Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Wildlife risk has been associated with aircraft operations since the dawn of aviation. The threat has only increased over time. For many years, the aviation community has recognized the impact of bird and other wildlife strikes on the safety of aircraft passengers and crew. These hazards have resulted in billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs and, more importantly, caused injuries and fatalities to hundreds of aircrews and passengers in commercial, private, and military aircraft. Having long recognized that wildlife threats to aviation are profound and ever-increasing, both the civil and military aviation communities have increased their efforts to make aviation safety relative to wildlife strikes a priority concern. Increased and dramatic media attention to wildlife strikes with aircraft—like the coverage of the emergency forced landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009 after Canada Geese were ingested in both engines of the Airbus 320—has also demonstrated to the public that wildlife strikes are a serious aviation safety issue. Since 1988, wildlife strikes have killed more than 255 people and destroyed more than 243 aircraft globally. Data compiled by FAA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from the FAA Wildlife Strike Database suggest that the number of conflicts between wildlife and aircraft has continued to increase since 1990. FAA’s database contains records of more than 142,000 reported wildlife strikes between 1990 and 2013. FAA estimates that the database represents only a portion of the actual number of bird strikes that occurred during this period, and estimates that the data- base includes approximately 39% of the actual number of strikes that have occurred since 2004 and an even smaller percentage for the period from 1990 to 2004 (Dolbeer et al. 2014). Analysis of the data identified several factors that may have contributed to an increased risk trend between wildlife and aviation safety: • The use of faster and quieter aircraft. Commercial air carriers have replaced their older three- or four-engine aircraft fleets with more efficient, faster, and quieter two-engine aircraft. In many cases, birds are less able to detect and avoid newer aircraft using turbofan engines. Also, in the event that wildlife is ingested by aircraft engines, aircraft with two engines may be more vulnerable than earlier aircraft equipped with three or four engines (Dolbeer et al. 2014). • Increased air traffic. The volume of military and civilian air traffic has increased substantially worldwide. Passenger enplanements in the United States increased from approximately 310 mil- lion in 1980 to 732 million in 2013, and commercial air traffic increased from approximately 18 million aircraft movements in 1980 to 25 million aircraft movements in 2013 (Dolbeer et al. 2014). The growth in air traffic has increased the risk of potential conflicts between aviation and wildlife. • Increased wildlife populations and adaptation to urban areas. The populations of many wild- life species commonly involved in strikes have increased markedly in the last few decades (Dolbeer et al. 2014). Concurrently, increasing land use developments have decreased the availability of natural or open areas that historically supported these species. In addition, C H A P T E R 2 Wildlife Hazard Management Background

4 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management the areas that once separated airports and nearby metropolitan areas have decreased in size. As a result, the remaining open space provides habitat, shelter, and feeding areas for greater populations of wildlife. The following information covering the years 1990–2013 provides a greater understanding of the risk posed by wildlife on aviation safety (Dolbeer et al. 2014): • The number of strikes annually reported has increased sixfold, from 1,851 in 1990 to a record 11,315 in 2013 (142,603 strikes for 1990–2013), with strikes reported at 1,821 airports. • The number of U.S. airports with strikes reported increased from 331 in 1990 to a record 649 in 2013. The 649 airports with strikes reported in 2013 comprised 379 airports certificated for passenger service under Part 139 and 270 general aviation (GA) airports. • Although the number of reported strikes has steadily increased, the number of reported dam- aging strikes has actually declined, from a peak of 764 in 2000 to 601 in 2013. The decline in damaging strikes has been most pronounced for commercial aircraft in the airport environ- ment (i.e., at ≤ 500 feet above ground level [AGL]). Damaging strikes have not declined for GA aircraft. • A total of 503 species of birds, 42 species of terrestrial mammals, 19 species of bats, and 15 species of reptiles were identified as having been struck by aircraft. Birds were involved in 97.0% of the reported strikes; terrestrial mammals, in 2.2%; bats, in 0.7%; and reptiles, in 0.1%. • Waterfowl, gulls, and raptors are the species groups of birds with the most damaging strikes; Artiodactyls (mainly deer) and carnivores (mainly coyotes) are the terrestrial mammals with the most damaging strikes. Although the percentage of wildlife strikes with reported damage has averaged 9% for this 24-year period, the number has declined, from 20% in 1990 to 5% in 2013. • A total of 52% of bird strikes occurred between July and October; 30 percent of deer strikes occurred in October–November. Terrestrial mammals were more likely to be struck at night (64%), whereas birds were struck more often during the day (62%). • Most wildlife strikes occurred in the immediate airport vicinity during aircraft approach or departure and at altitudes of less than 3,500 feet AGL, with both birds (61%) and terrestrial mammals (64%) more likely to be struck during the aircraft’s landing phase (i.e., descent, approach, or landing roll) compared to take-off and climb (35% and 33%, respectively). • For commercial and GA aircraft, 71% and 74% of bird strikes, respectively, occurred at or below 500 feet AGL. Above 500 feet AGL, the number of strikes declined by 34% for each 1,000-foot gain in altitude for commercial aircraft, and by 43% for GA aircraft. Wildlife strikes occurring above 500 feet were more likely to cause damage than strikes at or below 500 feet. • A total of 66 strikes resulted in a destroyed aircraft; 42 (64%) of these occurred at GA airports. The annual cost of wildlife strikes to the U.S. civil aviation industry is projected to be a minimum of 117,740 hours of aircraft downtime and $187 million in direct and other monetary losses and may be as high as 588,699 hours of downtime and $937 million in monetary losses. Indirect costs may be much higher. Overall, the 24 years of wildlife strike data suggest that progress is being made in reducing dam- aging strikes for commercial aircraft that primarily use Part 139 certificated airports. Management actions to mitigate the wildlife risk have been implemented at many airports since the 1990s. These efforts are likely responsible for the general decline in reported strikes with damage (and a negative effect on flight) from 2000–2013, despite continued increases in the populations of many large bird species. Nonetheless, additional efforts remain necessary to address the goal of reducing wildlife strikes: FAA recommends that current and future management actions at airports be prioritized based on the hazard level of species observed on the airport and in the surrounding airspace. FAA has also prioritized the need to address strikes above 500 feet AGL and the necessity that the general

Wildlife Hazard Management Background 5 public and aviation community widen its view of wildlife management to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants within 5 miles of airports. Federal guidance on wildlife hazards at airports should continue to be reviewed and, where necessary, revised to incorporate new information about wildlife hazards and wildlife strike reporting trends. Lastly, increased reporting of wildlife strikes with details provided on species identification, number of wildlife struck, time, phase of flight, height, distance from airport, and damage costs is desired. FAA is the agency responsible for setting and enforcing Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). FAA establishes policies to enhance public safety at airports that hold certificates under FAR Part 139 and at federally obligated airports. Although many GA airports do not hold a Part 139 certificate, they are considered federally obligated airports if they receive federal funds to support airport operations and undertake capital improvements. When an airport accepts funds from FAA-administered air- port financial assistance programs, it must agree to certain obligations or assurances. These obliga- tions require the grant recipient to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely, efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions. FAA has established 37 specific grant assurances to which airport operators must adhere if they are to receive federal funds. Wildlife hazard management (WHM) is associated with FAA Grant Assurance No. 19 (Operations and Maintenance). Details specific to WHM in FAA Grant Assurance No. 19 are: 19. Operation and Maintenance. a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable [f]ederal, state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes. It will suitably operate and maintain the airport and all facilities thereon or connected therewith, with due regard to climatic and flood conditions. Any proposal to temporarily close the airport for non-aeronautical purposes must first be approved by the Secretary. In furtherance of this assurance, the sponsor will have in effect arrangements for - 1) Operating the airport’s aeronautical facilities whenever required; 2) Promptly marking and lighting hazards resulting from airport conditions, including temporary conditions; and 3) Promptly notifying airmen of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport. Nothing con- tained herein shall be construed to require that the airport be operated for aeronautical use during temporary periods when snow, flood or other climatic conditions interfere with such operation and maintenance. Further, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the maintenance, repair, restoration, or replacement of any structure or facility which is substantially damaged or destroyed due to an act of God or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the sponsor. b. It will suitably operate and maintain noise compatibility program items that it owns or controls upon which [f]ederal funds have been expended (FAA March 2014). Per FAR Part 139.337b, FAA will require the operator of a federally obligated airport to con- duct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA)—called an “ecological study” in Part 139—and if necessary, to prepare a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) when a “triggering event” occurs on or near the airport. According to the FARs, FAA can require a WHA when: (1) An air carrier aircraft experiences multiple wildlife strikes; (2) An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife. As used in this para- graph, substantial damage means damage or structural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component; (3) An air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or (4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area (14 CFR § 139.337[b]).

6 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management As detailed above and in response to potential wildlife risk to aviation, FAA has established several reporting and management programs to assist in wildlife hazard mitigation. As part of these programs, all U.S. Part 139 certificated airports, and many other airports that accept federal grant assurances, are required to undergo a comprehensive WHA, and most are subsequently required to implement a WHMP that focuses primarily on reactive safety practices such as wildlife harassment, deterrence, exclusion, removal, or lethal measures combined with habitat manage- ment. Depending on the perceived magnitude of the problem and the funding available to conduct such studies, FAA may allow some non-certificated airports such as GA facilities to conduct a truncated version of a WHA called a Wildlife Hazard Site Visit (WHSV) even if they have accepted federal grants-in-aid or experienced triggering events. In some circumstances, FAA may request airports that do not meet the above criteria to conduct a WHA or WHSV and implement a WHMP and may provide funding support to conduct these assessments. In 2013, FAA continued to make progress with their multifaceted approach for mitigating wildlife strikes. FAA reported that 100% of Part 139 airports had completed a WHA, were in the process of conducting a WHA, or had taken a federal grant to conduct a WHA. As a result of public awareness and FAA programs with emphasis on the issue, wildlife strike reporting continued to increase, especially with GA aircraft, which increased strike reporting by 11% between 2011 and 2012 and 4% between 2012 and 2013. Overall, from 2008 through 2013, GA strike reporting increased 51% (Dolbeer et al. 2014). FAA also continued to provide Air- port Improvement Program (AIP) funding to airports to conduct WHAs and develop WHMPs. These efforts have led not only to increased strike reporting from both commercial and GA air- ports, but also to a decline in damaging strikes. FAA funded and assisted with the development of three new ACRP publications to aid airports with the mitigation of wildlife hazards: (1) ACRP Synthesis 39: Airport Wildlife Population Management (DeFusco and Unangst 2013); (2) ACRP Synthesis 52: Habitat Management to Deter Wildlife at Airports (Belant and Ayers 2014); and (3) ACRP Report 125: Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird Hazard Management (Allerton et al. 2015). These reports supplement the previously released ACRP Report 32: Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (Cleary and Dickey 2010), and ACRP Synthesis 23: Bird Harassment, Repellent, and Deterrent Techniques for Use on and Near Airports (Belant and Martin 2011). These ACRP publications were distributed to all federally obligated National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS) airports and are available at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) website. 2.1 Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans If one or more of the conditions identified in FAR Part 139.337b occurs, an airport operator must perform a WHA. The performance of a WHA provides airport staff or wildlife managers with a site-specific understanding of potential wildlife risks at an airport. The WHA must be conducted by a qualified airport wildlife biologist (QAWB) who meets the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-36A, “Qualifications for Wildlife Biologists Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards at Airports.” A WHA includes 12 consecutive months of ongoing wildlife monitoring to identify the presence of wildlife species, including migratory birds, and seasonal fluctuations in the abun- dance, location, and behaviors of wildlife species that occur on the airport property, as well as locations meeting the 5,000-foot, 10,000-foot, and 5-mile separation criteria outside the airport per FAA AC 150/5200-33B. Based on the results of the 12-month wildlife monitor- ing effort, specific measures or recommendations are formulated to reduce wildlife risk at

Wildlife Hazard Management Background 7 the airport using varied techniques that are usually implemented following a hierarchical approach (see Figure 1). To fulfill regulatory requirements, a WHA must be conducted in accordance with the proto- cols set forth in 14 CFR § 139.337 and FAA’s Wildlife Hazard Management Manual (Cleary and Dolbeer 1999). According to these protocols, a WHA must address the following: (1) An analysis of the events or circumstances that prompted the assessment. (2) Identification of the wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences. (3) Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife. (4) A description of wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. (5) Recommended actions for reducing identified wildlife hazards to air carrier aircraft (14 CFR 139.337[c]). As identified by FAA regulations, a WHA must address or include: • Wildlife strike records and analysis: Each WHA must include a thorough review of available wildlife strike records associated with the airport. • Wildlife populations on and near the airport: Field studies associated with the WHA must be performed to determine wildlife population including such factors as: abundance, seasonal fluctuations, movement patterns, behaviors, and periods of activity, with a particular emphasis on the species most threatening to aircraft safety. • Wildlife attractants and land use practices: The WHA must identify potential habitat or wildlife attractants on the airport and in the vicinity of the airport. • Wildlife management recommendations: The WHA must provide specific recommendations for reducing wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. The prioritized recommendations will serve as a framework for the development of a WHMP, should the FAA Administrator deter- mine that one is necessary. FAA’s decision to require the preparation of a WHMP may be based on the presence and abundance of wildlife identified in the WHA, aeronautical activity, and other pertinent factors. When required, a WHMP must be developed in accordance with 14 CFR Part 139.337, subparts (c), (d), and (e) and address the responsibilities, policies, and procedures necessary to reduce wildlife hazards. Source: BASH Inc. Figure 1. Hierarchical approach to wildlife mitigation.

8 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management 2.2 Wildlife Hazard Site Visits A Wildlife Hazard Site Visit (WHSV) is a potential alternative to a 12-month WHA and may be more applicable to smaller GA airports. Currently, no formal guidance is available within exist- ing FAA regulations regarding conduct of a WHSV. However, Draft FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-38 (a draft document at the time ACRP Report 145 was prepared) addresses the specifics for a WHSV and is the operating standard by which QAWBs conduct these studies as endorsed by FAA Airports Division. According to the Draft Advisory Circular, a WHSV has three parts: (1) background airport information, (2) wildlife field observations, and (3) a final report with recommendations. Airports use a WHSV to quickly evaluate and mitigate potential hazards on airports. An airport can also use a WHSV as a preliminary tool to determine whether a more extensive, 12-month, WHA is necessary. If an airport already has an existing WHMP, an airport can use a WHSV to evaluate potential causes for wildlife strikes to aircraft, hazards associated with land use changes or new construction activity, or whether the WHMP may need to be updated. During the WHSV, information on the airport’s wildlife hazard history, documented and sus- pected wildlife hazards, habitat attractants, control activities, airport operations procedures, com- munications of hazards through air traffic control (ATC) and pilots, and aircraft operations and scheduling are collected and compiled. A typical WHSV is conducted over a period of 1 to 3 days. A QAWB evaluates the habitat both on and surrounding the airport, records direct or indirect wildlife observations, and reviews the current WHMP (if existing), current wildlife management and control activities, and airport wildlife strike data. A QAWB must conduct the WHSV and should make wildlife and habitat observations from a variety of locations to ensure complete visual coverage of the airport. Observations include the airport’s operating surfaces and movement areas. These observations should be brief and are not as rigorous as those for a 12-month WHA. At a minimum, the wildlife observations should include: • Documentation of avian, mammalian, and reptilian presence and relative abundance, activ- ity, location, type of habitat used, and time and date of observations. In addition, evidence of bird activity such as fecal material and regurgitated pellets (boluses) under structures used for perching, and mammalian and reptilian scats, tracks, runs, and burrows should be annotated. • An assessment of habitats and man-made attractants on and around airport property that may be potential wildlife attractants. The assessment should also include a review of airport and surrounding area maps and aerial photographs that allow for potential identification of waste management facilities (landfills), water treatment facilities, wildlife refuges, flowing and standing water bodies, agriculture, golf courses, stock yards, picnic areas, restaurants, and other features or habitats that may attract wildlife and have been identified by FAA as incompatible with airport operations within a 5-mile radius of the airport. • Documentation of how the observed wildlife is using habitat, especially on the airport prop- erty and including behavior. • An assessment of the potential for wildlife interactions with aircraft operations in the air operations area (AOA), traffic patterns, approach and departure airspace, and surrounding areas, to include an evaluation of aircraft movements for potential strike risk. A review of airport hazard advisories also should be conducted to ensure the information is specific to the hazards at the airport. Once completed, a report is provided to the airport and FAA that summarizes the wildlife observations and any pertinent wildlife management and control recommendations. FAA reviews the WHSV report and determines if a more comprehensive 12-month WHA is required. Copies

Wildlife Hazard Management Background 9 of the report should be filed and made part of the historical record for the airport. According to the FAA’s Draft Advisory Circular 150/5200-XX, the WHSV report should contain: • A list of the wildlife species observed during the visit, along with a statement that the list is not a complete record of species using the airport. • The federal and state status of the species observed (e.g., threatened or endangered, as applicable). • Habitat features that may encourage wildlife to use the airport. • Natural and man-made wildlife attractants on or near the airport. • Strike data analysis. • Recommendations (as substantiated by available data) to: – Reduce wildlife hazards identified (e.g., through habitat management, exclusion/repulsion techniques, active harassment, population control, and operational considerations). – Conduct an assessment (e.g., a 12-month WHA), if warranted. – Modify an existing WHMP, if warranted. – Improve communications and hazard advisories between air traffic control (ATC), pilots, airlines, airport operations, and other airport users. – Provide for potential alteration of aircraft operations including locations and scheduling of flights to avoid identified hazardous wildlife concentrations. – Take no action (if applicable).