wildlif e and to deal with rapidly changing flight procedures. As a result, crews have minima l time and space to recover from aircraftwildlife strikes. Increasing bird and wildlife populations in urban and suburban area s near airports contribute to escalating aircraft-wildlife strike rates. FAA, USAF, and Wildlife Services (WS) experts expect the risks, frequencies, and potential severities of aircraft-wildlife strikes to increase during the next decade as the numbers of civili an and military aircraft operations grow to meet expanding transportation and military demands.
S ECTION I.
S COPE O F C OOPERATION A ND C OORDINATION Based on the preceding information and to ac hieve this MOA’s purpose, the signatory agencies: Agree to strongly encourage their respective regional and local offices, as appropriate, to develop interagency coordination procedures necessary to effectively and efficiently implement this MOA. Local procedures should clarify ti me frames and other general coordination guidelines. Agree that the term “airport” applies only to those facilities as defined in the attached glossary. Agree that the three major activities of mo st concern include, but are not limited to: 1. airport siting and expansion; 2. development of conservation/mitigation habitats or other land uses that could attract hazardous wildlife to airports or nearby areas; and 3. responses to known wildlife hazards or aircraft-wildlife strikes. Agree that “hazardous wildlife” are those animals, identified to species and listed in FAA and USAF databases, that are most often involv ed in aircraft-wildlife strikes. Many of the species frequently inhabit areas on or near airports, cause structural damage to airport facilities, or attract other wildlife t hat pose an aircraft-wildlife strike hazard. Table 1 lists many of these species. It is incl uded solely to provide information on identified wildlife species that have been involved in aircraft-wildlife strikes. It is not intended to represent the universe of species concerni ng the signatory agencies, since more than 50 percent of the aircraft-wildlife strikes reported to FAA or the USAF did not identify the species involved. Agree to focus on habitats attractive to t he species noted in Tabl e 1, but the signatory agencies realize that it is imperative to recognize that wildlife hazard determinationsAppendix H Multi Agency MOA 253

discussed in Paragraph L of this section may involve other animals. Agree that not all habitat types attract hazardous wildlife. The signatory agencies, during their consultative or decision making activities, will inform regional and local land use authorities of this MO A’s purpose. The signatory agencies will consider regional, local, and site-specific factors (e.g., geographic setting and/or ecological concerns) when conducting these activities and will work c ooperatively with the authorities as they develop and implement local land use programs under their respective jurisdictions. The signatory agencies will encour age these stakeholders to develop land uses within the siting criteria noted in Section 1-3 of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150.5200-33 (Attachment A) that do not attract hazardous wildlife. Conversely, the agencies will promote the establishment of land uses attractive to hazardous wildlife outside those siting criteria. Exceptions to the above siting criteria, as described in Section 2.4.b of the AC, will be considered because they typica lly involve habitats that provide unique ecological functions or values (e.g., critic al habitat for federally-listed endangered or threatened species, ground water recharge). Agree that wetlands provide many important ecological f unctions and values, including fish and wildlife habitats; flood protection; s horeline erosion control; water quality improvement; and recreational, educational, and research opportunities. To protect jurisdictional wetlands, Section 404 of t he Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate dr edge and/or fill activities in these wetlands and navigable waters. In recognizing Section 404 requirements and the Clean Water Action Plan’s goal to annually increase the Nation’s net wetland acreage by 100,000 acres through 2005, the signatory agencies agree to resolve aircraft- wildlife conflicts. They will do so by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and will work to compensate for all associat ed unavoidable wetland impacts. The agencies agree to work with landowners and communiti es to encourage and support wetland restoration or enhancement efforts that do not increase aircraft-wildlife strike potentials. Agree that the: U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers (ACOE) has experti se in protecting and managing jurisdictional wetlands and their a ssociated wildlife; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expertise in pr otecting environmental resources; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has expertise in protecting and managing wildlife and their habitats, including migratory birds and wetlands. Appropriate signatory agencies will cooperatively review proposals to develop or expand wetland mitigation sites, or wildlife refuges that may attrac t hazardous wildlife. When planning these sites or refuges, the signatory agencies will diligently c onsider the siting crit eria and land use practice recommendations stated in FAA AC 150/5200-33. The agencies will make every effort to undertake actions that are consistent with those criteria and recommendations, but recognize that except ions to the siting criteria may be appropriate (see Paragraph F of this section). Agree to consult with airpor t proponents during initial air port planning efforts. As appropriate, the FAA or USAF will initiate signat ory agency participation in these efforts. When evaluating proposals to build new civilian or military aviation facilities or to expand existing ones, the FAA or t he USAF, will work with appropriate signatory agencies to diligently evaluate alternatives that may avoid adverse effects on wetlands, other aquatic resources, and Federal wildlife refuges. If these or other habitats supportMulti Agency MOA Appendix H 254

hazardous wildlife, and there is no practicable alternative location for the proposed aviation project, the appropria te signatory agencies, consis tent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, will develop mutually acceptable measures, to protect aviation safety and mitigate any unavoidable wildlife impacts. Agree that a variety of ot her land uses (e.g., storm water management facilities, wastewater treatment systems, landfills, golf courses, parks, agricultural or aquacultural facilities, and landscapes) attract hazardous wildlife and are, therefore, normally incompatible with airports. Accordingly, new, federally-funded airp ort construction or airport expansion projects near habitats or ot her land uses that may attract hazardous wildlife must conform to the si ting criteria established in t he FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Section 1-3. Agree to encourage and advise owner s and/or operators of non-ai rport facilities that are known hazardous wildlife attract ants (See Paragraph J) to follow the siting criteria in Section 1-3 of AC 150/5200- 33. As appropriate, each signatory agency will inform proponents of these or other land uses about the land use’s potential to attract hazardous species to airport areas. T he signatory agencies will urge facility owners and/or operators about the critical need to consider the land uses’ effects on aviation safety. Agree that FAA, USAF, and WS personnel have the expertise necessary to determine the aircraft-wildlife strike potentials of va rious land uses. When there is disagreement among signatory agencies about a particular land use and its potential to attract hazardous wildlife, the FAA, USAF, or WS will prepare a wildlife hazard assessment. Then, the appropriate signator y agencies will meet at the local level to review the assessment. At a minimum, that assessment will: identify each species causing the aviation hazard, its seasonal and daily populations, and the population’s local movements;
discuss locations and features on and near t he airport or land use attractive to hazardous wildlife; and
evaluate the extent of the wildlife hazard to aviation. Agree to cooperate with the airport operator to develop a specific, wildlife hazard management plan for a given location, when a pot ential wildlife hazard is identified. The plan will meet applicable FAA, U SAF, and other relevant requ irements. In developing the plan, the appropriate agencies will use their expertise and attempt to integrate their respective programmatic responsibilities, while complying with existing laws, regulations, and policies. The plan should av oid adverse impacts to wildlife populations, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats to t he maximum extent practical. Unavoidable impacts resulting from impl ementing the plan will be fully compensated pursuant to all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies. Agree that whenever a significant aircraft-wildlif e strike occurs or a potential for one is identified, any signatory agency may initiate actions with other appropriate signatory agencies to evaluate the situation and develop mu tually acceptable solutions to reduce the identified strike probability. The agencies will work cooperatively, preferably at the local level, to determine the causes of the strike and what can and should be done at the airport or in its vicinity to reduce potential strikes involving that species.Appendix H Multi Agency MOA 255

Agree that information and analyses relating to mitigation that could cause or contribute to aircraft-wildlife strikes should, whenever possible, be included in documents prepared to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This should be done in coordination with appropriate signatory agencies to inform the public and Federal decision makers about important ecological factors that may affect aviation. This concurrent review of envir onmental issues will promote t he streamlining of the NEPA review process. Agree to cooperatively develop mutually acc eptable and consistent guidance, manuals, or procedures addressing the management of habitats attrac tive to hazardous wildlife, when those habitats are or will be within the si ting criteria noted in Section 1-3 of FAA AC 5200-33. As appropriate, the signatory agencies will also consult each other when they propose revisions to any regulations or guidance relevant to the purpose of this MOA, and agree to modify this MOA accordingly.

SECTION II

.
GENERAL RULES AND INFORMATION Development of this MOA fulfills the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation of November 19, 1999, to form an inter-departmental task force to address aircraft-wildlife strike issues. This MOA does not nullify any obligations of the signatory agencies to enter into separate MOAs with the USFW S addressing the conservation of migratory birds, as outlined in Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds , dated January 10, 2001 (66 Federal Register , No. 11, pg. 3853). This MOA in no way restricts a signatory agency’s participation in similar activities or arrangements with other public or private agencies, organizations, or individuals. This MOA does not alter or modify compli ance with any Federal law, regulation or guidance (e.g., Clean Water Act; Endangered Spec ies Act; Migratory Bird Treaty Act; National Environmental Policy Act; North Am erican Wetlands Conservation Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; or the “no-net loss” policy for wetland protection). The signatory agencies will employ this MOA in concert wit h the Federal guidance addressing wetland mitigation banking dated March 6, 1995 (60 Federal Register , No. 43, pg. 12286). The statutory provisions and regulations mentioned above contain legally binding requirements. However, th is MOA does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. This MOA does not im pose legally binding requirements on the signatory agencies or any other party, and may not apply to a particular situation in certain circumst ances. The signatory agencies retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this MOA when they determine it is appropriate to do so. Such decisions will be bas ed on the facts of a particular case and applicable legal requirements. Therefore, interest ed parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of this MOA and the appropriateness of its application to a particular situation. This MOA is based on evolving information and may be revised periodically without public notice. The signatory agencies welc ome public comments on this MOA at any time and will consider those comments in any future revision of this MOA. This MOA is intended to improve the inter nal management of the Ex ecutive Branch toMulti Agency MOA Appendix H 256

address conflicts between aviation safety and wildlife. This MOA do es not create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, either s ubstantively or procedurally. No party, by law or equity, may enforce this MOA against t he United States, its agencies, its officers,
or any person. This MOA does not obligate any signatory agency to allocate or spend appropriations or enter into any contract or other obligations.
This MOA does not reduce or a ffect the authority of Federa l, State, or local agencies regarding land uses under their respective purviews. When requested, the signatory agencies will provide technical expertise to agencies making decisions regarding land uses within the siting criteria in Secti on 1-3 of FAA AC 150/5200- 33 to minimize or prevent attracting hazardous wildlife to airport areas. Any signatory agency may request changes to th is MOA by submitting a written request to any other signatory agency and subsequently obtaining the wr itten concurrence of all signatory agencies. Any signatory agency may terminate its partici pation in this MOA within 60 days of providing written notice to t he other agencies. This MOA will remain in effect until all signatory agencies terminate their participation in it.Appendix H Multi Agency MOA 257

S ECTION III. P RINCIPAL S IGNATORY A GENCY C ONTACTS The following list identifies contact offices for each signatory agency.

Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Air Force

Office Airport Safety and Standards HQ AFSC/SEFW
Airport Safety and Compliance Branch (AAS-310) 9700 Ave., G. SE, Bldg. 24499

800 Independence Ave., S.W. Kirtland AFB, NM 87117
Washington, D.C. 20591 V: 505-846-5679

V: 202-267-1799 F: 505-846-0684

F: 202-267-7546

U.S. Army U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency.

Directorate of Civil Works Office of Water
Regulatory Branch (CECW-OR) Wetlands Division

441 G St., N.W. Ariel Rios Building, MC 4502F
Washington, D.C. 20314 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., SW

V: 202-761-4750 Washington, D.C. 20460

F: 202-761-4150 V: 202-260-1799

F : 2 0 2

- 2 6 0

- 7 5 4 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Department of Agriculture
Division of Migratory Bird Management Animal and Plant Inspection Service

4401 North Fairfax Drive, R oom 634 Wildlife Services
Arlington, VA 22203 Operational Support Staff

V: 703-358-1714 4700 River Road, Unit 87

F: 703-358-2272 Riverdale, MD 20737

V: 301-734-7921

F: 301-734-5157Multi Agency MOA Appendix H 258

Signature Page

Associate Administrator for Airports Federal Aviation Administration Date

Chief of Safety, U. S. Air Force Date

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), U.S. Army Date

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Date

Assistant Director, Mi gratory Birds and State Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date

Deputy Administrator, Wildlife Services U.S. Department of Agriculture DateAppendix H Multi Agency MOA 259

G LOSSARY

Aircraft-w ildlife strike. An aircraft-wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when:

3. personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike 1 or more birds or other wildlife; This glossary defines terms used in this MOA.
Airport. All USAF airfields or all public use airports in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Note: T here are over 18,000 civ il-use airports in the U.S., but only 3,344 of them are in the NPIAS an d, therefore, under FAA’s jurisdiction.

1. a pilot reports that an aircraft stru ck 1 or more birds or other wildlife;

2. aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having been caused by an aircraft-wildlife strike;

4. bird or other wildlife remain s, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason for the animal's death is identified; or

5. the animal's presence on the airport had a significant, negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with animal) (Source: Wildlife Control Procedures Manual , Technical Publication 11500E, 1994).

Aircraft-w ildlife strike hazard. A potential for a damaging ai rcraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport (14 CFR 139.3).

Bird Sizes. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 33.76 classifies birds according to weight:

1. small birds weigh less than 3 ounces (oz).

2. medium birds weigh more than 3 oz and less than 2.5 lbs.

3. large birds weigh greater than 2.5 lbs. Civil aircraft damage classifications . The following damage descriptions are based on the Manual on the International Civil Aviation Organization Bird Strike Inform ation System :

1. Minor: The aircraft is deemed airworthy upon completing simple repairs or replacing minor parts and an extensive inspection is not necessary.

2. Substantial: Damage or st ructural failure adversely affects an aircraft’s structural integrity, performance, or f light characteristics. T he damage normally requires major repairs or the replacement of the entire affected com ponent. Bent fairings or cowlings; small dents; skin punc tures; damage to wing tips, antenna, tires or brakes, or engine blade damage not requiring blade repl acement are specifically excluded.

3. Destroyed: The damage sustained makes it inadvisable to restore the aircraft to an airworthy condition. Significant Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes. A significant aircraft-wild life strike is deemed toMulti Agency MOA Appendix H 260

have occurred when any of the following applies: 1. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft experienc es a multiple aircraft-bird strike or engine ingestion;
2. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft ex periences a damaging collis ion with wildlife other than birds; or 3. a USAF aircraft experiences a Class A, B, or C mishap as described below: a. Class A Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following applies: i. total mishap cost is $1,000,000 or more;
ii. a fatality or permanent total disability occurs; and/or
iii. an Air Force aircraft is destroyed. b. Class B Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following applies: i. total mishap cost is $200,000 or more and less than $1,000,000; and/or
ii. a permanent partial disability o ccurs and/or 3 or more people are hospitalized; c. Class C Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following applies:
i. cost of reported damage is between $20,000 and $200,000;
ii. an injury causes a lost workday (i.e., duration of absence is at least 8 hours beyond the day or shift during which mishap occurred); and/or
iii. an occupational illness causing absence from work at any time.

Wetlands. An ecosystem requiring constant or recurrent, shallow inundation or saturation at or near the surface of t he substrate. The minimum essential characteristics of a wetland are recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation at or near the surface and the presence of physical, chemical, and biological features indicating recurrent, sustained inundation, or saturati on. Common diagnostic wetland features are hydric soils and hydrophytic v egetation. These features will be present, except where specific physiochemical, biotic, or ant hropogenic factors have removed them or prevented their development. (Source the 1987 De lineation Manual; 40 CFR 230.3(t)).

Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limit ation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthr opod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring there of (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants ). As used in this MOA, “wildlife” includes feral animals and domestic animals while out of their ow ner’s control (14 CFR 139.3, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving CAB-Certificated Schedul ed Air Carriers Operating Large Aircraft (Other Than Helicopters) )Appendix H Multi Agency MOA 261

Birds Table 1. Identified wildlife species, or groups, that were involved in two or more aircraft-wildlife strikes, that caused damage to one or more aircraft components, or that had an adverse effect on an aircraft’s flight. Data are for 1990-1999 and involve only civilian, U.S. aircraft.

No. reported strikes
Gulls (all spp.) 874 Geese (primarily, Canada geese)

182

Sandhill cranes

15

1 4

14

Meadowlarks 8

7

Turkeys 4 458 Hawks (primarily, Red-tailed hawks) Ducks (primarily Mallards.) 166 Vultures (primarily, Turkey vulture) 142

Rock doves 122 Doves (primarily, mourning doves) 109

B l a c k b i r d s 8 1 European starlings 55

S p a r r o w s 5 2

E g r e t s 4 1 Shore birds (primarily, Killdeer & Sandpipers) 40

C r o w s 3 1

O w l s 2 4

22

American kestrels

Great blue herons 15

P e l i c a n s 1 4

S w a l l o w s Eagles (Bald and Golden)

O s p r e y s 1 3 Ring-necked pheasants 11

H e r o n s 1 1

B a r n

- o w l s 9

American robins 8

Buntings (snow)

C o r m o r a n t s 6 Snow buntings 6

B r a n t s 5 Terns (all spp.) 5

Great horned owls 5

Horned larks 4Multi Agency MOA Appendix H 262

Swans 3 Mockingbirds 3

Quails 3 Homing pigeons 3 Snowy owls 3

Peregrine falcons

2 Anhingas 2

Ravens 2

Kites 2

Falcons 2

2

Merlins 2

Grouse 2 Hungarian partridges Spotted doves 2

Thrushes 2 Mynas 2

Finches 2

Total known birds 2,612

Mammals No. reported strikes
Deer (primarily, White-tailed deer) 285 Coyotes 16 Dogs 10

Elk 6

5

3

2

Moose 2 Cattle

Bats 4

Horses Pronghorn antelopes 3

Foxes

Raccoons 2

Rabbits 2

Total known mammals 340
Ring-billed gulls were the most commonl y struck gulls. The U.S. ring-billed gull population increased steadily at about 6% annually from 1966-1988. Canada geese were involved in about 90% of the aircraft-goose strikes involving civilian, U.S. aircraft from 1990-1998. Resident (non-migrat ory) Canada goose populations increased annually at 13% from 1966-1998. Red-tailed hawks accounted for 90% of the identified aircraft-hawk strikes for the 10-year peri od. Red-tailed hawk populations increasedAppendix H Multi Agency MOA 263

annually at 3% from 1966 to 1998. Turkey vultures were involved in 93% of he identified aircraft-vulture strikes. The U. S. Turkey vulture populations increased at annually at 1% between 1966 and 1998. Deer, primarily white-tailed deer, have also adapted to urban and airport areas and their popul ations have increased dramatically. In the early 1900’s, there were about 100,000 white-tailed deer in the U.S. Current estimates are that the U.S. population is about 24 million.Multi Agency MOA Appendix H 264

This page intentionally left blank265



## APPENDIX I: F

A A Form 5200-7 Bird/Other W ildlife S t rike ReportAppendix I 266

This page intentionally left blankAppendix I FAA Form 5200-7 267 Appendix I FAA Form 5200-7FAA Form 5200-7 Appendix I 268Appendix I FAA Form 5200-7 269

Directions for FAA Form 5200-7 Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report

13. Part(s) of Aircraft Struck or Damaged - Check which parts were struck and damaged. If a part was damaged but not struck, indicate this with a check on the damaged column only and indicate in comments (#21) why this happened (e.g., the landing gear might be damaged by deer strike, causing the aircraft to flip over and damage parts not struck by deer).

22. Estimated cost of repairs or replacement - Th is may not be known immediately, but the data can be sent at a later date or put down a contact name and number for this data.

Date - Date the form was filled out. 1. Name of Operator - This can be an airline (abbr eviations okay - UAL, AAL , etc.), business (Coca Cola), government agency (Police Dept., FAA) or if a private pilot, his or her name.
2. Aircraft Make/Model - Abbreviations are okay , but try to include the model (e.g., B737-200).
3. Engine Make/Model - Abbreviations are allowed (e.g., PW 4060, GECT7, LYC 580).
4. Aircraft Registration - This means the N# (for USA registered aircraft).
5. Date of Incident - Give the loca l date, not the ZULU or GMT date.
6. Local Time of Incident - Check the appropriate light conditions and fill in the hour and minute local time and check AM or PM or use the 24 clock and skip AM/PM.

7. Airport Name - Use the airport name or 3 letter c ode if a US airport. If a foreign airport, use the full name or 3 letter code and location (city/country).
8. Runway used - Self explanatory.
9. Location if En Route - Put the name of the nearest city and state.
10. Height AGL - Put the feet above ground level at t he time of the strike (if you don’t know, use MSL and indicate this). For take-off run and landing roll, it must be 0.
11. Speed (IAS) - Speed at which the aircraft was traveling when the strike occurred.
12. Phase of Flight - Phase of f light during which the strike occurr ed. Take-off run and landing roll should both be 0 AGL.

14. Effect on Flight - You can check more than one and if you check “Other”, pl ease explain in Comments (#21).
15. Sky Condition - Check the one that applies.
16. Precipitation - You may check more than one.
17. Bird/Other Wildlife Species - Try to be a ccurate. If you don’t know, put unknown and some description. Collect feathers or remain s for identification for damaging strikes.
18. Number of birds seen and/or st ruck - Check the box in the Seen co lumn with the correct number if you saw the birds/other wildlife bef ore the strike and check the box in the Struck column to show how many were hit. The exact number, can be written next to the box.
19. Size of Bird(s)- Check what you think is the co rrect size (e.g. sparrow = small, gulls = medium and geese = large).

Pilot Warned of Birds - Check the correct box (even if it was an ATIS warning or NOTAM).

20. Remarks - Be as specific as you can. Include information about the extent of the damage, injuries, anything you think would be helpful to know. (e.g., number of birds ingested).
21. Aircraft time out of service - Record how many hours the aircraft was out of service.

23. Estimated other cost - Include loss of revenue, fuel, hotels, etc. (see directions for #23). Reported by - Although this is optional, it is helpful if questions arise about the information on the form (a phone number could also be included). Title - This can be Pilot, Tower, Airport Operat ions, Airline Operations, Flight Safety, etc.FAA Form 5200-7 Appendix I 270

This page intentionally left blank271



## APPENDIX J: Gull Fact s For Airport W ildlife Control PersonnelAppendix J 272

This page intentionally left blankAppendix J 273

Gull Facts for Airport Wildlife Control Personnel
Richard A. Dolbeer, USDA Wildlife Services

There are about 50 species of gulls in the world of which about 18 are regularly found in North America. North American gulls vary in size from 1/4 lb (little gull) to over 4 lbs (male great black-backed gull).

Gulls are the most frequently reported birds struck by civil aircraft in the USA. From 1990-2004, 25% of all identified bird strikes involved gulls.

The sexes are identical in plumage but males are generally slightly larger than females. For example, male laughing gulls weigh 10% more than females on average whereas male herring gulls weigh 19% more than females.
Gulls are generally long-lived with annual surviv al rates of 70 to >90%. A number of banded herring gulls have been recovered after 20 years and the record is over 30 years. Gulls begin losing bands due to wear and corrosion after 10 to 15 years so we really do not know how long they may live in the wild.
Male and female gulls form pairs during the nesting season and both sexes contribute about equally to nest building, incubation, and feeding of chicks. Clutch size is usually 3 eggs and incubation takes about 20 (laughing gull) to 28 days (great black-backed gull). Young fledge (begin flying) from 35 (laughing gull) to 50 days (great black-backed gull) after hatching. Gulls will renest if nests are destroyed early in the nesting season.

Gulls attain adult body size within 6 to 8 weeks of hatching but do not obtain adult plumage and mature sexually until 2 years (for small gulls) to 4-5 years (for large gulls). Plumage is generally all brown in the summer-fall of hatching year. Plumage acquires more adult characteristics with each successive molt. Plumage of immature gulls can be variable. Species identification and age classification of immature gulls can be difficult.

Gulls struck by aircraft should be identified to species when possible. Because of large variations in behavior, migration, and body size among gull species, correct species ID is critical for determining management actions at airports and for analysis of engine and airframe damage.
Convenient sources of information about gulls and other birds:
Dunning, J. B. Jr., editor. 1993. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 371 pages. (Data on body weights for birds throughout the world)
Grant, P. J. 1986. Gulls: A Guide to Identification. Buteo Books, Vermilion, South Dakota. 352 pages. (Detailed plumage characteristics)
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York. 785 pages. (Provides a wealth of conveniently summarized life history information on most North American bird species)
Robbins, C. S., B. Bruun, and H. S. Zim. 1983. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 360 pages. (Excellent field guide providing range maps for all bird species nesting in North America)
Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred Knopf, New York. 544 pages. (Detailed plumage characteristics and good range maps).Gull Facts Appendix J 274

FACTS FOR SELECTED GULL SPECIES IN NORTH AMERICA

Mean body mass in lbs (grams) Mean length in inches (cm)

Species Male Both sexes Female Bill to tail Wing-span Age (year) of first
reproduction

Little Gull Larus minutus 0.25 (120) 11 (28) 24 (61) 2?

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus Philadelphia 0.5 (212) 13 (33) 33 (81) 2-3

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 0.6 (280) 14 (35) 36 (91) 2-3

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 0.8 (345) 0.7 (312) 16 (41) 41 (104) 2-3

Mew Gull Larus canus 1.0 (432) 0.8 (375 16 (41) 43 (112) 3-4

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 1.2 (566) 1.0 (471) 17 (43) 49 (124) 3-4

California Gull Larus californicus 1.4 (657) 1.2 (556) 21 (53) 54 (137) 3-4

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 2.7 (1226) 2.3 (1044) 25 (63) 58 (147) 3-5

Glauc.-winged Gull Larus glaucascens 2.2 (1010) 2.2 (56) 26 (66) 58 (147) 3-5

Western Gull Larus occidentalis 2.2 (1011) 25 (63) 58 (147) 3-5

G. Black-backed gull Larus marinus 4.0 (1829) 3.3 (1488) 30 (76) 65 (165) 4-5275



## APPENDIX K: Assessing W ildlife Hazard Management Plans At Civil Airport sAppendix K 276

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K 277

ASSESSING WILDLIFE HAZ A R D M A N A G E M E N T P L A N S A T C I V I L A I R P O R T S This appendix describes a system (modified from Seubert 1994 1 ) for objectively assessing the implementation of wildlife hazard management pl ans at civil airports. Five assessment categories, each with a list of elements to be evaluated, are used to indicate how well airport wildlife hazar d management plans ar e b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d

. Category 1. Management functions related to wildlife hazards on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 2. Bird control on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 3. Mammal control on or in the vicinity of the airport. Category 4. Management of habitat and food source s on airport property related to wildlife hazards. Category 5. Land uses and food sources off of ai rport potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport. The elements described in Categories 1- 4 are assessed as to the degree that management programs are being im plemented. The elements in Category 5 are rated as to the degree of hazard posed. Elements within each category are not intended to cover every possibility – they can be modifi ed or expanded to meet si tuations unique to an airport. During an assessment, each element in Categor ies 1-4 is examined and classified as one of the following: S = Satisfactory

. If an assessor finds that an airpor t has initiated action to reduce a wildlife hazard according to plan and is on schedule, the action would be considered “satisfactory”.
U = Unsatisfactory

. If no measures have been taken or inappropriate measures taken, the assessment would be “unsatisfactory”.
NI = Needs improvement. If implementation of a cont rol measure is behind schedule or only partially accomplished, the assessment would be either “needs improvement”, or “unsatisfactory” , depending on the seriousness of the hazard.
NA = Not applicable. If it is apparent that certain listed techniques or items are not applicable to the airport, the asse ssment would be “not applicable”.

If an assessment is either “N I” or “U”, a comment by an assessor is required on the Assessment Summary Form (last page). Examples of assessments requiring comments are as follows:

1 Seubert, J. L. 1994. Assessing the im plementation of wild life hazard management programs at civil airports. Proceedings Bird Strike Committee Europe 22:275-284.Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 278

Category 1 . Management functions related to wildlif e hazards on or in the vicinity of the airport. If permits have not been obtained (Code 1.1) fo r shooting or trapping birds or mammals, the assessment would be “U”. If animal remains found on runways are being c ounted to document bird strikes, but are not being identified by species (Code 1.13), the assessment would be “NI”. Category 2 . Bird control on or in the vicinity of airports. If bioacoustics are not being used (Code 2. 2), the assessment would be “U”. If the installation of wires (Code 2.9) over an airport pond is behind schedule, the assessment could be “NI” or “U”, depending on the degree of potential hazard. If raptors are not being trapped and relocated (Code 2.22), the assessment would be “U”. Category 3. Mammal control on or in the vicinity of airports. If fencing (Code 3.2) is in need of repair, the assessment would be “NI”. If rodenticides (Code 3.12) are not being used to control a rodent population attracting raptors, the assessment would be “U”. Category 4. Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards. If airport litter control is inadequate (Code 4.9), the assessment would be “NI”. If trees used as a roost site (Code 4.3) ar e not being eliminated or thinned to be made unattractive, the assessment would be “U”. Categories 1-4 focus on acti ons that can be taken on the airport to reduce wildlife hazards. Category 5. Land uses and food sources off of air port potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport.
This provides a list of off-airport land uses and food sources that may be attractive to birds or other wildlife. The assessor should review this list and score each element on a scale of 0 to 3:

0 = land use or food source not present;

1 = present but no wildlife probl ems noted or anticipated;

2 = site attracts some hazardous wildlife cr eating possible or potential problem, site should be monitored;

3 = site creates significant wildlife hazar d for airport, action should be taken.
Wildlife hazards at airports fr equently are attributable to thes e off-site attractants, but airport managers have no authority over the use of private pr operty. However, airport managers can initiate program s to reduce the hazards of these off-airport wildlife attractants (e.g., garbage dumps, certain agric ultural activities) by informing localAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 279

jurisdictions and landowners of the hazards , and suggesting ways of alleviating them (Code 1.12).Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 280

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 281

Airport Date Assessment Page 1 of 6

CATEGORY 1. Management functions related to wildlife hazards on or in the vicinity of the airport.

A S S E S S M E N T

C O D E I T E M S S NI U N A

1

. 1 Acquiring wildlife control permits from federal, state, and local agencies

1.2 Arranging for wildlife hazard assessments and other studies, as needed, to evaluate hazard potential of wildlife attracted by habitats, land uses, and food sources on or in vicinity of airport.

1

. 3 Developing Wildlife Hazard Management Plan based on Wildlife Hazard Assessment and other studies and factors.

1

. 4 Defining and delegating authority and responsibility for Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

1.5 Supervising, implementing, and c oordinating airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

1.6 Evaluating Wildlife Hazard Management Plan at least once/yr.

1

. 7 Training personnel responsible for implementing airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, especially field personnel.

1.8 Operating wildlife patrol system with a trained field staff , conducting surveillance/inspections of critical airport areas, and effecting wildlife control when needed or requested.

1.9 Establishing a communication capability between wildlife control and ATC personnel.

1.10 Maintaining a system for warning pilots about wildlife hazards (e.g., NOTAMS, ATC, Radar observations).

1.11 Ensuring that airport habitats are managed to reduce or eliminate wildlife attractions.

1.12 Ensuring that airport policy prohi bits feeding of wildlife and exposure of food wastes.

1.13 Interacting with local jurisdictions and landowners about zoning, land use, and the resolution of wildlife hazard problems in vicinity of airport.

1.14 Maintaining log book with daily re cord of wildlife control activities, wildlife activity, and reported wildlife strikes and wildlife remains found on runways identified by species.

1.15 Reporting all wildlife strikes to FAA.Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 282

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 283

Airport Date Assessment Page 2 of 6 CATEGORY 2. Bird control on or in the vicinity of the airport.

A S S E S S M E N T

CODE TECHNIQUES S N I U N A
DISPERSE, DETER, EXCLUDE, REPEL

2.1 Bird patrols in vehicle

2.2 Bioacoustics (distress calls)

2.3 Electronically generated noise

2

. 4 P r o p a n e cannons

2

. 5 P y r o t e c h n i c s

2.6 Shooting to scare

2.7 Netting hanger rafters, ponds etc.

2.8 Perching deterrents (e.g., stainless steel needles)

2.9 Overhead wires for ponds, ditches, roofs etc.

2

. 1 0 C h e m i c a l r e p e l l e n t s

2

. 1 1 F a l c o n r y

2

. 1 2 D o g s

2

. 1 3 R a d i o

- c o n t r o l l e d a i r c r a f t

2.14 Thinning or eliminating roosting trees and shrubs

2

. 1 5 G r a s s m a n a g e m e n t

2

. 1 6 S c a r e c r o w s

2.17 Dead bird effigies

REMOVE

2.18 Chemical capture (alpha chloralose)

2.19 Nest and egg destruction

2

. 2 0 P o i s o n i n g

2.21 Predators to remove eggs (foxes, pigs, etc.)

2

. 2 2 S h o o t i n g

2.23 Trapping and relocation (e.g., raptors)Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 284

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 285

Airport Date Assessment Page 3 of 6

CATEGORY 3. Mammal control on or in the vicinity of the airport.

A S S E S S M E N T

C O D E T E C H N I Q U E S S N I U N A DISPERSE, DETER, EX CLUDE, REPEL

3

. 1 C a t t l e g u a r d s
3

. 2 F e n c i n g
3

. 3 V e h i c l e p a t r o l s
3

. 4 P r o p a n e c a n n o n s
3

. 5 P y r o t e c h n i c s
3.6 Rodent-resistant sheathing on electrical cables

REMOVE

3.7 Controlled hunting (e.g., deer)

3.8 Den destruction (e.g., coyotes)

3.9 Fumigants (e.g., woodchucks)

3.10 Kill trapping (e.g., beavers, muskrats)

3.11 Live trapping and relocation or euthanasia (e.g., dogs)

3.12 Rodenticides (e.g., mice, ground squirrels)

3.13 Shooting (e.g., deer, woodchucks, hares)Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 286

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 287

Airport Date Assessment Page 4 of 6

CATEGORY 4. Management of habitat and food sources on airport property related to wildlife hazards.

A S S E S S M E N T

C O D E I T E M S S N I U N A

AGRICULTURE/VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

4.1 Agricultural crops (especially ce real grains and sunflowers)

4.2 Plowing, mowing, harvesting (r odents, insects, worms)

4.3 Landscaping (fruits & roost sites attractive to birds)

4.4 Brush, shrubs, wood lots (c over, browse for deer)

4.5 Mis c

. nes ting s i tes (e.g., trees ) fo r egrets, raptors, etc.

WASTE MANAGEMENT/SANITATION

4.6 Feeding birds and mammals (by people)

4.7 Food waste storage (e.g., cafeterias, catering services)

4

. 8 Garbage d u m p s

4

. 9 L i t t e r

4.10 Sewage treatment ponds/lagoons/outfalls

4.11 Weeds, construction debr is, junk yards

4.12 Animal carcasses (dead livestock, bird strike remains)

WATER SOURCES

4

. 1 3 Aquatic v e g e t a t i o n

4.14 Canals, ditches, creeks, waterways

4.15 Low areas on pavement/ground that collect water

4.16 Retention ponds (water, de-icing fluid)

4

. 1 7 Water f o u n t a i n s

MISCELLANEOUS ATTRACTANTS

4.18 Earthworms along runways

4.19 Insects hatches from vegetation or soil

4

. 2 0 Seed-producing v e g e t a t i o n

. 4.21 Flat roofs (e.g., gull nesting and loafing sites)

4.22 Structures (hangers, towers, signs, poles, etc.)Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 288

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 289

Airport Date Assessment Page 5 of 6 CATEGORY 5. Land uses and food sources off airport potentially related to wildlife hazards on airport.

C O D E I T E M S Score a COMMENT S

A G R I C U L T U R E

5.1 Agricultural crops (especially cereal grains)

5

. 2 A q u a c u l t u r e f a c i l i t i e s

5

. 3 L i v e s t o c k f e e d l o t s

5.4 Grain storage or grain mills

COMMERCIA L /RECREA T IONA L LA ND USES

5

. 5 D r i v e

- i n theaters, amusement parks etc.

5.6 Restaurants (esp. out door eating areas)

5.7 Picnic areas, parks

5

. 8 M a r i n a s

5

. 9 G o l f c o u r s e s

5.10 F l at roofs (gull nesting sites)

WA STE MA NA GEMENT

5

. 1 1 G a r b a g e b a r g e s

5

. 1 2 G a r b a g e d u m p s

5.13 Garbage transfer stations

5.14 F i sh processing plants

5.15 Sew age lagoons, outfalls

WA TER SOURCES

5.16 Retention ponds (w ater , feedlots, etc.)

5.17 Canals, creeks, ditches

5.18 Reservoirs, lakes, natural ponds

NESTING/LOA FING/FEEDING A R EA S

5

. 1 9 W ildlife refuges/ nature preserves

5.20 Misc. nesting sites (egr ets, raptors, etc.)

5.21 Roosting trees (star lings, egrets, etc.)

5.22 Marshes, sw amps, mud flats

a 0 = n o t p r e s e n t ; 1 = present but no w ildlife problems noted or anticipated; 2 = site attracts some hazardous w ildlife creating possible or potential problem, site should be monitored; 3 = site creates significant w ildlife hazard for airport, action should be taken.Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 290

This page intentionally left blankAppendix K Assessing Hazard Management Plans 291

Airport Date Assessment Page 6 of 6 SUMMARY FORM (Wildlife Hazard Assessment): Comments are required for all elements in Categories 1-4 assessed as “Unsatisfactory” or as “Needs Improvement” or with a score of 2 or 3 in Category 5.

Manager or wildlife supervisor: Phone:

F a x :
E m a i l :
A s s e s s o r : P h o n e :
Fax:

E m a i l :
Assessor’s comments for elements rated “uns atisfactory” or “needs improvement” in Categories 1-4 or for elements scored 2 or 3 in Category 5.

Element

code Assessm ent symbol Comments

Assessor’s general comments (use back if needed):Assessing Hazard Management Plans Appendix K 292

This page intentionally left blank293



## APPENDIX L: A v iary And Field Evaluations Of V a rious W ildlife Control Product s And S t rategies For Airport sAppendix L 294

This page intentionally left blankAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 295

AVIARY AND FIELD EVALUATIONS OF VARIOUS WILDLIFE CONTROL PRODUCTS AND STRATEGIES FOR AIRPORTS

Richard A. Dolbeer USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 6100 Columbus Avenue Sandusky, OH 44870 USA
Numerous products and strategies are availabl e to reduce bird and other wildlife activity around airport buildings and runways. Many of these products and strategies are promoted and sold with only anec dotal evidence to support efficacy claims. Wildlife damage biologists frequently are asked for adv ice on the purported efficacy of these approaches. Too often, no data or insuffici ent data are available to make informed recommendations about a particular product. Thus, purchases are often made and products or strategies deployed that prove uns atisfactory. Not only do these purchases result in wasted money, but t hey may also increase hazards if airport personnel believe the deployment of an ineffective strategy has solved the problem. Evaluation of these devices and strategies under controlled conditions with sufficient replications to provide statisti cally rigorous results is difficult, especially for birds. The Ohio Field Station (OFS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is located on a 5,400-acre fenced site, Plum Brook Station [PBS], operated by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, Erie County, Ohio. PBS provides an ideal outdoor laborat ory for wildlife damage control tests. The site contains an outdoor aviary and a 10- acre Canada goose pond and grass facility for tests with captive birds. PBS also has large populations of free-roaming deer, starlings and other wildlife. PBS is within 50 miles of several large gu ll colonies along the shore of Lake Erie where testing also can be done.
Through an interagency agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and cooperative agreements with the Po rt Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) and private companies, the OF S has evaluated over 35 wildlife control products and strategies from 1992-2004. These tests pr ovide objective data on the efficacy and limitations of various products and strategi es—information that should be helpful to airport personnel and wildlife damage control biol ogists. Having said this, I emphasize that these tests typically do not provide a definitive, all-encompa ssing assessment of a product’s value or limitations . Product efficacy may vary depending on species, time of year, context of presentation and other factors. However, the tests do provide objective data on performance under controlled or measur ed conditions so that at least some conclusions can be drawn regarding potentia l usefulness in an airport environment. Below is a listing of publications with abstr acts by species group that document the results of many of these tests. Copies of the full publicati ons can be obtained from university libraries or by contacting the NWRC library at www.aphis. usda.gov/ws/nwrc. I acknowledge the creative test designs dev eloped and work carried out by the various USDA employees listed in the publications. I also acknowledge the support provided by the FAA, especially S. Agrawal, M. Hov an, and T. Hupf (William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ) and E. C. Cleary (Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, DC) and the PANYNJ (L. Francoeur).Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 296



### G ULLS 

### A ND 

### R ELATED 

### S PECIES
1. Belant, J. L. 1997. Gulls in urban environments: landscape-level management to reduce conflict. Landscap e and Urban Planning 38:245-258. Abstract: Populations of several species of gulls ( Larus spp.) have increased dramatically throughout coastal areas of North America and Europe during the past several decades. These increases have been attributed to prot ection from human disturbance, reduction in environmental contaminants, availability of anthropogenic f ood, and the ability of gulls to adapt to human-altered env ironments. Gull abundance in urban areas has resulted in numerous conflicts with people including hazards to aircraft, damage to buildings from nesting material and defecation, and general nuisance. Various architectural and habitat management approaches are available to reduce gull/human conflicts. For example, gull use of landfills may be reduced by covering refuse, diverting anthropogenic food to covered compost facilit ies, erecting wire grids over exposed refuse, and manipulation of turf height in loafing areas. Nest ing on roofs can be alleviated through modifications of roofing substrate and placement of overhead wires. Also, attractiveness of airports to gulls can be reduced through drainage of temporary water and by decreasing the availability of prey and loafing sites through habitat management. Although control activities can be effective at the site where the gull problem occurs, uncoordinated management efforts may cause relocation of problems to surrounding areas. Also, site-specific management will rarely solve the problem across a larger scale (e.g., city-wide). A wo rking group comprised of the respective city or county planning commission, affected busi nesses, private citizens, and wildlife professionals can provide overall directi on for gull management. This working group should define the extent and nature of the problem, develop an appropriate management strategy incorpor ating ecology of the nu isance species, and conduct periodic assessments of program efficacy. An integrated, landscape-level management approach is necessary to ensure an overall reduction in conflict between gulls and people in urban environments. 2. Belant, J. L., S. W. Gabrey, R. A. Do lbeer, and T. W. Seamans. 1995. Methyl anthranilate formulations repel gulls a nd mallards from water. Crop Protection 14:171-175. Abstract: Two formulations of methyl anthranilate (MA), one (ReJeX-iT TM TP-40 [TP-40]) containing a surf actant, the other (ReJeX-iT TM AP-50 [AP-50]) a miscible, free-flowing powder, effectively repe lled captive mallards from pools of water in a pen test and/or free-ranging ring-billed and herring gulls from pools of water at a landfill for 4 to 11 days. With one excepti on, pool entries and bill contacts with water were reduced ( P < 0.02) in pools treated with either formulation compared to untreated pools. Overall gull activity was reduced ( P < 0.01) when all available water was treated with AP-50. Repellency of gulls and ma llards from water was achieved with concentrations of MA (0.016-0.038%, v/v) 10-60 times lower than needed in previous studies to repel birds from food. These test s indicate that MA-based formulations in low concentrations should have utility in various agr icultural and other sit uations where it is desirable to reduce bird activity in water.Appendix L Evaluations of Control Products 297

3. Belant, J. L., and S. K. Ickes. 1996. Overhead w i res reduce roof-nesting by ring-billed and herring gulls. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 17:108-112. Abstract: We evaluated the effectivene ss of overhead wires in reducing roof-nesting by ring-billed gulls ( Larus delawarensis ) and herring gulls ( L. argentatus ) at a 7.2-ha food warehouse in nor thern Ohio during 1994-1995. In 1994, stainless steel wires (0.8 mm diameter) were attached genera lly in spoke-like c onfigurations between 2.4 m upright metal poles spaced at 33.7-m inte rvals over the main portion of roof. The 6-14 wires radiating from each pole created a mean maximu m spacing between wires of about 16 m. Nesting by ring-billed and herri ng gulls was reduced by 76% and 100% in 1994 and by 99% and 100% in 1995, respecti vely, compared to 1993 pretreatment levels (1,011 ring-billed gull nests and 98 he rring gull nests). Ring-billed gulls that constructed nests after wire installation gained access to the roof where wires were not installed along the roof edge, where wires were broken, by hovering over wires and landing between them, or from st ructures such as air conditioners that were at or above the level of surrounding wires. Initial placement of overhead wir es above roof structures and regular maintenance of broken wires is recommended to increase effectiveness. Mean maximum spacing of 16 m between wires was effective in excluding nesting by herring gulls; however, narrower spacing is necessary to exclude nesting by ring-billed gulls. Also, many of the ring- billed gulls displaced by wires from the warehouse in 1994 relocated to nest on an adjacent building without overhead wires. Thus, although overhead wires can be effective in reducing nesting by gulls on roofs and in other urban situations, management should be considered at a scale broader than specific problem sites as displacement of nesting gulls ma y cause relocation of the colonies to surrounding areas.
4. Belant, J. L., and S. K. Ickes. 1997. My lar flags as gull deterrents. Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlif e Damage Control Conference 13:73-80. Abstract: During 1996, we evaluated the effect iveness of mylar flags for deterring herring gulls ( Larus argentatus ) from 2 nesting colonies (roof and breakwall) and herring and ring-billed (L

. delawarensis ) gulls from 2 loafing sites at a landfill. Mylar flags (15 cm x 1.0 m) attached to wire or lathe suppor ts were positioned at 6-m intervals at nesting colonies and 3- to 12-m intervals at loafing areas. For both nesting colonies, time of nest initiation, nest density, and clutch size in 1996 when flags were present was similar to or greater than va lues obtained for these parameter s at the same colonies in 1995 when flags were not present. The ma ximum number of chicks observed at the roof colony in 1996 was also similar to the maximum number of chicks observed in 1995. At the landfill, we observed fewer gulls ( P < 0.05) at 1 loafing site during the 2 weeks when mylar flags (6- and 12-m spacing) were present than during the 2 weeks when flags were not present. In contrast, gull use of the second loafing area did not appear influenced by the presence of mylar flags (3- and 6-m spacing), likely because of its small size (6 x 90 m) and proximity to a frequently used pond. We conclude that mylar flags are ineffective in deterring herri ng gulls (and likely other gulls) from nesting colonies but can reduce gull use of loafing areas.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 298

5. Blackwell, B. F., T. W. S eamans, D. A. Helon, and R. A. Dolbeer. 2000. Early loss of herring gull clutches after egg-oiling. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):70-75. Abstract : Critical to the success of egg-oiling as a means to control growth of bird populations is extension of the incubat ion period, thereby minimizing renesting attempts. Egg-oiling studies conducted with ring-billed ( Larus delawarensis ) and herring ( L. argentatus ) gulls generally have reported no evidence of abandonment of oiled clutches up to the expected hatching dat e (EHD). However, comparisons of clutch loss (assumed primarily to predation) up to EHD among control and treatment groups were not reported. Theref ore, we evaluated early (oili ng 21-27 days before EHD) and late (oiling 7-15 days before EHD) oiling protoc ols in a herring gull colony on Lake Erie, Erie County, Ohio. Marked differences ( P < 0.01) were observed among treatments in the number of nests pr oducing chicks (90.0%, n = 100, control; 20%, n = 100, early oil, and 1%, n = 100, late oil). Clutches in nests assigned to the 2 oil groups were more frequently ( P < 0.01) lost (6% control; 29% early; 38% late) to abandonment, storms, and predation up to EHD. Only 56% of oiled clutches were incubated past EHD. Clutch loss (including nest abandonment) up to EHD did not differ ( P = 0.35) between nests in the early and late oil groups. Our data suggest that herring gulls were sensitive to oil and that nests were abandoned or clutches lost within the normal incubation period innumbers greater than expected under natural conditions. The effectiveness of eggoiling in reducing recruitment in herring gull colonies is improved by oiling nests late in the incubation period. Subsequent oil applications will allow for inclusion of late nests and renesting attempts.
6. Dolbeer, R. A. 1998. Keynote Address: Populat ion dynamics: the foundation of wildlife damage management for th e 21st century. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 18:2-11. Abstract: To justify and defend lethal or reproductive control programs to solve vertebrate pest problem s, wildlife biologists must have a sound understanding of t he population status and dynamics of the problem species. Models are essential to proj ect how populations will respond to proposed management actions, providing a scientific f oundation to counter the emotional debates that often arise. Four population models (PM1-PM4) for predicting population responses are described. PM1 and PM2 explor e the relative efficacy of reproductive and lethal control for vertebr ate species over 10-year intervals. PM3 simulates population responses to actual management ac tions through 10-year intervals. PM4 simulates population changes for a species at weekly intervals over an annual cycle, exploring the immediate (< 1 year) impact of population management actions. Population simulations using PM1 and PM2 dem onstrated that for most vertebrate pest species considered, lethal control will be more efficient than reproductive control in reducing population levels. Reproductive contro l is more efficient than lethal control only for some rodent and small bird spec ies with high reproductive rates and low survival rates. A simulation (PM3) of the removal of 47,000 laughing gulls ( Larus atricilla ) from the Long Island-New Jersey populat ion accurately predicted the 33% decline of the population over 5 years. A simulation (PM4) of the annual cycle of the common grackle ( Quiscalus quiscula ) population in the eas tern United States demonstrated why removing 4.2 million birds in 1 winter had no discernible impact on subsequent breeding populations. Understandi ng the population dynamics of wildlifeAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 299

species is the cornerstone to successf ul management, and population models will be essential for this task in the years to come.
7. Dolbeer, R. A., D. P. Arrington, E. LeBoeuf, a nd C. Atkins. 1996. Can albatrosses and aircraft coexist on Midw ay Atoll? Bird Strike Committee Europe 23:327-335. Abstract: Aircraft collisions with birds (bird strikes), especially Laysan albatrosses ( Diom edea im m u tabilis ), have been a problem at Mi dway Naval Air Facility since at least the 1950s. Although aircraft mo vements at Midway presently are reduced relative to 1950-1970 levels, the U.S. Navy in 1993 still reported 57 strikes during 459 aircraft movements. We visited Midway from 15-21 April 1995 to determine the species composition and diurnal pattern of bird flights over Runway 6-24 so that recommendations could be made regarding timi ng of aircraft moveme nts to minimize strikes. Midway Atoll in 1994-1995 had an estimated 450,000 nesting pairs of albatrosses (900,000 adults), a mean density of 725 nests/ha. We recorded a mean of 363 birds (89% Laysan albatrosses) crossing the runway/minute dur ing daylight hours. At night (2230-2300), we estimated only 5.7 birds/minute (89% Bonin petrels [ Pterodrom a hypoleuca ]) flying over the runway, a 98.5% reduction over mean numbers during daylight. As Midway Atoll goes thr ough the transition from military base to wildlife refuge, nonemergency aircraft movement s should be restricted to night from November-mid July. Furthermore, any plans to develop "ecotourism" or other activities for the Atoll will need to factor in this constr aint for aircraft movem ents. Under present conditions, daytime aircraft mo vements for commercial or private carriers would raise serious safety and liability issues.
8. Dolbeer, R. A., J. L. Belant, and J. Sillings. 1993. Shooting gulls reduces strikes w i th aircraft at John F. Kennedy In ternational Airport. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:442-450. Abstract: The collision of birds with aircraft is a serious problem at John F. Kennedy Internati onal Airport (JFKIA), New York City. Laughing gulls comprised 47% of the birds colliding with aircraft from 1988 to 1990, averaging 170 bird strikes per year. This species is present from May to September in association with a 7,600-nest colony (1990) adjacent to the air port. Other gulls (herring, great blackbacked, and ring-billed), which are present year-round, comprised 37% of the strikes and another 52 species of birds comprised the remaining 16%. The airport has an active bird management program involvi ng habitat alteration and the use of birdfrightening techniques to discourage birds from feeding, drinking, and loafing on airport grounds. However, these measures do littl e to prevent laughing gulls and other gull species from flying over the airport to non-airport feeding sites. An experimental program to reduce gull collisions with airc raft was undertaken in 1991 and 1992 in which 2 to 5 people stationed on airport boundaries used shotguns to shoot gulls flying over the airport from mid-May to early August. T here were high levels of gull activity at JFKIA in the summers of 1991 and 1992, as ev idenced by the ability of shooters to kill 26,038 laughing gulls and 2,314 other gulls flying over the airport in 2,206 person-hours of shooting. Shooting did not appear to conditi on gulls to avoid flying over the airport. The shooting program at JFKI A substantially reduced the in cidences of strikes between all species of gulls and aircraft, by 70% in 1991 and 89% in 1992. The laughing gull nesting colony in its present location presents an unacceptable safety hazard to aircraft. The annual killing of large numbers of laughing gulls on the airport, while effective in reducing strikes, may not be effective in elimi nating the colony from its present location.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 300

Discussions should continue with NPS personnel to develop a plan to relocate the colony from Jamaica Bay. This plan coul d include habitat alteration, nest destruction, and other harassment and managem ent techniques at the colony. However, a seasonal shooting program should continue on the airport to minimize the number of gull-aircraft collisions until the laughing gull co lony is relocated from Jamaica Bay. 9. Dolbeer, R. A., R. B. Chipman, A. L. Gosser, and S. C. Barras. 2003. Does shooting alter flight patterns of gulls: case study at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Proceedings of 26 th International Bird Stri ke Committee meeting. WPBB5 Abstract. The collision of birds with aircraft (bir d strikes) is a serious problem at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York. Gulls (Lar us spp.), of which 60% were laughing gulls (L. atricilla), account ed for 86% of bird strikes from 1988-1990, averaging 261 strikes per year. Laughing gulls are present from May-September in association with a nesting colony in Jamaica Bay adjacent to the ai rport. A program to reduce gull strikes was conducted from May-August 1991-2002 in which 2-5 people stationed on airport boundaries shot gulls flying over the airport. As a result of the shooting program, the number of strikes with laughing gulls was reduced to 38% of 1988-1990 levels in 1991 and to 1-24% of 1988- 1990 levels in 1992-2002. Strikes by the 3 other gull species were reduced to 24-52% of preshooting levels over the same time period. The laughing gull colony in Jamaica Bay has declined 58% from 7,629 nests in 1990 to 3,238 nests in 2002. That t he colony size declined by only 58% from 1990-2002 while the annual strike rate of laughing gulls declined by 97% (1990-2002) indicated that many laughing gu lls altered flight patterns in response to shooting to avoid the airport. Although the shooting pr ogram has reduced the local population of gulls flying over JFK, the regional populat ion has not been negatively impacted. Our recommended long-term solution to minimize gull-aircraft collisions and the number of gulls shot is to relocate the nesting colony away from JFK. This study demonstrated that shooting can significantly reduce gull-aircraft collisions at an airport by both reducing the local population and altering flight patterns of surviving gulls. A seasonal gull-shooting program should continue at JFK as part of the integrated m anagement program to reduce bird hazards to aviation.
10. Ickes, S. I., J. L. Belant, and R. A. Dolbeer. 1998. Nest disturbance techniques to control nesting by gulls . Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:269-273. Abstract: Urban-nesting gulls throughout the lo wer Great Lakes often conflict with human activities. We evaluated 5 nest dist urbance techniques (nest-and-egg removal, egg removal, nest-and-egg destruction, egg destruction, and egg replacement) to reduce herring gull ( Larus argentatus ) and ring-billed gull ( L. delawarensis ) nesting in urban habitat, primarily roofs, in northern Ohio. Nest disturbance techniques were more effective in causing colony abandonment for ri ng-billed gulls than for herring gulls. Nest disturbance conducted for 1 y ear at an established ring-billed gull colony, and for <1 week at a newly established ring-bill ed gull colony caused abandonment. Nest disturbance conducted for 1 to 10 years did not cause herring gulls to abandon 5 of 6 established colonies; however, reductions were observed in annual maximum number of nests or eggs. Egg removal was at leas t as effective as nest-and-egg removal and required about 60% less effort. Egg replac ement was the least effective of the techniques evaluated. Unless structural damage to buildings is of concern, egg removal is recommended over other nes t disturbance techniques evaluated for inexpensive,Appendix L Evaluations of Control Products 301

long-term reductions of roof-nesting col onies. Nest-and-egg or egg destruction is recommended for ground-nesting colonies. Use of other control methods (e.g., habitat modification, frightening techniques) in addi tion to nest disturbance may increase the
p o t e n t i a l f o r c o l o n y a b a n d o n m e n t

. 11. Seamans, T. W., and J. L. Bela nt. 1999. Comparison of DRC-1339 and alphachloralose for reducing herring gull populat ions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3):729-733. Abstract : Results of several herring gull ( Larus argentatus ) control programs using DRC-1339 (3-chloro-4-methyl -benzenamine hydrochloride) suggested that the published medi an lethal dose (LD 50 ) of 2.9 mg of DRC-1339/kg of body weight may not be accurate in some environments. We conducted laboratory trials to estimate LD 50 values of DRC-1339 and of alpha-chloralose (AC) for herring gulls inhabiting fresh water. We also conducted field trials to compare effectiveness of these compounds in simulated gull control operati ons. We calculated the LD 50 for DRC-1339 as 4.6 mg/kg and 43.1 mg/kg for AC. Mean ( ± SD) time to death for DRC-1339-dosed birds varied from 34.0 ( ± 12.2) hours at LD 96 to 109.5 ( ± 55.5) hours at LD 27 . AC time to death varied from 2.3 ( ± 0.5) hours at >LD 99 to 5.8 ( ± 0.0) hours at LD 13 . In field trials, DRC1339 baits treated at 27.4 mg/kg (LD 99 ) resulted in 29% known mortality. In contrast, AC baits with a 30 mg/kg dosage (<LD 01 ) resulted in 50% capture success and no mortality. AC baits at 58 mg/kg (LD 99 ) resulted in 89% capture success and 41% mortality. With AC baits at 95 mg/kg (> LD 99 ), 65% of gulls were captured with 82% mortality. AC was more effective than DRC–1339 in removing gulls from a nesting colony. We recommend AC as a gull populat ion management chemical because it is f a s t a c t i n g , h u m a n e , a n d c a n b e u s e d a s a n o n l e t h a l c a p t u r e a g e n t

. 

### B LACKBIRDS 

### A ND 

### S TARLINGS 12. Belant, J. L., S. K. Ickes, L. A. Ty son, and T. W. Seaman s. 1997. Comparison of d-pulegone and mangone as cow b ird feedi ng repellents. International Journal of Pest Management 43:303-305. Abstract:We compared the effectiveness of dpulegone and mangone as feeding repellents to captive adult male brown-headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) during October-November 1995. For each repellent, we conducted 4-day, 1- and 2-choice cage tests us ing concentrations (g/g) of 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% with millet. During 1- and 2-c hoice tests, 0.1% d-pulegone reduced ( P < 0.01) cowbird feeding but lower concentrations did not. In contrast, concentrations of mangone as low as 0.001% reduced ( P < 0.05) food consumption during 2-choice tests. Consumption of mangone-treated m illet, however, was similar ( P > 0.05) among 1-choice tests and similar to total food consum ption observed during 2-choice tests. We conclude that mangone is less effective than d-pulegone and would likely be ineffective as a repellent for seed treatment. We re commend field tests to further assess the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f d

- p u l e g o n e a s a n a v i a n f e e d i n g r e p e l l e n t

. 13. Belant, J. L., P. P. Woronecki, R. A. Dolbeer, and T. W. Seamans. 1998. Ineffectiveness of five commercial deterre nts for nesting starlings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:264-268. Abstract: We evaluated the effe ctiveness of phenethyl alcohol (PEA), eyespots, magnetic fields, and avian-predator effigies to deter European starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) from nesting in artificial cavi ties in Ohio during 1993, 1995, and 1996. Each year, 81 nest boxes attached to utility poles were assigned at randomEvaluations of Control Products Appendix L 302

equally among 3 treatments (including c ontrol): 1993 - PEA or eyespots, 1995 - magnetic fields of 88 or 118 Gauss, and 1996 - great horned owl or merlin effigy. Starlings nested in 84% (1993) , 58% (1995), and 90% (1996) of the boxes. There was no difference ( P > 0.13) among treatments each year in 6-7 measures of starling nesting activity. Four species other than starlings (eastern bluebirds [ Sialia sialis ], house wrens [ Troglodytes aedon ], tree swallows [ Tachycineta bicolor ], and house sparrows [ Passer domesticus ]) occupied 13 (1993), 23 (1995), and 2 (1996) nest boxes. We conclude that PEA, eyes pots, magnetic fields < 118 Gauss, and avian-predator effigies are ineffective as deterrents for starlings nesting in artificial cavities.
14. Clark, L., and J. L. Belant. 1998. Contribution of particulates and pH on cowbirds' avoidance of food treated with agricultural lime. Applied Animal Behavior Science 57:133-144. Abstract: Agricultural lime used as a grain coating can be repellent to graniverous bi rds. However, whether repellency is achieved depends upon the method of preparation. The primary mechanism for mediating repellency is pH. Cowbirds avoid seed coat ed with agricultural lime (5% wt/wt) when the pH exceeds 12.3. A second underlying co mponent mediating repellency exits that is based on avoidance of particulates. If the particulate seed coating consists of particles sized ~63- 150 um, and has a pH of 11.4 or less, the r epellent potency is about half that observed for raw unprocessed lime. Together, thes e data help explain emerging conflicting reports on the efficacy of agric ultural lime as a bird-repellent. Finally, short-term data on food and water intake and energy balance suggest that periodic intake of agricultural lime does not adversely affect birds.
15. Dolbeer, R. A., and S. K. Ickes. 1994. Red-winged blackbird feeding preferences and response to wild rice treat ed with portland cement or plaster. Proceedings of the Vertebra te Pest Conference 16:279-282. Abstract: The California wild rice ( Zizania aquatica ) industry considers red-winged blackbirds ( Agelaius phoeniceus ) their most important pest problem . Farmers often have asked if crop-damaging blackbirds can be killed by mixing dry Portland cement or plaster-ofParis with grain bait. We conducted a series of tests to determine the effect of cement or plaster mixed with wild rice fed to c aptive redwings and to determine feeding preferences of redwings for wild rice in re lation to other grains. Birds would not eat cement- or plaster-treated rice when untreated rice was available and no mortality occurred when birds were offered only treated ri ce over a 4-day period. Thus, treating grain with cement or plaster will not kill redwings, but cement or plaster might serve as useful bird repellents for seed grain. Proso millet was strongly pref erred over wild rice by redwings, indicating millet would be an ex cellent candidate as a lure crop and as a bait for trapping or for delivering a chemical. Sunflower would perhaps not be preferred bait or lure crop in wild rice areas and cracked corn would not be preferred bait.

16. Dolbeer, R. A., D. F. Mott, and J. L. Belant. 1997. Blackbirds and starlings killed at winter roosts from PA-14 a pplications: implications for regional population management. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference 7:77-86. Abstract: The surfactant PA-14, registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1973 by the federal Wildlife Services (WS) program, was used for 19 years (1974-1992) for lethal control of roosting blackbirdsAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 303

(Icterinae) and European starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) in the USA. In 1992, the WS program withdrew the regist ration of PA-14 because of costs required to provide additional EPA-requested data. There were 83 roosts encompassing 178 ha treated with 33,300 L of PA-14 fr om 1974-1992. An estimated 38. 2 million birds (48% common grackles [ Quiscalus quiscula ], 30% European starlings, 13% red-winged blackbirds [ Agelaius phoeniceus ], and 9% brown-headed cowbirds [ Molothrus ater ]) were killed, an average of 2.0 million/year. The annual kill represented < 1.3% of the national winter population of blackbirds and starlings. We found no evidence using North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data that PA-14 applications caused declines in regional breeding populations. Furthermore, there wa s no evidence of secondary poisoning or other adverse environmental effects from PA-14 applications. If regional population management of blackbirds and starlings is to be implemented to reduce agricultural damage or conflicts with native songbirds, new approaches, such as reproductive control, are needed because PA-14 alone will not be adequate. However, PA-14 could have a role in such regional programs in addi tion to solving localized roost problems. PA-14 was a useful management tool safely applied in human-populated areas (where most roost problems occur); its reregist ration should be considered as part of an integrated management program fo r b l a c k b i r d s a n d s t a r l i n g s

. 17. Seamans, T. W., C. D. Lovell, R. A. Dolbeer, and J. D. Cepek. 2001. Evaluation of mirrors to deter nesti ng starlings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(4):1061-1066. Abstract: European starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) nesting in buildings and structures can cause health, nuisance, and safety problems. We evaluated effectiveness of flashing lights combined with mirrors and mirrors alone as deterrents for starlings nesting in starling nest boxes in northern Ohio, 1998–2000. Each year, 100 nest boxes attached to utility poles were randomly assigned equally among 4 treatments (including untreat ed boxes): 1998- mirrored (int ernally placed on the back and 2 sides walls of nest boxes), mirrored with red-flashing lights, and mirrored with green-flashing lights; 1999- convex mirror above entrance hole, convex mirror at back of nest box, and flat mirror at back of nest box; 2000- mirrors on 3 sides with exposed surface areas of 263 cm 2 , 527 cm 2 , or 790 cm 2 . Starlings nested in 67% (1998) and 78% (1999 and 2000) of the nest boxes. In 1998, boxes within the 3 treatments with mirrors, regardless of lights, had fewer nests and fewer nests with eggs, nestlings, or fledglings than did control boxes ( P [ 0.002). Boxes with mirrors and lights had fewer ( P < 0.05) nestlings than mirror ed boxes. No difference was noted in number of fledglings produced/nest with nestlings for each tr eatment. In 1999 and 2000 there was no difference ( P > 0.25) among the 4 treatments in proportion of nest boxes with starling nests, eggs, nestlings, and young fledged. Ho wever, in 2000, boxes with complete mirror coverage did show the l east occupancy rate of the 4 treatments. Mean dates of first egg, clutch size, number of nestlings , and number of fledglings/nest also were similar ( P > 0.06) among treatments. We conclude that mirrors, although slightly repellent under some configurat ions, are not a practical met hod to repel starlings from

n e s t i n g i n s t r u c t u r e s

.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 304

Geese and Miscellaneous Birds 18. Belant, J. L., S. K. Ickes, L. A. Ty son, and T. W. Seaman s. 1997. Comparison of four particulate substances as wildlif e feeding repellents. Crop Protection 16:439-447. Abstract: We compared the effectiveness of dolomitic lime, activated charcoal, Nutra-lite (a silica-based com pound), and white quartz sand as feeding repellents for brown-headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ), white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), and Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ). In 4 day, 2-choice aviary tests with cowbirds, consumption of treated millet (1% to 4% g/g) was less ( P < 0.01) than consumption of untreated millet for all particulate s except Nutra-lite at 1% g/g. Greatest reductions in consumption occurred with lime- treated millet, followed by charcoal, Nutralite, and sand. Overall mean daily consumption of treated millet by cowbirds in 1-choice tests was similar ( P > 0.05) to total consumption of millet in comparable 2-choice tests for each particulate. However, millet treated with 4% lim e reduced cowbird consumption for 1 day. Similarly, in 4-day, 2-choice tests field tests involving freeranging deer, deer consumed less co rn treated (4% g/g) with lime or charcoal than corn treated with Nutra-lite or sand. Corn treated with sand did not reduce ( P = 0.44) consumption by deer relative to untreated co rn. Lime applied to turf in 10- x 21-m enclosures at an application rate of 270 kg /ha did not suppress grazing by geese. Nutra-lite applied to turf at the manufacturer-recommended rate of 2,568 kg/ha reduced overall goose presence on treat ed plots in enclosures for 3 days but suppressed goose grazing for 1 day only. We conclude that lime is more effective overall as a white-tailed deer and brown-headed cowbird feeding repellent t han is charcoal, Nutra-lite, or sand. Lime has considerable potentia l as a feeding repellent in agricultural and possibly turf situations. Charcoal could be used effectively in situations where lime is impractical.
19. Belant, J. L., and T. W. Seamans. 1999. Alpha-chloralose immobilization of rock doves in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35:239-242. Abstract : The effectiveness of 3 dosages (about 60, 120 and 180 mg/kg) of alpha-chloralose (AC) were compared for immobilizing pigeons ( Columba livia ). Responses to immobilization using about 180 mg/kg AC also was com pared in pigeons food deprived for 24 hr and not food deprived. Mean (+ SE) time to first effects (33 + 2 min) and mean time to capture (94 + 5 min) was significantly less for pigeons receiving 180 mg/kg than for pigeons receiving lower dosages (> 53 + 3 min and > 153 + 17 min, respectively). Ten, 10 and 8 pigeons immobilized with 60, 120 and 180 mg/kg AC recovered within 24 hr, respectively; all pigeons recovered wit hin 29 hours. Alt hough food-deprived pigeons showed effects of AC immobilization earlier than did pigeons with food, time to capture was similar between these 2 groups. This new formulation should improve capture success of pigeons substantially and improve the ability to resolve nuisance pigeon problems.
20. Belant, J. L., T. W. Seamans, L. A. Tyson, and S. K. Ickes. 1996. Repellency of methyl anthranilate to pre-exposed and naive Canada geese. Journal Wildlife Management 60:923-928. Abstract: To improve our understanding of the effectiveness of avian feeding repellent s, we evaluated whether Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) exhibited learned avoidance of ReJe X-iT AG-36 (AG-36), a methyl anthranilate (MA) formulation containing 14.5% MA (vol/vol). During 2 experiments in August-September 1995, we pre- exposed geese orally to 0.0, 1.3, or 4.0 g AG-36 andAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 305

released them onto 10- x 10-m gr ass plots treated with AG-36 at rates of 22.6 and 67.8 kg/ha. Mean numbers of b ill contacts and mean numbers of geese observed on control and treated plots were similar ( P > 0.21) for geese pre-expos ed or naive to AG-36. Overall, mean numbers of b ill contacts and mean numbers of geese also were similar ( P > 0.56) on control and treated pl ots. Mean mass of droppings on control and treated plots was similar ( P > 0.99) during the experiment with 22.6 kg/ha AG-36 but was greater ( P = 0.01) on control plots during the experiment with 67.8 kg/ha AG-36. We conclude that learned avoidance of AG-36 by Canada geese pre-exposed orally to 1.3 or 4.6 g AG-36 did not occur and that AG-36 applied to turf in enclosures at rates of 22.6 and 67.8 kg/ha was not effective a s a g r a z i n g r e p e l l e n t f o r g e e s e

. 21. Belant, J. L., L. A. Ty son, T. W. Seam ans, and S. K. Ickes. 1997. Evaluation of lime as an avian feeding repellent. J ournal of Wildlife Management 61:917-924. Abstract: We evaluated the effectiveness of dolomitic hydrated lime as a feeding deterrent to captive brown-headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) and Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) during July-September 1995. We conducted 1- and 2-choice tests using grains with caged cowbirds and geese, and app lications of lime to turf in dry and slurry form for geese. Lime mixed with millet or whole-ke rnel corn at 25, 12.5, and 6.25% (g/g) reduced cowbird and goose feeding in 4 day, 2-choice (treated or untreated grain) cage trials. Reductions in total f ood intake occurred for both species during similar 1-choice tests with lime (25% [g/g]) and millet or corn. Body mass of cowbirds and geese increased or remained c onstant during 2-choice tests. In contrast, body mass declined for both species during 1-choice tests. Application of lime to enclosed 10- x 10-m-grass plots in powder or slurry fo rm at an application rate of 544 kg/ha also reduced goose feeding on treated plots for 2-3 days. Mean numbers of geese and mean fecal mass on control and tr eated plots were similar duri ng both turf experiments. No phytotoxicity of grass was observed > 40 days post treatment. We recommend additional studies to determine the lower limit of repellency of lime to various bird species and its utility for tu rf and crop damage reduction.

22. Blackw ell, B. F., G. E. Bernhardt, and R. A. Dolbeer. 2002. Lasers as nonlethal avian repellents. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):250-258. Abstract: Lasers have been demonstrated to be potentially effective avian repellents; however, studies combining adequate controls and replication that test such applications of lasers in wildlife management have not been reported. We conducted 2-choice cage tests to quantify the effectiveness of a 10-mW, cont inuous wave, 633-nm laser as a visual repellent (treating a perch) against brown-headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) and European starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ), and a 68-mW, continuous wave, 650-nm laser in dispersing (i.e., targeting birds with the laser) starlings and rock doves ( Colum ba livia ) from perches and Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) and mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) from grass plots. All experiments were conducted under low ambient light ( ≤ 3 lx) conditions. In 3 experiments with stationary and moving laser beams treating a randomly selected perch, brow n-headed cowbirds were not repelled. Similarly, a moving beam did not repel Eur opean starlings from treated perches, nor were they dispersed when targeted. Ro ck doves exhibited avoidance behavior only during the first 5 min of 6 80 -minute dispersal periods. Notably, 6 groups of geese (4 birds/group) exhibited marked avoidance of the beam during 20-min periods ( n = 23), with a mean 96% of birds disper sed from laser-treated plots. Six groups of mallards (6Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 306

birds/group) were also dispersed ( x = 57%) from treated plots during 20-minute periods ( n

= 12), but habituated to t he beam after approximately 20 min. We contend that lasers will prove useful as avian repellents, but further controlle d studies are needed to evaluate species-specific responses relative to laser power, beam type, wavelength, l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , a n d c a p t i v e v e r s u s f i e l d s c e n a r i o s

. 23. Blackw ell, B. F., T. W. Seamans, a nd R. A. Dolbeer. 1999. Plant grow th regulator enhances repellency of anthra quinone formulation to Canada geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1336-1343. Abstract: There is a need for nonlethal methods of reducing conflicts between burgeoning populat ions of resident Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) and humans at airports and other settings. An anthraquinone-based formulation (Flight Control TM [FC], 50% anthraquinone [AQ], active ingredient) has shown promise in deterring grazing by Canada geese. We hypothesized that the addition of a plant growth regulator (Stronghold TM [SH]) might enhance the effectiveness of FC by minimizi ng the exposure of new, untreated grass. To isolate the effects of grass height, plant growth regulator, and the combination of a repellent with a plant growth regulator on grazing by geese, we conducted 3 experiments, each using 24 gees e in 6 18 x 31-m pens, in nor thern Ohio during 1998. We evaluated the response of geese to short (4-11 cm) and tall grass (16-21 cm) in a 9- day test. Next, SH (applied at 1.2 L/ha) was evaluated as a grazing repellent in a 14- day test. Finally, we evaluated the effect iveness of FC (2.3 L/ha), combined with SH (0.9 L/ha SH), as a grazi ng repellent in a 22-day test. We found no difference ( P = 0.53) in the number of geese per observation in tall- (1.7 ± 1.5; x ± SE) and short-grass plots (2.3 ± 1.5), nor in bill contacts per minute ( P = 0.78) in tall- (12.6 ± 9.3) versus short-grass plots (11.1 ± 7.9). In the SH test, 14 da ys post application, mean grass height was 12.9 cm in untreat ed plots and 7.2 cm in treat ed plots. However, the number of geese per obser vation on untreated (1.8 ± 1.3) and treated plots (2.2 ± 1.3) did not differ ( P = 0.57). Also, there was no difference ( P = 0.71) in the number of bill contacts per minute in untreated (15.3 ± 9.9) and treated plots (18.1 ± 14.2). In contrast, over a 22-day FC/SH test, the m ean number of geese per observation was 2.6 times greater ( P < 0.01) on untreated (2.9 ± 0.5) than on treated plots (1.1 ± 0.5). Further, the mean number of bill contacts per minute was 8.2 times greater ( P < 0.01) on untreated (54.4 ± 11.2) than treated plots (6.6 ± 2.3). We observed no abatement in repellency 22 days post treatment. Thus, we conclude that SH greatly enhanced the repellency of FC to grazing Canada geese. The use of a plan t growth regulator with FC

s h o u l d r e d u c e g o o s e f o r a g i n g o n t u r f

. 24. Dolbeer, R. A., J. L. Belant, and L. Clark. 1993. Methy l anthranilate formulations to repel birds from w a ter at airports and food at landfills. Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlif e Damage Control Conference 11:42-53. Abstract: We conducted 2 sets of experiments to evaluate methyl anthranilate (MA) as an avian repellent. The first se t (May-Aug 1991) evaluated 2 Rejex-It TM formulations of MA applied to water at John F. Kennedy Inter national Airport (JFKIA), New York. Our second set of experiments (Aug-Sep 1992) test ed the hypothesis that MA mixed with a landfill cover material (ConCover 180 R) would reduce consumption by birds when applied to food in a controlled environment (capt ive birds in cages). At JFKIA, fewer birds were seen in treated standing water than in untreated water, which supportedAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 307

results obtained in previous cage trials. In the landfill cover experiments, MA was repellent to cowbirds and ring-billed gu lls at food sources, although a higher concentration (0.5% MA) was required to repel ring-billed gulls than cowbirds (0.15% MA). Cowbirds were repelled by similar c oncentrations of MA during tests using millet mixed with ConCover 180 R . MA appears promising as a bi rd repellent when applied to standing water and may help deter birds from f eeding in landfills when incorporated into

a l a n d f i l l c o v e r m a t e r i a l s u c h a s C o n C o v e r

. 25. Dolbeer, R. A., T. W. Seamans, B. F. Blackw ell, and J. L. Belant. 1998. Anthraquinone formulation (Flight Contro l) show s promise as avian feeding repellent. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1557-1563. Abstract: We evaluated the effectiveness of Flight ControlTM [F C] (50% anthraquinone [AQ]) as a grazing repellent for Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) and as a seed-treatment repellent for brown-headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) in northern Ohio in 1997. For the turf test, FC was applied at 4.5 L/ha in 6 18.3- ∗ 30.5-m pens. There we re 2.5 times more ( P < 0.01)
bill contacts/min observ ed on untreated plots (26.4 ± 6.0; x ± SE) compared to treated plots (10.4 ± 3.8) during a 7-day te st with captive geese. Mean numbers of geese per observation were also greater ( P = 0.02) on untreated plots (2.6 ± 0.4) compared to treated plots (1.4 ± 0.4). Residue analyses indicated AQ declined from 2.02 kg/ha at application to 0.22 kg/ha after 1 week. I ndividually caged cowbirds were presented untreated millet or millet treated with FC at 0.1, 0. 5 and 1.0% (g/g) levels in 1- and 2- choice tests for 3--4 days. Flight ControlTM wa s repellent to cowbirds at all levels in both 1- and 2-choice tests. In the 2-choice test, birds in the 1.0% treatment level lost body mass ( P = 0.04), whereas birds at the other leve ls did not. Each group of treated birds in the 1-choice test lost mass ( P ≤ 0.01), whereas the control group did not. Birds in the 0.5 and 1.0% groups ate minima l amounts; 3 of 12 birds died. We conclude that FC was an effective foraging repellent for Canada geese in a 7-day pen experiment and for brown-headed cowbirds as a seed repellent in aviary experiments. Flight ControlTM shows promise as an avian feeding repellen t. Further lab and field studies are needed to refine minimum repellent levels and to enhance retention of AQ on treated vegetation. 26. Seamans, T. W. 2004. Response of roosting turkey vultures to a vulture effigy . Ohio Journal of Science 104:136-138. Abstract: Increasing populations of turkey vultures ( Coragyps atratus ) and black vultures ( Cathartes aura ) cause concerns for human health and safety in areas where la rge roosting concentrations occur. Dead bird effigies are one proposed method of di spersing roosting vultures. In 1999 and 2000, tests were conducted using a supi ne and hanging turkey vulture effigy (a taxidermy mount) to disperse a vulture roost in a tower in northern Ohio. In all tests, fewer ( P [ 0.04) vultures were observed in the roost during the treatment period when compared to the pretreatment period. In tests ending in fa ll migration the posttreatment period differed ( P < 0.01) from the pretr eatment period. In tests ending in summer the pre- and posttreatment periods did not differ ( P > 0.23). Vulture e ffigies are promising tools that may be used as part of integrated pr ograms to disperse vu ltures from problem roosting sites.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 308

27. Seamans, T. W., and G. E. Bernhard t. 2004. Response of Canada geese to a dead goose effigy. Pages 104-106 in Pro ceedings of the 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis. Abstract: The North American Canada goose population increased at a rate of 10.5%/year, 1966 - 2001. Canada geese rank as the third most hazardous species in regards to collisions with aircraft. Sound Canada goose management tools are critical for a safer airport environment. We conducted field evaluations of a Canada goose effigy during the breeding season with territorial pairs and with post- fledging flocks in late summer to determine if geese were deterred by the effigy. No difference in terri torial pairs was found between pretreatment and treatment periods for C anada geese when goose effigies were placed within their territories. In post-fledging flocks t he mean number of geese observed during pretreatment (74.9 ± 12.9), treatment (14.8 ± 4.5), and pos t treatment (53.6 ± 14.2) periods differed ( P < 0.01). There was no difference ( P = 0.56) between the mean number of geese observed during a second r ound of 5-day pretreat ment (58.7) and 5- day second round treatment (43.7) periods. By itself, the goos e effigy was not effective as a Canada goose deterrent after approximatel y 5 days. However, this effigy may have some potential in an integrated goose c ontrol program conduct ed outside of the breeding season. Further evaluation of the effigy as part of an integrated Canada goose control program is recommended.
28. Seamans, T. W., B. F. Blackwell, a nd J. T. Gansowski. 2002. Evaluation of Allsopp Helikite as a bird scar ing device. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:129-134. Abstract: We evaluated the effectiv eness of Allsopp Helikites as a gull ( Larus spp.) deterrent at loafing and nesting areas and as a bird deterrent in a sunflower field. In 1998, a 10-day trial was conducted at 2 0.5 ha ponds at the Erie County, Ohio landfill (EC) and a 2-week trial on 2 0.1 ha plots on the Tru-Serv Corporation (TSC) warehouse roof in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Also in 1998, a 5-week trial in a sunflower field was conducted in Er ie County, Ohio. In 1999, a 24-day trial was conducted at the Service Liqueur Distributors (SLD), Inc. warehouse roof, 1.6 km from the Albany, NY landfill. At t he EC LANDFILL t he mean number ( ± SE) of ring-billed ( L. delawarensis ) and herring gulls ( L. argentatus ) on the treated pond decreased ( P < 0.05) from 421 ± 292 to < 1 after Helikite deploym ent. Whereas the mean number of gulls on the untreated pond increased ( P < 0.05) from 73 ± 135 to 412 ± 456. At the TSC roof, the herring gu ll nest density differed ( P < 0. 01) between areas covered and not covered by Helikites. Nest density under Helikites dec reased from 41/ha to 18/ha within 7 days of deployment. Ne st density in areas not cove red by Helikites increased from 23/ha to 42/ha within 14 days of deployment. At the SLD warehouse, when Helikites were not in place, the mean number ( ! SD) of gulls on the roof was 41 ( ! 38). When Helikites were in place, no gulls were observed on the roof at any time. Mean damage to sunflower heads remained similar in the Helikite-treated and untreated plots until the last week of meas urement when damage in the untr eated plot increased to 26 % seed loss/head whereas damage in the treated pl ot remained at about 8 %. Helikites are a high-maintenance tool and are limited by weather conditions, electrical lines and structures that can damage He likites. We conclude that Allsopp Helikites have the potential to deter gulls from preferred loafing and nesting areas and could be included as part of an integrated managem ent program to disperse gu lls. Further research on Helikites is needed to determi ne optimum deployment height s, habituation rates forAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 309

gulls and other species and the actual sphere of influence of the kite for various species.
29. Woronecki, P. P., R. A. Dolbeer, T. W. Seamans, and W. R. Lance. 1992. Alpha-chloralose efficacy in capturi ng nuisance w a terfow l and pigeons and current status of FDA registration. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 15:72-78. Abstract: During 1990 and 1991 we conducted safety, efficacy and clinical trials required to register alpha-chloralose (A-C) for capturing nuisance waterfowl and pigeons with t he U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We determined the Most Effective Dose (MED) to be 30 and 60 mg of A-C/kg of body weight for capturing waterfowl and pigeons, respec tively. We conducted 11 field trials in 4 states, capturing 587 waterfowl and 1,370 pi geons with 8% mortality for ducks, 0% for geese, and 6% for pigeons. We submitted a New Animal Drug Application to FDA in October 1991 and received registration in 1992 for use of A-C by Wildlife Services biologists.



### D EER 30. Belant, J. L. and T. W. Seamans. 2000. Comparison of three devices to observe w h ite-tailed deer at night. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):154-158. Abstract: To further reduce deer-aircraft co llisions, a method for observing deer on airports at night that does not affect aircraft operations is required. We compared the effectiveness of forward-looking infrared (FLIR), spotlight, and night vision goggles (NVG) to monitor the abundanc e of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) along a 10-km route in Ohio during 12 nights in winter (Jan-Feb) and summer (Jul) 1997. Numbers of deer observed with FLIR (825 in winter, 570 in summer) and spotlight (716 and 445) were similar ( P >0.05); number of deer obser ved with NVG (243 and 152) was less ( P <0.05) in winter and summer. The FLIR provided the best over all observability of deer of the 3 devices tested. The FLIR was less affected than spotlights by inclement weather and was not obtrusive. Biologists work ing in suburban areas or on airports can use FLIR to detect deer in areas where a s potlight would be inap propriate. Under conditions tested, we do not recommend using N V G t o d e t e c t w h i t e

- t a i l e d d e e r a t n i g h t

. 31. Belant, J. L., T. W. Seamans, and C. P. Dw y e r. 1996. Evaluation of propane exploders as w h ite-tailed deer dete rrents. Crop Protection 15:575-578. Abstract: In response to increased white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) depredation of agricultural crops and encroachment on airpor ts, we evaluated the effectiveness of systematic and motion-activated propane exploder s as deer frightening devices. We conducted 3 experiments in a 2200-ha fenced facility in northern Ohio with high (91/km 2 ) deer densities during 1994-1995. Systematic exploders were calibrated to detonate once at 8- to 10-minute interval s whereas motion-activated exploders detonated 8 times/deer intrus ion. Systematic propane exploders were generally ineffective, deterring deer from corn for < 2 days only, whereas motion-activated exploders repelled deer for 0-6 weeks. Repe llency of motion-activated exploders varied seasonally, possibly in response to variations in deer density, ava ilability of alternate food, or reproductive and soci al behavior. We recommend motion-activated exploders over systematic exploders as deer fright ening devices for crop damage mitigation and on airports; however, systematic exploders may have utility for short-term (a few days)

u s e

.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 310

32. Belant, J. L., T. W. Seamans, and C. P. Dwyer. 1998. Cattle guards reduce deer crossings through fence openings. International Journal of Pest Management 44:247-249. Abstract: In response to increased white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) encroachment on airports, we evaluated the effectiveness of cattle guards as deer exclusion devices. We conducted 3 experiments in a 2,200 ha fenced facility in norther n Ohio with high (91/km 2 ) deer densities during 1994-1995. During each experiment, we monitored deer crossings at 2-3 cattle guards (4.6 [L]x3[W]x0.5 or 1.0[D] m) constructed at fence openings for 2 weeks pre- and postinstallation. For each experiment, the m ean daily number of deer crossings after installation of cattle guards was reduced ( P < 0.01) by > 88% compared to respective crossing rates during pretreatment. Reducti ons in deer crossings using cattle guards with 0.5 or 1.0 m deep excavati ons were similar (95-96% vs. 98%) overall. Cattle guards at permanent openings used for vehicu lar traffic appear a viable technique to exclude deer from fenced airports and other fa cilities where deer exclusion is desired.
33. Belant, J. L., T. W. Seamans, and L. A. Tyson. 1997. Evaluation of three electronic frightening devices as white-tailed deer deterrents. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 18:107-110. Abstract: We evaluated the effectiveness of the motion-activated Usonic Sentry (with and without str obe), motion-activated Yard Gard, and Electronic Guard for deterring white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) from preferred feeding areas during Februar y-April 1996. We conducted 2 4-week experiments, monitoring deer us e (number of intrusions and corn consumption) at 8 feeding stations in a 2,200-ha fenced facility in northern Oh io with high deer densities (> 38/km 2 ). During these experiments, we positioned 1 of the devices at each of 4 sites. The mean (+ SE, n = 4) daily number of deer intrus ions at feeding stations during treatment (96.5 + 12.6-169.0 + 22.0) was similar ( P > 0.13) to or greater ( P < 0.04) than the mean daily number of deer intrusions during pre- or posttreatment (109.8 + 15.6- 148.8 + 21.4). Corn consumption declined ( P < 0.05) only at st ations with Usonic Sentrys without strobes for 1 week. We conc lude that the electroni c frightening devices tested were generally ineffective in deterri ng white-tailed deer from preferred feeding

areas. 34. Belant, J. L., T. W. Seamans, and L. A. Tyson. 1997. Predator urines do not deter white-tailed deer from feeding areas or trails. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 18:359-362. Abstract: We assessed whether bobcat ( Lynx rufus ) or coyote ( Canis latrans ) urine could reduce white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) use of established feeding areas or trails. A 4-week experiment evaluating deer use of 8 feeding stations, 4 each with coyote or bobc at urine was conducted at a 2,200-ha fenced facility in northern Ohio with high deer densities (38/km 2 ). At this same facility, we also monitored deer use of 4 trails where coyote urine was applied. For both experiments, urine was placed in holders pos itioned at ground level within 2 m of the area being protected . The number of deer entering feedi ng stations after 2 weeks exposure to predator urines was 15-24% less ( P < 0.05) than the number of deer entering feeding stations during pretreatment. Deer use of trails did not decrease in response to presence of coyote urine. We conclude that predator urines used as a chemical barrier were of limited effectivene ss in deterring high concentrations of whitetailed deer from areas with es tablished sources of food and ineffective in deterring deer from trails.Appendix L Evaluations of Control Products 311

35. Belant, J. L., L. A. Ty son, T. W. S eamans, and S. K. Ickes. 1997. My lar flags do not deter w h ite-tailed deer from f eeding areas. Journal Wildlife Research 2:210-212. Abstract: We evaluated the effectiveness of mylar flags for deterring whitetailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) from feeding areas during December 1996. We conducted a 3-week experiment, monitoring deer use (number of intrusions and corn consumption) at 10 feeding st ations in a 2,200-ha fenced fa cility in northern Ohio with high deer densities (>21/km 2 ). We positioned 2 mylar flags (15 cm x 1 m) attached to lathe at each of 5 sites; remaining sites re ceived lathe only (untreated). Mylar flags did not reduce ( P > 0.43) the number of deer intrusions into feeding stati ons or the amount of corn consumed relative to feeding stations without mylar flags. We conclude that mylar flags are ineffective for deterring white-tailed deer from feeding areas during winter.
36. Seamans, T. W., B. F. Blackw ell, and J. D. Cepek. 2002. Coy o te hair as an area repellent for w h ite-tailed deer. Inte rnational Journal of Pest Management 48(4):301-306. Abstract: Increasing white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) populations create numerous c onflicts with agricultural pr oduction and transportation safety. Lethal control is not always an opt ion and area repellents, such as predator waste products, have generally shown limited effectiveness. We tested coyote ( Canis latrans ) hair as a repellent at feeding stations during the winters of 2000 and 2001 and along established deer trails during the summer of 2000 in northern Ohio. Feeding station experiments were conducted in which five treatment sites received one or three bags containing 17 g of coyote hair placed adjac ent to or in front of a trough of whole kernel corn and five control sites received empty bag(s). In all feeding trials, corn consumption decreased at treated sites from 59 - 91%. Intrusions by deer at treated sites decreased by 48 - 96% in th ree tests but did not vary in the first 3-week test when coyote hair was adjacent to t he corn. Corn consumption and deer intrusions at control sites generally remained constant or showed an increase over the test period. In the deer trail test, use of trails did not di ffer between the pre-treat ment and treatment periods for the control or tr eated trails. Coyote hair therefore served as an effective repellent to keep deer from a desired food source and should have utility in protecting limited, discrete sites. Ho wever, coyote hair did not deter deer from moving along established trails.



### H ABITAT 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A ND 

### M ISCELLANEOUS 37. Barras, S. C., M. S. Carrara, R. A. Dolbeer, R. B. Chipman, and G. E. Bernhardt. 2000. Bird and sma ll mammal use of mow e d and unmow ed vegetation at John F. Kennedy Internati onal Airport, 1998 to 1999. Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:31-36. Abstract: We evaluated bird and small mammal use of two mowed (15 to 25 cm hei ght) and two unmowed vegetation plots (40 to 88 ha) at John F. Kennedy International Ai rport (JFKIA), New York, in 1998 to 1999 to determine which management strategy woul d best reduce wildlife use of the airport. We counted more birds per 5-minute observa tion period in unmowed plots than mowed plots in both 1998 (9.0 versus 7.9) and 1999 (11.7 versus 8.6). Maximum vegetation height was greater (P <0.05) for unmowed areas t han mowed areas after mowing commenced in 1998 and 1999 for each two-week monitoring period. In 1998 to 1999, vegetation density was also higher (P <0.05) for unmowed plots for 13 of 14 samplingEvaluations of Control Products Appendix L 312

periods. The species composit ion of vegetation differed (X 2 =20.54, df=3, P <0.01) among mowed and unmowed plots. Mowed plots contained a hi gher percentage of grasses (81% versus 68%), and a lower per centage of forbs (16% versus 25%) and woody plants (1% versus 4%) than unmowed plot s. Vegetation was generally sparse in both unmowed and mowed plots, a consequence of the poor, sandy soils on much of the airport. We captured 33 small mammals from three species in unmowed plots and 12 individuals of one species in mowed pl ots in 1999. Small mammal populations increased seasonally in unmowed plots, but remained constant in mowed plots over the same time period. We recommended JFKI A switch from the unmowed vegetation management regime in place since 1986 to a regime of maintaining vegetation mowed at 15 to 25 cm height. This management strategy should reduce bird and small mammal use of grassland areas at JFKIA. Further research should examine use of alternative vegetation types to improve ground cover and vegetatio n density at JFKIA while minimizing attraction to wildlife.
38. Barras, S. C. and T. W. Seamans. 2002. Habitat management approaches for reducing wildlife use of airfields. Pro ceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:309-315. Abstract: Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose safety risks to aircraft and cost civil aviation over $390 m illion annually in the USA. We reviewed published studies to summarize findings on habitat management techniques that have shown potential for wildlife strike reduction. Habitat components that may attract wildlife to airports include food, cover, water, and loafing areas. Although maintaining tall herbaceous vegetation on airfields may reduce the attractiveness of loafing and feeding sites for some species of birds such as gulls , this strategy may also increase cover and food resources for other hazardous specie s. Thus, optimum vegetation height management strategies require further resear ch and may be site-specific. Replacing attractive vegetation with less palatable vegetation has also been recommended, but studies with widespread application are lacki ng. Removal of ornamental trees and shrubs reduces cover for deer and small mamma ls and nesting sites for birds while also reducing availability of perches. However, exclusion techniques are also needed for reducing the availability of artificial perches and water. Despite mo re than 30 years of substantive discussion on the importance of these habitat management techniques, few reliable studies of the effectiveness of these techniques have been conducted under operational airport conditions. 39. Gabrey, S. W., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1996. Rainfall effects on bird-aircraft collisions at two United States airpor ts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:272-275. Abstract: We examined the influence of rainfall on bird-aircraft collisions at 2 major United States airports. Pres ence of standing water from ra infall did not increase the probability of bird-aircraft collisions at John F. Kennedy International airport during AprilOctober, 1986-1990. However, at O’Hare Inte rnational Airport ther e was evidence that standing water increased collision rates. During April-October 1992-1994, collision rates were higher 1 day after > 2.54 cm rain than at other times. Although this analysis showed no clear-cut influence of rainfall on bi rd-aircraft collisions, airport operations personnel, as precautionary measures, shoul d continue efforts to remove standing water and deter bird use of puddles. Deta iled long-term data on daily bird-aircraft collisions, rainfall, and bird use of standing wa ter are needed from other airports so thatAppendix L Evaluations of Control Products 313

a more comprehensive and generalized analysis of collisions in relation to rainfall can b e m a d e

.Evaluations of Control Products Appendix L 314

This page intentionally left blank315



## APPENDIX M: A W e tland Banking Mitigation S t rategy For F AAAppendix M 316

This page intentionally left blankAppendix M 317

A WETLAND BANKING MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR FAA

JULY 1996 Ed Melisky, Office of Airport, Community and Environmental Needs Division (APP-600), Ann Hooker, Office of Environment and E nergy (AEE-300), and Jerry Schwartz, Office of Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Systems (AND-420).

III. Is Wetland Mitigation Banking New To The FAA?

4. Ensure That The Wetland Banker Ha s Posted An Appropriate Environmental Performance Bond. Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591 (202-267-5869).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

I. What Is Wetland Mitigation Banking?

II. Why Would The FAA Or An Airport S ponsor Want To Use Wetland Mitigation Banking?

IV. Banking Sounds Like A Good Idea

V. Are FAA Programs Or Ai rport Sponsors Required To Use Wetland Mitigation Banking For All Actions Affecting Wetlands?

VI. Who Is Responsible For Maintaining A Wetland Bank?

VII. What Is Sequencing?

1. Evaluate Practicable Alternatives.

2. Minimize Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.

3. Compensate Wetland Impacts That Do Occur.

VIII. If An FAA Service Or Airport Sponsor Chooses To Use A Wetland Mitigation Bank, How Does It Decide If A Bank Is Acceptable For FAA Purposes?

1. Ensure That The Bank Does Not Pose A Threat To Aviation

2. Consult The Appropriate Wetland Resource Agencies.

3. Select Only Corps-Approved Wetland Banks.

5. Exercise Fiduciary Responsibilities.

IX. How To Determine The Number Of Credits That Must Be Purchased.Wetland Banking Appendix M 318

X. How Will The FAA Or An Airport Sponsor Purchase Credits For A Wetland Mitigation Bank?

1. Protection From Bank Failures.

2. Protection From Wildlife Hazards.

I. W HAT I S W ETLAND M ITIGATION B ANKING ? XI. What Happens To The Bank When All Of Its Credits Are Sold?

P REFACE

. This document describes t he concept of wetland mitigation banking and how the FAA and airport sponsors can use this newly accept ed mitigation strategy to more efficiently meet Section 404 permit r equirements and environmental responsibilities. Wetland mitigation banking, although not a new ecologica l idea, is rapidly gaining support from all levels of government and private devel opers because it offers a proven, costeffective way to compensate successfully for unavoidable wetland impacts. An example of this recent acceptance is the November 28, 1995, joint issuance of wetland banking guidance by five federal agencies that onc e held widely divergent views on wetland banking.
This document does not provide instru ctions on implementing a wetland banking strategy, since each FAA service has specif ic operating procedures to accomplish its respective mission. Instead, this document provides information and "ground rules" that each service should follow as it "custom designs" wetland banking instructions that meet the service's particular needs.
This document does not discuss building a wetland bank, but, instead, emphasizes and provides information on purchasing credits from an agency or person or "banker" operating such a facility. Operating a we tland bank requires extensive knowledge of complex wetland management techniques and s pecially trained personnel. Since the primary mission of the FAA and airport sponsor s is aviation, the purchase of credits from a wetland banker frees the FAA and ai rport sponsors to concentrate on the complex business of managing aviation, not the complex business of managing wetlands. Anyone wishing to build a we tland bank should contact environmental specialists in the Office of Airports ( 202-267-5869) or the regional Army Corps of Engineers (COE) office for information.

Wetland mitigation banking provides a way to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts before those impacts occur. Purchasing cr edits from a bank does not give the purchaser title to wetlands tracts that comp rise a bank. Rather, the purchase is simply a payment to the wetland banker for wetland mitigation services that the bank provides.
To establish a wetland bank, the banker owni ng and/or managing the bank can restore, enhance, or create wetlands within a watershed or region. Implem enting one of these measures or a combination of them is necessary to replace the wetland functions lost due to constructing a project wit hin a wetland. In rare instances, preserving existing, high quality wetlands is an acceptable banking plan, but this is rarely the case because it does not truly meet the Pres ident's "no net loss" policy for wetlands. Once a bank is established and the COE has approved the bank's use, the banker is allowed to sellAppendix M Wetland Banking 319

credits from the bank to 404 permittees (see sect ion II). The sale of credits from a bank signifies that the bank is capable of:

• replacing wetland functions in a wa tershed where unavoidable development of a wetland occurs; or

• providing wetland functions that are nec essary to achieve a designated wetland management plan in the affected watershed.

II. W HY W OULD T HE FAA O R A IRPORT S PONSOR W ANT T O U SE W E TLAND M ITIGATION B ANKING ? Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires any one seeking authorit y to dredge and/or fill a wetland (404 permittee) to obtain a Section 404 permit before conducting those activities. One of the steps in the 404 permit application process requires the permit applicant to show that the proposed acti on includes ways to minimize unavoidable wetland impacts. This is where wetland banking plays a role.

• Banking provides FAA program offices and airport sponsors wit h a strategy for satisfying resource agency demands and miti gating wildlife and wetl and impacts, while reducing wildlife and bird hazards to aviation.

• Because banking enhances the probability that FAA or an airport sponsor will obtain Section 404 permits in a more timely m anner, the FAA or airport sponsor would be better able to meet tight construction deadli nes more often and to complete essential projects more quickly.

• The purchase of credits from a wetland bank absolves the FAA or a project sponsor of the responsibility for undertaking, monitoring, and maintaining a complex, often difficult, wetland mitigation plan. As a result, t he FAA and the airport sponsor can focus If the COE issues a 404 permit authorizing dredge and/or fill acti vities in a wetland, that permit will probably contain requirements compe lling the permittee to implement a plan to reduce the project's unavoidable we tland impacts. Because wetlands are ecologically complex and dynamic, the dev elopment of a wetland mitigation plan capable of replicating or repl acing lost functions is often the most difficult and time consuming step of the 404 permit process. For most aviation-related projects built in wetlands, the FAA program office or the airport sponsor, as the permittee, is responsible for complying with permit required mitigat ion measures. Wetland banking will help FAA program offices and airport sponsors to sati sfy 404 permit conditions in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
Wetland banking will enable the FAA to achieve the President’s regul atory streamlining efforts and to achieve the Administration's l ong-term goal of increasing the quality of the Nation's wetlands. In addition, wetland mitigation banking has the following potential benefits:

• Banking can increase the quality of the Nation's wetlands.

• Banking is part of DOT's strategy to take a pro-active approach in
addressing environmental issues and improving its working relationships with federal, state, local, and private agencies re sponsible for protecting wetlands.Wetland Banking Appendix M 320

primarily on aviation needs, not on managing a wetland.

III. I S W ETLAND M ITIGATION B ANKING N EW T O T HE FAA?

• FHWA's financial participation in the es tablishment of wetland mitigation banks for highway projects throughout the USA.

• The purchase of thousands of wetland acres in Florida by aviation departments to mitigate project-related wetland impacts.

• The State of Florida's accept ance of the Walker Ranch Bank to show that a privately financed bank can be used to mitigate successf ully unavoidable impacts to thousands of acres of Florida wetlands.

IV. B ANKING S OUNDS L IKE A G OOD I DEA

. • Since the price of credits from a particular bank are known, banking can greatly enhance the ability of FAA program offices or ai rport sponsors to estimate the financial costs of mitigating unavoidable pr oject-related wetland impacts.

Yes, but it isn't new to land developers, who have used wetland banks for the past 10 to 15 years. What is new is the acceptance of wetland banking by state governments and federal agencies. These parties now realiz e that wetland banking offers far greater ecological benefits than many of the on-site strategies commonly used today to mitigate wetland impacts. Examples of this new way of thinking are:

• The development of regulations and guide lines governing wetland banking by the federal government and the stat es of California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon.

• The commitment of The Urban Land Institute, an organiz ation of federal and state agencies, private land developer s, and environmental groups, to provide administrative support, expertise, and a forum that allows interested parties to discuss openly and constructively their respective wetland mitigation banking concerns and problems.

• The Administration's commitment to wetl and banking by convening a federal interagency task force that developed mutually acceptable banking guidelines.

• The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) program to encourage the use of wetland banks for roadway projects and its issuance of banking guidelines.

In response to the President's support fo r wetland banking, the COE, the National Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have embraced wetland banking and have issued final guidelines ( Federal Register , Vol. 60, No. 228, November 28, 1995). California, Florida, Minnesot a, and other states have recognized the value of banking and actively promote it. To protect wetlands, Executive Order 11990 and various regulations require 404 permit applicants to ensure that f ederal agencies complete the sequencing procedure (item VII). This safeguard should suffice to ensure that the selected wetland site is truly the only practicable alternative that would meet a proposed project's specifications, purpose, and need. In addition, the inter- agency wetland mitigation banking guidelines require the COE and other feder al resource agencies to oversee the permit process toAppendix M Wetland Banking 321

ensure that sequencing occurs and to ensur e that the banks successfully mitigate wetland impacts.

V. A RE FAA P ROGRAMS O R A IRPORT S PONSORS R EQUIRED T O U SE W E TLAND M ITIGATION B ANKING F OR A LL A CTIONS A FFECTING W ETLANDS ?
No. Banking is strictly a voluntary way to satisfy wetland mitigation requirements. The FAA and airport sponsors may continue to engage in more traditional wetland mitigation approaches. Different mitigation strategies may be pursued for di fferent programs or projects. Appropriate wetland banks may not always be available. In summary, each FAA program office or airport sponsor has the option of using or not using wetland banking for each project under its purview. If the 404 permit applicant chooses to use wetland mitigation banking, he/she may consider two options:

• Under option one, the 404 permit applic ant may propose to build a wetland bank within the same watershed as the proposed project and use credits from that bank to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts resu lting from proposed and future actions. The COE must approve the use of the banked credits as mitigation for wetland functions or values lost due to each particular projec t. In this situation, the permittee is responsible for wetland success.
Note: FAA offices and airport sponsors are less likely to choose option one. The complex, dynamic nature of wetlands requi res specialists in wetland management. The FAA and sponsors normally don't possess this expertise, so wetland banking option Two (below) would be the more likely choice.

• Under option two, the 404 permit applic ant can agree to purchase a specific number of credits from a bank owned by another party, provided the bank is in the same watershed as the proposed project and t he permitting agency approves such a measure. Here, the banker is responsible for wetland success.
Here are two examples of the av ailable wetland mitigation options:
An airport development project:
An airport sponsor proposing a new runway knows that constructing this facility would require filling 50 acres of we tland and that a taxiway proposed for construction 2 years later would require the filling of 10 additional wetland acres. To mitigate these impacts, the sponsor can select one of the followi ng options and present it to the COE for approval:

• mitigate wetland impacts by traditional repl acement methods that are consistent with FAA safety concerns (i.e., new wetlands s hould not be established in areas where they could create hazards to aviation);

• establish a 60-acre bank offsite before beginning construction of either project; or

• buy 60 credits from an acceptable, offsit e wetland bank that is owned by a wetland banker who meets the criteria in item VIII. NOTE: 1:1 impact: compensation ratios in the above examples are sometimes, but not always, acceptable.Wetland Banking Appendix M 322

Siting a FAA facility:
The division office planning to site a r adar at a preferred location knows that construction specifications would require the filling of 2.2 acre s of wetlands for foundations to support the radar's superstruct ure and pilings to support a 0.5-mile long access road. To mitigate these impacts, t he program manager could select one of the options discussed above to offset the 2.2-acre loss.

VI. W HO I S R ESPONSIBLE F OR M AINTAINING A W ETLAND M ITIGATION B ANK ?
When a 404 permittee such as an FAA program office or airport sponsor purchases credits from a bank meet ing the criteria in section VIII., the banker operating that bank is solely responsible for maintaining the bank, ensuri ng that it is fully-functional and that it meets its intended purposes. Those purposes are clearly stated in a Memorandum of Understanding between the banker and the COE. If the COE authorizes the 404 permittee to use a designated bank, the purchase of credits from that bank fulfills the permittee's wetland mitigation obligati ons. The permittee has no further wetland mitigation responsibilities.

VII. W HAT I S S EQUENCING ? Sequencing is a federally-required, analytical procedure that all 404 permit applicants must complete as part of the 404 permit applic ation process. This process follows a similar process required by the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (see Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR section 1502.2(f)). Before using banking or any ot her measure to mitigate wetland impacts, the 404 permit applicant must complete the sequencing procedures described below.

1. Evaluate practicable alternatives. When proposing an action that would affect wetlands, section 2 of Executive Order 11990 and paragraph 5 of DOT's wetland order (5660.1A) require the appropriate FAA program office to dem onstrate that there are no practicable alternatives that avoid the wetland. For DOT purposes, a practicable alternative is an alternative that is feasible when safety , transportation objectives, design, engineering, environm ent, and economics are considered. If a practicable alternative exists, the Executive Order and the DOT order require the FAA decision maker to select it. DOT's wetland order st ates that additional project expenses to mitigate wetland impacts or to implement an alternative do not make the mitigation or alternative impractical, sinc e such expenses are normally considered necessary to meet national wetland policy objectives.

2. Minimize unavoidable adverse impacts. The aviation safety or aeronautical design requirements of many facilities often do not allow the responsible FAA program
office or airport sponsor to build a needed fa cility outside a wetland. For example, to meet location and distance specifications nec essary for some r adars to perform their aeronautical function properly, t he radars must be built at specific locations, some of which may be in wetlands. When no practic able alternative outside a wetland exists because of radars' performance requirement s, the responsible FAA program office must demonstrate that the radars have been designed to minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. An exam ple of a design consideration that would minimize unavoidable wetland impacts is to place radar supports on pilings, instead ofAppendix M Wetland Banking 323

excavating and filling the wetland to accommodate a foundation for the supports.

3

. Com pensate wetland im pacts that occur. After modifying the design to minimize wetland impacts, the FAA program office or airport sponsor must then compensate for any remaining adverse wetland impacts that occur due to constructing, operating, and/or maintaining the proposed fa cility. At this point, wetland banking is a mitigation option.

VIII. I F A N FAA S ERVICE O R A IRPORT S PONSOR C HOOSES T O U SE A W E TLAND M ITIGATION B ANK , H OW D OES I T D ECIDE I F A P ARTICULAR B ANK I S A CCEPT ABL E F OR FAA P URPOSES ? To meet the provisions of this strategy, t he FAA program office or airport sponsor must complete the following steps before purchasing credits from a bank.

• 10,000 feet of a runway that serves turbine-powered aircraft.

NOTE: These distances are based on a study completed by the Office of Airports' Airport Safety and Operations Division (AAS-300) that assessed aircraft approach and takeoff profiles and bird flight behavior . 1. Ensure that the bank does not pose a threat to aviation. Wetlands and wetland banks provide excellent habitats for birds and wild life hazardous to aviation. Although it is ecologically desirable to restore or enhance affected wildlife habitat at or near the project site to maintain ecological f unctions in a watershed, aircraft accident investigations have shown t hat hazardous wildlife attracted to wetland habitats near airports sometimes collide with aircraft causi ng costly damage to aircraft or injury or death to aircraft occupants. Therefore, to minimize wetland-related risks to aviation safety, FAA program offices and airpor t sponsors are strongly encouraged not to establish a bank or purchase credits from banks that are located within:

• 5,000 feet of a runway that serves piston-powered aircraft; or

FAA program offices and airport sponsors may consider using a wetland bank not meeting these dist ance criteria only when the bank provides special ecological functions such as:

• maintaining habitat essential to federa lly-listed endangered or th reatened species; or

• maintaining unique wetland functions (e.g., aqui fer recharge, flood control, filtration).
When these special ecological functions ex ist, the FAA program office or airport sponsor should consult AAS-300 at (202) 267-3389. AAS can provide recommendations for a wildlife hazard managem ent plan to protect aviation safety.

2 . Consult the appropriate wetland resource agencies. A 404 permit applicant must consult with the COE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (the National Marine Fisheries Service when marine mammals or anadromous fi sh species are invo lved), the EPA, and the state agency having jurisdiction over t he affected wetland. Consultation should focus on the agencies' respective concerns for wetland values and functions that the proposed project would affect and any applicable watershed or ecosystem conservation plans. Agencies should state if they will accept wetland banking as appropriate mitigation; however, as the ultimate 404 authority, the COE is responsible for authorizing the use of a particular bank and det ermining the number of credits required.Wetland Banking Appendix M 324

3. Select only COE- approved wetland banks. For permitting purposes, the COE will not allow a permittee to use a wetland bank that does not meet the success criteria stated in the Memorandum of Understandi ng (MOU) between the COE and the banker that establishes the wetland bank. If the 404 permittee chooses to buy credits available from a bank owned by another agency or a priv ate entity, the res ponsible FAA program office must have written proof that the COE has approved the bank. This provision ensures that permittees will be dealing wit h a reputable wetland banker who has met federal wetland mitigation guidelines.

NOTE: For projects in Michigan and New Jersey, consult with the state wetland permitting agency. The COE and EPA have author ized these states to administer the Section 404 permitting process for wetland actions within respective state boundaries.

5. Exercise fiduciary responsibilities. As a federal agency entrusted with allocating or using federal funds, the FAA program office must be financially responsible when mitigating wetland impacts or providing m oney to do so. Although wetland impacts must be properly mitigated, the program office must ensure that it does not overpay for credits purchased from a bank. FAA project offices or airport sponsors should negotiate with the permitting and resource agencies to ensure that the number of credits purchased fairly reflects unavoidable project -related wetland impacts. They should also negotiate to secure a fair price for those credits. In most cases, the COE will base success on a wetland bank's ability to provide those wetland functions that resource agencies hav e determined are necessary to protect a particular ecological system or watershed. Examples of such functions are floodwater retention, sediment control, providing fishery or wildlife nursery areas, removing toxic substances, or aquifer recharge. If the permittee will purchase cr edits from a banker, the banker should provide written assuranc es that the wetland mitigation bank will be self-sustaining within 3 to 5 years, the per iod during which most wetlands become selfsustaining.

4. Ensure that the wetland banker has posted an appropriate environmental performance bond. When purchasing credits from a bank meeting the criteria discussed in the above items, the FAA program office or airport sponsor must also ensure that the banker has posted an environmental per formance bond equal to 100% of the cost needed to build or establish a bank that meets the objectives stated in the MOU. This bond ensures that su fficient money is available for the wetland bank to meet the success criteria in item 3., if the banker goes out of business or declares bankruptcy. The banker should provide written proof of bondi ng to the FAA or airport
sponsor.

IX. H OW T O D ETERMINE T HE N UMBER O F C REDITS T HAT M UST B E P URCHASED

. Determining the number of credi ts that must be purchased is done on a case-by-case basis. This should be a point of negotia tion among the 404 permitting agency, other resource agencies, and the 404 permittee. Experience s hows that the number of credits purchased should be based on the functi ons lost or diminished due to project construction, the functions that the bank provides, and/or the role that surrounding upland areas play in increasing the bank's overall ecological functions. Examples of compensation : impact ratios (usually expressed in acres) are:Appendix M Wetland Banking 325

4:1 when credits are sold to create a buffer between a wetland and other uses;
3:1 when credits are sold to protect uplands essential to wetland survival;
2:1 when credits are sold in a bank being established; or 1:1 when credits are sold in a functioning bank; NOTE: Actual negotiations may result in di fferent ratios!! The above ratios are based on information from workshops and discussions with wetland bankers and wetland bank customers. They are presented only as generic guidelines.

do so via a legally binding purchasing contrac t. Contract signatories should include the 404 permitting agency (usually the COE), t he appropriate resource agencies, the wetland banker, the responsible FAA program office and, when appropriate, the airport sponsor. The contract should contain t he following contingencies to protect FAA funding and aviation safety.

• the purchase of a specif ied number of credits from the named bank completely X. H OW W ILL T HE FAA O R A N A IRPORT S PONSOR P URCHASE C REDITS F ROM A W E TLAND M ITIGATION B ANK ? When the FAA program office or airport s ponsor purchases credits from a bank, it will

Protection against wetland bank failure. This contingency is necessary to protect the FAA from spending additional funds on wetland miti gation after it has provided funds to purchase the permit-required number of bank credits. This cont ingency verifies that if a bank failure occurs, the FAA program office or the airport sponsor is not accountable for any future wetland mitigation requirements that are needed to satisfy the applicable permit. The purchasing instrument s h o u l d c o n t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s :

satisfies the permittee's wetland mitigation responsibilities; and

• in the event of a bank failure or bankruptcy, the permittee is not responsible for any future financial responsibilities or other liabilities needed to mitigate wetland impacts that result from a 404 permit-authorized action.

2. Protection from wildlife hazards. Written verification that the bank is not within the 5,000 or 10,000-foot criteria discussed earlier (see section V III) shows that the bank providing the credits should not pose hazardous conditions to aviation.

XI. W HAT H APPENS T O T HE B ANK W HEN A LL O F T HE B ANK ' S C REDITS A RE S OLD ?

Once the COE determines that a bank is self -sustaining, and the banker has sold all of its available credits, the banker has at least three options to ensure the wetland exists in perpetuity:

• retain ownership of the wetland bank and continue to manage it;

• transfer ownership of the wetl and bank to a state or a Native American tribe, if either party desires to take possession of the bank to enhance its wetland sources; or NOTE: In situations where a wetland fulf ills unique functions, such as serving as recharge areas for water supply aquifers or as habitat for federally-listed endangered or threatened species, the above dist ance criteria may not be app licable. In such cases, contact AAS-300 for assistance.Wetland Banking Appendix M 326

• transfer the wetland bank to an environment al group whose primary mission is to protect wetlands and/or wildlife habitat. Organizations having expertise in wetl and management, such as state wetland or wildlife agencies or The Nature Conservancy, often seek title to banks, since their primary missions are to protect valuable wetland functions and habitats.

A N OTE R EGARDING AIP-F UNDED C REDIT P URCHASES . When the FAA approves an airport development project that causes wetland impac ts and requires the sponsor to mitigate those impacts, the airport sponsor may recove r the costs of establishing a wetland bank or purchasing credits from a wetland bank. AIP funds can be used to reimburse the sponsor for the cost of building only that portion of its wetland bank that is used to mitigate impacts resulting from a specific, FAA-approved action. T he cost of building the entire wetland bank is not AIP reimbursable, unless other FAA-approved airport developments use the remainder of the bank to mitigate wetland impacts. AIP funds may also be used to reimburse the sponsor for purchasing a specified number of credits from a bank owned by another party to miti gate project-specific wetland impacts resulting from FAA-approved airport actions.327



## APPENDIX N: Liability Issues For Airport Managers Related T o W ildlife HazardsAppendix N 328

This page intentionally left blankAppendix N Liability Issues 329



### Bird and Other Wildlife Hazards at Airports: Liability Issues for Airport Managers

Richard A. Dolbeer, PhD

6100 Columbus Avenue U.S. Department of Agricu lture/Wildlife Services National Coordinator, Airport Safety and Assistance Program

S a n d u s k y , O H 4 4 8 7 0 U S A richard.a.dolbeer@usda.gov

Aircraft collisions with birds (bird strikes) and other wildlife are a serious economic and safety problem. The problem has incr eased in the past decade because of expanding populations of many wildlife species that are hazardous to aviation (Dolbeer and Eschenfelder 2002). Cleary et al . (2004) estimated wildlife strikes (98% involving birds) cost the civil aviation industry in t he USA about $500 million/year, 1990-2003. Allan and Orosz (2001) estimated that bird strikes annua lly cost commercial air carriers over $1.2 billion worldwide, 1999-2000. At least 194 people died and 164 aircraft were destroyed as a result of bird and other wildlife strikes with civil and m ilitary aircraft from 1988-2004 (Richardson and West 2000, T horpe 2003, Cleary et al. 2004, Dolbeer unpublished data).

Questions are often asked about li ability issues related to wildlif e strikes. To help clarify this complex legal subject, I have listed bel ow several cases involving wildlife strikes where liability issues related to airport management have been raised. This is not a complete list of liability cases and is not intended as a legal review of the cases presented. These cases are presented simply as an overview of potential liability issues that airport managers may face as a result of wildlife stri kes on or near their airports.
26 February 1973. Atlant a, Georgia, USA. On departure from Dekalb-Peachtree Airport, a Learjet 24 struck a flock of br own-headed cowbirds attracted to a nearby trash-transfer station. Engine failure result ed. The aircraft crashed, killing 8 people and seriously injuring 1 person on the ground. Th is incident prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to develop guidelines concerni ng the location of solid-waste disposal facilities on or near airports. The incident generated a lengthy legal case called the “Miree” litigation in which the court finally determined that the ai rport manager could be held liable for failing to take the precautions possible at his level to end bird hazards (Michael 1986).

12 December 1973. Norw ich, England. A Falcon Business Jet with 9 people on board struck common and black-headed gulls on ta keoff from Norwich Airport. The strike caused severe damage to both engines. One minor injury resu lted from the crash which destroyed the aircraft. The judge pres iding over the case wrote that theLiability Issues Appendix N 330

Defendants (airport operator) owed the Plainti ffs (aircraft operator and occupants) the “common duty of care”. After weighing t he considerable evidenc e, the judge decided that the Defendants failed in t heir duty, and that there must be judgment for the Plaintiffs for damages. In other words, the airport operator failed to show due diligence in managing the airport’s bird hazards (Michael 1986, MacKinnon et al. 2001).
14 June 1975. Watertown, South Dakota, USA. A NA265 Sabreliner twin-engine jet ingested gulls in both engines at rotation fr om the Watertown Airport. The aircraft crashed, both wings were torn off, and a seve re fire ensued. Three of the 6 people on board were injured and the aircraft was destr oyed. The Safeco Insurance Company brought an action against the ai rport operator, the City of Watertown. The court maintained that the proximate c ause of the crash was the failure to warn the pilot of the presence of birds. Judgment for the full value of the destroyed aircraft was entered against the airport operator (Michael 1986, MacKinnon et al. 2001).
12 November 1975. New York, New York, USA . An Oversees National Airlines DC10-30 ingested several gulls into the #3 engi ne during the takeoff run at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The engi ne caught fire, several wheels and tires disintegrated, and the landing gear collapsed during the aborted takeoff. The aircraft then caught fire and was destroyed. Mira culously, the 139 passengers and crew (all ONA employees being ferried overseas) were able to escape the burning aircraft. There were 30 injuries but no deaths. The National Transportation Safety Board noted ineffective control of bird hazar ds by the airport as one of the contributing factors to the accident. A complex legal battle ensued in 1979 with ONA and the Bank of America (aircraft owner) suing the F AA, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City (because of two landfills near t he airport), and several aerospace companies in Federal or State courts. The total settlement, reached in 1985, was in excess of $15 million. Amounts paid by eac h party and their insurance companies are not known (Aviation Week and Space Technology 1977, U.S. Court of Appeals 1985).
7 June 1989. Genoa, Italy. A BAE 146 operated by TNT Air Cargo departing Genoa Airport at night flew through a flock of gulls at rotation. The pilot managed to return the severely damaged aircraft to the airport. Three engines were damaged. The carrier sued a number of entities for damages resulting fr om this bird-strike event at the airport. A decision on this case, pronounced by the Civ il Court of Genoa in 2001 after 11 years of litigation, awarded the carri er $2 million in compensation. Liability was assigned as 50% to the Ministry of Transport, 30% to the private company oper ating the airport, and 20% to the Port Authority (Battistoni 2003). 11 January 1990. Nashville, Tennessee, USA. A Hawker-Siddeley 125 jet with 4 people on board hit a deer on tak eoff from John Tune Airport. The impact tore one of the engines loose from the pl ane. The experienced pilot was able to get airborne and fly to nearby Nashville International Air port where an emergency landing was made. Ren Corporation (owner of jet) sued the Metropolitan Nash ville Airport Authority and John Tune Aviation Corporation for damages to cover the cost of replacing the $1.4 million plane and chartering another plane until a replacement plane was acquired (Nashville Tennessean 1990). The lawsuit was won in trial court, but lost in the Tennessee Court of Appeals (Gilbert 2004). The ruling was based on the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA ) capping government liability for propertyAppendix N Liability Issues 331

damage to $50,000 (Neill 2003).
20 January 1995. Paris, France . A Dassault Falcon 20 business jet struck lapwings during takeoff from Le Bourget Airport. The pilot was unable to control the jet after the ingested birds destroyed the left engine. The aircraft crashed, killing all 10 people aboard. A subsequent inquiry found that air port staff failed to perform routine birdscaring operations prior to the accident. In 1998, French authoritie s laid charges of involuntary manslaughter against the Paris Ai rport Authority and 3 former officers for their roles in the accident. The airport aut hority was accused of “negligently failing to follow normal security procedures.” The disposit ion of the case is not known at this time (MacKinnon et al. 2001).

3 June 1995. New York, New York, USA . An Air France Conc orde, at about 10 feet AGL while landing at John F. Kennedy Inter national Airport, ingested 1 or 2 Canada geese into the #3 engine. The engine suffer ed an uncontained failure. Shrapnel from the #3 engine destroyed the #4 engine and cut several hydraulic lines and control cables. The pilot was able to land the pl ane safely, but the runway was closed for several hours. Damage to the Concorde was estimated at ov er $7 million. The French Aviation Authority sued the Po rt Authority of New York and New Jersey and eventually settled out of court for $5.3 million (MacKinnon et al. 2001).
22 September 1995. Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, USA. A U.S. Air Force Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS ) aircraft (modified Boeing 707) crashed, killing all 24 on board, after ingesting 4 C anada geese into the #1 and #2 engines during takeoff from Elmendorf Air Force Base. Investigators found the “worst possible combination of operational conditions ” including infrequent and inadequate wildlife patrols. Furthermore, the senior tower c ontroller was reported by witnesses as saying he "observed geese lift off and turn directly into the path of the aircraft." When interviewed, the senior controller and another controller on duty at the time of the accident (both of whom "had an excellent view of the runway”) invoked their right to remain silent. The accident investigator c oncluded that controllers "had a duty to warn the flight crew and that failure to do so was a contributing factor to the accident" (Flight Safety Foundation 1996). One out come of the investigation was that the people in the top 3 leadership positions at the air base were reassigned.

13 November 1996. Pula Internat ional Airport, Pula, Croatia. A Croatia Airlines B737-200 ingested a gull into the #1 engine duri ng the takeoff run at 1511 hours, causing an “insidious ex plosion” from the engine. T he pilot was able to abort the takeoff, but the engine had to be replaced and the plane was out of service for 2 days. Croatia Airline’s insurer paid the airline for the damaged engine but then presented a bill to the airport for the cost of repairs. The airport refused to pay, claiming that the ai rport had fulfilled all the conditions for the protection of aircra ft from wildlife (includi ng a runway sweep at 0430 hours) and that they had a permanent NOTAM to warn air carriers of concentrations of birds in the vicinity of the runway. The insu rance company sued the Airport Authority in the Municipal Court of Pula. The Municipal Court dismissed the lawsuit, but on appeal, the Count y Court of Pula ruled in favor of the insurance company. An appeal of this decision by t he airport was unsuccessful (18 April 2000), and the airport had to reimburse the insurance company for cost of engine repairs. The court noted that that the ai rport acknowledged that a pr oblem existed by having aLiability Issues Appendix N 332

permanent NOTAM regarding bird hazards, and ye t failed to undertake all measures at its disposal to alleviate the hazard (Pula County Court 2000).
22 March 1998. Marseille Provence Airport, France. An Air France A-320 encountered a flock of about 20 gulls during the takeoff run, ingesting several birds into the #2 engine which was destroyed. The pilo t executed a high-speed aborted takeoff. The gull strike was directly attributed to a dead hedgehog on the runw ay which the gulls were feeding on when the mishap occurred. The air carrier sued the French government for negligence in operating the airfield and in January 2005 was awarded $4 million USD (Agence France Presse 2005). The hedgehog had likely been struck by an earlier flight, but Airport Operations per sonnel had failed to remove the carcass.


### Conclusions:
Based on the cases presented above and legal or insurance reviews by Michael (1986), Wilkinson (1998), Robinson (2000), and Matijaca (2001), it is apparent that airport operators must exercise “due diligence” in managing wildlife hazards to avoid potentially serious liability issues. The exercise of “due diligence” to manage wild life hazards involves (in the USA) the assessment of wildlife hazards at the ai rport and, if needed based on the assessment, the implementation of a wild life hazard management plan (FAA regulations in CFR 14 Part 139.337). An important component of the wildlife haz ard management plan is the prevention of habitats and land uses on or in the vicinity of the airpor t that are attractive to hazardous wildlife. Wildlife hazard management at airports is a complex, publicsensitive, endeavor involving many specie s of wildlife and their habitats governed by various federal and state regul ations. Airports need to employ professional biologists trained in wildlife damage contro l to assist in the development, implementation, and evaluation of wildlife hazar d management plans. Such professionally developed and implemented management plans will minimize t he likelihood of catastrophic or majordamage wildlife strikes on an air port and provide crucial support during litigation in the aftermath of any significant st rike event that might occur. Cleary and Dolbeer (1999) provide detailed information on the development of these management plans as well as on FAA regulations and guidelines regar ding wildlife hazards to aviation.
Acknowledgments : I thank L. C. Francoeur, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; A. Matijaca, Airport Split, Croatia; and A. L. Gosse r, C. Washburn, and S. E. Wright, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for providing information and helpful comments during the compilation of these cases.

References cited
Agence France Presse. 2005. A dead hedgehog and a flock of seagulls cost France 3 million euros after runway mishap. Marseilles, France. 1 February 2005.
Allan, J. R., and A. P. Oro sz. 2001. The costs of birdstrikes to commercial aviation. Pages 218-226 in Bird Strike 2001, Proc eedings of the Bird Strike CommitteeUSA/Canada meeting. Cal gary, Alberta, Canada: Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. Aviation Week and Space Technology. 1997. Recommendations made in ONA crash.Appendix N Liability Issues 333

August 15, Page 61.
Battistoni, V. 2003. Bird strikes in cour ts: the Genoa case. Pages 169-174 in Proceedings of the 26th International Bird Strike Committee meeting (Volume 1). Warsaw, Poland. Cleary, E. C., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1999. Wildlife hazard managemen t at airports, a manual for airport personnel. U.S. D epartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air port Safety and Standards, Washington, DC USA 248 pages (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/). Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and S. E. Wright. 2004. Wildlife st rikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990-2003. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report No. 10, DOT/FAA/AS/00-6(AAS- 310). Washington DC USA. 55 pages (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov/).
Dolbeer, R. A., and P. Eschenfelder. 2002. Population increases of large birds, airworthiness standards, and high-speed fligh t: a precarious combination. Pages 273-281 in Proceedings of the 55th Internat ional Air Safety Seminar, Dublin, Ireland (Copyright Flight Safety F oundation, Alexandria, Virginia USA). Flight Safety Foundation. 1996. Military Boeing 707 strikes birds after liftoff; damages to engines no. 1 and no. 2 results in loss of power and impact with terrain. Accident Prevention. Volume. 53, Number 11. Gilbert, Harris A. 2004. Attorney repres enting REN Corp. Personal communication.23 January. MacKinnon, B., R. Sowden, and S. Dudley (Editors). 2001. Sharing the skies: an aviation guide to the management of wildlife hazards. Transport Canada, Aviation Publishing Division, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N8 Canada. 316 pages.
Matijaca, A. 2001. Damage liab ility and compensation in case of bird strike. Pages 89- 100 in Bird Strike 2001. Proceedings of the Bird Strike Committee-USA/Canada meeting, Calgary, Alberta. Trans port Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
Michael, R. A. 1986. Keep your eye on the birdie: aircraft engine bird ingestion. Journal of Air Law and Commerce. Space Law Issue. Summer 1986, Number 4:1007- 1035. Nashville Tennessean. 1990. Dialysis firm files suit after plane strikes deer. By Kirk L o g g i n s , J a n u a r y

. Neill, R. 2003. Municipal and personal liability under the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act. Municipal Technical Ad visory Service (MTSA). [online] (www.mtas.utk.edu/kno wledgebase.nsf/0/c0fead9bb6aca88685256d3600653d26 /$FILE/Governmental%20Tort%20Liability%20Act.pdf ); accessed 23 January 2 0 0 4

. Pula County Court. 2000. Liability of Pula Airport for the damages from bird strikes. County Court, Pula, Republic of Croatia, case Gž-2141/00.
Richardson, W. J., and T. West. 2000. Serious birdstrike accidents to military aircraft:Liability Issues Appendix N 334

updated list and summary. Pages 67-98 in Proc eedings of 25th International Bird Strike Committee meeting. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Robinson, M. 2000. The duty of care—failure to maintain an effective “wildlife control programme” might result in significant legal liability consequences. Aon Group Limited, Aviation Reinsurance Departmen t, 8 Devonshire Square, EC2M 4PL, London, UK (mike.robinson@aon.co.uk).
Thorpe, J. 2003. Fatalities and destroyed airc raft due to bird strikes, 1912-2002. Pages 85-113 in Proceedings of the 26th International Bird Strike Committee meeting (Volume 1). Warsaw, Poland. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 1985. Overseas National Airways, Inc. Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant-Third- party Plaintiff-Appellant, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Third–party Defendant-Appellant, and The City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 84-6232, 84- 6254 (Aug. term, 1984). Decided 27 June 1985.
Wilkinson, C. 1998. Now aviation insurers mu st watch the birdie. Insurance Day. Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd, London, UK. 5 February. 2 pages.335



## APPENDIX O: Summary of S t udies on V e get a tion Management for North American AirfieldsAppendix O 336

This page intentionally left blankAppendix O 337



### Summary Of Studies On Vegetation Management For North American Airfields
Thomas W. Seamans USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, Na tional Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, Sandusky , Ohio 44870
Habitat management is a critical element in any wildlife hazard management program at an airport. Non-woody or her baceous vegetation accounts for the majority of wildlife habitat at most airports. If this vegetat ion is not managed, the site will often become overgrown and attractive to wildlife that are hazardous to aircraft (Barras et al. 2000, Cleary et al. 2003).
Vegetation management on many USA airports consists of mowing the vegetation to some set height. The Federal Aviation Admini stration has not specified the height that vegetation is to be maintained away from the movement area. One method often suggested for reducing bird num bers on airports is to maintain vegetation at 6-10 inches, as opposed to standard mowing practices that maintain vegetation at 2-4 inches (Transport Canada 1994, US Department of Ag riculture 1998, Civil Av iation Authority 2002). Vegetation 6-10 inches high is t hought to interfere with visibility and ground movements of flocking birds such as European starlings and gulls (Solman 1966, Blokpoel 1976). However, the scientific suppor t for this height is based on studies done in Great Britain (Brough 1971, Mead and Carter 1973, and Brough and Bridgman 1980), in which bird species of concern in Nort h America were not present. Many other sources recommend tall vegetation but do not present data to support the recommended height (Wright 1968, Creswell 1988, Blokpoel 1976, Burger 1983, Solman 1970, 1973, 1976, Transport Canada 1994, Dekker and van der Zee 1996, US Department of Agriculture 1998). In Great Britain, long-grass management involves a rigorous regime of mowing within a 2-inch window along with thatch and weed removal and the use of fertilizers to maintain an erect, dense stand of grass (Civil Aviation Authority 2002). North Amer ican airfields generally do not have similar vegetation management plans. Therefore, observations drawn from long- grass management in Great Britain must be applied c autiously in North America.
Previous studies on tall veget ation management at airports in the United States have produced conflicting results (Buckley and Mc Carthy 1994, Seamans et al. 1999, Barras et al. 2000). Further, other published views t hat may not be scientifically defensible (Barras and Seamans 2002) have indicated that “tall vegetation” should not be on airfields (van Tets 1969, So lman 1970). Blokpoel (1976) indicated that vegetation height management should be dependent on the bird species using the airfield.
Mowing has been shown to at least tempor arily reduce small mammal populations (Wilkins and Schmidly 1979, Lemen and Cl ausen 1984, Grimm and Yahner 1988, Edge et al. 1995). Fewer small mammals may reduc e the attractiveness of the area to birds of prey (e.g. red-tailed hawks, great -horned owls) and predatory mammals (e.g. coyotes) that pose hazards to aircra ft (Phelan and Robertson 1977, Baker and Brooks 1981a, Dolbeer et al. 2000). Should a small mammal population remain after mowing,Airfield Vegetation Management Appendix O 338

predators will be attracted to t he area because of improved oppor tunity to capture prey due to the removal of prot ective overhead vegetation (Wakeley 1978, Baker and Brooks 1981b, Bechard 1982, Preston 1990, Sheffield et al. 2001, Fitzpatrick 2003). It is also likely that small mammals in unmowed areas will exploit adjacent mowed areas (Cleary et al. 2003) due to a lack of competition in mowed areas. Therefore, despite the decrease in small mammals caused by mowi ng, the number or fr equency of potential predators in this area could be higher because of the potential for efficient foraging along the edge of the two areas. To avoid this conflict, airports should mow all areas within their control. Additional small mammal control (e. g. using a rodenticide) may be necessary if mowing does not reduce the populat ion to a point that the area becomes unattractive to predators.
Vegetation density, structure, species com position and size of gr assy areas have been shown to influence bird use of grassl ands (Mead and Carter 1973, Frawley and Best 1991, Delisle and Savidge 1997, Norment et al. 1999, Washburn et al. 2000, Johnson and Igl 2001). Ideally, vegetation found on airpor ts should have low attraction to birds, small mammals and insects; have hardy growth and good survival; and provide good ground coverage without being a fire hazar d (Austin-Smith and Lewis 1969). No published studies have been conducted on field ev aluations that provide information on vegetation that meets these r equirements. Initial pen trial results at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC)/Ohio Field Station (OFS) using tall fescue containing the fungal endophyte ( Neotyphodium coenophialum) indicate that Canada geese do not prefer to feed on the gra ss (Washburn and Seamans 2004).

Research at the NWRC/OFS has shown that vegetation height alone does not reduce bird use of grassland areas (Seamans et al . 2005). Species-specific responses may be expected. For example, brown-headed cowbir ds and American robins prefer short (<6 in) vegetation, starlings do not differentiate between shor t (<6 in) and tall (>6 in) vegetation and eastern meadowlar ks prefer tall (>6 in) veget ation. Airport managers need to work with airport wildlif e biologists to determine what species of concern in regards to aircraft safety are in their area and what the habitat needs are for those species. Response of vegetation to mowing must al so be considered. Some species of vegetation will not live if mowers are set below 4 inches. Drought conditions may also necessitate a change in timing of mowing or hei ght of mowers in order to avoid causing vegetation die offs. Considering bird, mammal and vegetation limit ations, mowing at least monthly at a target of 5 - 8 inches may work in many airport environments as part of a wildlife hazard management program. Most grasses used on ai rfields in non-arid habitats should be able to survive this mowing height. In addition, vegetation will be short enough to enable observers to see larger birds yet l ong enough to prevent birds that prefer short vegetation from using the ar ea. However, starlings and meadowlarks will use both tall and short vegetation. Density and species of vegetation may limit both species use but these specifications have not been determined. Any area that has sparse vegetation will allow birds to move through or land. Mo wing at 5 - 8 inches should also reduce small mammal abundance.Appendix O Airfield Vegetation Management 339

A dense, monotypic stand of v egetation that wildlife do not prefer for food or cover would be ideal airfield vegetat ion. Researchers will continue to work on this issue to find species that meet airport demands in the various regions of the United States.

References
Austin-Smith, P. J., and H. F. Lewis. 1969. Alternative vegetative ground cover. Pp. 153—160 in Proceedings of the World Conference on Bird Hazards to Aircraft.
Baker, J. A., and R. J Brooks. 1981 a . Raptor and vole populat ions at an airport. Journal of Wildlif e Management 45:390—396.
Baker, J. A., and R. J Brooks. 1981 b . Distribution patterns of raptors in relation to density of meadow voles. Condor 83:42—47.

Buckley, P. A., and M. G. McCarthy. 1994. Insects, vegetation, and the control of laughing gulls ( Larus atricilla ) at Kennedy International Airport, New York City. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:291—302. Barras, S. C., R. A. Dolbeer, R. B. Chipman, G. E. Bernhardt, and M. S. Carrara. 2000. Bird and small mammal use of mow ed and unmowed vegetat ion at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 1998-1999. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:31—36.
Barras, S. C. and T. W. Seamans. 2002. Habitat management approaches for reducing wildlife use of airfields. Proceedi ngs of the Vertebrat e Pest Conference 20:309—315. Bechard, M. J. 1982. Effect of veget ative cover on foraging site selection by Swainson’s hawk. Condor 84:153—159.
Blokpoel, H. 1976. Bird hazards to airc raft. Clarke, Irwin and Company and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada.
Brough, T. E. 1971. Experiment al use of long-grass in the U.K. Bird Strike Committee Europe 6:unpaged. Brough, T. E., and C. J. Bridgman. 1980. An evaluation of long-grass as a bird deterrent on British airfields. J ournal of Applied Ecology 17:243—253.

Burger, J. 1983. Bird control at airpor ts. Environmental Conservation 10:115—124. Civil Aviation Authority. 2002 Aerodrome Bird Control. CAP 680. Aerodrome Standards Department, Safety Regulation Gr oup. Gatwick Airport South, West Sussex, UK. Cleary, E. C., R. A. Dolbeer, and P. R. Bast ida. 2003. The Mexi co City International Airport project: bird and mammal concerns at the existing airport and Ex-vaso de Texcoco. Supplemental repor t Number 5. Special r eport for US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Ad ministration, Washington, DC.
Creswell, P. D. 1988. Bi rd species, populations, and activities at Christchurch International Airport, New Zealand, between 1986 and 1988: implications for a preventative bird strike program. Ne w Zealand Natural Sciences 15:61—70.Airfield Vegetation Management Appendix O 340

Dekker, A., and F. F. van der Zee. 1996. Birds and grassland on airports. Bird Strike Committee Europe 23:291—305.
Delisle, J. M, and J. A. Sa vidge. 1997. Avian use and v egetation characteristics of conservation reserve program fields. Journal of Wild life Management 61:318— 325. Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wrigh t, and E. C. Cleary. 2000. Ranking the hazard level of wildlife species to aviation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:372—378. Edge, W. D., J. O. Wolff, and R. L. Care y. 1995. Density-dependent responses of gray-tailed voles to mowing. Jour nal of Wildlife Management 59:245—251. Fitzpatrick, K. J. 2003. Effects of mowing on the selection of raptor foraging habitat. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Frawley, B. J., and L. B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species composition in alfalfa fiel ds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135—142.
Grimm, J. W., and R. H. Yahner. 1988. Small mammal response to roadside habitat management in south central Minnesota. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 53:16—21.
Johnson, D. H., and L. D. Igl. 2001. Area r equirements of grasslan d birds: a regional perspective. Auk 118:24—34.
Lemen, C. A., and M. K. Clausen. 1984. The effect of mowing on the rodent community of a native tall grass prairie in eastern Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 16:5—10.
Mead, H., and A. W. Carter. 1973. The management of long grass as a bird repellent on airfields. Journal of Br itish Grassland Society 28:219—221.
Norment, C. J., C. D. Ardizzone, and K. Hart man. 1999. Habitat relations and breeding biology of grassland birds in New York. Studies in Avian Biology No. 19:112— 121.
Phelan, F. S., and R. J. Robertson. 1977. Predatory responses of a raptor guild to changes in prey density. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:2565—2572.
Preston, C. R. 1990. Distri bution of raptor foraging in relation to prey biomass and habitat structure. Condor 92:107—112.
Seamans, T. W., R. A. Dolbeer, M. S. Carra ra, and R. B. Chipman. 1999. Does tall grass reduce bird numbers on airports?: Results of pen test with Canada geese and field trials at two airports, 1998. Pr oceedings Joint Meeting of Bird Strike Committee Canada and Bird Strike Committee USA, Vancouver, British Columbia 161—170.
Seamans, T. W., G. E. Bernhardt, B. F. Blackwe ll, S. C. Barras, and J. D. Cepek. 2005. Comparison of two vegetati on height management practice s for wildlife control. American Midland Naturalist: (In Review) Sheffield, L. M., J. R. Crait, W. D. Edge, and G. Wang. 2001. Re sponse of American kestrels and gray-tailed voles to veget ation height and supplemental perches.Appendix O Airfield Vegetation Management 341

Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:380—385. Solman, V.E.F. 1966. Ecologi cal control of bird hazard to aircraft. Proceedings of the Bird Control Seminar 3:38—56.

Wakeley, J. S. 1978. Factors affecting t he use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316—326. Solman, V. E. F. 1970. Airport design and management to reduce bird problems. Proceedings First World Conference on Bi rd Hazards to Aircraft, National Research Council of Canada 1:143—147.
Solman, V. E. F. 1973. Birds and ai rcraft. Biological Conservation 5:79—86.
Solman, V. E. F. 1976. Aircraft and birds. Proceedings of the Seventh Bird Control Seminar, Bowling Green State Universi ty, Bowling Green, Ohio pp.83—88.
Transport Canada. 1994. Wild life control procedures manual. Environmental and Support Services, Airports Group. TP11500E. Ottawa, Canada. U. S. Department of Agricult ure. 1998. Managing wildlife hazards at airports. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, W ildlife Services, Washington, D. C.
van Tets, G. F. 1969. Quantitative and qua litative changes in habitat and avifauna at Sydney airport. CSIRO Wildlife Research 14:117—128.

Washburn, B. E., T. G. Barnes, and J. D. Sole. 2000. Improving northern bobwhite habitat by converting tall fescue fields to native warm season grasses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:97—104.
Washburn, B. E. and T. W. Seamans. 2004. Management of vegetation to reduce wildlife hazards at airports. Proceedi ngs FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference. Atlantic City New Jersey.
Wilkins, K. T., and D. J. Sc hmidly. 1979. The effects of mowing highway rights-of-way on small mammals. Proceedings Se cond Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-way Management, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wright, E. N. 1968. Modifica tion of the habitat as a means of bird control. Pp. 97—116 in : R. K. Murton and E. N. Wr ight (editors). The problem of birds as pests. Academic Press, London.Airfield Vegetation Management Appendix O 342

This page intentionally left blank343



## Appendix P: T i tle 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.337Appendix P 344

This page intentionally left blankAppendix P 14 CFR 139.337 345

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 139.337 (a) In accordance with its Airport Certific ation Manual and the r equirements of this section, each certificate holder must take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected. (b) In a manner authorized by the Administra tor, each certificate holder must ensure that a wildlife hazard assessment is conduct ed when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport (b) (1) An air carrier aircraft exper iences multiple wildlife strikes:
(b) (2) An air carrier aircraft experiences substantia l damage from striking wildlife. As used in this paragraph, substantial damage means damage or structural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affect s the structural str ength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and t hat would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component;
(b) (3) An air carrier ai rcraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or
(b) (4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area.
(c) The wildlife hazard assessment required in paragraph (b) of this section must be conducted by a wildlife damage management biol ogist who has professional training and/or experience in wildlife hazard management at airports or an individual working under direct supervision of such an indivi dual. The wildlife hazard assessment must contain at least the following: (c) (l) An analysis of the events or circ umstances that prompted the assessment. c) (2) Identification of t he wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences. (c) (3) Identification and location of feat ures on and near the airport that attract wildlife.
(c) (4) A description of wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. (c) (5) Recommended actions for reducing i dentified wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. (d) The wildlife hazard assessment required under paragraph (b) of th is section must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and determinati on of the need for a wildlife hazard management plan. In reaching this determination, the Administrator will consider—14 CFR 139.337 Appendix P 346

(d) (1) The wildlife hazard assessment;
(d) (2) Actions recommended in the wildlif e hazard assessment to reduce wildlife hazards; (d) (3) The aeronautical activity at the ai rport, including the frequency and size of air carrier aircraft;
(d) (4) The views of the certificate holder;
(d) (5) The views of the airport users; and (d) (6) Any other known factors relati ng to the wildlife hazard of which the Administrator is aware. (e) When the Administrator determines that a wildlife hazard management plan is needed, the certificate holder must formulate and implement a plan using the wildlife hazard assessment as a basis. The plan must— (e) (1) Provide measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to air carrier operations; (e) (2) Be submitted to, and approved by, the Administrator prior to implementation; and (e) (3) As authorized by the Administrator, become a part of the Ai rport Certification Manual. (f) The plan must include at least the following: (f) (1) A list of the individuals having aut hority and responsibility for implementing each aspect of the plan. (f) (2) A list prioritizing the following actions identified in the wildlife hazard assessment and target dates for their initiation and completion: (f) (2) (i) Wildlife population management;
(f) (2) (ii) Habitat modification; and (f) (2) (iii) Land use changes.
(f) (3) Requirements for and, where applicable, copies of local, State, and Federal wildlife control permits.
(f) (4) Identification of resources that t he certificate holder will provide to implement the plan. (f) (5) Procedures to be followed during ai r carrier operations that at a minimum includes— (f) (5) (i) Designation of personnel responsible for implementing the procedures; (f) (5) (ii) Provisions to conduct physica l inspections of the aircraft movement areas and other areas crit ical to successfully manage known wildlife hazards before air carrier operations begin;347

(f) (5) (iii) Wildlife hazard control measures; and
(f) (5) (iv) Ways to communicate e ffectively between personnel conducting wildlife control or observing wildlife hazards and the air traffic control tower.
(f) (6) Procedures to review and ev aluate the wildlife haz ard management plan annually or following an event described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, including: (f) (6) (i) The plan's effectiveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards on and in the airport's vicinity and (f) (6) (ii) Aspects of the wildlife haz ards described in the wildlife hazard assessment that should be reevaluated. (f) (7) A training program conducted by a qualified wildlife damage management biologist to provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully carry out the wildlife hazar d management plan required by paragraph (d) of this section. (g) FAA Advisory Circulars contain me thods and procedures for wildlife hazard management at airports that are a cceptable to the Administrator.14 CFR 139.337 Appendix P 348

This page intentionally left blank