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.
39 PoPulation ManageMent Case studies Using input from our wildlife population control manage- ment surveys provided by the airport operators, the key points and lessons learned were summarized and consolidated from the application of direct and indirect wildlife population con- trol techniques as part of an integrated approach. Special thanks go to the following airports and personnel for their survey input. ⢠FAA Alaska Region Ketchikan International Airport (KTN), Ketchikan, AK ⢠FAA Central Region Rosecrans International Airport (STJ), St. Joseph, MO ⢠FAA Eastern Region John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York, NY ⢠FAA Great Lakes Region Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN Chicago OâHare International Airport (ORD), Chicago, IL Dane County Regional Airport (MSN), Madison, WI ⢠FAA New England Region Burlington International Airport (BTV), Burlington VT ⢠FAA Northwest Mountain Region Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC), Salt Lake City, UT Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, CO Colorado Springs Airport (COS), Colorado Springs, CO ⢠FAA Southern Region Orlando International Airport (MCO), Orlando, FL Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CTL), Charlotte, NC ⢠FAA Southwest Region Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ⢠FAA Western Pacific Region SeattleâTacoma International Airport (SEA), Seattle, WA RenoâTahoe International Airport (RNO), Reno, NV initiation of Wildlife Population Control Before initiating any wildlife population control measure, it is critical to identify the who, what, where, when, and why for the wildlife on the airport. Initially, this information is best gathered through a WHA. Information concerning the habi- tat attractors of wildlife, combined with the current wildlife identification, abundance, and distribution on the airport are critical in developing a WHMP. Wildlife information can also be gathered from the FAAâs Wildlife Strike Database, airport staff wildlife counts and surveys, as well as wildlife sightings from airport operations personnel, ATC, pilot reports, and other tenant units. Wildlife Control Methods All wildlife population control methods were used by respon- dent airports dependent on the targeted species. In all cases, airports identified the initial need to determine habitat attrac- tiveness and subsequent residency and occupation by targeted species and guilds. Next, an integrated approach is used begin- ning with habitat modification and followed by indirect wild- life control methods and appropriate direct wildlife population control techniques. Wildlife population control measures are often more costly than indirect measures because of equip- ment cost, personnel time, and expertise. In all cases, the costs of wildlife control are secondary to safety. effectiveness The most obvious metric to evaluate wildlife population control effectiveness is a reduction in wildlife strikes for the targeted species or guild. However, wildlife census counts conducted with regular frequency and then evaluated using systematic procedures can provide accurate measures of technique effectiveness. Without such procedures in place, the ability to discern actual population changes is not pos- sible. Airports should use all possible wildlife data sources to include those listed previously in wildlife control initiation. lessons learned The following are excerpts from respondent airport surveys that provided input to the following question from the survey, chapter six airPort Wildlife ManageMent Case studies and lessons learned
40 âPlease provide any additional comments from your wildlife population management experiences that may assist others with their wildlife population management planning and implementation.â Take an Integrated Approach to Wildlife Management Be aware of and understand the consequences of all federal, state, and local regulations before initiating wildlife population management. Identify potential wildlife attractants not only on the air- field but surrounding the airfield as well, and work to mitigate hazards as needed. Use an integrated wildlife management strategy (toolbox approach) where a variety of techniques are used to maxi- mize effectiveness rather than reliance on one specific tech- nique. The more tools and flexibility you have, the sooner you will determine what works at your airport. There is no âcookie cutterâ answer for every airportâs wildlife popula- tion. Habitat modification is the foundation of our strategy followed by specific direct and indirect measures. Communi- cate with others within the industry and see what has worked or not worked for them, and use this information to develop your own plan. Effective wildlife population management depends on education and communication. Most people understand the necessity for wildlife management on airports through edu- cation of the hazards posed to aviation by wildlife. Work with tenants and local neighbors in the educational process. Trust the Experts Consult with a qualified airport wildlife biologist prior to implementing a wildlife hazard management plan. Trust your wildlife biologists! âImportance of Data Collection and Analysisâ Orlando International Airport (MCO) Strike data, (damaging and non-damaging) combined with daily wildlife activity reports, can provide an accurate descrip- tion of bird and wildlife activity on and near the aircraft oper- ating area, and highlight the most hazardous species. Further analysis can reveal the location, time of day, and time of year when these species are most likely to occur. Sandhill Cranes, Cattle Egrets, Ring-billed Gulls, and vultures (Turkey and Black) were clearly identified as more hazardous than approxi- mately 30 other species regularly encountered. An integrated approach of habitat manipulation, selective nest elimination, species specific harassment, and time and location specific lethal removals have resulted in a decreasing trend in damaging strikes and a reduction in population observed on airport property. This analysis and evaluation conducted annually provides the basic elements for a Safety Management System framework specific to wildlife hazards. Data are acquired, analyzed, the system assessed, corrective action implemented, and the system re-evaluated. Data collection by wildlife control personnel at MCO (Source: MCO).
41 Importance of Public Support and Communication Press releases may be issued before starting sensitive proj- ects, such as goose roundups, to inform the community on what was happening and why. Because the city and mayor were involved and supportive, public sentiment and approval was increased. Many were only upset that the goose meat wasnât donated; with a change to state regula- tions, this was made possible two years later. Participation in outreach opportunities when possible to explain the threats wildlife pose to aviation safety and the importance of wildlife hazard management at airports. Awareness of the wildlife hazard is a key issue and adminis- trative support is also a major component in providing fund- ing and resources for a successful WHMP. Networking with local wildlife, environmental, and conser- vation organizations and agencies can provide much needed wildlife expertise and resources. Take advantage of the National Strike Database. It is important that primary bird and wildlife aviation threats be identified before initiation of a wildlife strategy. The most populous or noticeable species may not necessarily be the primary threat to aviation. Coordinating and teaming with other municipalities can help defray costs, reduce some administrative restrictions, increase potential resources (park police, biologists, extra staff), and may help broaden support for a potentially sensitive project. Evaluate Your Actions to Determine Wildlife Population Control Effectiveness Accurate record keeping of wildlife activities, sightings, strikes, and direct control methods is the primary way to ensure con- tinued effectiveness of wildlife population management at our airport. With accurate records we can observe trends from month to month and year to year and measure the effectiveness of control measures that are implemented on specific targeted wildlife populations. This allows us to better anticipate what species will present an increased hazard and eventually imple- ment measures to be proactive before it becomes a major prob- lem. These data can also be used to educate personnel directly involved in wildlife control at our airport to identify problem species and methods to more effectively control them. Bi-monthly wildlife point-count surveys of the airfield are conducted and we use these data to identify cyclical behavior âIntegrated Wildlife Control On and Off Airportâ Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) Numerous bridges associated with a large canal support large colonies of nesting Cliff Swallows. Netting was installed as an exclusion method combined with using the airport fire trucks to spray swallow nests prior to egg laying. Persistent re-nesting attempts required repeated spray efforts. Up to 10,000 California Gulls were nesting 1.5 miles from the airport resulting in frequent airport over-flights. The gull colony was eventually removed using nest disruption, harass- ment, and by placing domestic pigs to predate gull eggs. Off-airfield water areas owned by duck hunting clubs have had the chemical rotenone applied to eliminate fish prey, mostly carp, which attract high concentrations of foraging American White Pelicans. This prey reduction has decreased pelican numbers and resultant risk potential. Extensive wetland habitat surrounding airport (Source: BASH Inc.) and pigs used to predate gull eggs at SLC (Source: SLC).
42 patterns, population trends of various hazardous wildlife spe- cies, as well as aiding in wildlife management decisions and efforts. All indirect and direct wildlife control activities are recorded and entered into an electronic database. These wildlife control data are then used for long-term evaluation of various airport wildlife management decisions. Wildlife activity is reported and documented on the Air- field Activity Daily Log, with report copies maintained for 5 years. Annually, these data are analyzed to determine which species are encountered most often in the runway environment, where they most often occur on the airport operations area, and the time of year these species are most frequently encountered. Evaluating and comparing annual reports reveals trends in individual species activity, their location, frequency of occurrence, and average population per occurrence. This information is also used for annual wildlife training of airfield operations personnel to provide them with specific wildlife guidance while performing their routine inspection duties in and around the runway environment. The annual reports also allow us to gauge long-term program effectiveness. When requesting a permit or permit renewal, try to plan for the worst-case scenario. If you have been seeing 5 deer and 5 turkeys, request a permit for 15 deer and 15 turkeys (you are most likely underestimating the population). I have had to amend both the federal depredation and state depre- dation permits mid-year because of an unexpected situation based on population estimates. Records are kept on all population management efforts including the length of the control activity, species controlled, and number of each species controlled. Continuous Improvement Adding a research component to a wildlife control project can also help reduce public sensitivity and garner support from conservation-minded officials. This helps to provide data for the project that can later be used to support your methods and evaluate overall effectiveness. A successful wildlife control program is dependent on determined and resourceful personnel whose efforts are based on the knowledge of wildlife biology and behavior. Continuous efforts with administrative support will make a noticeable difference in an effective WHMP. Airport management must remain flexible when dealing with wildlife management and overall effectiveness. Methods that worked one year may not work the next. There is always new technology, but spending more money on new âholy grailsâ to eliminate a bird population isnât always the answer. Adaptive management strategies that address new situations or respond to analysis of data are necessary to continually improve.
