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.
B-1 A P P E N D I X B Summary of WHM and SMS Survey Findings 1) Survey Participants and National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS) Categories Code NPIAS DFW Large JFK Large MSP Large MCO Large SEA Large ANC Medium JAX Medium PDX Medium SAT Medium TUS Medium ELM None MKL Regional GA MDH Regional GA BOI Small FAI Small 2) Participant Profile Regarding SMS Implementation Response a) SMS Program implemented and operational? b) SMS Program underway? c) SMS Program planned but not initiated yet? Yes 6 / 40% 5 / 33% 4/27% No 7 / 47% 5 / 33% 3 / 20% other 1 / 7% 4 /27% 7 / 47% 3) Wildlife Management Program in place? Both airports indicating "no" stated they are planning to implement; one in 2014 and the other stated "unknown; however that airport representative stated "We currently have no mandate for a WHMP, but train our employees to the standards set forth by the USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICE." Does your airport have a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan in place? Yes No 12 2 80% 13%
B-2 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management 4) All airports interviewed indicated they have completed a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. 5) SMS and Wildlife integration is not wide spread. If you have an SMS in place, have you integrated wildlife data or analysis into your SMS program? Yes No NR / NA 5 6 4 33% 40% 27% 6) Wildlife and SMS integration is not wide spread. Comments include: An SMS ârisk basedâ approach utilizing a risk matrix or risk assessment process as defined by the FAA has not been employed, however overall wildlife hazard assessment and mitigation is utilized. Our format is similar to SMS guidance but is not officially recognized as SMS. Table of action items are now in our annual SRA report and are abbreviated only, if needed, in the SEA WHMP. If you have an SMS in place have you integrated wildlife data or analysis into your SMS program? NPIAS Yes No Comments Large Y The wildlife hazard management program is considered under the umbrella of the overall airside aviation-related SMS system Large Y The Safety Risk Assessment process is the method we used to review the WHMP annually to fulfill the FAR 139.337 requirement If you have a Wildlife Management Program in place, have you integrated SMS into your Wildlife program? NPIAS Yes No Comments Large Y An SMS ârisk basedâ approach utilizing a risk matrix or risk assessment process as defined by the FAA has not been employed, however overall wildlife hazard assessment and mitigation is utilized Large Y Our format is similar to SMS guidance but is not officially recognized as SMS Large Y Table of action items are now in our annual Safety Risk Assessment report and are abbreviated only, if needed, in the Airport's WHMP If you have a Wildlife Management Program in place, have you integrated SMS into your Wildlife program? Yes No NR / NA 6 8 1 40% 53% 7% 7) Eighty percent (80%) of the surveyed airports have participated in an FAA led Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) and seventy-three percent (73%) have participated in an internal SRA and seventy-three percent (73%) are familiar with a safety risk matrix. 8) When asked "Who at your airport conducts wildlife risk assessments as part of your SMS program?" Responses included: airport staff and biologist complete annual wildlife hazard plan review not specifically oriented to SMS, Risk Management, some risk analysis is done by the Wildlife Biologists and our contracted USDA staff conduct monitoring and complete annual reports based on the monitoring, ARFF Chief, Ops and USDA WS Biologist, Wildlife Biologist, all my staff provide specific data needed, SMS Manager and Airport Wildlife Biologist, Ongoing Wildlife Hazard Assessment for all staff, and Airport Operations.
Summary of WHM and SMS Survey Findings B-3 Who at your airport conducts wildlife risk assessments as part of your SMS program? NPIAS Comment Large No formal assessments currently conducted. None Airport staff completes annual wildlife hazard plan review not specifically oriented to SMS. Medium Risk Management. Large Some risk analysis is done by the Wildlife Biologists and our contracted USDA staff conduct monitoring and complete annual reports based on the monitoring. Regional GA ARFF Chief. Large Survey Respondent (Operations) and USDA Biologist. Large Wildlife Biologist. Medium Ongoing assessment built into the WHMP. All of my staff provide specific data needed. Medium SMS Manager and Airport Wildlife Biologist. Large The members of the airport's wildlife hazard working group meet annually to review the airports WHMP annually per 139.337 using the SRA process that results in an annual report (aka Ongoing Wildlife Hazard Assessment). Regional GA We currently have no integration of SMS and WHM. Medium Responsibility lies with Airport Operations. Additionally, we educate our employee and tenant base in reporting wildlife hazards when they see them. 9) For those airports with no SMS program, the survey asked who would be responsible (in the future). Responses included: USDA-APHIS-WS, Operations with assistance under contract, Wildlife Biologist, Director of Operations, Risk Management, Wildlife Biologists, Management, Operations Director, Wildlife Personnel and Airfield Operations, Airport Staff, and SMS. 10) Eighty-seven percent (87%) of airport respondents have professional wildlife biologists involved in wildlife control and management on their airports. 11) Biologist contract types surveyed included approximately half (47%) full time and half (47%) subcontractor part time as required. Two large hub airports indicated all four types of contracted or employed staff to support their wildlife programs. a. Airport employee on staff (full time wildlife involvement) b. Airport employee on staff (part time as required) wildlife involvement c. Subcontractor (full time wildlife involvement) d. Subcontractor (part time as required) wildlife involvement 7 2 4 7 47% 13% 27% 47% 12) Eighty-seven percent (87%) of airport respondents have a federal depredation permit for Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) birds, seventy-three percent (73%) have a state-issued depredation permit for game and non-game wildlife, and seventy-three percent (73%) have a âzero toleranceâ policy in place for specific wildlife.
B-4 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management 13) Various types of wildlife control and management techniques are used with non-lethal deterrence, live ammunition and non-lethal harassment ranking the highest. a) Non-lethal harassment (pyrotechnics) b) Non- lethal deterrence c) Non-lethal exclosures d) Lethal toxicants/ fumigants for prey reduction e) Lethal egg/ nest disturbance f) Lethal trapping (live trap then euthanize or snap trap, snare) g) Non-lethal live trapping (live trap then relocate) h) Live ammunition shooting 14 15 9 4 9 12 9 14 93% 100% 60% 27% 60% 80% 60% 93% 14) Wildlife observations are collected and documented within 5-miles of the airport at seventy-three percent (73%) of the airports surveyed. This data is collected in the following frequency. a) Daily b) Weekly c) Bimonthly d) Monthly e) Quarterly f) Semi-annually g) Annually 5 4 1 2 1 2 2 33% 27% 7% 13% 7% 13% 13% 15) Wildlife data collection is performed in the following ways indicating that most airports surveyed are collecting data in some means of electronic format including MS Excel or Word. Most software programs reported by airport respondents were managed as part of an airport operations effort (Part 139) not within the SMS software effort. Six of the airports surveyed agreed to provide wildlife data to the research team; however only three were capable of delivering the data in a usable electronic format (Excel and MS Access). a) Paper only b) Electronic into some form of database (Excel or MS Word, etc.) c) Specific software system 4 12 6 27% 80% 40% 16) Airport respondents are storing their wildlife data in the following ways with the national wildlife strike database ranking the highest, hardcopy as the next most frequent, and Excel as the third highest. Some airport respondents indicated that all types of data storage were being used. a) Software System b) National Wildlife Strike Database c) Excel Spreadsheet d) Word Document e) Hardcopy / Paper f) Other 8 13 10 8 11 2 53% 87% 67% 53% 73% 13% 17) Types of data collected include the following with all respondents collecting strike data on airport and very few (2) collecting information from avian radars. All airports indicated they document wildlife control activities conducted by staff and subcontractors and 14 of the 15 airports (93%) reported that tenants/fixed base operators (FBOs) also report wildlife strikes primarily by phone (67%) or through the Internet with FAA Wildlife Strike Database (60%). a) Strike b) Wildlife Hazard Assessment c) Habitat and population assessments d) Continued Monitoring Surveys e) Wildlife Sightings f) Aircraft and/ or vehicle strikes g) Avian Radar h) On- Airport i) Off- airport 15 12 13 12 14 14 2 15 9 100% 80% 87% 80% 93% 93% 13% 100% 60%
Summary of WHM and SMS Survey Findings B-5 18) Eighty percent (80%) of the airports surveyed reported they conduct an annual Wildlife Hazard Review; however only thirty-three percent (33%) use a formal risk assessment process for wildlife management, and only 4 (27%) respondents use a risk matrix as part of the formal risk assessment process. Those using a risk matrix all replied they are using a "5 by 5" model (the 5 by 5 is the model used by the FAA for formal Safety Risk Management). 19) Ninety-three percent (93%) reported that the wildlife data collected thus far has been used for preventive measures. 20) Benefits and challenges reported by airport representatives include the following: Benefits Challenges Getting all active parties to see the importance of reporting wildlife activity and strikes. Becoming more efficient and effective in focusing efforts and resources. None reported. Airportâs reporting platforms for wildlife activity and also habitat mitigation activities (fence repairs, mowing, chemical applications), and the FAA Strike database do not interconnect. Access is not user friendly, connections and processes for all except strike database are slow and cumbersome. The benefit of data collection is that we are able to monitor progress of wildlife removal. Challenge is keeping employees consistently filling information of sightings on log sheets. Benefits of collecting data electronically include easy to measure stats such as percentage of non-lethal control, ease of generating reports for permit renewals, annual reports, WHMP reviews, and FOIA requests. Staff frequently do not use mapping portion of software program; data output is only as good as data input; some airlines do not follow recommended airport protocol for reporting wildlife strikes and late reporting and/or reporting to FAA and not the airport causes loss of data. None reported. The primary challenge is deciding exactly what data needs to be tracked and how it will be analyzed to answer the airport's needs. The key is to decide what answers you need, which will drive what questions should be asked which will then determine which data needs to be collected. Many airports are struggling with this because there is not enough guidance available. We all know the standard questions, but to have an effective program, we need to ask deeper questions and look at all of the data available to see if we can build a more preventive system. Benefit: comparing wildlife observations reports to wildlife strike reports by species to establish priorities. Challenge: obtaining a system that facilitates field reporting in real time, capable of querying species information by location and time. The benefit is good data that supports the need for change or modification and the justification to end, continue, or implement new proactive management approaches. The turnover in airline staff and airport users poses an ongoing challenge. None reported. Determining a precise annual strike rate (strikes/10,000 operations) is difficult when reporting is inconsistent. None reported. Incorporating the tower to proactively request mitigation techniques be utilized during reported problems, most of the time they take the reports from pilots and we provide mitigation from overhearing the conversations on the radio. Getting pilots to report wildlife strikes to the FAA database, as we cannot provide most of the information regarding the incident after the fact. The reports would help to determine locations where repeated problems may be occurring and allow us a chance to visually inspect the areas close to reported incidents. Benefits: Enhancement of safety by having a formalized approach to wildlife management. Trending analysis improvements. Managing wildlife on the airport in the most humane way as reasonably as possible. The challenge is collecting the right data for the purpose we are trying to serve -- improve safety. Writing the plan and implementing it. Communication is always an issue. Getting buy-in from the tenants.
