National Academies Press: OpenBook

Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species (2014)

Chapter: Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species

« Previous: Section 5 - Innovative Process Solutions
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Section 6 - Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22222.
×
Page 46

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.

25 Case Studies for Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species This section includes a number of case studies from U.S. airports that have addressed listed species issues on and adja- cent to airport lands. Each case study provides information on how a particular airport used innovative approaches to achieve desirable outcomes related to listed species and their habitat. The selected case studies are intended to present a diverse set of situations, regulatory settings, and challenges/ conflicts that airports may face when actions could affect fed- erally listed species. The general topics covered by the case studies include the following: • Section 10 incidental take permits, • Section 7 consultation, • Innovative mitigation strategies, • Habitat Conservation Plans, • Critical habitat, • Candidate species and proposed listings, • Stakeholder and community involvement, • Federal regulation of non-ESA species, • Conflicts between USFWS and FAA regarding regulations and guidance, and • FAA and USFWS agreements. While no case study is relevant in all situations, generalized tools and approaches are intended to be adaptable to meet a specific airport’s need. Table 2 lists the selected case studies, the key issues addressed in each case, and the innovative response(s). S E C T I O N 6

26 Table 2. Case studies. No. Airport State ESA-Listed Species Case Study Highlights Innovative Response(s) 1. Mid-Sized Regional Hub CA Giant Garter Snake §Section 7 Consultation §HCP § Innovative Mitigation §Multi-Agency Coordination Multi-species mitigation plan 2. Portland International Airport (PDX) OR Streaked HornedLark Extensive coordination on species pending listing 3. Indianapolis International Airport (IND) IN Indiana Bat Habitat Management/ Conservation Plans Hazardous Wildlife Management Conflicts Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Stakeholder Involvement § § § § Allowed for critical airport development and was one of the most successful relocations of an endangered species conducted under the oversight of USFWS 4. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) CA Burrowing Owl §State-Listed Species/ Candidate Federal Listing §Habitat Management §Mitigation Lands and Compensatory Mitigation Example of successful management of listed species habitat within airfield 5. Vero Beach Municipal Airport (VRB) FL § Florida Scrub Jay § Wood Stork §Habitat Management §Multi-Species Conservation §Section 10 Consultation §Umbrella HCP Legal and fiscal burden caused by ESA led to umbrella HCP by USFWS 6. Roseburg Regional Airport (RBG) OR Coho Salmon, Oregon Coast ESU §Take Avoidance Through Innovative Design § Innovative Mitigation Strategies §NMFS Coordination NOAA Fisheries consultation involving innovative design strategy 7. Brown Field Municipal Airport (SDM) CA § San Diego Fairy Shrimp § San Diego Button-Celery § Coastal California Gnatcatcher §Multi-Agency Coordination §Critical Habitat § Innovative Mitigation Strategy §Habitat Conservation Plans Innovative multi-agency coordination and mitigation planning 8. Sanford- Orlando International Airport (SFB) FL Bald Eagle §Hazardous Wildlife Mitigation §Species Delisting §Multi-Agency Coordination §Non-ESA Species Regulation Includes take of a species no longer regulated under ESA, but still under federal protection 9. Kodiak Airport (ADQ) AK § Steller Sea Lion § Humpback Whale § Northern Sea Otter § Steller’s Eider §Critical Habitat §NMFS section 7 Consultation § Innovative Mitigation Strategy §Multi-Agency Coordination §Airport Safety Improvements §NEPA Compliance Multi-species coordination within critical habitat which included NMFS review and in-water work with mitigated impacts § § Section 7 Consultation § Innovative Mitigation Strategy §Multi-Agency Coordination §Stakeholder / Community Partnering Habitat Conservation Plans

27 Species Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Federally Threatened The largest of the garter snake species, the Giant Garter Snake lives a highly aquatic lifestyle and is rarely found away from water. It is an active hunter, eating mainly fish, amphibians, and their larvae and taking advantage of pools that trap and concentrate prey. The Giant Garter Snake is found in the western United States, where it has historically occurred in the Central Valley (Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) of California, from Butte County in the north to Kern County in the south, at elevations of up to 122 meters. It has now disappeared from most of its original range in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of habitat loss, introduction of contaminants, and predation by and competition with non-native species. Case Study Highlights ▪ Section 7 Consultation ▪ Habitat Conservation Plan ▪ Innovative Mitigation ▪ Multi-Agency Coordination Case Study 1 Mid-Sized Regional Hub, California Habitat Giant Garter Snake habitat includes marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, and other surface waters such as irrigation and drainage canals and flooded fields. Adjacent uplands area is also considered important habitat. Essential habitat components consist of (1) adequate water during the snake’s primary active period (i.e., early spring through mid-fall); (2) a suitable prey base; (3) abundant wetland vegetation (such as cattails) for escape, cover, and foraging habitat; (4) upland habitat for basking, cover, and retreat sites; and (5) higher elevation uplands for cover and refuge from flood waters. From November to mid-March, Giant Garter Snakes use small mammal burrows, rip-rap along canal banks, and other underground retreats to escape cold temperatures. These retreats are usually, but elevations and often include a degree of sun exposure (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). not always, located above flood A recovery plan for the Giant Garter Snake (1999) recommended a number of conservation actions for the species, including the protection of existing populations and habitat, restoration of former habitat, population surveys and monitoring, further research into the species, and outreach and incentive programs. Key Issues Critical Habitat This airport was evaluating a facilities expansion as part of its Master Plan. The FAA developed an Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of the expansion. An existing Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) recognized part of the land included in the expansion as “upland habitat”for the Giant Garter Snake as well as a state-listed raptor species. Actual suitable habitat impacts were avoided by the expansion. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife felt that the removal of this upland habitat could potentially and state department of fish and Distribution area for Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Species: Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) - Federally Threatened Giant Garter Snake

28 jeopardize the integrity of the existing HCP. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions Innovative Mitigation Strategy In coordination with the FAA, the airport used innovative solutions to proactively consolidate mitigation requirements into an existing mitigation area for a state-listed species to demonstrate that the baseline conditions of the HCP would not be affected. Through early consultation and the development of an innovative mitigation strategy, the airport was able to receive incidental take authorization and negotiate mitigation requirements so that: Potential effects on airport operations were minimized; Mitigation areas overlapped with existing mitigation lands set aside for a state-listed species; and Long-term management of mitigation lands were conducted by the airport instead of a third party to ensure proper maintenance of habitat (in part, to manage the habitat for hazardous wildlife). Multi-Agency Coordination The actions were conducted under formal consultation between the FAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. However, there were also interactions with a locally approved HCP, as the Proposed Action required development of uplands that are covered under the HCP. It also required coordination with state listed species covered under Section 2080 of the California Fish & Game widlife officials to address a state Code. Notes/Citations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office: Species Account - Giant Garter Snake, Thamnophis gigas (February, 2010). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Species Profile - Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (February, 2010). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon (1999). This case study is a good example of how airports may encounter conflicts between local, state, and federal conservation policies, and how they may be resolved. Innovative Mitigation Strategy Through section 7 consultation, the airport was able to bring in provisions of an existing HCP (from a prior section 10 consultation) to use lands previously set aside for another listed species as mitigation for the Giant Garter Snake. This resulted in a successful multi-species conservation area without requiring the airport to purchase or encumber additional lands.

29 Species The streaked horned lark (SHLA) is and is a subspecies of the wide- endemic to the Pacific Northwest, ranging horned lark. The SHLA is a small ground-dwelling bird with a historic breeding range extending from southern Oregon to British Columbia, Canada. The current range-wide population of SHLAs is estimated at about 1,170–1,610 individuals (Altman 2011), with about 900–1,300 breeding SHLAs in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (Altman 2011). Habitat SHLAs are birds of wide open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. The SHLA nests on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and forbs, including prairies, coastal dunes, wetlands. Nests have also been fallow fields, pasture, and seasonal documented in disturbed areas, such as dredge spoil islands along the lower Columbia River. SHLAs are found at many airports within the range of the subspecies. As native prairies and scoured river beaches in the Pacific Northwest have declined, airports, with their large spatial requirements and treeless settings, have become suitable habitat for the SHLA. Key Issues Candidate Listing/Critical Habitat On October 3, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the SHLA as threatened (78FR61451) and designated a total of 12,159 acres of critical habitat in Washington and Oregon. (Critical Habitat 78FR61505). As originally proposed by the USFWS, critical habitat units in the state of Washington included three training (at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Pierce County); two civilian airports (Olympia Airport in Thurston County and Sanderson Field in Mason County); coastal beaches on Willapa National Wildlife Refuge; state, private, and tribal lands in and three islands in Wahkiakum and areas and two military airfields Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties; Cowlitz Counties on the Washington side of the Columbia River. In Oregon, proposed critical habitat (Portland International Airport units included five civilian airports [PDX] and regional airports in McMinnville, Salem, Eugene, and Corvallis); three National Wildlife Refuges; and one private prairie habitat restoration site. This case study demonstrates a situation where the destruction of a species’ natural habitat has led to its adaptation to the most suitable dredge placement sites, agricultural areas remaining (i.e., flat spaces on land, and airports, all man-made habitats where man’s activity creates the early successional habitat niche the subspecies depends on). Consequently, the USFWS intended to designate six airports in the Pacific Northwest, including PDX, as critical habitat for the species. This is a prominent example of a case where the affected airports need to be informed of the issues, involved in the decision making, and proactively manage the outcomes. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions Stakeholder Involvement Due to the potential impact of the SHLA listing on airports and aviation facilities in this region, there have been a number of collaborative efforts among the various stakeholders (USFWS, the FAA, U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Port of Portland [Port], ACI-NA, and AAAE). Since 2007, PDX personnel have been actively Species: Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) - Candidate Species, Proposed Threatened Case Study Highlights ▪ Habitat Management / Conservation Plans ▪ Hazardous Wildlife Management Conflicts ▪ Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances ▪ Stakeholder Involvement Case Study 2 Portland International Airport (PDX), Oregon Streaked Horned Lark

30 the lead airport role in the regional dialog at SHLA Regional Working Group meetings and at “Streaked Horned Lark and Pacific Northwest Airports, A Collaborative Workshop,” which identified the issues and concerns with listed avian species (specifically SHLAs) and designated critical habitats on airports. The workshop took place on March 9, 2011, prior to the final rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), in Vancouver, Washington, and was attended by representatives from the USFWS, The Nature Conservancy, the USDA, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a number of aviation facilities. Stakeholders contain some of the last remaining addressed two potentially conflicting issues: (1) Pacific Northwest airports habitat for the rare and declining SHLA, and (2) birds are a known hazard to aircraft safety. The key objective of the workshop was to explore opportunities for conserving the SHLA without impacting aircraft safety and airport operations. The workshop brought together partners from the aviation and the SHLA conservation communities to discuss how lark conservation might occur at the airports and airfields, without increasing safety hazards to aircraft and their passengers. By the end of the workshop, professionals from both sides better understood the issues and the need for increased cooperation and buy-in from partners as the ESA listing process progressed. Next steps included surveys of airports with SHLA habitat, wildlife assessments for airports with known populations, recommendations to be incorporated into management plans, and possible conservation incentives for airport engaged in an SHLA Working Group consisting of federal, state, and private stakeholders who are working to identify and resolve land management actions affecting the SHLA. PDX, owned and operated by the Port, assumed During the SHLA listing process in 2012 and 2013, PDX personnel coordinated extensively with other airports, the FAA, ACI-NA, and AAAE to communicate to USFWS the concerns over designating critical habitat on airport lands, which include the following: (1) creating habitat that appears suitable to larks, but due to aircraft/bird collisions acts as an ecological sink for SHLA populations; (2) placing constraints on airport operations, including FAA-authorized wildlife hazard management strategies designed to minimize safety risks; and (3) placing constraints on future airport development. Once immediately prior to listing and once subsequent to listing, SHLAs were involved in aircraft collisions at PDX, with damage sustained to the aircraft in one of the incidents. PDX personnel were able to positively identify the SHLA remains and demonstrate clearly to USFWS the multiple issues with incorporating airport property into the recovery plan of a threatened species. Habitat Management/ Wildlife Hazard As part of PDX’s Aviation Wildlife Hazard Management Program, habitat for the SHLA was unintentionally created where dredge materials were placed to reducing waterfowl habitat adjacent fill wetlands with the intention of to active runways and to facilitate future development. SHLA habitat is also inadvertently created at PDX by disking grasslands twice a year to deter grazing by Canada geese and other waterfowl species. maintenance of airport safety did not need to be mutually exclusive goals. operators. Extensive stakeholder collaboration shows that conservation of the SHLA and the habitat management strategies to reduce impacts including disking fields outside of the breeding season (April 1 through August 31) and using mowing equipment that minimizes the tire footprint and therefore the risk of harming an active SHLA nest. PDX personnel who are specifically trained in SHLA identification are also surveying/monitoring Port property for SHLAs to determine the extent of breeding and wintering use. In 2007, the Port joined Metro, a Portland area regional governmental body, in a cooperative research project on Metro property located in close proximity to known nesting habitat on Port property in an effort to determine if the creation of alternate habitats for SHLAs could be created. This led to a same species attraction study by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) co-sponsored by the Port utilizing decoys and audio recordings to attract SHLAs to the site, with some success. As part of the SHLA Working Group, for personnel who are tasked with PDX is helping craft qualifications field identifying SHLAs during breeding and wintering seasons. Positive field identification of the SHLA is an important component of monitoring occupancy and potential impacts to the bird. PDX also voluntarily worked with the Smithsonian Institution to identify bird remains through MtDNA The PDX case study provides an example of a large international airport proactively working towards managing its lands for safe airport operations while furthering the conservation of streaked horned lark populations. Three pairs of SHLA have been confirmed nesting at PDX in areas that have been converted from wetlands to uplands to deter waterfowl use. Prior to listing and post-listing of the SHLA, PDX has employed a few different

31 Policies or Laws Affected The Port’s engagement in the SHLA working group and with the FAA / USFWS during the listing process affected the outcome of the SHLA listing and critical habitat designation. Exemption/Special Rule The USFWS believes that regular mowing and maintenance at airports and many agricultural activities benefit the SHLA by providing the open habitat and low vegetation structure needed by the bird. Thus, they proposed to promulgate a 4(d) rule (under section 9, 4(d) of the ESA) that would remove the take prohibitions for specific activities associated with airport maintenance and operation and certain agricultural activities. The exemption means that anyone engaged in those permitted or regular management activities at airports (mowing, hazing of hazardous wildlife, routine management, repair and maintenance of roads and runways) would not be held responsible if the activities harm individuals. Additionally, based on input from the Port and other stakeholders, the exemption of bird strikes was also added to the 4(d) rule for the SHLA. Ultimately, USFWS determined that excluding non-federal airport lands from the designation of critical (4) McMinnville Municipal Airport in Unit 4-600 ac (243 ha); (5) Salem Municipal Airport in Unit 4-534 ac (216 ha); (6) Corvallis Municipal Airport in Unit 4-1,103 ac (446 ha); and (7) Eugene Airport in Unit 4-313 ac (126 ha). The positive working relationship among the USFWS, the Port, and other stakeholders was instrumental in drafting regulatory language that meets the needs of airports and species conservation. Notes/Citations “Streaked horned lark, Northwest’s latest candidate for endangered species list, favors airports, farms and dredge islands; Scott Learn, The Oregonian; November 8, 2012. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ Species/Data/ StreakedHornedLark/ (Oregon office FWS). Proceedings of the “Streaked Horned Lark and Pacific Northwest Airports, A Collaborative Workshop,” March 9, 2011, Vancouver, WA. http:// cascadiaprairieoak. org/documents/ Proceedings-of-Streaked-Horned-Lark- and-Airports.pdf. Federal Register Volume 78, No. 192. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17 “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark; Final Rule.” 2013. Altman, B. 2011. Historical and Current Distribution and Populations of Bird Species in Prairie-Oak Habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science, 85(2):194-222. analysis (Smithsonian Bird Lab, 2013) and documented two individual bird strikes involving SHLAs within an 18-month period, one pre-listing and one post-listing. The Smithsonian published its genetic sequencing results from this exercise, which advances the science of identifying tissue and feathers from aircraft strikes in a peer-reviewed journal (Conservation Genetics Resources). habitat for the SHLA outweighs the in critical habitat. The Secretary benefits of including these areas therefore exercised discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude the following airports from critical habitat for the SHLA: (1) Sanderson Field in Unit 1-376 ac (152 ha); (2) Olympia Airport in Unit 1-575 ac (233 ha); (3) Portland International Airport and Broughton Beach in Unit 3-431 ac (174 ha);

32 Species Indiana Bats are quite small, weighing only one-quarter of an ounce (about the weight of three pennies) though they have a wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. They hibernate during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines. During summer they roost under the peeling bark of dead and dying trees. insects found along rivers or lakes Indiana Bats eat a variety of flying and in uplands. The Indiana Bat was listed as endangered in 1967 due to episodes of people disturbing hibernating bats in caves during winter, pesticide use, and decrease in summer habitat resulting in the death of large numbers of bats. Indiana Bats are vulnerable to disturbance because they hibernate in large numbers in only a few caves (the largest hibernation caves support 20,000 to 50,000 bats). Indiana Bats are found 3 ydutS esaC Indianapolis International Airport (IND), Indiana in most of the eastern United States but almost half of them hibernate in caves in southern Indiana. In the early 1990s, development of an aircraft maintenance center and U.S. postal hub impacted an area frequented by the Indiana Bat. The new Indianapolis International Airport (IND) project began in 2001 and included a new airport terminal and associated infrastructure as well as a new federal highway interchange and related changes. This development, which occurred from 2002 to 2008, similarly impacted adjoining areas frequented by the Indiana Bat and also impacted wetlands. Key Issue Section 7 Consultation Through section 7 consultation, the airport received authorization for incidental take and short- term net loss of Indiana Bat habitat. This was based upon the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which was submitted as part of the application for a permit for incidental take of Indiana Bats for the construction of road improvements and associated development in the vicinity of IND. The biological opinion noted that habitat quality in areas set aside for bat conservation should gradually increase and that over time, a large portion of the dedicated Conservation Management Area and adjoining preserved forested areas were anticipated to result in the action area as compared to in a net benefit to Indiana Bats current conditions. Compared to baseline conditions, there would be more forested habitat, a larger block of contiguous habitat, greater connectivity among habitat patches, and improved habitat conditions along the riparian corridors. This permanent protection was particularly crucial because future opportunities for bat conservation within the range of this colony were limited. These permanently protected parcels were the largest block of habitat available to Indiana Bats, as well as other species of forest wildlife, over a large geographic area. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions The Conservation Management Area, initially established in the mid 1990s, was developed to provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the federally endangered Indiana Bat.The Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) Conservation Management Area and HCP represents a very successful project that allowed for critical development of IND and one of the most successful relocations of an endangered species conducted under the oversight of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A substantial investment (>$10M) has been made to ensure that critical Case Study Highlights ▪ Section 7 Consultation ▪ Habitat Conservation Plans ▪ Innovative Mitigation Strategy ▪ Multi-Agency Coordination ▪ Stakeholder/Community Partnering Species: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) - Endangered Indiana Bat

33 IND development may occur with a net benefit to an impacted federally endangered species. The plan was conceived and implemented in partnership with federal, state, and local agencies. The project has now spanned over 20 years and is still currently active with annual efforts and reporting to verify the success of the habitat relocation while ensuring that the conservation area provides Meanwhile, the airport has fully benefits to the local community. implemented its development plan and continues to do so in concert with the HCP. Stakeholder Partnering: Interagency Task Force An Interagency Task Force consisting of the Federal Aviation Administration, Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Department of Public Works, Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development, and the Hendricks County Board of County Commissioners was formed and signed an implementation plan for the HCP. The Task Force sought and obtained the appropriate permit from the USFWS, who worked with the Task Force to obtain and implement a successful mitigation plan. Innovative Mitigation Strategy There was no template for creating the alternative habitat for the endangered species so the plan provided for the planting of over 500,000 trees, establishment of supplement bat roosts, designation of over 2,000 acres for conservation, and requirement that the acquisition of land meet the conservation plan goals as well as coordinate with lands acquired for noise mitigation. The Task Force partnered with local universities (Indiana State University and Purdue University) to conduct bat and vegetation monitoring, respectively, and to verify and report on the success of the project. Annual Reports are produced to document activities. Community Partnering: Sodalis Nature Park Perhaps the best example of the IAA’s commitment to conservation management is the Sodalis Nature Park, which represents a creative, holistic approach to conservation stakeholders of the airport. The park, that creates benefits for multiple which was opened in Hendricks County in 2011 on IAA land reserved for habitat conservation, was made possible through an unprecedented partnership among the Hendricks County Park Board, the IAA, and the USFWS. It makes 210 acres of land previously inaccessible to the public available as a public park and offers trails, picnic areas, year-round educational programs, and a 5.5 acre pond with serves as a refuge for more than 100 fishing pier. At the same time, it species of wildlife, including the Indiana Bat. Notes Detailed information is available (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plan, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Permit, materials relating to Sodalis Nature Park, Annual Reports etc.). Conservation Protecting and preserving precious natural resources is essential in maintaining Central Indiana’s ecosystem and wildlife habitat. The IAA has established a 2,000+ acre conservation area focusing on providing critical habitat to the endangered Indiana Bat and wetland mitigation to enhance water quality. At its conservation area, the IAA has developed an ongoing land, farm, and watershed management program. The site also serves as an outreach facility, regularly providing educational opportunities for local elementary, middle-, and high-school students to learn about the principles of conservation and stewardship. Environmental & Conservation Program Overview IAA takes its commitment to supporting sustainability principles seriously. It strives to reduce environmental impacts, help maintain economic growth, and work to integrate its actions with the needs and values of the local community. The Environmental and Conservation Program works to ensure that IAA meets and exceeds its environmental responsibilities, manages and oversees IAA’s conservation area, and works with airport partners and the community on environmental and conservation issues. IAA partners with local academic experts at Purdue, Indiana, and Indiana State Universities and other institutions; Hendricks County Parks and Recreation; other public institutions and non-profit City of Indianapolis; Indiana Department of Transportation; Marion County Soil and Water Conservation District; and many organizations. IAA’s commitment to sound environmental and sustainability principles is longstanding.

34 Species Western Burrowing Owls are small, long-legged owls that are active in the daytime, often visibly perched outside their burrows. They occur in suitable grassland, prairie, and desert habitat in areas that have “openness, short vegetation, and burrow availability” (Zarn 1974). Burrows are the principal component of suitable habitat, as the owls rely on burrows dug by other animals, and are the major factor controlling the abundance of the species. Key Issues Habitat Management Located on approximately 1,050 acres in Santa Clara County, California, San Jose International Airport (SJC) serves international well as general aviation. There are and domestic air carrier flights, as approximately 355 acres of grassy habitat for resident and transient infields at the airport that provide wildlife species, including a resident population of Burrowing Owls. Case Study 4 Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), California The airport must manage the wildlife hazard risk as well as provide for the long-term maintenance of a stable Burrowing Owl population. Mitigation Lands and Compensatory Mitigation At various times, the airport has held U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game permits for the relocation of Burrowing Owls. These permits were issued to enable burrow excavation and owl relocation to allow for construction of facilities. The airport had to develop an airport construction mitigation plan based upon the Master Plan of proposed improvements. Airport Action & Innovative Solution Beginning in 1981, in compliance with the FAA's FAR Part 139 requirements, the airport has been monitoring wildlife activity at the airport. The wildlife studies originally focused on large diurnal (daytime active) raptors (Red- Tailed Hawks, Rough-Legged Hawks, etc.), but with more than 25% of the strikes from 1980 to1995 attributed to “owls,” the airport had to find a way to reduce the potential for Burrowing Owl strikes while still maintaining habitat for the listed species. In 1997, the airport’s environmental consultant developed the Burrowing Owl Management Plan for SJC in order to minimize bird strike potential while also managing the Burrowing Owl habitat and nesting areas on airport property. This plan, which the airport has been following since 1997, identifies objectives and implementation activities to achieve those objectives. They are as follows: Objectives Reduce the potential for aircraft strikes of Burrowing Owls, Develop an approved plan of action to mitigate airport construction impacts to Burrowing Owls and their burrows consistent with state policy, and Provide for the long-term maintenance of a stable Burrowing Owl population. Implementation Activities Maintain Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) and taxiway pavement shoulders free of nesting owls, Implement an airport construction mitigation plan based upon the airport’s Master Plan of proposed improvements, Case Study Highlights ▪ State-Listed Species / Candidate Federal Listing ▪ Habitat Management ▪ Mitigation Lands and Compensatory Mitigation Species: Western Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia) - California Species of Special Concern and Federal Candidate Listing Western Burrowing Owl

35 Establish Burrowing Owl management areas in the airport’s Master Plan open space where resources will be managed to maintain breeding Burrowing Owls, Monitor the airport’s breeding owl population, and Obtain California Department of Fish and Game and USFWS approval of the management plan as well as FAA compliance review. At the time of the plan development, 12 artificial burrows had been installed at the airport as mitigation for prior projects. The data showed that the owls readily accepted the artificial burrows in areas where there were previously no natural burrows. The management plan, developed to mitigate impacts of airport construction associated with the Master Plan, included the relocation of owls from planned construction areas and RSAs to areas that provided less risk for strikes. It was determined that due to their low flight patterns and use of runway lights as hunting perches, the centers of the runways were the most hazardous to the owls. As such, the management areas were located off the ends of the runways and between certain taxiways where the strike hazard should be lower given that approaching and departing aircraft are well above the owls or moving slowly in these zones. On an ongoing basis, the RSAs along each runway (ranging from 75 to 175 ft) and pavement shoulders are inspected and maintained free of burrows. Any closure required (collapsing burrows using approved procedures) is compensated through the installation of one artificial burrow in an adjacent Burrowing Owl management area. Habitat Management The management areas are maintained according to the regular mowing regime used throughout the low, open vegetation that the airport infields. This maintains is an important characteristic of Burrowing Owl habitat. The population of owls is monitored on a regular basis, with population census data collected, young birds banded results reported. The annual reports for identification, and annual survey include a discussion of management activities implemented the prior year such as any relocations and artificial burrows. The management plan required approval from the state and USFWS, as well as review by the FAA for compliance with federal aviation regulations regarding bird strike hazard reduction. According to CertAlert 06-07, FAR 139 deliberately preserve or develop certified airports should “not on-airport wildlife habitats such as wetlands, forest, brush, or native grasslands having characteristics that attract hazardous wildlife” and “not allow hazardous state-listed threatened and endangered species or species of special concern to remain on the airport if it requires managing the airport environment contrary to FAA recommendations,” in order to stay in compliance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33A. Due to the fact that SJC’s Burrowing Owl Management Plan has been in place since 1997, it was grandfathered in and accepted by FAA. Citations Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Technical Notes T-N-250. Denver, Colorado. 25 pp.

36 Species Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Threatened Florida Scrub Jays eat a wide variety of acorns, seeds, peanuts, insects, tree frogs, turtles, snakes, lizards, and young mice. The Florida Scrub Jay is one of the few cooperative breeding birds in North America. Fledgling Florida Scrub Jays remain in their parents’ habitat for several years in family groups that range in size from two to eight birds. After the group to form mating pairs of their own. Mating season ranges from March to June. about 2 to 3 years, fledglings leave Habitat The Florida Scrub Jay is found only in Florida scrub habitat, an ecosystem that exists solely in central Florida and that is characterized by nutrient-poor soil, occasional drought, and frequent wildfires. Because of its somewhat Case Study 5 Vero Beach Municipal Airport (VRB), Florida harsh weather pattern, this habitat is host to a small assortment of very also listed species. specific plants, many of which are Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Endangered A subtropical and tropical species, the Wood Stork is the only stork that presently breeds in North America. In the United States there is a small endangered breeding population in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, along with a recently discovered rookery in southeastern North Carolina. Habitat Wood Storks seek food where lowering water levels concentrate ditches and other surface waters. A resident breeder in lowland wetlands with trees, Wood Storks nest communally with up to 25 nests in one tree. fish in open wetlands, including Key Issues Critical Habitat Management Florida Scrub Jay habitat is listed with both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and these habitat areas at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport have been claimed as critical habitat. Similarly, the onsite ditches habitat for Wood Storks and the airport is within the “core foraging consultation area” for the have been identified as desirable species. Both of these species are being managed differently by the airport, but with the shared goal of supporting protection of the listed species while maintaining airport operational safety. Alternative Habitat Management Wood Storks are often attracted to stormwater facilities, and ditches are often considered desirable Wood Stork habitat. Regulatory agencies were concerned that Wood Stork habitat might exist on airport property, particularly within elements of the stormwater management system, which includes drainage swales and ditches designed to direct runoff from the airport facilities. Management of these potential habitats required a balance between ensuring proper function of the stormwater system and minimizing wildlife hazards and attractants, which required an alternative habitat management strategy. Section 10 Consultation Since the listing of the Florida Scrub Jay in 1987 as threatened (52 FR 42661), the majority of landowners with property in urban areas that is occupied by Florida Scrub Jays have been faced with the choice of (1) complying with the prohibited take provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not clearing or constructing in occupied Florida Scrub Jay habitat, (2) complying with the ESA by obtaining a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit prior to land clearing, or Case Study Highlights ▪ Habitat Management ▪ Multi-Species Conservation ▪ Section 10 Consultation ▪ Umbrella Habitat Conservation Plan Florida Scrub Jay Species: Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) - Threatened Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) - Endangered

37 (3) violating the take prohibitions by clearing lots without coverage from an incidental take permit. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions Umbrella Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Florida Scrub Jay to the situation at Vero Beach While not related specifically Municipal Airport, recognition of the limitations that the traditional section 10 consultation process alternatives placed on property owners in urban areas led the USFWS to consider methods to streamline the section 10(a)(1) (B) permitting process, while still to the Florida Scrub Jay providing conservation benefits . The USFWS worked with stakeholders and municipalities to develop an umbrella HCP and environmental assessment (EA). Although the focus of the HCP/EA is on modifications to permitting processes, the premise information indicating that Florida for these modifications is biological Scrub Jays in some urban areas will not persist long term and are unlikely to substantially contribute to the recovery of the species. Critical Habitat Management Florida Scrub Jay The northeastern portion of the airport property contains upland sand scrub habitat that supports colonies of the Florida Scrub Jay. The airport recognizes that the birds typically fly in very low patterns across the northeast end of the airport; the airport staff and the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower controllers are acutely aware of the colonies and their periodic movements across the runway approaches. Because of the birds’ habits, they do not create a significant wildfire hazard. Though the airport has added several locations and more specifically nest thousand feet of new security fence in the vicinity of the Florida Scrub Jay habitat, they have used special care in identifying colony tree locations. The airport ensures protection of the critical habitat by actively notifying contractors and staff of the limits of the critical information to facilitate recognition habitat, providing identification of the jays, and stressing the importance of identifying and documenting presence of the species. This applies to new construction on the airport as well as during regular maintenance and turf management activities. Additionally, the airport has refrained from using any pesticides or herbicides in or around the vicinity of the critical habitat and minimizes disturbance to the birds and their habitat wherever possible. Wood Stork Although most wildlife hazard management planning suggests clearing vegetation from airport drainage ditches, the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) documented limited wildlife within the steep side-sloped ditches, which were full of weedy and brushy vegetation. Although the airport’s turf management program does keep vegetation trimmed along the steep side slopes, the FAA-qualified wildlife biologist conducting the WHA recommended retaining the vegetation within the main conveyance of the ditches to prevent attracting a potentially hazardous, and federally listed, wildlife species. A comparison of these “unmaintained” ditches with some fully cleared ditches at a nearby airport demonstrated that the mucky bottoms of the cleared ditches actually encouraged Wood Stork foraging. In fact, Wood Stork foraging continued for several days following reoccurring rainfall events at the other airport. Consequently, following assurances that the weeds would not impede the required stormwater conveyance and discharge, the recommendation for clearing these ditches was revised to encourage maintaining the vegetation. Since incorporating this recommendation, there have been no observations of Wood Storks being attracted to these areas. Resources Link to FWS Umbrella HCP for Florida Scrub Jay: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/ ScrubJays/Docs/Umbrella/2012100_ver_ FSJ_ Umbrella_HCP_EA.pdf. Wood Stork

38 Species Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Federally Threatened Adult Coho Salmon can measure more than 2 feet (60 cm) in length and can weigh up to 35 pounds (16 kg). Coho Salmon have dark metallic blue or greenish backs with silver sides and a light belly and small black spots on the back and upper lobe of the tail while in rivers are dark with reddish-maroon the ocean. Spawning fish in inland coloration on the sides. Coho Salmon adults migrate from a marine environment into the freshwater streams and rivers of their birth in order to mate (called anadromy) at around 3 years old. They spawn only once and then die. Spawning males develop a strongly hooked snout and large teeth. Females prepare several redds (nests) where the eggs will remain for 6 to 7 weeks until they hatch. Case Study 6 Roseburg Regional Airport (RBG), Oregon Coho Salmon spend approximately the first half of their life cycle rearing and feeding in streams and small freshwater tributaries. Spawning habitat is small streams with stable gravel substrates. The remainder of the life cycle is spent foraging in estuarine and marine habitat was designated on May 5, waters of the Pacific Ocean. Critical 1999, for the Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coast Coho Salmon. Key Issues Airport Safety Improvements This project involved the relocation of a taxiway parallel to the airport’s runway to increase the separation distance in accordance with FAA design criteria and safety standards. This shift would increase the runway/taxiway separation distance from 200 feet to 240 feet, which is appropriate for the aircraft operating at the airport. The taxiway relocation required extending an existing culvert that conveys a waterbody known as Newton Creek beneath the runway and taxiway. This creek is used by Oregon Coast Coho Salmon, which is a federally threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Design Constraints The condition of the existing culvert and the vertical drop at the culvert outlet presented challenges for meeting Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) culverts. The “stream simulation” fish passage design criteria for approach often preferred by these agencies could not be used due to the grades required to make up the elevation difference between the culvert outlet and streambed. There were also concerns about the long- Case Study Highlights ▪ Take Avoidance Through Innovative Design ▪ Innovative Mitigation Strategies ▪ NMFS Coordination Species: Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) - Federally Threatened Coho Salmon Coho Salmon Habitat Range

39 term stability of anything short of concrete at the culvert outlet. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions The existing culvert passing Newton Creek beneath the airport’s runway and parallel taxiway is 550 feet long and represents a barrier to upstream vertical drop at the culvert outlet fish passage, due primarily to a large (~4.5 feet from outlet to stream bed below) and a lack of hydraulic concrete bottom). The taxiway complexity within the culvert (flat relocation project requires extending (lengthening) this culvert, which will have unavoidable impacts to Newton Creek and Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. To address the situation, the project is integrating as other stream improvements into a pool and chute fishway as well the culvert extension element of the project. Sediment retention sills and streambed material are also being added to the existing length of the culvert. These improvements will significantly improve passage conditions for native migratory fish, including the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon, providing access to habitat upstream of the culvert that is currently inaccessible. The project team coordinated with NMFS and ODFW fish passage engineers to develop a pool and chute fishway design, coupled with a roughened channel downstream, that could ultimately be approved coordinators, providing long- by ODFW and NMFS fish passage term stability while substantially species. for target native migratory fish improving fish passage conditions The project involved close coordination with biologists and engineers from NMFS and ODFW and innovative design and strategy. A number of juvenile Coho Salmon were captured on the downstream side of the culvert the project work area isolation, during fish salvage operations for indicating that Coho are indeed using this part of Newton Creek and will benefit from the passage improvements. improvements into the culvert The incorporation of fish passage extension element of the project helped to satisfy regulatory requirements under a number of laws/regulations, including the following: Federal ESA, Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404/401), Oregon Removal-Fill Law, Oregon Fish Passage Statutes, and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Laws or policies were not changed or modified as a result of the action.

40 Species San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) Endangered Named for the fairy-like motions it makes while swimming and feeding, Fairy Shrimp are not just in San Diego, but live throughout the country. Fairy Shrimp live in vernal (seasonal) pools, once extremely common in San Diego across the mesas, but now greatly reduced in number, in part because the pools are common in many prime real- estate areas. The ½-inch to 1-inch long shrimp only live during the wet season when the pools hold water. Case Study 7 Brown Field Municipal Airport (SDM), California San Diego Button-Celery (Eryngium aristulatum ssp. parishii) Endangered Vernal pools are the preferred habitat for San Diego Button-Celery. This herbaceous biennial is usually restricted to vernal pools and is severely declining, with continued losses despite its state endangered status. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Threatened The Coastal California Gnatcatcher is a small blue-gray songbird with dark blue-gray feathers on its back, grayish-white feathers on its underside, and a white ring around its eyes. It is the northern- most subspecies of California Gnatcatcher, occurring in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties and south to Baja Mexico. Development, climate change all pose a threat to wildfire, habitat conversion, and the survival of this species. The species is listed wherever it is found. Key Issues Impacts to Critical Habitat Brown Field Municipal Airport (SDM) is undertaking a public/ private venture to lease undeveloped airport lands for the development of aviation and supportive non-aviation facilities. The construction of the proposed facilities will impact vernal pool habitat that contains the federally endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp and state endangered San Diego Button-Celery. In addition, proposed offsite stormwater pipes in sensitive habitat located in the City’s Multi- Habitat Planning Area boundary would potentially impact the federally threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Multi-Agency Coordination This project would potentially impact a number of listed species and their habitat. While federally listed species impacts are a concern, there are also potential impacts to resources under the purview of state and local agencies. This project required coordination between the regulatory agencies, FAA, and the airport owner (City of San Diego) to ensure the best mitigation strategy for all parties. Case Study Highlights ▪ Multi-Agency Coordination ▪ Critical Habitat ▪ Innovative Mitigation Strategy ▪ Habitat Conservation Plans Species: San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and San Diego Button-Celery (Eryngium aristulatum ssp. parishii) - Endangered Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) - Threatened San Diego Fairy Shrimp Coastal California Gnatcatcher

41 Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions The project includes the development of multiple land uses on approximately 331 acres of land within the limits of SDM. The City of San Diego Real Estate Assets Department, Airports Division, is the project sponsor for the proposed development and FAA is the federal lead agency. The federal action requested is the unconditional approval of the Phase 1 project components shown on the Airport Layout Plan and master site plan, which includes general aviation operator [FBO], helicopter FBO, large and small t-hangars) and facilities (business jet, fixed-base supportive non-aviation facilities such as office uses and commercial uses (i.e., hotels). San Diego County is known nationwide for the tremendous diversity of its plants and animals and the number of species that are rare or endangered. It is even considered a “hot spot” for unique and unusual species. San Diego County is also known for its remarkable population growth. In 1992, the State of California enacted the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. This voluntary program allows the state government to enter into planning agreements with landowners, local governments, and other stakeholders to prepare plans that identify both the most important areas for a threatened or endangered species and the areas that are not as important. These NCCP plans may become the basis for a state permit to take threatened and endangered species in exchange for conserving their habitat. The federal government has a similar program under section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act providing for the preparation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). In California, the Wildlife Agencies have worked to combine the NCCP program with the federal HCP process, to provide permits for listed species. Local governments, such as San Diego County, can take the lead in developing these plans and become the recipient of state and federal permits. Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) The San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is the result of 6 years of intense planning and review by a diverse group of private conservationists, developers, and agencies, and culminated with the County entering into an Implementing Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies for the County Subarea Plan on March 17, 1998. The overall effect of the MSCP is that it provides for large, connected preserve areas that address a number of species at the habitat level rather than by individual species. This preserve system as well as better creates a more efficient and effective protection for the rare, threatened, and endangered species in the region. It preserves San Diego’s native habitats and wildlife and works across political boundaries in a unique regional conservation effort. Complying with the MSCP Subarea Plan for San Diego, the mitigation strategy for the SDM project included development of vernal pool habitat on airport property to provide suitable replacement habitat for the suite of species impacted by the development. Compensatory Mitigation The proposed mitigation will recreate vernal pool habitat in historic vernal pool locations while ensuring the mitigation areas meet all separation criteria for both aviation and non-aviation uses. Additionally, FAA guidance on hazardous wildlife attractants was reviewed as part of the mitigation planning. The airport will conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment to ensure the mitigation is consistent with safety requirements. project, it was determined that the Finally, as an added benefit to the mitigation area contained habitat that was suitable for state-listed Burrowing Owl mitigation. This allowed the airport to tier the Burrowing Owl mitigation with the vernal pool sites and develop a multi-species mitigation strategy. Benefits of the MSCP Without MSCP ▪ Developers and local agencies bear all costs ▪ Multiple permit authorities ▪ Project-by-project negotiations for mitigation requirements ▪ Disruption from future listings under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts With MSCP ▪ Cost sharing by developers and county, state, and federal agencies ▪ Local agency permit authority granted to county by state and federal agencies ▪ Pre-established mitigation requirements ▪ No disruptions from future listings under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts for covered species

42 Species Distinguished by a distinctive white head and white tail feathers, Bald Eagles are powerful, brown birds that may weigh 14 pounds and have a wingspan of 8 feet. Bald Eagles are mostly dark brown until they are 4 to 5 years old and acquire their characteristic coloring. Bald Eagles live near wetlands and waterbodies food source, though they will also where they can find fish, their main feed on a variety of small land animals and carrion. Bald Eagles require a reliable food source and trees (or other similar areas) for perching and nesting. Eagles mate for life, building nests at the top of large trees, which they typically use and enlarge each year. In areas without trees, they may nest in cliffs or on the ground. Eagles may also have one or more alternate nests within their breeding territory. The birds travel great distances but usually return to breeding grounds within 100 miles of the place where they were raised. Bald Eagles may live 15 to 25 years in the wild, Case Study 8 Sanford Orlando International Airport (SFB), Florida longer in captivity. Breeding Bald Eagles typically lay one to three eggs once a year, which hatch after about 35 days. Young eagles are independent about a month later typically fledge within 3 months and . Bald Eagles were removed from populations recovered sufficiently. the federal endangered species list in August 2007 because their The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) continues to work with state wildlife agencies to monitor the status of Bald Eagles as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If the species should need the protection of the ESA, the USFWS can relist it as endangered or threatened. In the meantime, individual states may also pass or implement laws to protect Bald Eagles. Although delisted from the ESA, eagles remain regulated under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and may also be subject to coordination through state listing or conservation management plans in states where the species occurs, such as Florida. Though ultimately delisted in Florida in 2008, to ensure that the conservation goal and objectives continue to be met, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and a group of stakeholders, developed a management plan compatible with the BGEPA and the associated National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). This plan provides guidance for activities that require coordination or permitting under the state or the BGEPA, and recommends a suite of conservation actions that employ adaptive management to allow adjustment to policies, guidelines, and techniques based on science and observed responses to implemented conservation measures. Coordination under the BGEPA is still evolving, with the USFWS developing a permitting process under that regulation. Key Issues Wildlife Hazard Management There are liability issues inherent in bird-strike incidents at airports, and failure to implement management actions could ultimately lead to human safety issues, loss litigation, adverse media attention, of property, financial liability, and public criticism. While each airport may handle the hazard threat posed by listed species uniquely, this case study is an example where the risk and liability outweighed the detrimental effect on the species. Case Study Highlights Hazardous Wildlife Mitigation Species Delisting Multi-Agency Coordination Non-ESA Species Regulation Species: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Federally Delisted (ESA) Federally Protected (Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act [BGEPA] & Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]) Bald Eagle The Bald Eagle is an ESA success story. Forty years ago, this species was in danger of extinction throughout most of its range within the United States. Habitat destruction and degradation, illegal shooting, and the contamination of its food source (largely as a consequence of the insecticide DDT) decimated the eagle population. Under the ESA, the banning of DDT, and other conservation actions, Bald Eagles have made a remarkable recovery.

43 This case represents one end of that spectrum and, when contrasted with other cases where Bald Eagles are managed onsite, demonstrates that airports must weigh the protection of the species with aviation safety and specific situation. find the balance that works in their Species Delisting, Non-ESA Species Regulation This case study provides information on the regulatory processes associated with “taking” a species that was delisted from the ESA but still retains federal protections through the BGEPA and the MBTA. It also includes precedent-setting state legislation related to “harassment” or “taking” of federally protected species that are also state-listed, but that pose a threat to aviation safety. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions Beginning in late 2006, large numbers of Bald Eagles were identified on and around Sanford Orlando International Airport (SFB). The occurrence of eagles on the runways led to a number of actions including runway closure(s) and the airport securing an eagle “harassment” permit. On November 17, 2006, a Cessna 414 (taking off from Runway 27R) struck an eagle, which led to the airport’s request for emergency consultation with USFWS to address the safety issue and remove the eagle nest trees. Through a series of petitions and legal challenges, in March and April of 2007, as authorized by the USFWS and the FWC, airport personnel cut down three nests and three candidate Bald Eagle nest trees. In 2006 to 2007, monitoring revealed that eagle activity on and near the airport was in direct conflict with aircraft flight patterns, which constituted a wildlife, human, and property emergency. This triggered the FAA to initiate emergency consultation with USFWS to take emergency action to remove three nests and relocate the chicks to foster nests. An incidental take permit was issued for the removal of the three active nest trees, as well as additional candidate nest trees and the “harrassment” of the six adult eagles and three eaglets at the airport. It also included a take for the “harassment” of six adult eagles and three eaglets in the foster nests that received the relocated eaglets. Due to the sensitive nature of the nest removal and eaglet relocation, the airport worked closely with the Audubon National Birds of Prey Center (Audubon) to facilitate the relocation of the chicks from the nest trees that were to be removed. The chicks were medically evaluated at Audubon’s Florida Birds of Prey Center, and once suitable foster nests Extensive monitoring was conducted were identified, they were relocated. and the status of the relocated eaglets was reported to FWC by the airport and Audubon. Ultimately, the relocation was successful with the foster eagles caring for, feeding, and eaglets. successfully fledging the relocated Policies or Laws Affected Larry Dale, President and CEO of SFB, was instrumental in getting legislation passed in Florida related to wildlife hazards posed by listed species. In addition to the airport exemptions incorporated into the state’s Bald Eagle management plan, the FWC proposed new rule 68A-9.012 “Take of Wildlife on Airport Property.” Through collaboration with stakeholders including the Florida Airports Council, U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA), USFWS, and environmental groups, the rule was adopted effective March 21, 2010. The rule states that “Any airport may take wildlife on airport property for the purpose of ensuring aircraft and human safety in accordance with this rule.” Notes https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ RuleNo.asp?title=MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS&ID=68A-9.012. http://m.myfwc.com/media/1381857/2010_ Jun_AirportSafetyandWildlife_FinalRules. pdf. April 28, 2008 Biological Opinion for Sanford Orlando International Airport (FWS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

44 Species Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Endangered The Steller Sea Lion, also known as the Northern Sea Lion, prefers the colder temperate to sub-arctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Haulouts and rookeries usually consist of beaches (gravel, rocky, or sand), ledges, or rocky reefs. The Steller Sea Lion was listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened throughout its range on December 4, 1990. This listing included animals from Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington. On June 4, 1997, the Western “distinct population segment (DPS)” (west of 144° W longitude) was listed as endangered. Case Study 9 Kodiak Airport (ADQ), Alaska Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered Humpback Whales live in all major oceans from the equator to sub-polar latitudes. In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling regulated commercial whaling of Humpbacks and, in 1966, the International Whaling Commission prohibited it. In June 1970, Humpback Whales were designated as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA). In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA and Humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Threatened Northern Sea Otters occur in nearshore coastal waters of the Rim from the Aleutian Islands to California. The species is most commonly observed within a depth of 40 meters and landward since United States along the North Pacific the animals require frequent access to in subtidal and intertidal zones. Sea benthic foraging habitat (sea floor) Otters in Alaska are not migratory and generally do not disperse over long distances. Alaska has three populations of Sea Otters, and the southwest DPS was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2005 strategic stock under the Marine and is, therefore, classified as a Mammal Protection Act. Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri) Threatened The Steller’s Eider is a small, with mussels being a favored food. diving duck that feeds on shellfish, birds can form on suitable coastal waters. Three recognized breeding populations of Steller’s Eiders Large flocks of up to 200,000 Case Study Highlights ▪ Critical Habitat ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) section 7 Consultation ▪ Innovative Mitigation Strategy ▪ Multi-Agency Coordination ▪ Airport Safety Improvements ▪ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Species: Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) - Endangered Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri) - Threatened Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, threats to humpbacks are mitigated by regulations implementing the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Northern Sea Otter Humpback Whale Steller Sea Lion Steller’s Eider

45 include two in Arctic Russia and one in Alaska. On June 11, 1997, USFWS listed the Alaska-breeding population of Steller’s Eiders (62 FR 31748) as threatened pursuant to the ESA. On March 5, 2001, the USFWS added a designation of critical habitat for the Alaska- breeding population of the Steller’s Eider. Key Issues Critical Habitat Steller Sea Lions Critical habitat has been defined for this species as a 20-nautical- mile buffer around all major haulouts and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas (50 CFR 226.202 on Aug. 27, 1993). Steller’s Eider Steller’s Eider critical habitat encompasses approximately 7,300 square kilometers. The area includes breeding habitat on the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta and Kuskokwim Shoals, Sea Islands, Nelson Lagoon, and Izembek Lagoon in western Alaska. Northern Sea Otter St. Paul Harbor is designated critical habitat for the Northern Sea Otter and is also identified as essential fish habitat and juvenile rearing habitat for Sockeye and Coho Salmon. The FAA determined that designated safety areas for two of Kodiak Airport’s (ADQ’s) runways (Runway 18/36 and Runway 07/25) do not meet federal standards. The deficiency of the runway safety areas (RSAs) at ADQ needs to be remedied. Airport Actions & Innovative Solutions ADQ is located in St. Paul Harbor, which is part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. ADQ has natural physical barriers constraining runway location changes. St. Paul Harbor is to the east of the airport, Barometer Mountain is to the west, and Buskin River is to the north. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard facilities are south of the airport. With these physical and airspace constraints, for the runways to be re-aligned insufficient landmass exists at ADQ or relocated such that the runway length is maintained while providing RSA improvements. Therefore, there is no other alternative but to to get the required landmass for the fill a portion of St. Paul Bay in order RSA improvements. NEPA Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for FAA approval that evaluated a number of alternatives for implementation of the required safety improvements at the airport. The preferred alternative includes improvements to the RSA at the east end of Runway 07/25 (Runway End 25) through a 600-foot extension into St. Paul Harbor. Additionally, the project will enhance the RSA at the north and south end of Runway 18/36 through a 600-foot-long by 500-foot-wide landmass extension into St. Paul Harbor. The potential environmental impacts related to these improvements to the RSAs for both runway complexes would be St. Paul Harbor and the long-term in the marine environment. associated with fill placement into changes resulting from the new fill Conservation Measures The FAA developed conservation measures that would be implemented during construction to reduce or minimize environmental impacts. Use of these measures will ensure potential construction impacts are minimized to the extent practicable. Some of the conservation measures to be utilized at ADQ include: Wildlife Observers Adhering to the USFWS’s Observer Protocols for Fill Placement and Dredging in the marine environment (USFWS 2012a). Designated observers will oversee construction activities. Fill placement will not occur when viewing conditions make it impossible to monitor the applicable distances unless additional observers (i.e., positioned in boats) could be added to provide complete visual coverage of the area. Kodiak Airport

46 If a listed or candidate bird is activities, wildlife observers will within 300 meters of fill placement inform the Engineer and work will be delayed until the bird or birds have moved out of the area on their own. Should a Sea Otter or Sea Lion be observed within 300 meters of the and work initiation/ramp up/stop project fill footprint prior to filling procedures would be followed. activities, Engineer notification Barge Operations Boat and barge operations are to follow the USFWS’s Boat Operation Guidance to Avoid Disturbing Sea Otters (USFWS 2012b) to minimize impacts to marine mammals. The wildlife observer(s) will notify the captain if any new areas with federally listed species are observed. Habitat Avoidance Barges will avoid known Sea Lion rookeries and major haulouts completely and avoid other areas with high densities of endangered or threatened species to the extent practicable. Material barges will not be grounded in high-density kelp stands, which can be an important foraging habitat. Barges hauling construction materials to the site during the winter will avoid specific identified areas heavily used by Steller’s Eider and Emperor Goose, which may provide important habitat for individuals displaced from the airport area during construction. Acoustic & Visual Impact Minimization water noise production would Placement of fill and other in- occur only after other noise- generating activities have ramped up and animals have had the opportunity to leave the area of their own accord. Lighting would be kept to the minimum level needed for safety and security. This includes using motion sensors to keep lights off when not needed; down- shielding and directing lights to minimize horizontal and skyward illumination; and avoiding high- intensity, steady-burning, or bright lights. Construction Timing In-water construction work (below high-tide line) would be excluded from April 1 to July 15 to avoid impacts to aquatic species. Pre-construction nest surveys will be conducted. If Bald Eagle nests are found, the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines will be followed with potential incidental take permit(s) required for nests within 660 feet of activities that may cause nest disturbance. Any nests from 660 feet to 0.5- mile from construction activities biologist. If resident birds appear disturbed by construction activities, construction activities would cease until young have would be monitored by a qualified fledged. By agreeing to modify some standard construction protocols, management practices, and establishing site-specific best providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts, the airport was able to make the required improvements while preserving the functions and values of high quality habitats in the ADQ area that are migratory birds, and marine related to anadromous fisheries, resources and habitats. Citations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Observer Protocols Fill Placement and Dredging. Anchorage: USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. Boat Operation Guidance to Avoid Disturbing Sea Otters. Anchorage: USFWS. SWCA Environmental Consultants. (2012, October). Draft Biological Assessment of Federally Listed Marine Mammals under National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction for the Kodiak Airport of Proposed Runway Safety Area Improvement Project. Prepared for FAA and Alaska Department of Transportation This project exemplifies a case where an and Public Facilities. airport was severely constrained by its location and the sensitive nature of the surrounding habitats but was able to work with the regulatory agencies and develop a plan where both airport safety and listed species protection could occur.

Next: Section 7 - Overview of CRP-CD-160: Airport Toolbox for ACRP Report 122 »
Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 122: Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species provides solutions to help airport industry practitioners address the presence of federally listed species at or near airports.

Accompanying the primer is Airport Toolbox for ACRP Report 122, which is designed to help facilitate understanding among airports and agencies. The toolbox is available online as a PDF document and available as CRP-CD-ROM 160 in the hard copy of the report.

The CD is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file that may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!