Source: http://docplayer.net/43064-Date-8-28-2007-initiated-by-aas-300.html
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 03:29:07
Document Index: 31295802

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'art 139', 'ART 139']

Date: 8/28/2007. Initiated by: AAS PDF
Download "Date: 8/28/2007. Initiated by: AAS-300"
1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS Date: 8/28/2007 Initiated by: AAS-300 AC No: 150/ B Change: 1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides 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 (including airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC. 2. APPLICABILITY. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that public-use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in this AC. The 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 standards, practices, and recommendations contained in this AC to comply with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these standards. The FAA also recommends the guidance in this AC for land-use planners, operators of noncertificated airports, and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports. 3. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/ A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, dated July 27, PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes, which are marked with vertical bars in the margin: a. Technical changes to paragraph references. b. Wording on storm water detention ponds. c. Deleted paragraph 4-3.b, Additional Coordination. 5. BACKGROUND. Information about the risks posed to aircraft by certain wildlife species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved reporting, studies, documentation, and statistics clearly show that aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife are a serious economic and public safety problem. While many species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety, they are not equally hazardous. Table 1
2 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 These hazard rankings, in conjunction with site-specific Wildlife Hazards Assessments (WHA), 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. These areas can also present potential hazards to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). Constructed or natural areas such as poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odorcausing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, 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, can produce substantial attractions for hazardous wildlife. During the past century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives worldwide, as well as billions of dollars 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 the guidance they need to assess and address potentially hazardous wildlife attractants 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 Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in July 2003 to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contributing to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation s valuable environmental resources. DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards ii
3 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 hazard score. Data were derived from the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, January 1990 April Ranking by criteria Species group Damage 4 damage 5 Effect on flight 6 ranking 2 Major Composite Relative hazard score 3 Deer Vultures Geese Cormorants/pelicans Cranes Eagles Ducks Osprey Turkey/pheasants Herons Hawks (buteos) Gulls Rock pigeon Owls H. lark/s. bunting Crows/ravens Coyote Mourning dove Shorebirds Blackbirds/starling American kestrel Meadowlarks Swallows Sparrows Nighthawks Excerpted from the Special Report for the FAA, Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, Refer to this report for additional explanations of criteria and method of ranking. 2 Relative rank of each species group was compared 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, which adversely affected the structure strength, performance, or flight characteristics, 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. iii
5 Table of Contents SECTION 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS INTRODUCTION AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWERED AIRCRAFT PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE... 1 SECTION 2. LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE GENERAL WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES WETLANDS DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS INTRODUCTION COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP) LOCAL COORDINATION COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS SECTION 4. FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OTHER LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR v
7 SECTION 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS 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 increase wildlife hazards. Land-use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife strikes. The FAA recommends the minimum separation 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 movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or across the airport s approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). (See the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Section 2-8 of this AC.) The basis for the separation criteria contained 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 Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports that do not sell Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 5,000 feet at these airports 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 maintained between an airport s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance measured from the nearest aircraft operations areas AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports selling Jet-A fuel normally serve turbine-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 10,000 feet at these airports 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 maintained between an airport s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance from the nearest aircraft movement areas PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE. For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest edge of the airport s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. 1
8 Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated. Taxiway Runway Taxiway Runway Apron Parking Area PERIMETER A PERIMETER B PERIMETER C 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-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. 2
9 SECTION 2. LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE GENERAL. 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 the airport. 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 Management at Airports, prepared by FAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff. (This manual is available in English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA s wildlife hazard mitigation web site: And, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, compiled by the University of Nebraska Cooperative 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 numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. Because of this, these operations, when located within the separations identified in the siting criteria in Sections 1-2 through 1-4, are considered incompatible with safe airport operations. a. Siting for 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 ) (AIR 21) prohibits the construction or establishment of a new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certain 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 airports or landfills located within the state of Alaska. The airport must (1) have received a Federal grant(s) under 49 U.S.C , et. seq.; (2) be under control of a public agency; (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 with less than 60 passenger seats. The proposed MSWLF must (1) be within 6 miles of the airport, as measured from airport property line to MSWLF property line, and (2) have started construction or establishment on or after April 5, Public Law 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/ , Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions. 3
10 b. Siting for new MSWLF not subject to AIR 21. If an airport and MSWLF do not meet the restrictions of Public Law , the FAA recommends against locating MSWLF within the separation distances identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. The separation distances should be measured from the closest point of the airport s AOA to the closest planned MSWLF cell. c. Considerations for existing waste disposal facilities within the limits of separation criteria. The FAA recommends against airport development projects that would increase the number of aircraft operations or accommodate larger or faster aircraft near MSWLF operations located within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR , owners or operators of existing MSWLF units that are located within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (See Section 4-2(b) 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 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 airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). These facilities should not handle or store putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. Trash transfer facilities that are open on one or more sides; that store uncovered quantities of municipal solid waste outside, even if only for a short time; 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 with safe airport operations if they are located closer than the separation distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. 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, woodchips, 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 airport property. Off-airport property composting operations should be located no closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA or the distance called for by airport design requirements (see AC 150/ , 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 adversely affect air traffic. On-airport disposal of compost by-products should not be conducted for the reasons stated in 2-3f. 4
11 f. Underwater waste discharges. The FAA recommends against the underwater discharge of any food waste (e.g., fish processing offal) within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 because it could attract scavenging hazardous wildlife. g. Recycling 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. h. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris facilities. C&D landfills do not generally attract hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste, and are not co-located with other waste disposal operations. However, C&D landfills have similar visual and operational characteristics to putrescible waste disposal 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 facilities. Therefore, a C&D landfill co-located with another waste 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 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 attractants and are acceptable as long as they are maintained 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 consumption are associated with general incineration (not resource recovery power/heat-generating facilities), the FAA considers the ash from general incinerators a regular waste disposal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife attractant if disposed of within the separation criteria outlined in Sections 1-2 through WATER 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 airport operators may need to develop management plans, in compliance with local and state regulations, to support the operation of storm water management facilities on or near all public-use airports to ensure a safe airport environment. a. Existing storm water management facilities. On-airport storm water management facilities allow 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 detention ponds collect storm water, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they slowly release water 5
12 after storms, they create standing bodies of water that can attract hazardous wildlife. Where the airport has developed a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) in accordance with Part 139, the FAA requires immediate correction of any wildlife hazards arising from existing storm water facilities located on or near airports, using appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist. Where possible, airport operators should modify storm water detention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm. The FAA recommends that airport operators avoid or remove retention ponds and detention ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate standing 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 ditch/swale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide nesting habitat. When it is not possible to drain a large detention pond completely, 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 their 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. The FAA recommends that airport operators encourage off-airport storm water treatment facility operators to incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into storm water treatment facility operating practices when their facility is located within the separation criteria specified in Sections 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. Stormwater detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48 hour detention period after the design storm and remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA recommends the use of steep-sided, rip-rap lined, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basins. 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 interactions. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate their 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 vegetation in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife should be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the FAA encourages 6
13 the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French drains or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife. c. Existing wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that airport operators immediately correct any wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport. Where required, a WHMP developed in accordance with Part 139 will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable. d. New wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Appendix 1 defines wastewater treatment facility as any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes. The definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants or the elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (wastewater treatment facility). During the site-location analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, 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 facilities if they are in proximity to the airport. e. Artificial marshes. In warmer climates, wastewater treatment facilities sometimes employ artificial marshes and use submergent 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 artificial marshes within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. f. Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal. The FAA recommends against the discharge of wastewater or sludge on airport 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 attract 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. 7
14 2-4. WETLANDS. Wetlands provide a variety of functions and can be regulated by local, state, and Federal laws. Normally, wetlands are attractive to many types of wildlife, including many which rank high on the 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. a. Existing wetlands on or near airport property. If wetlands are located on or near airport property, airport operators should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public-use airports, the FAA recommends immediately correcting, in cooperation with local, state, and Federal regulatory agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing wetlands located on or near airports. Where required, a WHMP will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous 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 Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Where alternative sites are not practicable, 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 impacts from airport projects. Wetland mitigation may be necessary when unavoidable 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. 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. (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 endangered species or ground water recharge, which cannot be replicated when moved to a different location. Using existing airport property is sometimes the only feasible way to achieve the mitigation ratios mandated in regulatory orders and/or 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 maintained as habitat for state or Federally listed species. 8
15 Mitigation must not inhibit the airport operator s ability 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 review any onsite mitigation proposals to determine compatibility with safe airport operations. A wildlife damage management biologist should evaluate any wetland mitigation 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 mitigation 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 onsite (see 2-4c(1)). Agencies that regulate impacts to or around wetlands recognize that it may be necessary to split wetland functions in mitigation schemes. Therefore, regulatory agencies may, under certain circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations. (3) Mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is the creation or restoration of wetlands in order to provide mitigation credits that can be used to offset permitted wetland losses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance replacement for permitted wetland losses; consolidating small projects into larger, better-designed and managed units; and encouraging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigated outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 can still be located 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 organizations to develop mitigation banking for wetland impacts on airport property DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS. The FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilities) within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the containment area or the spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. Because most, if not all, agricultural crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production, the FAA recommends against the used of airport property for agricultural production, including hay crops, within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of the airport, then the airport shall 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/ , Airport Design, Appendix 17. The cost of wildlife control and potential accidents should be weighed against the income produced by the on-airport crops when deciding whether to allow crops on the airport. 9
16 a. Livestock production. Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy operations, hog or chicken production facilities, or egg laying operations) often attract flocking birds, such as starlings, that 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 attractiveness of the site to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Free-ranging livestock must not be grazed on airport property because the animals may wander onto the AOA. Furthermore, livestock feed, water, and manure may attract birds. b. Aquaculture. Aquaculture activities (i.e. catfish or trout production) conducted outside of fully enclosed buildings are inherently attractive to a wide variety of birds. Existing aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must have a program developed to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should also oppose the establishment of new aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. c. Alternative uses of agricultural land. Some airports are surrounded by vast areas of farmed land within the distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Seasonal uses of agricultural land for activities such as hunting can create a hazardous wildlife situation. In some areas, farmers will rent their land for hunting purposes. Rice farmers, for example, flood their land during waterfowl hunting season and obtain additional revenue by renting out duck blinds. The duck hunters then use decoys and call in hundreds, if not thousands, of birds, creating a tremendous threat to aircraft safety. A wildlife damage management biologist should review, in coordination with local farmers and producers, these types of seasonal land uses and incorporate them into the WHMP GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS. a. Golf courses. The large grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses are attractive to hazardous wildlife, particularly 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 within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Existing golf courses located within these separations must develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should ensure these golf courses are monitored on a continuing basis for the presence 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. Airport operators should also monitor all landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If 10
17 hazardous wildlife is detected, 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 Wildlife Services 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 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 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 millet, rye grass, or other large-seed producing grasses, the FAA recommends disking, plowing, or another suitable agricultural practice to prevent plant maturation and seed head production. Plantings should follow the specific recommendations for grass management and seed and plant selection made by the State University Cooperative Extension Service, the local office of Wildlife Services, or a qualified wildlife damage management biologist. Airport operators should also consider 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 landscaping airport property. c. Airports surrounded by wildlife habitat. The FAA recommends that operators of airports surrounded by woodlands, water, or wetlands refer to Section 2.4 of this AC. Operators of such airports should provide for a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist. This WHA is the first step in preparing a WHMP, where required. d. Other hazardous wildlife attractants. Other specific land uses or activities (e.g., sport or commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, etc.), perhaps unique to certain regions of the country, have the potential to attract hazardous 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 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 Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that are in such an alignment with the airport as to create a wildlife corridor directly 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 airport 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 are numerous examples of such situations; 11
18 therefore, airport operators and the wildlife damage management biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP. 12
19 SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS INTRODUCTION. In recognition of the increased risk of serious aircraft damage or the loss of human life that can result from a wildlife strike, the FAA may require the development of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) when specific triggering events occur on or near the airport. Part discusses the specific 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 COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS. The FAA will use the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) conducted in accordance with Part 139 to determine if the airport needs a WHMP. Therefore, persons having the education, training, and expertise necessary to assess wildlife hazards must conduct the WHA. The airport operator may look to Wildlife Services or to qualified private 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 director 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, Riverdale, MD, , Telephone (301) , Fax (301) (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/) WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL. This manual, prepared by FAA and USDA Wildlife Services staff, contains a compilation of information 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: English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA s wildlife hazard mitigation web site: This manual only provides a starting point for addressing wildlife hazard issues at airports. Hazardous wildlife management is a complex discipline and conditions vary widely across the United States. Therefore, qualified wildlife damage management biologists must direct the development of a WHMP and the implementation of management actions by airport personnel. There are many other resources complementary to this manual for use in developing and implementing WHMPs. Several are listed in the manual's bibliography WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 139. Part (b) requires airport operators to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) when certain events occur on or near the airport. 13
20 Part (c) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a WHA WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP). The FAA will consider the results of the WHA, along with the aeronautical activity at the airport and the views of the airport operator and airport users, in determining whether a formal WHMP is needed, in accordance with Part 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 Management Plan is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport. The WHMP must identify hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport and the appropriate wildlife damage management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard. It must also prioritize the management measures 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 necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the WHMP. The cooperation of the airport community 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 hazardous wildlife attractant is being proposed. Airport operators should also incorporate public education activities with the local coordination efforts because some activities in the vicinity of your airport, while harmless under normal leisure conditions, can attract wildlife and present a danger to aircraft. For example, if public trails are planned near wetlands or in parks 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 modification of existing land uses, that could create hazardous wildlife attractants within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Pay particular attention to proposed land uses involving creation or expansion of waste water treatment facilities, 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 list 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 creates a wildlife hazard and the land-use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immediately eliminated, 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. 14