Travis L. DeVault 

Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center

Sandusky, Ohio

Bradley F. Blackwell 

Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center

Sandusky, Ohio

 

Jerrold L. Belant 

Professor of Wildlife Ecology and 

 Management

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi

Michael J. Begier 

National Coordinator

Airport Wildlife Hazards Program

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Washington, D.C.

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Collisions between aircraft and wildlife 

(wildlife strikes) are common occurrences 

across the developed world. Wildlife 

strikes are not only numerous, but also 

costly. Estimates suggest that wildlife 

strikes cost the civil aviation industry in the 

U.S. up to $625 million annually, and 

nearly 500 people have been killed in 

wildlife strikes worldwide. Most wildlife 

strikes occur in the airport environment: 

72 percent of all strikes occur when the 

aircraft is ≤500 ft (152 m) above ground 

level, and 41 percent of strikes occur 

when the aircraft is on the ground during 

landing or takeoff. Thus, management 

efforts to reduce wildlife hazards are 

focused at the airport. There are many 

techniques used to reduce wildlife hazards 

at airports, and these usually work best 

when used in an integrative fashion. Here, 

we discuss the available data on wildlife 

strikes with aircraft, summarize legal 

considerations, explain why wildlife are 

attracted to airports and how to identify 

important wildlife attractants, describe 

commonly-used tools and techniques for 

reducing wildlife hazards at airports, and 

explain how airports can enlist the help of 

professional wildlife biologists to manage 

wildlife hazards. 

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

February 2017 Wildlife at Airports

Figure 1. Gulls rest on an airport runway. 

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Monitoring Wildlife Strikes 2

Legal Considerations 2

Attractants at Airports 4

Management Methods 6

Airport Assistance 14

Conclusion 15

Glossary & Key Words 16

Resources 17 
The many techniques and tools used to reduce wildlife 

hazards at airports have a foundation in applied research. 

Management is most effective when aided by a thorough 

understanding of the species involved in strikes and the 

local habitats that support them. In the U.S., the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) in conjunction with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services 

program manages the National Wildlife Strike Database, 

which contains records of strikes between wildlife and 

aircraft from 1990 to present. Growing knowledge of 

wildlife strikes with aircraft over the past two decades has 

formed the basis for research questions, 

recommendations for management, and the foundation for 

regulations to address wildlife hazards to aviation. 

The National Wildlife Strike Database contains more than 

169,856 wildlife strike records (from 1990–2015), 

including 13,795 reported in 2015 alone. Of those strikes 

reported in 2015, approximately 5 percent caused damage 

to the aircraft. Furthermore, wildlife-strike reporting for civil 

aircraft in the U.S. is not mandatory, and recent analyses 

suggest that only about 47 percent of such strikes are 

reported to the FAA. Thus, based on the most recent data 

available, we can estimate that every day there are, on 

average, about 38 wildlife strikes with U.S. civil aircraft 

reported to the FAA, of which about 2 cause damage to the 

aircraft (Figure 2). Although approximately 97 percent of 

wildlife strikes are collisions with birds, aircraft strikes with 

mammals, especially deer (Cervidae), occur frequently and 

often cause aircraft damage. 

Increasingly, more strike information is collected and 

wildlife remains are identified, often to the species level, at 

the Smithsonian Institute Feather Identification Laboratory. 

This type of information can be critical when attempting to 

mitigate or provide airports with effective management 

recommendations. Precise knowledge of the birds or other 

wildlife involved with strike events can lead to more 

targeted recommendations, especially when it involves 

habitat alteration. Additionally, as airport wildlife mitigation 

programs mature, there is a need to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the program or its components. Diligent 

collection of strike data makes this possible so that 

programs can be tracked over time and changes made as 

necessary.

Page 2 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Monitoring Wildlife Strikes

Figure 2. On average, about 38 wildlife strikes with U.S. civil aircraft are 

reported to the Federal Aviation Administration every day.

Legal Considerations

At the international level, the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) provides global standards and 

guidance for member nations regarding wildlife hazards to 

aviation. ICAO mandates that member nations (1) assess 

hazards posed by birds and mammals in the vicinity of 

airports certificated for passenger traffic, (2) take all 

necessary actions to decrease the numbers of hazardous 

birds and mammals, and (3) eliminate or prevent the 

establishment of wildlife attractants on or near airports. 

Another key component of the ICAO guidance is the 

recommendation that member nations create a committee 

to assess and respond to wildlife hazard problems at their 

airports.

To comply with ICAO standards, the FAA mandates that 

airports in the U.S. initiate formal assessments of wildlife 

hazards, referred to as Wildlife Hazard Assessments 

(WHAs), when certain triggering events occur, such as a 
damaging wildlife strike. The WHA uses a combination of 

qualitative and quantitative techniques commonly 

associated with wildlife management to collect data and 

assess the impact of wildlife and wildlife attractants on 

airport safety. Data are primarily collected at the airport, 

but also outside of the airport within FAA-identified 

separation criteria related to predominant aircraft use of 

the facility. This information is then summarized and 

recommendations are generated that can help the airport 

alleviate wildlife concerns. The recommendations from the 

WHA are integrated by the airport into a Wildlife Hazard 

Management Plan (WHMP) that is used to specify how the 

airport will approach and implement the recommendations 

over time. The basics of both the WHA and WHMP are 

discussed in FAA guidance and regulations via the Federal 

Code of Regulations (Title 14 CFR Part 139.337), Advisory 

Circulars (ACs), and Certification Alerts (CertAlerts). A new 

AC is being developed to provide more detailed standards 

for conducting WHAs and WHMPs for airports. Minimum 

qualifications for wildlife biologists providing assistance to 

airports are the subject of another AC. 

When implementing WHMPs, airport personnel must abide 

by relevant local, state, and federal laws and regulations 

concerning natural resources and transportation safety. As 

such, wildlife management at airports is often conducted 

within a complex legal environment. For example, most 

bird species in North America are federally protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But some birds also receive 

protection from the Endangered Species Act or other 

regulations. State regulations often parallel federal 

guidelines and in some cases provide primary oversight. 

For instance, many game animals, including birds like wild 

turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), are regulated at the state 

level. 

One highly regulated activity at the state and federal levels 

is legal take (lethal removal) of wildlife. At the federal 

level, recommendations from USDA are required for the 

application process to obtain a migratory bird depredation 

permit administered by the Department of Interior (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; FWS). Permits are issued with 

strict guidelines and this process is identified in the 

Federal Code of Regulations. Data on wildlife use of the 

airport are required to be documented annually and 

submitted to the FWS. Bird depredation permits are 

similarly required at different levels by state governments 

and similar application procedures exist, but are not 

uniform. Other state-regulated wildlife (e.g., deer, 

furbearers, and game birds) are typically managed via 

special airport depredation permits, depending on the 

state agency involved. Other broad-based depredation 

orders exist at the federal level and are used to help 

manage wildlife populations that may impact airport safety 

(e.g., resident Canada goose [Branta canadensis], doublecrested cormorant [Phalacrocorax auritus]). 

Safety, as a topic and focus area within aviation, is being 

adapted into a new paradigm, the Safety Management 

System (SMS). As a process, SMS is dependent on an open 

safety culture and reliant on quality data to help identify 

and address safety risks and other concerns. As SMS 

becomes more prevalent in the airport environment, 

wildlife hazard data collection will become integrated 

within a risk-based measurement system. 

Page 3

Figure 3. Most bird species in North America are federally protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and their capture or lethal removal requires a 

permit. When implementing a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, airport 

personnel must abide by relevant local, state and federal laws and 

regulations concerning birds and other natural resources.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Before wildlife management actions are implemented at 

an airport, it is important to understand the local wildlife 

attractants. This information is typically gleaned via the 

year-long WHA. Here, we focus on the three primary needs 

of wildlife—food, water, and cover—and relate them to the 

airport context. Readers are also encouraged to see FAA 

AC 150/5200-33B, “Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or 

Near Airports”, which provides guidance for airports in the 

U.S. on land uses that potentially attract hazardous 

wildlife. 

Food

Many studies across a wide variety of habitats have shown 

that food location and availability are primary determinants 

of wildlife movements and activity patterns. Airports are no 

exception—although wildlife use airport environments for 

many reasons, the primary motivation for most individuals 

is to find food. 

Wildlife food resources at airports take many different 

forms. For example, Canada geese, which are among the 

most hazardous birds to aircraft, often visit airports to feed 

on turfgrasses planted alongside runways and taxiways. 

Gulls (Laridae) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 

feed on insects in airport grasslands, as well as 

earthworms that come to the surface following heavy rain. 

Raptors (e.g., hawks [Accipitriformes] and owls 

[Strigiformes]) use airport grasslands and weedy areas to 

hunt for voles and other small mammals (Figure 4). Airport 

trash and food waste, when not carefully managed, can 

attract birds such as gulls, rock pigeons (Columba livia), 

starlings, and other species closely associated with 

humans. Seeds and fruits produced by airport landscaping 

plants and naturally-occurring trees and shrubs can attract 

many types of birds. Also, some agricultural practices, 

especially the production of corn and small grains, are 

surprisingly common on airport properties and can attract 

waterfowl, gulls, deer, and other hazardous species during 

certain times of the year. 

Because wildlife food resources found at airports are so 

varied, it is difficult, if not impossible, to remove them 

completely. Often the most effective and straightforward 

way to reduce use of airport properties by hazardous birds 

and mammals, and thus increase aviation safety, is to 

determine which types of food are being selected and then 

remove those foods from the airport. 

Water

Surface water, including natural water bodies, poorly 

drained areas, aquaculture facilities, and exposed 

stormwater detention/retention facilities often represent a 

substantial portion of the area within FAA siting criteria for 

certificated U.S. airports (i.e., surface water within 1.5 km 

of a runway for airports servicing piston-powered aircraft 

and within 3.0 km of a runway for airports servicing turbine

-powered aircraft). All of these water resources on and near 

airports can serve as attractants to wildlife and pose 

hazards to aviation safety. Unfortunately, the management 

of water resources intended to achieve water quality goals 

and provide safe operating surfaces for aircraft is often at 

odds with management intended to minimize attractants to 

birds and other wildlife. Thus, effective water management 

on and near airports to reduce hazards to aviation 

depends on collaboration among airport biologists, airport 

Page 4

Attractants at Airports

WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Figure 4. Raptors (e.g., hawks and owls) use airport grasslands and weedy 

areas to hunt for small rodents and other mammals.
managers, and engineering personnel to develop bestmanagement practices that meet the complex safety and 

regulatory requirements facing airport managers.

Aside from regulatory issues, the development of effective 

management to control wildlife use of water resources 

requires an understanding of the features of these systems 

or facilities that serve as attractants. In a broad sense, bird 

use of water resources is primarily driven by site-specific 

relationships of system, area, cover, food resources, and 

habitat complexity with regard to neighboring resources. 

For example, wetland area and vegetation cover figure 

prominently as attractants to birds. Within wetland 

systems, the number of bird species is generally higher in 

wetland complexes as opposed to larger, isolated marshes. 

Also, wetlands with an intermediate level of emergent 

cover (33–66%) have been found to host the greatest 

species richness. 

Complete coverage of water bodies (physically and visually) 

will provide the most effective means of reducing the 

attraction to birds and limiting access to other wildlife. 

However, cover alternatives can pose problems because of 

cost, maintenance, and water-quality issues, and thus are 

not always feasible. When water resources cannot be 

drawn down in an effective and timely manner (e.g., within 

48 hours of a storm event) or completely covered and 

drawn down at a later date, managers should consider 

integrating netting and harassment. In addition, we 

suggest that airport managers and airport biologists 

consider new advances in Subsurface-flow Wetlands and 

Low-impact Development/Green Infrastructure methods. 

These methods provide means of reducing peak flow of 

stormwater, enhancing infiltration and contaminant 

removal, as well as reducing standing water and volume of 

runoff that must be contained, thereby reducing wildlife 

use.

Cover

In addition to food and water, the third basic element for 

wildlife is cover. Cover (or shelter) is integral to sustained 

wildlife use of an area and is important to many behaviors 

including roosting, nesting, denning, hiding or escape, and 

foraging. Minimizing the amount and availability of cover 

in airport environments is critical for reducing overall 

suitability for wildlife and should be an important 

component in wildlife management plans at airports. 

Understanding the cover requirements of wildlife species, 

particularly those most hazardous to aircraft, will aid in 

developing strategies to reduce wildlife cover.

For reasons including visibility, safety, and risk 

management, the composition of land covers at airports is 

predominantly herbaceous grasses and forbs, collectively 

referred to as grasslands. Additional land covers include 

developed areas such as airport terminals, parking 

garages, hangars, and runways; and occasionally forest 

patches and open water or wetland areas. Trees, shrubs, 

and wildflowers used as landscaping around buildings and 

parking areas can also serve as wildlife cover. 

Virtually any land cover will serve as cover for some wildlife 

species. The amount and location of these land covers will 

also influence wildlife use. How landscaping and buildings 

are designed and maintained can markedly influence the 

attractiveness of an airport to wildlife. For example, areas 

with tall grasslands can provide resting sites for deer. Tall 

grassland areas can also provide cover for small 

mammals, which in turn could be preyed upon by 

hazardous wildlife including raptors and coyotes (Canis 

latrans). Trees and forest patches often provide roosting 

and nesting sites for birds; if large enough, the associated 

understory vegetation of forest patches can provide hiding 

and escape cover for wildlife. Pigeons, starlings, and other 

small flocking birds may also use hangars and parking 

garages for roosting and nesting sites. 

Relative suitability of land covers may also vary seasonally. 

Wildlife use of grasslands and forest patches may be 

reduced during winter when plants age, go dormant or 

drop their leaves. This in turn, could increase the relative 

suitability of other land covers, such as bird use of 

buildings for roosting or thermal cover. Wildlife cover 

cannot be eliminated completely at airports, but can be 

reduced through effective planning and management 

informed by an understanding of species ecology.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5
Here we discuss some of the primary methods and tools 

used for managing wildlife on and near airports. 

Irrespective of the target species and the airport, it is 

important that management techniques are used in an 

integrated way—no single method or technique will 

sufficiently mitigate all wildlife hazards to aviation. Also, it 

is important that management is prioritized to minimize 

strike risk for the most hazardous species that are 

commonly found at the airport (i.e., those most likely to 

cause aircraft damage when struck). Strike risk is not 

simply the identification of a potential hazard, but an 

assessment of the realistic potential for damage 

associated with wildlife strikes. Thus, management of 

airport habitats and wildlife populations on and near an 

airport go hand-in-hand with reducing the overall 

probability of strikes, the associated safety issues, and 

direct and indirect costs to the airline and airport.

Habitat Modification

Unlike other areas of wildlife management, habitat 

modification at airports involves changing the physical 

environment to reduce its suitability or attractiveness to 

hazardous wildlife species. Although likely not a linear 

relationship, any management action that reduces or 

eliminates food, water, or cover should reduce associated 

use by wildlife. Though initial costs of habitat modifications 

can be high compared to other techniques, the associated 

benefits of long-term reductions in wildlife use can result in 

net savings to airports. Thus, it is important to consider 

wildlife habitat modifications during all planning phases of 

airport construction or renovation. 

Grasslands are the dominant land cover at most airports. 

Recommended herbaceous ground cover height to reduce 

wildlife use varies markedly among organizations and 

agencies. Recommended heights are typically from 6 to 14 

inches (15–36 cm); however, there is little scientific 

evidence to suggest this is an appropriate height range to 

reduce wildlife use. We suggest biologists consider the 

most common hazardous species present at the airport 

that use these areas and adapt mowing regimens 

accordingly. For example, if large flocks of smaller birds 

(e.g., European starlings) are of concern, maintaining taller 

grass heights could obstruct their visibility and reduce use. 

However, tall grass can harbor greater numbers of insects, 

which could increase foraging success and use by 

starlings. In addition, tall grass might contribute to 

increased small mammal and rabbit abundance, important 

foods for coyotes and raptors. As multiple hazardous 

wildlife species can potentially occur at most airports, 

assessing the relative risk of each hazardous species is 

often necessary to determine the most effective habitat 

modifications.

As with grass height, the density of vegetation and the 

amount of bare ground in grassland areas can also 

influence food (e.g., insects and earthworms) abundance 

and availability. This in turn can affect wildlife use of these 

areas. Knowing the diets and optimal foraging conditions 

of hazardous species will help managers determine the 

most appropriate management actions, whether modifying 

mowing regimens, applying insecticides, or adding fertilizer 

to increase plant density. 

Plant species composition can also be very important. We 

recommend using plant species of low nutritional quality or 

palatability whenever possible. For example, zoysiagrass 

(Zoysia japonica), centipedegrass (Eremochloa 

ophiuroides), and St. Augustinegrass (Stenotaphrum 

secundatum) are not preferred as forage by Canada geese 

Figure 5. Some airports, particularly general aviation airports, plant 

agricultural crops within or immediately adjacent to airport property. 

Although planting crops can generate revenue, many agricultural crops are 

attractants to hazardous wildlife and not recommended.

Page 6 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Management Methods
and should be considered when reseeding or replanting 

areas at airports. In contrast, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa 

pratensis) and fine fescues (Festuca spp.) are preferred 

forage for geese and not typically recommended for use at 

airports. 

Some airports, particularly general aviation airports, plant 

agricultural crops within or immediately adjacent to airport 

property. Although planting crops can generate revenue, 

many agricultural crops are attractants to hazardous 

wildlife and not recommended (Figure 5). The costs of 

control efforts and potential wildlife strikes should be 

considered against the economic benefits of planting crops 

when deciding whether to allow crops on airport property.

Landscaping at airports should be done with caution as 

many plants or other landscape structures can serve as 

wildlife attractants. Trees and shrubs that produce fruits 

should be avoided, as they can attract birds when fruit are 

mature. Trees and shrubs can also serve as roosting sites 

and escape cover for wildlife. We recommend using trees 

and shrubs sparingly in landscaping. In addition, other 

woody cover at airports is attractive to many wildlife 

species and, in general, should be removed. If complete 

tree and shrub removal is not a viable option, reducing 

their numbers or thinning the crowns may reduce their 

suitability as roosting and nesting sites.

Water, as noted earlier, is a major attractant for birds and 

mammals at airports and should be eliminated or made 

inaccessible to wildlife as much as possible. For example, 

it may be possible to eliminate stormwater runoff through 

the construction of underground retention systems. 

Planting emergent vegetation in open water areas has 

been used in efforts to reduce bird use. However, there 

currently is no candidate vegetation that minimizes 

available water surface area for birds, survives both 

flooding and water draw down, and denies food, roosting, 

or nesting opportunities. Thus, when open water areas 

including ponds and ditches cannot be eliminated, 

complete coverage of these areas using synthetic or 

floating covers is recommended. 

Other habitat modifications include the use of alternative 

land covers, such as herbaceous biofuel stocks for hay or 

biofuel production. Preliminary research suggests the risk 

to aircraft from wildlife use is no greater than traditional 

herbaceous land covers and may also provide revenue and 

environmental benefits including carbon sequestration and 

conservation value to non-hazardous grassland bird 

species. However, additional research is necessary to 

determine which biofuel stocks are most appropriate for 

use at airports. Alternative energy production, particularly 

solar energy, is a habitat modification that can reduce 

wildlife use on airports and result in substantial energy 

cost savings to airports. Photovoltaic solar arrays have 

been established at several U.S. airports with no reported 

increased risk from wildlife use. However, hazardous birds 

may use solar panels for perches and shade. 

Habitat modifications are often difficult to implement and 

typically expensive. Furthermore, habitat management 

varies regionally and depends upon the wildlife species 

present and existing land covers within and in close 

proximity to the airport. By determining the most 

hazardous species at the airport and understanding their 

life history requirements, managers can identify the most 

appropriate and effective habitat management actions. 

Fencing

Although the majority of reported wildlife strikes with 

aircraft involve birds, strikes with medium- and large-sized 

mammals like deer and coyotes are much more likely to 

result in damage to the aircraft. For example, the National 

Wildlife Strike Database indicates that 59 percent of 

reported aircraft strikes with mammals (excluding bats 

[Chiroptera]) caused damage to the aircraft. Because of 

the relatively high overall hazard level of mammals to 

aircraft, it is imperative that airports possess and maintain 

perimeter fences that effectively exclude these animals—

especially deer—from aircraft operating areas. 

In CertAlert 04-06, the FAA recommends 10–12-ft (3.05–

3.66-m) chain-link fencing with 3-strand barbed-wire 

outriggers and a 4-ft (1.22-m) skirt buried at a 45° angle 

to the outside for excluding deer. Even so, the FAA 

recognizes that other fence types, such as 8-ft (2.44-m) 

chain link and even shorter electric fences, may be 

suitable in circumstances where deer activity is low and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 7
cost or environmental impacts prevent the use of taller 

fences. The FAA also recommends that gates close with no 

more than 6-in (15-cm) gaps and that fence lines are 

checked daily for breaches (e.g., gaps, holes, washouts) 

that could allow entry by mammals hazardous to aircraft. 

When well-maintained, ≥10-ft (3.05-m) chain-link fencing is 

extremely effective in excluding hazardous mammals from 

critical areas and is ideal for airport use (Figure 6). 

However, such fencing is expensive, and some general 

aviation airports, in particular, may need to consider other 

options. There is a wide variety of fence types available, 

ranging from temporary polypropylene snow fence to 15-

strand electric high-tensile wire. When selecting a fence for 

use at an airport, managers should consider population 

sizes of deer and other mammals hazardous to aircraft in 

the surrounding area, the level of motivation for these 

animals to breach the fence, surrounding terrain, and cost 

over the lifespan of the fence. In addition to the fencing 

itself, it is important that proper gates are chosen for use 

at airports. Traditional hinged gates may not be practical in 

some high-traffic areas. Fortunately, several alternatives to 

traditional hinged gates, including bridge grates, modified 

cattle guards, and electric mats have been tested for 

effectiveness in excluding deer and other mammals and 

are available for airport use.

Regardless of the type of fence and gates used at an 

airport, it is vital that they are checked regularly and that 

breaches are repaired as soon as they are discovered. 

Deer, coyotes, and other mammals hazardous to aircraft 

will quickly find and use fence gaps and holes. 

Furthermore, research conducted at the USDA, Wildlife 

Services, National Wildlife Research Center suggests that 

white-tailed deer will rarely attempt to jump an 8-ft (2.44-

m) fence, even when their lives are threatened. Thus, a 

well-maintained 8-ft (2.44-m) fence is generally more 

effective at excluding medium- and large-sized mammals 

from critical airport areas than a neglected 12-ft (3.66-m) 

fence. However, irrespective of fence height, it is unlikely 

that any airport fence will be completely mammal-proof. 

Whenever deer or other mammals hazardous to aircraft 

are found within airport perimeter fences, they should be 

removed immediately to eliminate the risk of damaging 

aircraft strikes. 

Translocation

Wildlife translocation is a management technique in which 

individual animals are captured and moved to a new 

location. Translocation has been used successfully for 

many years to create hunting and trapping opportunities 

(i.e., stock game), enhance populations of rare species, 

and reintroduce extirpated species. In the context of 

wildlife damage management, animals are captured in a 

location where they are considered overabundant or 

otherwise unwanted, and then moved to a location where 

their presence is less problematic. At airports, 

translocation is usually limited to raptors, generally large 

birds that are among the most hazardous to aircraft. 

Ostensibly, translocation is an attractive option for 

managing raptors at airports—the hazard is completely 

removed from the airport environment without the 

(immediate) death of the bird. Translocation of raptors is 

considered more socially acceptable than lethal control, 

and this technique has been used widely at U.S. airports 

(Figure 7). For example, from 2008 through 2010, USDA 

Wildlife Services biologists translocated more than 600 red

-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) from 19 airports. 

Although translocation shows promise and likely deserves 

a place in wildlife management at airports, it is not a 

universal remedy. Many U.S. states limit the translocation 

Page 8 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Figure 6. When well-maintained, 10-foot or higher chain-link fencing is 

extremely effective in excluding hazardous mammals, such as deer, from 

critical areas and is ideal for airport use. 
of some species because of the potential to introduce 

wildlife diseases to new areas. Also, translocation is laborintensive and thus expensive (although costs have not 

been formally quantified), and relocated raptors 

sometimes return to the airport where they were captured. 

Furthermore, survival rates of translocated individuals are 

not well understood, and it is unclear how translocation 

affects established animal communities at relocation sites. 

In general, more research is needed before translocation 

can be used most effectively at airports. 

Visual Deterrents

Visual deterrents are generally intended to provoke a fear 

response (e.g., antipredator behavior), and rarely provide 

effective deterrence when used alone. However, the period 

of effectiveness can be increased and habituation 

decreased by considering the sensory and behavioral 

ecology of the target species, the context of application, 

and how a particular method might be integrated with 

other techniques to enhance perception of predation risk. 

For example, vision is highly developed and represents the 

primary sensory pathway in birds. Birds have visual 

systems that differ substantially from mammals, including 

greater visual resolution and enhanced color vision (e.g., 

many birds can see in the ultraviolet range of the 

electromagnetic spectrum). Therefore, visual deterrents for 

birds that incorporate color, in addition to movement, 

should consider the visual capabilities of the target 

species. Mammals, on the other hand, often rely heavily on 

olfaction and hearing, and to a lesser extent on vision. 

However, dogma often suggests limitations to mammalian 

vision that are inaccurate. For example, white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) are not color blind, but are 

“dichromatic”, with peak abilities in the blue and green 

portions of the spectrum. In addition, like other mammals 

active at night, deer and their relatives can see well in dim 

light. As with deer, the importance of the visual pathway to 

canids (dogs and their relatives) varies with the species 

and context, and some canids can see well in the blue and 

green portions of the spectrum. We note that there is little 

evidence that canids respond to color signals. However, 

movement and novelty have played a role in the 

effectiveness of deterrents. 

In addition to matching the visual deterrent to the biology 

of the target species, it is also important to understand 

context. In other words, just because an animal can see 

the deterrent being used does not necessarily mean it will 

react in the desired manner. We must ask whether the 

deterrent has the potential to stimulate instinctive 

avoidance behaviors, as with some natural signals, or 

whether the deterrent requires a period of learning 

accompanied by reinforcement. For example, wood pigeon 

(Columba palumbus) wing marks can serve as natural 

visual alarms to other wood pigeons. Although the 

ecological implications of wood pigeon wing marks seem 

distant from the use of visual deterrents on airports, the 

principle is not. The ecological importance of the visual cue 

that is paired with the deterrent is critical. In other words, 

is the cue effective for the right reasons. Does it enhance 

the animal’s perception of risk to the resource you want to 

protect or is the animal associating it with something else? 

Another example is the use of disruptive visual stimuli (e.g., 

fladry) against wolves (Canis lupus) that decrease 

predation on livestock, but do not produce or stimulate an 

aversion to the resource. One should also consider that a 

visual deterrent might be detected and considered 

important because it occurs within the context of a familiar 

habitat (e.g., coyote response to an intruder’s sign or a 

novel object within the animal’s territory). However, if this 

same coyote encountered a novel object outside its 

territory, the coyote would likely show little interest 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 9

Figure 7. Translocation is a nonlethal option for managing raptors, such as 

this American kestrel, at airports.
even though the object is readily detectable, because there 

is no threat perceived from the cue. 

The effectiveness of a visual deterrent that is readily 

detectable and used within the appropriate ecological 

context (e.g., deterring foraging or, more broadly, use of a 

specific area) can be enhanced through the integration of 

methods. For example, the use of visual barriers against 

deer (i.e., fences that the deer cannot see through) has 

recently shown promise for airport or agricultural 

applications, but only as a method to be integrated with 

harassment or lethal control, and as a precursor to more 

permanent deer-proof fencing. Similarly, the use of avian 

effigies (models of dead birds or taxidermy mounts) as 

deterrents has proven effective, particularly if integrated 

with laser dispersal. The use of trained border collies 

(Canis familiaris) or falconry against birds on airports is 

common, though their efficacy is debatable from the 

perspective of long-term, cost-effective deterrence. Finally, 

a combination of visual obstruction via maintenance of a 

particular grass height, control of food resources, and 

harassment recently has been recommended as a dynamic 

method for managing airport grasslands to deter use by 

birds. In each scenario, however, deterrent detectability 

and context contribute to the effectiveness of the visual 

deterrent, and integration with other methods will enhance 

efficacy. 

Auditory and Tactile Repellents

Along with vision and smell, auditory (hearing) and tactile 

(touch) are categories of primary physical receptors in birds 

and mammals. These receptors can be triggered by 

repellents and influence animal behavior. Thus, auditory 

and tactical repellents can be important tools for reducing 

hazardous wildlife at airports when used within an 

integrated wildlife management strategy. Auditory 

repellents can be any device that produces sound in the 

audible (to most vertebrates; 20 Hz-20 kHz) through the 

ultrasonic range (some rodents and bats; >20 kHz-200 

MHz). Tactile repellents can be spikes of various designs, 

electric shock, tacky or sticky substances, moving or static 

wires, or chemical compounds designed to create pain or 

discomfort. Auditory repellents are generally used to 

disperse birds and mammals from larger open areas 

whereas tactile repellents, depending on type, are more 

suitable for reducing wildlife use of specific structures. 

Like visual deterrents, the sensory ecology of the target 

species must be considered to maximize efficacy of 

auditory and tactile repellents. Hearing is influenced by the 

frequency of the sound as well as the intensity or volume 

(i.e., sound pressure level). In general, birds hear well 

within a limited frequency range, but appear to hear less 

well than humans over a wider range. Birds react most to 

sounds from 1 to 3 kHz, but the hearing range can vary 

markedly among species, with some birds most sensitive 

to sounds up to 7 kHz. Birds do not hear ultrasonic sounds. 

The lower limit of auditory reception is similar in birds and 

mammals. However, mammals typically are able to detect 

a broader range of auditory stimuli, with some species 

hearing sounds up to about 80 kHz, depending on the 

intensity. Efficacy of auditory repellents can increase when 

the stimulus invokes an antipredator response by 

enhancing a perceived lethal situation (i.e., presence of a 

predator). 

In addition to auditory stimuli, animals perceive their 

environment through touch. These tactile senses are most 

commonly located on the skin and are sensitive to 

temperature, pressure, and vibration. The trigeminal 

nerves in the avian bill are also sensitive to oral stimuli, 

which has been the basis for the development of several 

Page 10 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Figure 8. The use of auditory repellents, such as propane exploders or 

cannons, are part of an integrated approach for reducing wildlife risk. 

Periodically changing their locations, as well as their frequency and timing of 

stimuli, can increase their effectiveness. 
primary foraging repellents. Tactile repellents typically 

cause discomfort or pain to target species.

Numerous types of auditory and tactile repellents are 

available; however, we note that the efficacy of many 

commercial products has not been rigorously evaluated. 

Examples of acoustic techniques include broadcasting 

alarm or distress calls and human-made sounds, or loud 

sounds from exploders and pyrotechnics. Originally 

developed for message broadcasting and crowd control, 

acoustic hailing devices are now being used to deter 

wildlife at some airports. Examples of tactile repellents 

include barriers such as spikes and wires to reduce 

perching and loafing by birds, or chemical applications 

(e.g., glue) and electric shock that cause discomfort or 

pain. Although the duration of effectiveness of most 

auditory and tactile repellents is not known, typical known 

effectiveness is up to several weeks. Thus, current auditory 

and tactile repellents are generally considered short-term 

solutions for deterring wildlife.

The likelihood and magnitude of wildlife responses to 

auditory and tactile repellents is often influenced by the 

novelty of the repellent, whether the response is innate or 

learned, and if the repellent is augmented by additional 

techniques. Wildlife response to a repellent will generally 

decrease over time if additional negative reinforcement 

(e.g., occasional lethal control) does not occur. Even tactile 

barriers that invoke a painful response can lose efficacy 

over time if not augmented with occasional lethal control. 

However, some tactile devices (e.g., spikes and wires) can 

provide long-term reductions in wildlife use. The efficacy of 

these and other repellents will be influenced by the 

attractiveness of the site being protected.

Auditory and tactile repellents should be considered as 

part of an integrated approach for reducing wildlife risk 

and complementary to other more permanent techniques 

(e.g., habitat modification), which can enhance the efficacy 

of repellents by reducing the initial suitability of the area 

for wildlife. As with other repellents, animals will often 

habituate to auditory and some tactile repellents once 

recognized as a non-lethal threat. Thus, periodically 

changing the locations of auditory repellents (e.g., propane 

exploders), as well as altering the frequency and timing of 

stimuli, can increase their efficacy (Figure 8). Also, the use 

of auditory repellents that are activated by the animal (e.g., 

motion-activated propane exploders) can further improve 

their efficacy over those that are activated at 

predetermined intervals. We note that the relative efficacy 

of these repellents will be dependent on species life 

history. For example, auditory repellents will likely be more 

effective in dispersing loafing or foraging Canada geese in 

autumn than during the nesting and brood-rearing 

seasons.

Chemical Repellents

Effective use of chemical repellents is dependent upon the 

sensory capabilities of the target species, context, 

integration with other methods, and availability of 

alternative resources. Chemical repellents are classified 

based on the physiological mode of action and whether 

avoidance behavior is learned or not. Primary repellents 

are characterized by unpalatable taste, odor, or irritation 

and evoke reflexive (i.e., instinctual) withdrawal or escape 

behavior. In contrast, secondary repellents produce an 

adverse physiological effect or illness which the animal 

associates with a sensory cue (e.g., taste, odor, visual cue) 

and then learns to avoid. Whether using a primary or 

secondary repellent, optimal use requires that biologists 

consider 1) how animals learn; 2) the sensory abilities of 

target animals; 3) that repellents are intended to modify 

behavior; 4) that population turnover can require new 

training of target animals; and 5) that repellents work best 

if alternative resources or places are available (i.e., 

animals with no alternative resources or no place to go 

might overwhelm the defensive characteristics of any 

repellent). 

Which behaviors define an effective response to a 

chemical repellent and why? Reflexive withdraw in 

response to a painful or irritating stimulus (as with a 

primary repellent) is beneficial to the animal if it prevents 

further damage or harm. Such withdraw might be due to 

novelty or immediate pain or discomfort. However, because 

an animal limits exposure to potentially harmful stimuli, the 

degree and magnitude of exposure is typically weak, and 

thus animals do not efficiently form learned associations 

with primary repellents. As a result, animals exposed to 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11
primary repellents without further integration of deterrent 

methods are more likely to revisit sites or sample foods 

where the stimulus produces a weak or external localized 

effect. 

In contrast, delayed illness associated with a secondary 

repellent can confer learning. The animal associates the 

stimulus with sensory cues paired in space and time to 

form the learned avoidance. For example, anthraquinonebased foraging repellents absorb a range of ultraviolet light 

such that the pattern of absorbance on treated areas are 

thought to serve as the stimulus for the subsequent 

malaise experienced by the bird. However, some 

associations between the stimulus and the sensory cue are 

more frequently paired in nature and hence are more 

readily established. For most mammals, aversions based 

on flavor cues (taste, odor, irritation) and gastrointestinal 

illness are readily made. In contrast, birds are less apt to 

form aversion based on taste, but instead form aversions 

based on visual cues and gastrointestinal illness. 

Population Control

Management of animals on or near airports via lethal 

means or reproductive control is generally the last option 

deployed after all other management actions have been 

considered or implemented. However, management of a 

wildlife hazard situation on or near an airport can require 

killing an individual animal, or reducing a local population 

of a species by lethal or reproductive means until, if 

feasible, a long-term, nonlethal solution can be 

implemented (e.g., erection of deer-proof fence, relocation 

of nearby gull nesting colony). Also, recurrent lethal control 

is often necessary as part of an integrated WHMP for an 

airport.

Biologists should recognize that most wildlife species that 

use airport environments are protected by some 

combination of federal (e.g., the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), 

state, and local laws. Thus, permits are typically required 

before any action can be taken to capture or kill animals or 

to control their reproduction. Permits require justification 

of why the removal is needed, the numbers to be removed 

by species, and the methods used to remove and dispose 

of the animals. In addition, management of wildlife 

populations often generates public interest which airports 

must acknowledge and address. 

In addition to the information necessary to accompany 

planning for and subsequent monitoring of wildlife 

population reductions, it is also necessary for airports to 

justify a lethal control program to regulatory agencies and 

the public. First, the hazard level and the strike risk posed 

by the wildlife species must be documented. For example, 

lethal control may be warranted at a particular airport for 

species such as Canada geese or white-tailed deer that 

have a high hazard level (i.e., ≥50% of strikes with aircraft 

result in damage) and can pose a high risk (i.e., the 

species has been frequently documented on the airport, is 

struck frequently, and those strikes pose damage in 

addition to indirect costs). In contrast, at the same airport 

it may be inappropriate to request a permit for lethal 

control of a species that has a relatively low hazard level 

and is infrequently observed.

Second, biologists should have an understanding of the 

local and regional population status and dynamics of the 

problem species. Population data from local surveys, 

Breeding Bird Surveys, Christmas Bird Counts, and other 

sources can be integrated with reproductive and survival 

rates to develop a simple population model for the species 

of concern. Such a model can serve as a predictive tool 

that allows assessment of the immediate effect that lethal 

or reproductive control programs will have on local or 

regional populations and projection of how populations will 

respond to management actions.

Third, airports must monitor the population level of the 

targeted species, as well as the number of strikes and 

associated damage caused by that species, before and 

after population management is implemented. In this 

context, we assume that monitoring comprises of 

standardized and objective surveys corrected for bias. 

Monitoring allows for documentation of the effects that 

management actions have on the population and, most 

importantly, on the number and frequency of strikes. We 

note also that prior work in this area suggests these three 

types of information should be integrated into regional 

strategic plans that encompass all airports within a 

specified area, allowing for more efficient permitting, 

Page 12 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports
implementation, and monitoring of target wildlife species. 

The emphasis on regional, rather than national, strategies 

takes into account that problem wildlife species in one 

area may not necessarily be a problem in another area.

In addition, methods used for wildlife population control 

should be selected for efficient management of the 

specific problem and integrated with non-lethal 

approaches; there is no “general approach” to lethal 

control. For example, biologists might need to consider a 

long-term shooting program to defend the air-operations 

area from consistent over-flights by birds recognized as 

hazardous to aviation (e.g., the shooting program at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport that focuses on gull 

hazards), periodic removal of deer from airport property via 

sharpshooting, or participation with state and other federal 

agencies in the capture of molt-stage Canada geese on 

and near airport properties. 

Avian Radar

Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) was developed 

during the twentieth century for military applications to 

detect aircraft. During its early use during World War II, it 

was discovered that radar was able to locate and track 

birds. 

Since that time, biological applications of radar have 

increased for natural resources monitoring, and a great 

deal of interest in the use of radar for tracking bird 

movements (i.e., “avian radar”) on a continental basis and 

at airports to assist aviation safety has emerged. The 

common use of the technology is to provide personnel at 

airports or aviation planners more information to assess 

the possible impacts that birds may have on aircraft 

operations. A key interest in the technology relies in its 

ability to identify and track bird targets at ranges that 

exceed human capabilities, particularly at night. 

There are several types of radar that have been used to 

monitor birds, including marine surveillance radars, 

tracking radars, weather surveillance radars, and terminal 

Doppler weather radars. Marine surveillance radars are 

most commonly modified for use at airports, which often 

are referred to as “avian radars”. These usually have 3-cm 

(X band) or 10-cm (S Band) wavelengths and can have 

various antenna configurations.

Following the 2009 “Miracle on the Hudson” event when a 

155-passenger airliner was forced to make an emergency 

landing in the Hudson River following a bird strike with a 

flock of Canada geese, more focus has been placed on the 

use of avian radar to improve awareness about wildlife 

movements near airports. In 2011, the FAA issued an 

Advisory Circular about radar as a basic technology and 

provided guidance to airports to assist in decision-making 

if the airport decided to procure an avian radar unit using 

federal funding assistance.

The FAA and several research partners in government (i.e., 

USDA, Department of Defense [DoD]) and academia 

continue to investigate the capabilities of avian radar and 

its potential use at airports (Figure 9). Several studies 

examining what radar discriminates and tracks, combined 

with how to use the data, have suggested that existing 

systems (small mobile marine-style avian radars) are not 

able to conclusively identify birds to the species level or 

discriminate size classes on a reliable basis. Additional 

problems can lead to inadequate or under-reported birds 

and bird movements. However, current technology can be 

adequate to provide information on local and regional 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 13

Figure 9. The FAA and several research partners in government (i.e., USDA, 

Department of Defense) and academia continue to investigate the 

capabilities of avian radar and its potential efficacy of use at airports. 
bird movements that is useful to airports. This may be 

particularly helpful given the realization that an increasing 

trend in damaging strikes occur away from the airport 

environment (i.e., at higher altitudes).

Currently, a major deficiency in the use of avian radar at 

airports relates to a lack of universally-accepted 

procedures for its use (i.e., concept of operations, or “conops”) and how to integrate the technology into the existing 

operations paradigm. Some airports, particularly DoD 

installations which have more flexibility in flight operations 

than do commercial airports, have successfully developed 

con-ops procedures, and these examples have resulted in 

successful mitigation of bird and habitat hazards at 

airports. However, until a broad-based and acceptable conops is developed for all airports, the deployment of avian 

radar at airports will be constrained.

In the U.S., certificated and non-certificated airports are 

required by federal regulation to mitigate safety issues 

associated with wildlife hazards if the airport receives 

federal funding to support operating activities. These 

airports often require the assistance of natural resource 

professionals to assess and recommend strategies to 

reduce wildlife hazards. Given the long-term recognition 

and function of federal agencies in assisting the public 

with safety and wildlife damage management concerns, a 

series of programs exist in the DoD, FAA, and USDA to 

assist civil and military airports with wildlife hazards. 

Specifically, the USDA Wildlife Services program and 

elements of the program’s predecessors have provided 

assistance to airports since the mid-1950s. Additionally, 

wildlife biologists in other agencies and professionals in 

other disciplines are involved in the management of 

wildlife at airports, mainly owing to the different regulations 

involved at the state or federal level. Also, the private 

sector is increasingly providing professional personnel that 

possess the required training and experience to assist 

airports.

When airports require assistance assessing wildlife 

concerns, various types of agreements or contracts are 

used to facilitate the funding process. The FAA provides 

funding assistance to certificated airports from the Airport 

Improvement Program fund to conduct WHAs. Some larger 

airports in the U.S. have expanded their own staff to 

include professionally-trained wildlife biologists to address 

wildlife hazards. The FAA requires that WHAs and certain 

other activities at airports are conducted by wildlife 

biologists who receive recurrent training. In the U.S., this 

has become somewhat of a best management practice, 

and wildlife biologists providing assistance at military 

airports are similarly trained. 

Many agencies and organizations are engaged at state and 

federal levels in the management of wildlife at airports. 

Starting in the late 1980s, a series of agreements and 

understandings were initiated at the federal level to 

increase interaction and awareness between the several 

agencies actively dealing with wildlife issues at airports. 

These relationships have provided the foundation for 

expanded research efforts and cooperation, particularly 

among the FAA, DoD, and USDA. Other organizations 

centered at the state aviation level (e.g., National 

Association of State Aviation Officials) also are engaged 

with their federal partners. The U.S., in accordance with 

existing international guidance, also has a bird strike 

committee comprised of aviation, government, and other 

concerned parties that provides a forum for the exchange 

of ideas and best management practices. In 2012, Bird 

Strike Committee USA and the FAA signed a memorandum 

of understanding to further strengthen communication and 

awareness of this issue for the benefit of airports and the 

flying public.

Page 14 WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports

Airport Assistance
Effective management of wildlife to reduce strikes, like all 

types of wildlife damage management, is based on 

principles from wildlife ecology, physiology, and behavior. 

Airport biologists should consider how these disciplines 

interact in the airport context, particularly with an 

understanding of regulatory guidance, non-wildlife related 

airport safety priorities, and strike data. This “marriage” of 

wildlife ecology with aspects of airport operations will aid in 

discerning how and why animals respond to various 

mitigation methods (at both the individual and population 

levels), why and under what conditions some management 

tools and techniques work better than others, and allow 

airport biologists to more intelligently direct management 

efforts. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 15

Conclusion
Page 16

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 2. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 3. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 4. Photo by Christopher Loftis, USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 5. Photo by Kendra Cross, USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 6. Photos by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 7. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 8. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 9. Photo by USDA-APHIS-WS

Management of wildlife hazards to aviation is a multi-faceted challenge involving basic and applied research, as well as long-term evaluation and development of management methods. In writing this publication, we relied heavily on authors who published previously in these areas. In particular, this publication 

draws from material presented in the book “Wildlife in airport environments: preventing animal-aircraft collisions through science-based management,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2013. We thank M. Avery, K. Biondi, J. Cepek, L. Clark, T. Conkling, S. Craven, P. Curtis, R. Dolbeer, D. Felstul, E. 

Fernández-Juricic, A. Franklin, S. Gauthreaux, M. Lavelle, J. Martin, R. Mihalco, P. Schmidt, T. Seamans, K. VerCauteren, and B. Washburn for contributing to 

that book. We also thank R. Dolbeer, T. Seamans, and B. Washburn for reviewing a draft of this publication and E. Poggiali for administrative support. Much 

of our research on wildlife hazards to aviation is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, opinions expressed in this publication do not 

necessarily reflect current FAA policy decisions governing the control of wildlife on or near airports.

Glossary

Advisory Circular: Non-regulatory guidance document 

published by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

that covers a specific subject area under airport operations 

and management.

Air Operations Area/Aerodrome: Area designated for 

aircraft gate operations, taxing, takeoff and landings. 

Certified Airport: Airports approved by the FAA for regularly 

scheduled (9 seats) or unscheduled (30 seats) passenger 

traffic.

Primary Repellent: Characterized by unpalatable taste, 

odor, or irritation and evokes reflexive (i.e., instinctual) 

withdrawal or escape behavior. 

Secondary Repellent: Produces an adverse physiological 

effect or illness which the animal associates with a sensory 

cue (e.g., taste, odor, visual) and then learns to avoid it. 

Key Words

Aircraft, airport, antipredator behavior, aviation, bird strike, Branta canadensis, Canada goose, collision, fencing, 

habitat modification, lethal control, Odocoileus virginianus, pyrotechnics, repellent, sensory ecology, white-tailed deer, 

wildlife strike

Wildlife Hazards Assessment: One-year assessment of 

wildlife use of an airport and associated habitats/features 

that serve as wildlife attractants conducted as directed by 

the FAA.

Wildlife Habitat Management Plan: An ongoing 

management action to reduce wildlife strike hazards and, 

subsequently, strike risk, that involves monitoring of 

wildlife use of the airport, active harassment of hazardous 

wildlife, and adaptive management to curb wildlife use.

Wildlife Strike Hazard: Habitat, structure, or practice that 

enhances use by wildlife.

Wildlife Strike Risk: Realized probability of a damaging 

strike with a given species 

WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports
Page 17

Disclaimer

Resources

Belant, J. L., and J. A. Martin. 2011. Bird harassment, repellent, and deterrent techniques for use on and near airports. Airport 

Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 23, Transportation Research Board of The National Academies. Washington, DC.

Biondi, K. M., J. L. Belant, J. A. Martin, T. L. DeVault, and G. Wang. 2011. White-tailed deer incidents with U.S. civil aircraft. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 35:303–309.

Bird Strike Committee USA (http://www.birdstrike.org/)

Blackwell, B. F., T. L. DeVault, E. Fernández-Juricic, and R. A. Dolbeer. 2009. Wildlife collisions with aircraft: a missing 

component of land-use planning for airports. Landscape and Urban Planning 93:1–9.

Blackwell, B. F., L. M. Schafer, D. A. Helon, and M. A. Linnell. 2008. Bird use of stormwater-management ponds: decreasing 

avian attractants on airports. Landscape and Urban Planning 86:162–170.

Blackwell, B. F., T. W. Seamans, K. Linnell, L. Kutsch-Bach Brohl, and T. L. DeVault. 2016. Effects of visual obstruction, prey

resources, and satiety on bird use of simulated airport grasslands. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 185:113–120. 

Blackwell, B. F., T. W. Seamans, P. M. Schmidt, T. L. DeVault, J. L. Belant, M. J. Whittingham, J. A. Martin, and E. FernándezJuricic. 2013. A framework for managing airport grasslands and birds amidst conflicting priorities. Ibis 155:199-203. 

Cleary, E. C., and R. A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife hazard management at airports, second edition. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Safety and Compliance Branch, 

Washington, DC, USA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Citation

DeVault, T.L., B.F. Blackwell, J.L. Belant, and M.J. Begier. 

2017. Wildlife at Airports. Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research 

Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 19p.

Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and 

others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control 

methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock, 

other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware 

of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those 

risks. 

Some methods mentioned in this document may not be 

legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and 

follow all pesticide label recommendations and local 

requirements. Check with personnel from your state 

wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods 

are acceptable and allowed. 

Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names 

does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission 

constitute criticism. 
Page 18

DeVault, T. L., J. L. Belant, B. F. Blackwell, J. A. Martin, J. A. Schmidt, L. W. Burger, Jr., and J. W. Patterson, Jr. 2012. Airports 

offer unrealized potential for alternative energy production. Environmental Management 49:517-522. 

DeVault, T. L., J. L. Belant, B. F. Blackwell, and T. W. Seamans. 2011. Interspecific variation in wildlife hazards to aircraft:

implications for airport wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35:394–402.

DeVault, T. L., B. F. Blackwell, and J. L. Belant, editors. 2013. Wildlife in airport environments: preventing animal-aircraft 

collisions through science-based management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA, 181 pp.

DeVault, T. L., T. W. Seamans, J. A. Schmidt, J. L. Belant, B. F. Blackwell, N. Mooers, L. A. Tyson, and L. Van Pelt. 2014. Bird

use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: implications for aviation safety. Landscape and Urban Planning 122:122-

128.

Dolbeer, R. A. 2006. Height distribution of birds recorded by collisions with civil aircraft. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70:1345-1350.

Dolbeer, R. A., M. J. Begier, and S. E. Wright. 2008. Animal ambush: the challenge of managing wildlife hazards at general 

aviation airports. Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar 53:1–12.

Dolbeer, R. A., J. L. Belant, and J. Sillings. 1993. Shooting gulls reduces strikes with aircraft at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:442–450.

Dolbeer, R. A., J.R. Weller, A.L. Anderson and M. J. Begier. 2016. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990–

2015. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Serial 

Report No. 22, Washington, DC, USA.

Environmental Protection Agency-Water Pollution Prevention and control, Low-Impact Development (LID) (http://

water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/ ).

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2010. Airport avian radar systems. Advisory Circular 150/5220-25. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA.

Federal Aviation Administration Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program (http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/).

Gerringer, M. B., S. L. Lima, and T. L. DeVault. 2016. Evaluation of an avian radar system in a midwestern landscape. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 40:150-159.

Green Infrastructure (http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm).

Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management (http://icwdm.org).

International Bird Strike Committee (http://www.int-birdstrike.org).

International Civil Aviation Organization (http://www.icao.int).

MacKinnon, B. 2004. Sharing the skies: an aviation industry guide to the management of wildlife hazards. TP 13549. 

Transport Canada, Aviation Publishing Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

WDM Technical Series—Wildlife at Airports
Page 19

National Wildlife Control Training Program (http://wildlifecontroltraining.com).

Rutledge, M. E., C. E. Moorman, B. E. Washburn, and C. S. DePerno. 2015. Analyzing resident Canada goose movements to 

reduce the risk of goose-aircraft collisions at suburban airports. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:1185-1191.

Schmidt, J. A., B. E. Washburn, T. L. DeVault, T. W. Seamans, and P. M. Schmidt. 2013. Do native warm-season grasslands 

near airports increase bird strike hazards? American Midland Naturalist 170:144-157.

Schwarz, K. B., J. L. Belant, J. A. Martin, T. L. DeVault, and G. Wang. 2014. Behavioral traits and airport type affect mammal 

incidents with U.S. civil aircraft. Environmental Management 54:908-918.

Washburn, B. E., P. J. Cisar, and T. L. DeVault. 2013. Wildlife strikes to civil helicopters in the US, 1990-2011. Transportation 

Research Part D 24:83-88.

Washburn, B. E., and T. W. Seamans. 2012. Foraging preferences of Canada geese among turfgrasses: implications for 

reducing human-goose conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:600–607.

USDA Wildlife Services research and management regarding wildlife at airports (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/

airline_safety/airport_hazards.shtml).

U.S. Department of Agriculture