Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird 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.

42 A P P E N D I X H Summary of Case Studies The research team used various available resources (e.g., published research, wildlife strike data and wildlife survey data from wildlife hazard assessments) to assemble data on two airports (one commercial service and one general aviation) featuring unique and diverse stormwater man- agement systems or open water sources. The data collected from these airports was used to test the accuracy and effec- tiveness of the Bird Strike Risk Analysis and Stormwater Man- agement Decision Tool in different scenarios. Members of the research team conducted site visits to the selected air- ports to gain additional insight into the tools’ function and instruct airport personnel on how to properly apply the tool at their airport. The research team selected two case study airports based on the following selection criteria: 1) FAA wildlife strike data 2) Completed Wildlife Hazard Assessment/Environmental Assessment 3) Master Stormwater Management Plan 4) Stormwater management features and/or water resources on or adjacent to the airport 5) Previously utilized wildlife hazard management techniques in regards to stormwater systems Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (CLE) was selected as the representative Part 139 certificated case study airport. CLE is located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is included in the Great Lakes FAA Region. It is approximately 7 miles south of Lake Erie and adjacent to Rocky River, part of regional Metro Park. CLE is moving forward with redevelopment activities that will require them to meet more stringent stormwater manage- ment requirements and is challenged with how to incor- porate the required BMPs, most of which would necessitate surface detention. CLE has ample wildlife strike data (1,277 total reported strikes) and has experienced at least 15 significant strikes since 1990, involving gulls, swans, geese, and ducks. In 2003, they contracted with the USDA to complete a wildlife hazard assessment (WHA), which has been supplemented with continued data collection and annual reports. Pompano Beach Airpark (PMP) was selected as the repre- sentative general aviation case study airport. PMP is located in Broward County, Florida, approximately 12 miles north of downtown Ft. Lauderdale and is included in the Southeast FAA Region. It is approximately 1 mile west of the Atlantic Ocean and contains several stormwater ponds on site. PMP has lim- ited wildlife strike data (14 total reported strikes); however, the majority of species-identified strikes involved water-dependent species (6), including gulls and egrets. In addition, PMP recently finalized a master stormwater management plan. Commercial Service Airport: CLE The CLE case study was conducted on 11 September 2013. It was attended by the research team, CLE operations, planning, environmental, and safety/risk management departments, as well as USDA Wildlife Services. A total of 11 individuals par- ticipated in the CLE case study. The case study visit consisted of a tour of CLE stormwater basins and classroom instruction. Following a project overview, the group selected the newest stormwater BMP, currently under construction, to evaluate with the tool. This basin is located outside of the AOA and its purpose is to meet stormwater treatment and attenuation cri- teria, therefore it is designed to be wet detention. The research team walked through the process of entering airport bird spe- cies data, historical bird observations, basin design informa- tion, and existing bird mitigation measures with participants and reviewed the risk analysis results. During the course of the workshop, CLE representatives helped the research team identify areas where the tool could be improved. Following the workshop, the research team provided all participants with a questionnaire (Attachment A) to allow for additional Case Studies Summary

43 anonymous comments. The case study session lasted approx- imately four hours and the research team received questions, comments, and very useful feedback from CLE staff. CLE representatives reported they appreciated the detail and flexibility of the tool, the knowledge of the research team, and the applicability to SMS. Several participants reported the tool to be complex and time consuming. Given personnel limitations and fiscal constraints facing airports, they worried the draft tool may present additional duties to a potentially encumbered staff. CLE staff offered some changes to the tool for the team to consider. For example, they recommended allowing the user to choose more than one mitigation per hierarchy of control category (engineering, administrative, etc.) and to auto populate the tool with strike data or species data from the strike database. Participants were concerned that the factors referring to the location of the stormwater BMP being evaluated to other water bodies did not consider whether movement areas would be crossed by birds in tran- sit between basins. The draft tool addresses the proximity of water bodies from each other within 5 miles; however, it does not take into consideration whether there is a movement area present between the BMP and other water bodies or not. CLE case study participants suggested the research team improve the tool’s user-interface. The participants appreciated that the tool was flexible, allowing the user to look at risk reduction by changing different variables. Participants felt the tool would most likely be used by risk/safety, planning, engineering, envi- ronmental and wildlife staff at larger airports. Overall, the CLE case study participants felt that the tool would be most use- ful in emphasizing the need for investment in specific BMP design characteristics and/or mitigation measures. General Aviation Airport: PMP The PMP case study was conducted on 25 September 2013. It was attended by nine individuals including the research team, the airport manager, a representative of PMP’s envi- ronmental consultant (Kimley-Horn & Associates), and two professional engineers representing Hanson, Inc. (PMP’s stormwater engineering consultant). This case study site visit lasted approximately four hours and consisted of a tour of PMP basins and classroom instruction. PMP requested that the draft tool be utilized to evaluate an existing stormwater BMP that was designed to be a dry detention facility; however, it is pre- dominately wet year-round. This particular BMP also serves as a water feature for an adjacent golf course. While none of the participants elected to fill out the anonymous questionnaire, valuable feedback was received during the exercise. The PMP airport manager and consultants thought the draft tool was very comprehensive, but also complicated. Given the lack of available staff at many GA airports, the PMP participants expressed concern over the practicality of the tool to the smaller GA airports. They felt that it would require more than an individual GA airport manager to evaluate the risk factors and mitigation options. However, participants realized that with the input of consultants who specialize in wildlife and stormwater design on airports, a GA manager could navigate the draft tool. Also, consistent with CLE com- ments, PMP consultants recommended allowing the user to select more than one mitigation option per hierarchy of con- trol category. The airport manager and stormwater engineers (who are both private pilots) were concerned about NOTAMs as a mitigation option. These pilots expressed that (in their opinion) NOTAMs are not effective in mitigating bird strikes. They concluded NOTAMs should be classified as an “Admin- istrative” control, rather than a “Warning,” which translates to less risk reduction. Results Based on the results of the CLE and PMP case studies, the research team made modifications to the draft tool. Because overwhelming consensus from the case study participants was that the tool needs to be user-friendly, we have endeav- ored to update the visual appearance and functional capa- bility of the tool. The goal is to make the instructions more precise and the tool inputs more intuitive. Also, the research team changed the hierarchy of controls (mitigation) options to reflect the recommendations of participants from both case studies. The user will now select “0” (no mitigations in this category), “1,” or “More than 1” for each hierarchy of control option. If an airport currently practices or plans to incorporate more than one engineering control (or mitiga- tion), for example, they will receive increased risk reduction for selecting “More than 1,” rather than having the ability to select only one mitigation option from the list. The case studies also highlighted the potential problems with utilizing airport strike data alone to populate the species selection portion of the tool. Airports, admittedly, may not report all wildlife strikes and many reported strikes contain no species information. Even more importantly, airports may already be managing for their riskiest species, thereby, leading to fewer strikes in the database. Ultimately, any water-dependent species considered hazardous to the airport should be assessed regardless of presence or absence in the strike database. These indiscretions confirmed the research team’s reservations about emphasizing an airport’s strike data to draw conclusions about risk. Additional Changes Made to the Tool Based on Case Study Results • Adding a link to the “USDA recommended vegetation for airports” list within the tool as a quick reference

44 • Cautioning the user from selecting a mitigation option under the “Elimination” hierarchy of control category. This option will remain part of the tool as a conceptual SMS component, but it is not a realistic wildlife mitigation option. • NOTAMs will be moved to an “Administrative” mitigation example to give it less influence in overall risk reduction. Although NOTAMs may not be highly effective in prevent- ing bird strikes, they should not be completely discounted as a mitigation option. • The team is removing all non-water-dependent bird spe- cies from the list (e.g., turkey vulture). During the PMP case study, the risk reduction for these species was falsely inflated considering stormwater mitigations may not actu- ally reduce risk. The tool will only include species that depend on water for some portion of their life cycle (e.g., foraging, nesting, etc.) • Originally, the tool was designed so that the higher the risk output number, the lower the risk. For example, a Canada goose was assigned a hazard ranking of 2, while a swallow was given a hazard ranking of 5. The justification being that the hazard rankings were akin to mitigation/management priorities. A goose is a higher priority than a swallow, so it would be assigned a lower number (higher priority). Simi- larly, a risk score less than 10 was high risk (or red) and a risk level higher than 21 indicated low risk (or green). Through the case studies, it was determined that this was too counter- intuitive for the user. The research team reversed the order so that a higher number indicates greater risk. • Quantified non-avian decision factors (e.g., cost, mainte- nance requirements, regulatory compliance, etc.). • Changed distances to largest practical Imperial Units, rather than metric. • If the user is not selecting 10 total species for analysis, the tool will “gray out” the unused rows so as not to cause con- fusion on subsequent steps. During both case studies, only 5 species were assessed. Although the draft tool was initially viewed as complicated, all case study participants were impressed with the detail, risk analysis process, and final outcomes of the tool at the conclu- sion of the workshops. Discussion Weighting Factors Weighting factors are one aspect of the tool that increases or decreases the weight given to a particular risk factor in the math calculations. The weighting factors range from 0 to 10 and the research team provided default weighting factors for each risk factor in the risk matrix. For example, the “hazard ranking” of each species (or species selection) factor was assigned a default weighting factor of 10, while the “history of observations” factor was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and the “history of strikes” factor was assigned a weighting factor of 1. The rationale is that species selec- tion was the most important factor when determining bird strike risk, and, therefore, it was assigned the highest weight. Species selection was chosen to be 5 times as influential as the “history of observations” factor; therefore, “history of observations” was assigned a default weighting factor of 2. The “history of observations” data is important, however, can be highly variable, hence the decreased weight. Species selec- tion was also chosen to be 10 times as influential to risk as the “history of strikes” factor, therefore “history of strikes” was assigned a default weighting factor of 1. The strike data can be revealing, however, the lack of species identification in the database and the general absence of data for many airports can provide misleading information. If the user did not agree with the research team’s default weighting factors, they could change the default to whatever factor they deemed appropriate. For example, if an airport has no wildlife obser- vation data, the user can assign “history of observations” a weighting factor of 0 or 1, meaning the tool will adjust the math to reflect a low level of confidence in the selections made regarding that risk factor. The goal was to prioritize species selection and the DeVault et al. (2011) relative hazard scores as the primary risk factor. Explaining these weighting concepts during the case stud- ies was a challenge, therefore, the research team decided to remove the option for user-defined weighting factors under species of concern. In other words, the research team assigned species a weighting factor of 10 and it cannot be changed by the user. The research team believes this is the ultimate factor and, therefore, must be weighted the highest with no exception. The user will still have the ability to change the weighting factors for all other risk factors, however, instead of selecting a number from 0 to 10, the user will simply select “High” or “Low” confidence and the math will be adjusted accordingly. This approach will likely simplify a difficult concept for users to understand. Ultimate User and Applications From the case studies, the research team concluded that the tool will likely be most utilized by airport planners, envi- ronmental coordinators, engineers, and risk/safety personnel, either on airport staff or hired as consultants. Input from air- port operations staff, wildlife biologists, and airport managers may be required; however, they will likely not be the primary users. The final tool is not intended to be utilized by one per- son, but rather will require several areas of expertise. Extremely positive feedback was received from airport safety/risk manag-

45 ers that have experience with SMS. The research team believes the tool will fit effortlessly into an airport’s SMS plan. The tool appears to be most effective at highlighting bird strike risk to regulatory agencies that enforce stormwater design criteria. Although the tool may not effect changes in storm- water design in every case due to the non-wildlife decision factors and the rigidity of many regulatory agencies, it will (at a minimum) highlight potential risks and increase aware- ness. By quantifying risk and illustrating risk reduction, the tool allows stormwater regulators to visually interpret the risks associated with standing water on airports. The research team envisions the tool will also bring attention to storm water regulations that may directly conflict with wildlife hazard management.

46 Environmental Resource Solutions, Inc. Jacksonville Headquarters: SW Florida Regional Office: 8711 Perimeter Park Blvd., Suite 1, Jacksonville Florida 32216 19607 Lake Osceola Lane, Odessa, Florida 33556 T: (904)-285-1397, F: (904) 285-1929 T: (813) 404-3963 Email: mail@ersenvironmental.com Email: sbrammell@ersenvironmental.com ACRP 09-08 Case Study Questionnaire 1. What did you like about the Bird Strike Risk Analysis/Stormwater Decision SMS-based Tool? 2. What don’t you like about the Tool? 3. What changes would you like to see made to the Tool? 4. Do you think the Tool will be useful to airports? Will it be useful to airports of all sizes? 5. Who (within the airport environment) do you expect to use the Tool most frequently (e.g. planners, biologists, managers, operations staff, etc.)?

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation