Habitat Management to Deter Wildlife at Airports (2014)

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 chapter ten OTHER POTENTIAL CONFLICTS Wildlife management in the airport environment is often complex. Operators are expected to maintain the aesthetic appeal and safe functionality of airport property, while minimizing potential wildlife haz- ards. This may involve nearly constant patrolling for wildlife posing risks to aircraft operation safety, or extensive and complicated habitat manipulations involving years of work and permitting. Local, state, and federal levels of regulations must all be met for habitat management or direct actions against wildlife to take place. Airport operators are under added pressure to reduce their impact on the environ- ment and to use more energy-efficient technologies and designs. Wildlife management is essentially an attempt to control nature, which is an extremely difficult task. Changes in habitats, surrounding envi- ronments, weather, and regulations can all affect how operators best approach wildlife management challenges and how effective current management techniques will be. SOCIAL Economic Considerations If managed correctly, wildlife can in some cases be sources of income for airports; however, in all cases, airport operators need to ensure potential sources of income do not increase hazards. Some airport properties contain areas that are safe for recreational hunting. Airports that own large areas of woodland outside of a protective perimeter fence may be able to lease hunting opportunities, which would further benefit the airport by adding population control on species such as deer. A similar sys- tem may work in wetland areas that attract waterfowl; however, concerns have been raised that bird hunting adjacent to airports may attract more waterfowl to the area because of the use of decoys and calls (DeVault et al. 2013). Airports can also make money from selling crops or leasing parts of their property for agriculture. While many agricultural operations attract potentially hazardous wildlife, some, such as hay produc- tion, may be safe if separated from the AOA. Also, livestock grazing may be safe and profitable— again, if the wildlife are excluded from the AOA. Operators can determine what land use practices are appropriate for their region and potentially hazardous wildlife species present. Land uses that do not attract wildlife may vary depending on region, surrounding habitat, and time of year. Airports often occupy large parcels of land that are able to support other profitable operations such as solar, wind, and biofuel production; when energy demands for airport operations are low, power production by solar and wind may produce excess energy that can then be sold back to the local power provider (DeVault et al. 2012). Also, biofuels can be produced and sold like hay or other agricultural crops (Martin et al. 2013). Airports can also lease excess property to industrial developers or for parking for patrons other than those using the airport, for example, for sporting events. One important consideration about any construction or development project is that changes to the land, even clearing to bare ground, may create a new habitat appealing to wildlife of certain species. Operators can prepare for the possibility of new hazards as development moves from phase to phase, and may need to adapt their management and hazard prevention methods accordingly. Financial Sustainability Wildlife management can be expensive, especially as airports are required to reduce wildlife-strike risks; so determining the most effective and efficient methods for meeting these safety obligations

43 is in an airport’s best interests (AC 150/5300-13). Reducing resources suitable for wildlife use will reduce the need for wildlife management (Dickey and Cleary 2010). Many habitat manipulations and wildlife management techniques may be very simple, and operators can learn from peers what to try before spending time and money on unproven approaches to a given problem. However, what works for one airport will not work for all of them. Considerations for implementing a habitat management strategy include airports’ unique habitat, potential wildlife hazards, and relevant regulations. Incor- poration of green technologies such as solar and wind are also potential methods of reducing costs. ECOLOGICAL While the needs for animal survival—food, water, and shelter—may appear simple, the complexities of ecological systems can become overwhelming when people attempt to control them. Some ecosystems may contain numerous wildlife species that in some way contribute to a single human–wildlife conflict. In most cases it would be impossible, impractical, or unnecessary to remove all of these species to solve the problem. Understanding ecological complexities is part of finding the most reasonable approach to resolving a conflict. Operators can study the needs of the wildlife they want to manage and how the airport environment provides at least one of those necessary resources. Also, an airport may just be located between two necessary resources, and using the airspace or travel corridor between these resources is the only reason an animal is found in or near an airport. Thus, airports are part of a larger landscape with a multitude of relationships between wildlife and habitat. In order to minimize aircraft–wildlife hazards, operators can learn to manage their airport space and its role in the surrounding environment. Other Issues—Ecological: Southeast, U.S. An airport in the southeast is located along the Intracoastal Waterway, which is a major haven for many species of wading birds, shore birds, and birds of prey. Large natural areas like this pose unique management challenges because they can- not be removed, and widespread control efforts would involve multiple agencies or landowners. In this case, the airport was forced to reduce the attractiveness of its property to deter po- tentially hazardous wildlife as much as possible, but was unable to remove the major attractant. Southeastern U.S. airport next to the Intracoastal Waterway.