1. Introduction

Delegates to the 26^th International Birdstrike Committee (IBSC) meeting[1] recommended developing a set of standards or best management practices for the control of hazardous wildlife on airports. Dr. John Allan, Central Science Laboratory, UK, undertook the task. He presented the draft standards at the 27^th IBSC meeting[2]. The IBSC adopted the recommended best management practices in June 2006.

Dr. Allan presented IBSC’s recommended best management practices to the delegates at the 8^th joint meeting of Bird Strike Committee USA (BSC-USA)/Bird Strike Committee Canada (BSCC)[3]. BSC-USA’s Steering Committee approved referring IBSC’s recommended best management practices to the BSC-USA membership for consideration and possible adoption.

A modified version of IBSC’s recommended best management practices follows. The changes include “Americanizing” some of the phraseology and spellings and adapting the best management practices to meet conditions existent in the United States. For example, IBSC used the term “bird/wildlife.” Historically, birds have been the central focus of airport wildlife hazard issues. However, data clearly shows birds are not the only group of wildlife that can pose a threat to aviation safety (see Dolbeer et al. 2005, Cleary et al. 2006). Mammals and large reptiles can pose a serious threat. Also, invertebrate species (such as insects and worms) can pose an indirect threat by attracting other species of wildlife that pose a direct threat. For these reasons, this document—unless specifically referencing birds, mammals, reptiles, or other taxa—uses the inclusive term “wildlife”.

Several excellent handbooks exist that describe techniques used to manage the wildlife strike risk on airports (for example, CAA 1998, Transport Canada 2001, ACI 2005, Cleary and Dolbeer 2005). However, there has been little effort to quantify the investment in time, personnel, equipment, and training needed to manage wildlife hazards effectively. This contrasts sharply with other airport safety requirements. For example, U.S. Federal regulations specify the required number and size of aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment and the quantity of firefighting agents (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 139.317) (14 CFR, part 139.317) as well as the operational requirements (14 CFR, part 139.319). This inconsistency has arisen in part because the habitat types, the wildlife species present, and the levels of risk caused by wildlife vary widely among airports. The precise techniques that are successful at one site might not work at another. The situation is further aggravated by the differences in resources available at each airport and the attitudes of airport managers and air carriers.

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) revised Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) on airport wildlife control became effective in November 2003. ICAO is updating the guidance material that accompanies the SARPS. This guidance will, when combined with the various manuals listed above, provide the technical detail needed to set up a wildlife control program. It does not, however, describe the levels of effort needed to conduct an efficient and successful program.

This document identifies universally applicable practices. It suggests levels of airport habitat management, wildlife control equipment, personnel, and other resource that BSC-USA believes an airport needs to manage the wildlife aircraft strike risk effectively. The best management practices will give airport managers, state and national regulators, the insurance industry, lawyers, and other interested people information about what BSC-USA believes should be the minimum investment in wildlife control at an airport.

BSC-USA believes these standards should apply to any airport certificated under 14 CFR, part 139 to serve scheduled and unscheduled air carrier operations. Airports with unusually high wildlife strike risks should invest more resources in strike prevention than the minimum described below. BSC-USA recognizes that many reliever and general aviation airports are too small to justify the expense of wildlife control at the levels described in this document; nonetheless, these airports need to be aware of wildlife hazards and have management plans in place.

This document distills the collective experience of wildlife and aviation experts into a set of basic management practices the aviation industry can use. No attempt is made to provide a detailed scientific underpinning for the best management practices. Those wishing to explore the science involved should review the scientific literature and the proceedings of organizations such as IBSC (www.int-birdstrike.com), Bird Strike Committee USA (www.birdstrike.org), Bird Strike Committee Canada (www.birdstrikecanada.com), and the German Birdstrike Committee (www.davvl.de).

2. BSC-USA Best Management Practices

2.1 Airport Wildlife Hazard Management

2.1.1 Background

Controlling an airport’s attractiveness to wildlife is fundamental to good wildlife control. It is more important than wildlife population management for controlling the overall risk. If an airport provides easily accessible resources to wildlife—food, water, shelter, or breeding sites—the wildlife will continue trying to return despite any strategies used to discourage them. The control program will fail unless the airport is made as unattractive to wildlife as possible.

Habitat management to deter wildlife involves two steps: (1) identifying the attractive features and (2) imposing changes to either remove the attraction or to deny wildlife access to it. Habitat management, such as improving drainage, installing fences, and changing vegetation cover, is often expensive. It can also be difficult to get resources for programs such as vegetation management that may take years to carry out, especially when the immediate benefits are not always clear. Long-term commitment from senior management is essential. A named member of the airport’s senior management staff should have responsibility for ensuring implementation of all parts of the wildlife hazard management program. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan must identify airport personnel with responsibility for carrying out various parts of the plan (14 CFR 139.337(f) (1)).

Best management practice 1 – Airport Managers:

Assign a senior airport management staff member responsibility for carrying out all parts of the wildlife control program.

Best management practice 2 – Airport Managers:

Take part in local planning and land use decisions for proposed land development or land use changes within 5 miles of the airport that could attract hazardous wildlife.

2.1.2 Identifying attractions

Most wildlife aircraft strikes occur on the airport, so the logical place to begin looking for wildlife attractants, and setting up control programs, is on the airport. Available food (invertebrates, small mammals, seeds, fruits, nuts, or plants), water (ponds, ditches, or puddles on the tarmac), shelter (nesting sites, trees, bushes, or buildings), or the security offered by large open spaces will attract wildlife to an airport. Sometimes it might be obvious what is attracting the wildlife. In other cases, it might not be obvious. The attraction will vary from one species to another. Where doubts exist, get help from a professional wildlife management biologist who is able to identify wildlife attractants on and near the airport.

Do not limit wildlife hazard assessments and wildlife management programs to the airport property. ICAO recognizes the need to control hazardous wildlife attractants near airports, as well. In 2003, ICAO published new standards on airport wildlife control[4]. The new standards state the following:

The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the establishment of garbage disposal dumps or any such other source attracting wildlife activity on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome unless an appropriate aeronautical study indicates that they are unlikely to create conditions conducive to a wildlife hazard problem (Amendment 5, Annex 14, Volume 1, Chapter 9, §9.4.4).

In the United States, wildlife hazard assessments must identify and quantify hazardous wildlife attractants on and within 5 miles of the airport. The FAA recommends minimum separation distances between an airport’s air operation area (AOA) and any known hazardous wildlife attractant. For airports serving mainly piston-powered aircraft, the FAA recommends a 5,000-foot separation distance; for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA recommends a 10,000-foot separation distance. A 5-mile separation distance is recommended if the attractant may cause hazardous wildlife to move through the airport’s approach/departure airspace. Airports that have received Federal grant-in aid assistance must use these standards (see the most recent version of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports).

Best management practice 3 – Airport Managers:

Conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to identify land use practices and geographic features on and near the airport attractive to hazardous wildlife.

Get support from a qualified wildlife damage management biologist as needed (see the most recent version of FAA AC 150/5200-36, Qualifications for wildlife biologist conducting wildlife hazard assessments and training curriculums for airport personnel involved in controlling wildlife hazards on airports).
Identify the precise nature of the attractants (such as food, water, or cover).

2.2 Active Wildlife Control on the Airport

2.2.1 Background

Four basic control strategies are available to solve wildlife problems on airports:

Aircraft flight schedule modification;
Habitat modification and exclusion;
Repellent and harassment techniques; and
Wildlife removal.

Integrate all four control strategies into the airport’s wildlife hazard management plan, as appropriate.

2.2.2 Aircraft flight schedule modification

Although not generally practical for regularly scheduled commercial traffic on larger airports, flight schedule adjustments might be possible in some situations. Such changes can lessen the chance of a strike with a wildlife species that has a predictable pattern of movement.

2.2.3 Habitat management

Habitat modification means changing the environment to make it less attractive or inaccessible to the problem wildlife. After identifying hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport, develop a management plan to either remove, reduce in quantity, or deny wildlife access to them, depending on the circumstances at the airport. All airports are different. The wildlife species attracted to them will vary from region to region. Therefore, it is not possible to define precisely what types of habitat management will be effective at a particular site. Typical examples include stopping agricultural activity on or near the airport[5], manipulating the species and/or height of the airport’s AOA ground cover, removing trees and bushes, eliminating or netting water bodies, excluding wildlife from buildings by netting or other means, and selecting nonattractive planting around terminals. Regardless of the techniques used, airport managers should assess the wildlife attractions on and near the airport and develop a habitat management plan to reduce these attractions to the extent practicable.

2.2.4 Wildlife dispersal

Repellent and harassment techniques are designed to make the area or resource wanted by wildlife unattractive or to make the wildlife uncomfortable or fearful. Effective wildlife control requires dispersal of even small numbers of hazardous wildlife as soon as possible from the airport. This stops them from becoming an attraction to other wildlife. Their presence suggests there is food or water available or the airport is a safe place to rest. For these reasons, rapid detection of hazardous wildlife followed by quick dis