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.

41 This chapter provides a general overview of airport operator input into the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT. 7.1 The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT Wildlife Data Worksheet (Severity) Assumptions • Severity × Likelihood of Strike for 1 Guild = Wildlife Risk. The cumulative wildlife risk of all guilds is the Aggregate Wildlife Risk. • Wildlife Severity is based solely on average body mass of each species within a specific guild. Guilds contain varied species that are detailed in Guild Designations in the User Guide (Appendix C, Attachment 1). Within each guild, there are five potential categories that are based on ranges of body mass in species within each guild listed in the User Guide (Appen- dix C, Attachments 4 and 5). • Users identify species that are present, and those species are then placed into a specific mass range category within each guild. Severity Identical to the EZ-Version WHaMRAT, the user input for Wildlife Severity in the Advanced- Version WHaMRAT is an objective score (ranging from 1 to 5) based solely on body mass (mea- sured in grams) at the guild level. Because each guild may contain species with widely ranging body mass, this variation is accounted for by allowing users to input Wildlife Severity data based on the presence of a particular species or combination of species within a guild. The body mass of each avian species within a specific guild was determined based on the CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses (Dunning 2008) and additional average body mass reported in respected avian field guides such as Sibley’s Book of Birds (Sibley 2000). Data on body masses for mammalian and reptilian guilds were similarly defined using the CRC Handbook for Mam- malian Body Masses (Silva and Downing 1995) and cross referenced with Walker’s Mammals of the World (Nowak 1999a, 1999b), Walker’s Bats of the World (Nowak 1994), and The New Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians (Halliday and Alder 2002). Each guild was sorted by body mass to determine naturally occurring breaks (groups) in body mass within a particular guild. This information enabled the research team to determine up to five body mass groups (categories) within a specific guild. Because each body mass category within each guild represents a varying severity level ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high), species-level data are provided by input of the species into a body mass C H A P T E R 7 The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT

42 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management category within each guild. The WHaMRAT assigns a severity score to each avian, mammalian, and reptilian species based on the appropriate five body mass groups within the specific guild as detailed in Table 5 and Table 6. Within each guild, each species and body mass category has an assigned severity score. Guild designations and the associated severity score assigned to each species are detailed in the User Guide (Appendix C, Attachments 4, 5, 8, and 9). To input data for Wildlife Severity in the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT, users first identify each particular species or combination of species within a particular guild. Because each species is included in a specific body mass group within each guild, that species is represented by a guild categorized by a specific body mass range. For example, in the Waterfowl Guild, if an airport has Table 5. Advanced-Version WHaMRAT, avian guilds and severity scores. Guild Severity Waterbirds Waterbirds < 300g 1 Waterbirds 300–999g 2 Waterbirds 1000–1999g 3 Waterbirds 2000–3999g 4 Waterbirds > 4000g 5 Seabirds Seabirds < 300g 1 Seabirds 300–999g 2 Seabirds 1000–1999g 3 Seabirds 2000–3999g 4 Pelicans/Cormorants Pelicans 1000–1999g 3 Pelicans 2000–3999g 4 Pelicans > 4000g 5 Waders If flocks ≥ 5 5 Waders 300–999g 2 Waders 1000–1999g 3 Waders 2000–3999g 4 Waders > 4000g 5 Waterfowl If flocks < 5 4 If flocks ≥ 5 5 Waterfowl 300–999g 2 Waterfowl 1000–1999g 3 Waterfowl 2000–3999g 4 Waterfowl > 4000g 5 Raptors/Vultures/Owls Raptors < 300g 1 Raptors 300–999g 2 Raptors 1000–1999g 3 Raptors 2000–3999g 4 Raptors > 4000g 5 Upland Game Birds Upland Game Birds < 300g 1 Upland Game Birds 300–999g 2 Upland Game Birds 1000–1999g 3 Upland Game Birds 2000–3999g 4 Upland Game Birds > 4000g 5 Cranes 5 Guild Severity Shorebirds If flocks < 20 4 If flocks ≥ 20 5 Shorebirds < 300g 1 Shorebirds 300–999g 2 Gulls/Terns If flocks < 10 4 If flocks ≥ 10 5 Gulls/Terns < 300g 1 Gulls/Terns 300–999g 2 Gulls/Terns 1000–1999g 3 Pigeons/Doves If flocks < 20 4 If flocks ≥ 20 5 Pigeons/Doves < 300g 1 Pigeons/Doves 300–999g 2 Parrots Parrots < 300g 1 Parrots 300–999g 2 Parrots 1000–3999g 3 Aerial Foragers 1 Woodland Birds 1 Corvids If flocks < 15 4 If flocks ≥ 15 5 Corvids < 300g 1 Corvids 300–999g 2 Corvids 1000–1999g 3 Grassland Birds 1 Blackbirds/Starlings 1 If flocks < 100 4 If flocks ≥ 100 5 Miscellaneous Miscellaneous < 300g 1 Miscellaneous 300–999g 2 Criteria for Score Severity Less than 300g 1 300–999g 2 1000–1999g 3 2000–3999g 4 Greater than 4000g 5 Weights expressed in grams (g) Source: BASH Inc.

The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT 43 Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood Ducks on the airport, each of these species has a severity score of 2 based on body mass and is accounted for by the Waterfowl Guild 300–999g category. If the same airport also has Canada Geese (severity score of 4) under the Waterfowl Guild 2000–3999g category and Tundra Swans (severity score of 5) under the Waterfowl Guild > 4000g category, the user would also input these species into their respective guild categories to accurately account for all waterfowl on the airport. In guilds for which flocking behavior is prevalent, a potential increase in severity due to flock- ing is accounted for by multiplying average bird mass within the guild by a varying number of individuals until a severity score based on body mass of 4 or 5 is reached. Thus in the Waterfowl Guild, flock sizes of < 5 or ≥ 5 are used, while for much smaller birds (such as those found in the Guild Severity Rodents Rodents < 100g 1 Rodents 100–599g 2 Rodents 600–1999g 3 Rodents 2000–9999g 4 Rodents > 10000g 5 Lagomorphs Lagomorphs 100–599g 2 Lagomorphs 2000–9999g 4 Bats Bats < 100g 1 Bats 100–600g 2 Mesomammals Mesomammals 100–599g 2 Mesomammals 600–1999g 3 Mesomammals 2000–9999g 4 Mesomammals > 10000g 5 Canids Canids 2000–9999g 4 Canids > 10000g 5 Felids Felids 600–1999g 3 Felids > 10000g 5 Hooved Hooved > 10000g 5 Bears Bears > 10000g 5 Criteria for Score Severity 0–99g 1 100–599g 2 600–1999g 3 2000–9999g 4 Greater than 10000g 5 Weights expressed in grams (g) Source: BASH Inc. Table 6. Advanced-Version WHaMRAT, mammalian and reptilian guilds and severity scores.

44 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Blackbirds/Starlings Guild), flock size is either < 100 or ≥ 100 individuals to influence a change in severity scores. In the Upland Game Birds Guild, an increase in guild severity score occurs only if Wild Turkeys are present. Because Wild Turkeys are significantly larger in body mass than most representatives of this guild, it is necessary to increase the severity score if Wild Turkeys are present. The next section details the process to adjust avian Wildlife Severity Scores at the guild level to include flocking adjustment to severity scores. 7.2 The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT Wildlife Data Worksheet (Likelihood of Strike) Likelihood of Wildlife Strike—Assumptions • Severity × Likelihood of Strike for 1 Guild = Wildlife Risk. The cumulative wildlife risk of all guilds is the Aggregate Wildlife Risk. • Wildlife Likelihood of Strike is based on estimates of abundance derived from objective wild- life observations contained in WHAs, WHSVs, or reference documents. Likelihood of Wildlife Strike Likelihood of Wildlife Strike is a user-determined score based solely on the objective estimate of abundance of a particular wildlife species relative to airport operating surfaces. No consider- ation should be given to the size of the wildlife present in the likelihood index, as that is already accounted for in the severity index. Users can determine the likelihood value for each guild and/ or species previously identified for the severity user input based on estimated abundance data by guild and/or species reported in a WHA, WHSV, or in published literature. If such data do not exist, then the severity and likelihood value should be determined using abundance data from wildlife identification field guides or handbooks, or via Internet sources such as the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (USGS 2015). Most wildlife identification hand- books include information on range and seasonal presence of species, including observation rankings from “rare” to “abundant.” The USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center also provides species lists and observation rankings for numerous wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, and so forth that may be in close proximity to a particular airport. Airport operators could extrapolate such data sources to make an educated estimate of species/guild presence and esti- mated abundance for their particular location and season. Table 7 shows the likelihood scores that are recommended to be input when using referenced sources that provide abundance information. It cannot be overstated that the effectiveness of the WHaMRAT is predicated by appropri- ate assignments of Wildlife Severity and Likelihood of Strike scores. The cumulative effect Species Abundance Likelihood Score Not present 0 (or left blank) Rare 1 Uncommon 2 Fairly common 3 Common 4 Abundant 5 Table 7. Scoring likelihood of wildlife strike by abundance of species.

The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT 45 of the Aggregate Wildlife Severity and Likelihood of Strike scores input into the WHaMRAT by users determines the airport’s initial or current state Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score (rang- ing from 1 to 5). The remaining user inputs into subsequent worksheets in the WHaMRAT merely result in multiplicative adjustment factors and effects on this initial Aggregate Wild- life Risk Score that may result in an increase, decrease, or no effect on this Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. 7.3 The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT Operations Data Worksheet Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the initial Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied based on the number of average monthly aircraft movements as compared to the average monthly aircraft move- ments in airports across the United States. (The average number of aircraft operations at airports across the United States is taken from the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) that contains the official NAS air traffic operations data.) • The Operations Adjustment factor applied to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score accounts for monthly aircraft operations and aircraft class susceptibility to damage. This adjustment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. Operations By necessity, the process of user input to the Operations Data Worksheet in the Advanced- Version WHaMRAT is identical to that in the EZ-Version WHaMRAT. 7.4 The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet Habitat Presence or Absence and Mitigation—Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied based on the cumulative level of current habitat presence or absence specific to habitats that are incompatible with aircraft operations. This adjustment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • The effect on wildlife risk decreases as the distance from the airport property increases. • Mitigation efforts are effective and reduce the impact of incompatible habitat. • Increases in habitat mitigation will decrease wildlife risk, whereas decreases in habitat mitiga- tion will increase wildlife risk. • If a habitat has been completely mitigated, such as filling in a natural wetland, then that habi- tat no longer exists, and an x should NOT be placed in that habitat row/column. Current and Future Habitat Presence or Absence and Mitigation The Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet in the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT is identical to that in the EZ-Version WHaMRAT. An identical approach to input habitat data is necessary. In addition, the current and future mitigation user-input worksheet associated with habitat is also identical in both versions of the WHaMRAT. However, the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT is different from the EZ-Version WHaMRAT in user input for current and future wildlife mitiga- tion targeted at specific guilds.

46 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Wildlife Mitigation by Guilds—Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied based on the cumula- tive level of current and future wildlife mitigation specific to guilds that are present and have been identified in the Wildlife Data Worksheet. This adjustment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • One specific technique or method of wildlife mitigation may affect more than one guild. A combination of wildlife mitigation techniques or methods results in higher levels of wildlife mitigation for a specific guild. • Wildlife mitigation techniques targeted at a particular species will be reflected in the user input with the associated guild category based on a specific body mass range. • Increases in mitigation will decrease wildlife risk, whereas decreases in mitigation will increase wildlife risk. Current and Future Wildlife Mitigation by Guilds The primary difference between the two versions of the WHaMRAT is the ability in the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT to further discriminate wildlife mitigation efforts at the guild level. Specifically, • In the EZ-Version WHaMRAT, a guild includes all species in a particular guild with the aver- age body mass in that guild used to determine severity and the associated severity score. The user then inputs current and future wildlife mitigation values based on these more generalized guilds. • In the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT, each guild is further divided into categories that encom- pass body mass ranges in the guild, and this design results in greater discrimination within that guild. As a result, the user can input current and future wildlife mitigation efforts that may be targeted at species that fall within a specific body mass range category in each guild. 7.5 Utility of the WHaMRAT The Results and Future-Projected Results output worksheets of both versions of the WHaMRAT provide airport or wildlife staff with a comprehensive and accurate representation of wildlife risk based on Wildlife Severity and abundance, monthly aircraft operations tempo, and suscep- tibility to damage from wildlife strikes by aircraft class, potential habitat attraction at varying distances from the airport, and current and future wildlife management and control mitigation associated with habitat and wildlife. Prioritization and application of future wildlife control and management mitigation should account for the current state of affairs while pursuing the goal of continuous reduction in wildlife risk. If mitigation is effective, then the net result should be a decrease in wildlife species/guilds present, combined with an associated reduction in the like- lihood of wildlife strikes. A depiction of changes in Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk can be derived from the model out- put, and data from periodic entries into the WHaMRAT should be used at the individual airport level for trend analysis over time. Regardless of any single Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score obtained from the WHaMRAT—whether it be low (green), moderate (yellow), or high (red)— the ultimate goal of all airport or wildlife staff is to continuously “drive the dot down and to the left” by reducing its Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. This continuous process associated with the WHaMRAT is the essence of a Safety Management System (SMS).