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  Beekeeping and pollinator-friendly habitat programs have become increasingly popular at airports around the world. Before implementing these programs, airports should consider potential barriers, threats, and liabilities. This chapter discusses potential operational challenges and liabilities as well as wildlife hazard management and outlines possible ways to mitigate these risks. It also discusses recent research on possible unintentional environmental impacts of beekeeping programs, such as through an increase in competition among pollinators or pos- sible pathogen spillover to wild bee communities. These potential threats should be carefully considered before an airport establishes new honeybee apiaries or modifies habitat management practices, particularly in sensitive environments. 6.1 Operational Issues and Liabilities Beekeeping and pollinator habitat programs have potential operational and liability challenges for airports. The safety and security of airport facilities, staff, and passengers is a top priority. Through careful planning and consideration, airports have successfully developed pollinator- friendly programs while mitigating these challenges. 6.1.1 Security and Access Airports with beekeeping programs reported that they carefully considered how to allow beekeepers the necessary access to apiaries while maintaining the safety and security of staff and operations. Apiaries can be sited in locations that reduce operational challenges. Apiaries located on an airportâs AOA require additional coordination for beekeepers and airport staff. Airports have overcome this challenge by providing beekeepers with a key or badge to allow access to the apiary and requiring them to check in upon arrival and departure. Airports may also choose to vet beekeepers through a background check before they are given access credentials. There are potential liabilities associated with having a beekeeper within an airportâs AOA. If an incident with the beekeeper were to occur, the airport would be liable. Insurance and liability, as well as expectations for access, should be discussed and included in any formal agreements between the beekeeper and the airport. See Appendix D for examples of formal agreements. Experience suggests that apiaries located on publicly accessible airport land are more man- ageable than locations in the AOA from safety, security, and access perspectives. The beekeeping programâs goals and any plans to showcase the apiary are important considerations for estab- lishing the number and frequency of visits expected; a publicly accessible location could be more appropriate and serve these needs. The beekeeping program at Chicago OâHare International Airport is managed by Sweet Beginnings, which teaches formerly incarcerated individuals the skills necessary to run an apiary, as well as to produce and sell honey and other hive-derived C H A P T E R 6 Barriers, Threats, and Liabilities
40 Considerations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful Pollinator Programs on Airports products. Since 2011, over 500 individuals have participated in this program, which is aimed at reducing recidivism. Due to this programâs unique goals and high level of community engage- ment, the apiaryâs land-side location in a secluded, wooded area was carefully chosen for safety and accessibility. Since the apiary is located outside OâHareâs AOA (see Figure 13), there are few issues with security, and beekeepers can gain access to the apiary at any time. Depending on the location of an airportâs apiary, additional measures may be necessary to protect the public as well as the beekeeping operation (see Figure 14). Gated fences can be erected to prevent members of the public from approaching the hives. Placing apiaries in a remote location away from public view can also help to reduce unwanted attention to them. Figure 13. Chicago OâHare International Airportâs apiaries are kept in a secluded but accessible wooded area outside of the airportâs AOA (Source: Chicago Department of Aviation/Sweet Beginnings, LLC, used with permission). Figure 14. Indianapolis International Airport (IND) keeps its apiaries secure by surrounding the area with fencing and caution signs to ensure that access is granted only to authorized beekeepers wearing protective gear (Source: IND, used with permission).
Barriers, Threats, and Liabilities 41  6.1.2 Bee Stings Another concern for pollinator-friendly programs is the potential for bee stings. In general, most of the stings people receive are from wasps, not bees. The distinction between wasps and bees is important to consider when assessing the potential for a nest or swarm to present a safety hazard. Wasps are social insects and will aggressively defend their nest sites. Unlike wasps, the majority of bee species are solitary and nest underground. These solitary species are not aggressive and will not attempt to sting humans unless handled. Therefore, bee stings are a rarity for programs that seek to attract and support wild bees through the development of pollinator habitat. For beekeeping programs that host managed honeybees, bee stings are also an unlikely event. Owing to the anatomy of the honeybeeâs barbed stinger, stinging is typically fatal for the bee. Therefore, the most likely time honeybees will sting is when they perceive a threat to their colony, such as during a hive inspection conducted by a beekeeper. When honeybees are foraging away from their colony, they will rarely sting unless handled roughly or stepped upon. None of the airport respondents interviewed for this study reported any issues with bee stings involving staff members or the public. 6.1.3 Land Availability One of the key items an airport should consider when implementing a pollinator habitat program with a lessee is to confirm the duration of land availability and lease conditions. Typi- cally, such a lease will include stipulations that specify the time period of the lease; often it will allow the airport to terminate the lease of a parcel or parcels at will. This can sometimes be disappointing to outside entities managing the pollinator habitat for the airport, especially if they are unaware that the land could revert to airport uses. In one of the cases reviewed for this study, such a lease was revoked; this occurrence led to a negative perception of the airport by the lessee and the public. 6.2 Wildlife Hazard Management Wildlife is known as a primary hazard to aircraft operations at airports, which is why for more than 50 years the FAA has encouraged all Part 139 airport sponsors to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) followed by a WHMP (FAA 2020a). These are completed in an effort to ensure that airports maintain a safe environment for aircraft, vehicles, and people (employees, passengers, and the surrounding public). Airports conduct a WHA to determine potential and existing wildlife hazards, informed by their experience with impacts to aircraft. A WHMP is then developed based on the data and recommendations of the WHA. The WHMP identifies actions the airport will take in order to mitigate the risk of future wildlife incidents on or near the airport. The FAA also encourages general aviation airports to conduct a WHA, wildlife hazard site visit, or both, to determine wildlife impacts and mitigation measures. In order to guide airports through wildlife assessment, the FAA developed a protocol for the conduct and review of wildlife hazard site visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and WHMPs [FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-38]. The FAA also provides guidelines on wildlife attractants that could pose a hazard on or near airports (FAA AC 150/5200-33). Pollinators are not explicitly mentioned in these resources, but assessing potential risks before the develop- ment of a pollinator-friendly program is important in order to reduce the potential for pol- linators to serve as a hazard and thus the need to include pollinators in a WHMP. The following sections describe potential ways pollinator-friendly programs might present a wildlife hazard. Also discussed are ways in which airports have mitigated these risks. Although
42 Considerations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful Pollinator Programs on Airports the potential for risks should be carefully considered, airports interviewed for this study have not identified pollinators as a primary or secondary concern in WHA, therefore pollinators are not included in their WHMPs. Airports should coordinate with local FAA Airport Dis- trict Offices to discuss whether pollinator-friendly programs should be included in an airportâs WHMP once a WHA has been completed. See Chapter 8 for more detail. 6.2.1 Wildlife Strikes and Bees Since honeybee apiaries can attract outside wildlife, airports should include mitigation strategies for potential wildlife hazards in their WHMP. For example, honeybee hives noto- riously attract wildlife such as bears and skunks seeking to eat the stored honey and develop- ing larvae. In North America, several bird species are known to eat bees on occasion (e.g., shrikes, titmice, kingbirds, swifts, martins, thrushes, mockingbirds) (Caron 2000). Choosing a strategic apiary location and using other mitigation methods to deter wildlife attractants will help reduce the likelihood of such hazards. The FAA recommends that wildlife strikes on aircraft be reported when evidence of a strike has been discovered or if it is known that the presence of wildlife has had a significant negative effect on a flight (FAA AC 150/5200-32). Airports should closely monitor wildlife strike data before and after implementing a bee- keeping program to understand whether honeybee colonies serve as a significant secondary wildlife attractant. All participating airports in this study reported no increase in wildlife strikes after their beekeeping programs were established. In 2019, Orlando International Airport started collecting swarm data and comparing these data to wildlife strikes. Strikes per 10,000 aircraft move- ments, and damaging strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements, were noted to be lower than the nine-year average, including the average in the seven years prior to the establishment of the beekeeping program. These data demonstrate that the beekeeping program has not contributed to or increased hazardous wildlife issues at the airport. Additionally, the airport responded to approximately 24 swarms per year prior to hosting apiaries at the airport, compared to 10 to 15 swarms per year since the beekeeping program began. The decrease in swarms cannot be attributed to the apiaries, but these findings demonstrate that the program has not created additional concerns or tasks for airport personnel. Establishing pollinator habitat can also provide food and shelter for other wildlife species, such as turkey, pheasant, and deer. Large wildlife such as these cause concern because of their possible collision with aircraft. However, studies conducted by DOTs along roadsides have found that the presence of taller vegetation does not increase collisions between vehi- cles and wildlife, particularly deer. The Indiana DOT found no significant increase in bird or mammal collisions after planting shrubs along roadsides (Roach and Kirkpatrick 1985). Deer may be more common in areas with frequent mowing, as they prefer to graze on new growth (Mastro et al. 2008). In light of this, reduced mowing practices that improve pollinator habitat may also discourage deer from frequenting these areas. In addition, taller vegetation could provide better habitat for deer than turfgrass, resulting in fewer deer running across runways (Ohio Department of Transportation 2016). The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) noted that it put effort into achieving âclear zonesâ between its unmowed meadows and roads to deter deer from passing into roadways. Airports aiming to improve pollinator habitat while not attracting wildlife can begin with small trial sites. Orlando International Airport is testing seed mixes for a pollinator habitat that will attract bees and other pollinators without attracting wildlife that could pose a hazard to the airfield. Seed mixes can be chosen carefully to reduce the likelihood of these areas becoming wildlife attractants.
Barriers, Threats, and Liabilities 43  The development of pollinator-friendly habitat could also be a solution to a wildlife hazard problem. SeattleâTacoma International Airport restored an abandoned golf course near the airport to create dedicated pollinator-friendly habitat. Restoration of the golf course decreased wildlife hazard problems on the airfield, as the golf course had been an attractant for geese. 6.3 Swarm Impacts to Aircraft Honeybees will swarm as part of their natural reproductive cycle, resulting in a single colony splitting into two distinct colonies (see Chapter 4 for more detail). During this natural process, the swarm of bees will temporarily station itself at a site and send out âscoutsâ to search for a new Beekeeper Collaboration Reduces Swarm Issues for Pittsburgh International Airport Before hosting a beekeeping program, Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) was faced with the challenge of how to manage honeybee swarms that interrupted airport operations. By 2012, airport management had become aware of the worldwide plight of pollinators, so when a swarm on the jetway was sprayed, the environmental team was concerned and began to consider other, nondestructive methods of swarm management. The airport contacted a local beekeeper to assist with swarm capture. Nine years later, this collaboration had resulted in strategic swarm management protocols and one of the largest beekeeping programs hosted by a North American airport. Pittsburgh International Airport began hosting honeybee hives in 2012, and the program grew over the years. At the time of this study, the airport hosted over 100 hives situated across five remote locations on airport property. The hives were managed by Meadow Sweet Apiaries, a commercial beekeeping operation that also aided in swarm prevention, capture, and relocation. The beekeeper helped relocate swarms and provided training to airport staff on swarm capture techniques. The airport started collecting swarm data when it began hosting hives; it averaged 17 swarms on the AOA between 2012 and 2019. In 2020, the airport implemented a strategic swarm trapping protocol in which swarm traps were placed in areas thought to be the most active for feral honeybee colonies. The swarm traps collected 13 swarms in 2020; only three of which were observed on the AOA, indicating that the traps were effective in deterring swarms from the AOA. It was noted that these swarms did not likely originate from the airport apiaries, as the queens in the airport hives had been marked. Pittsburgh International Airportâs collaboration with Meadow Sweet demonstrates that beekeeperâairport collaboration can provide an effective and nondestructive means of swarm management. A beekeeper retrieves a swarm off an aircraft (Source: PIT, used with permission). A honeybee swarm gathered on airport equipment (Source: PIT, used with permission).
44 Considerations for Establishing and Maintaining Successful Pollinator Programs on Airports hive location. Swarms are very docile and if left alone, will eventually move from their temporary landing site without any problems. However, when they cluster on an aircraft or other air- port infrastructure, they disrupt operations and require staff to relocate them. With very little training, swarms can easily be gathered and relocated by personnel. A captured swarm repre- sents a valuable resource for any beekeeper looking to expand their apiary. Thus it is common for beekeepers to provide swarm-catching services for any unwanted swarms. Although estab- lishing a beekeeping program increases the number of bee colonies at an airport, participants in this study indicated that their beekeeping programs had not resulted in additional swarms but instead had created new solutions for handling them. By partnering with beekeepers, air- ports have an open line of communication with trained professionals who are willing to gather and relocate swarms that land on aircraft or other airport equipment. Beekeepers can also con- struct swarm traps to attract swarms that might otherwise land in less convenient locations. A swarm trap is a wooden hive box placed in a tree and sometimes baited with an attracting lure such as essential oil. Airports have found that swarm traps can serve as an effective way of collecting swarms that otherwise might have landed within the AOA. Several of the interviewed airports were able to reasonably assume that most swarms did not originate from their programsâ apiaries. This was confirmed by beekeepers, who mark their queen bees with a colored pen and can spot an unmarked queen within the captured swarm. Although swarms have been recorded at airports, they have not been identified in WHMPs, as they have not presented any significant hazard to aircraft. 6.4 Disease and Competition Among Pollinator Populations Honeybees have become the iconic pollinator species, serving to educate the public on the importance of pollinators and their role in agriculture. Though they are the single most important managed bee to the agricultural system, providing over $17 billion a year in pollination services (Calderone 2012), honeybees are a non-native introduced species in North America. In recent years, conservation biologists have raised concerns about the ecological impacts of managed honeybees on wild pollinator communities, particularly in sensitive natural areas (Geldmann and González-Varo 2018; Ropars et al. 2019). Considering these implications is an important step in deciding whether to begin a beekeeping program. The public outreach and community engagement opportunities of these programs are boundless. However, if environmental stew- ardship is the goal of a pollinator-friendly program, then establishing pollinator habitat could be a more effective method of achieving this objective. A burgeoning body of research has reported that introduced honeybees may have detri- mental effects on the abundance and diversity of wild bees (Mallinger et al. 2017). Outside of their native range, the use of managed bees is likely to have negative competitive effects on wild bees (Mallinger et al. 2017). Several studies have found that the introduction of beekeeping has resulted in long-term wild bee declines, particularly for natural areas or sensitive environ- ments such as small islands (Kato et al. 1999; Dupont et al. 2004; Miller et al. 2015). Although the ecological processes driving these patterns are not well understood, it has been suggested that honeybees may outcompete wild bees by depleting the available resources on the landscape. A study in France found that high-density beekeeping reduced the occurrence and nectar foraging success of wild bees within 600 to 1,100 meters of the apiaries (Henry and Rodet 2018). Impacts to wild bee populations could also have indirect effects on the plants that depend on specialist species for pollination, resulting in changes in wild plant communities (Mallinger et al. 2017). Studies of agricultural plants indicate that wild bees may be more efficient pollinators than honeybees (Garibaldi et al. 2013), which suggests that supporting wild bee habitat is a
Barriers, Threats, and Liabilities 45  more effective means of improving crop production than introducing non-native honeybees to the landscape. One recent study found that honeybee hives on strawberry farms resulted in decreases in wild bee abundance (48%), species richness (20%) and strawberry fruit count (18%), regardless of wildflower strip presence or absence (Angelella et al. 2021). However, other studies have found contrasting results in which honeybees enhanced pollination in mass-flowering crops of sunflowers (Greenleaf and Kremen 2006) and almonds (Brittain et al. 2013). Additional research is needed to understand how crop size and type interact with bee behavior to affect pollination services and crop yields. Managed bees can also be a source of pathogens to wild bee communities (see Figure 15). Most research on this topic has examined the spillover of pathogens between managed bumble- bees and wild bumblebees; these studies report patterns of bumblebee decline linked to these spillover events. However, more recent evidence suggests that managed honeybee pathogens can also spill over to wild bumblebee species. For example, the prevalence of Nosema ceranae, a microsporidian parasite of the gut and some RNA viruses in wild bees have been explicitly linked to the presence of honeybee apiaries (Fürst et al. 2014; Alger et al. 2019). This evidence for pathogen spillover is especially concerning for wild bee species that are already showing declines, such as the federally endangered Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) and other bumblebee species. To reduce this threat, the presence of these vulnerable species should be assessed before establishing new apiary sites. More research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms that drive these patterns of competition and disease spillover. This body of literature is presented here to raise awareness of the potential threat that bee- keeping may pose to conservation initiatives, especially in areas with sensitive or endangered plant or bee species. Figure 15. Honeybee colony exhibiting symptoms of high Varroa mite loads: perforated and chewed brood and adults with deformed wings. Several Varroa mites are also visible on the comb and on the adult bees. Varroa mites vector RNA viruses to honeybees, which may spread to wild bees (Source: S. Alger, used with permission).
