Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management (2015)

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.

31 This chapter provides a general overview of airport operator input into the EZ-Version WHaMRAT. The relationships between the inputs and the calculations and adjustments made in the WHaMRAT can be visualized using a flowchart (Figure 10). The basic process is the same for both the EZ-Version WHaMRAT and the Advanced-Version WHaMRAT. 6.1 The EZ-Version WHaMRAT Wildlife Data Worksheet (Severity) Assumptions • Severity × Likelihood of Strike for 1 Guild = Wildlife Risk. The cumulative Wildlife Risk Scores of all guilds make up the Aggregate Wildlife Risk. • Measurements of Wildlife Severity are based solely on the average body mass of each species within a specific guild. A guild may contain varied species (see Guild Designations in Attach- ment 1 of the User Guide, provided in this report as Appendix C). If identification of wildlife is reported at the species level, then the species must be placed in the appropriate guild by referencing Appendix C, Attachments 2, 3, 6, and 7. Severity For the 30 species of birds most frequently identified as struck by civil aircraft from 1990 through 2013, a strong correlation (R2 = 0.81) has been documented between mean body mass and the likelihood of a strike causing damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2014). For every 100g increase in body mass, there is a 1.28% increase in the likelihood of damage. Thus, body mass is a good predictor of relative severity level among bird species. In the WHaMRAT, the input for Wildlife Severity is an objective score ranging from 1 to 5 (using whole numbers only) and based solely on body mass (in grams) at the guild level. Guilds are defined as groups of species that exhibit common behavior, habitat use, and natural histories, but are not necessarily taxonomically related. No current consensus exists for guild designations in the avian, mammalian, or reptilian literature. Within the WHaMRAT, guild designations and associated wildlife types within each guild are detailed in the User Guide (Appendix C, Attachment 1). Because species within a particular guild may vary significantly in body mass, the body mass of each species was determined within a specific guild based on the CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses (Dunning 2008) and additional average body mass reported in respected avian field guides such as Sibley’s Book of Birds (Sibley 2000). Body masses were sorted to deter- mine naturally occurring breaks (groups) within guilds. In addition, species presence in North America was determined using the AOU Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (Ameri- can Ornithologists’ Union 2015). This information was then cross referenced with The Clements C H A P T E R 6 The EZ-Version WHaMRAT

32 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Checklist of Birds of the World (Clements 2007) and Avibase—The World Bird Database (2015) to determine the final species listing sequences. Using this information, severity scores range from 1 (low) to 5 (high) for avian guilds. Data on body masses for mammalian and reptilian guilds were similarly defined using the CRC Handbook for Mammalian Body Masses (Silva and Down- ing 1995) and cross referenced with Walker’s Mammals of the World (Nowak 1999a, 1999b), Walker’s Bats of the World (Nowak 1994), and The New Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphib- ians (Halliday and Alder 2002). All native and introduced species recorded in North America, including Canada and all 50 United States, are included in these analyses. Many species are only extremely rarely or accidentally present, but were included nonetheless. Additional species can be expected to occur in the future as vagrants or new exotics introductions are recorded, and users may find species not present on the current list, although abundant presence on airports is not anticipated. Should new species be detected—or if users wish to analyze species from other parts of the world not presently included in this report—users can fit those species into the guild designations for analogous species in the included lists. In the EZ-Version WHaMRAT, any species contained within a specific guild will have an iden- tical severity score that represents the average body mass score of all species contained in that specific guild. In addition to body mass variation in some guilds, however, there is potential variation in the general guild severity score, particularly when certain species within a guild have a tendency to exhibit flocking behavior or certain species within a guild are significantly larger in mass than most individual species within a guild. To account for such variation, the WHaMRAT allows for variation in the guild severity score for Waders, Waterfowl, Shorebirds, Gulls/Terns, Wildlife Data Worksheet Operations Data Worksheet Input Presence/absence of incompatible habitats by distance from airport categories Output Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score Input Wildlife Data Presence Groups/Guilds Likelihood of Strike Input Number of monthly average operations by aircraft class Calculation Wildlife Severity x Likelihood of Strike Calculation Aircraft Operations Tempo and Class Output Wildlife Risk Score Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet Results Worksheet Calculation Habitats by Distance from Airport Input Level of mitigation of incompatible habitats by distance from airport categories Calculation Mitigation by Distance from Airport (both current and future) Input Level of wildlife mitigation of specific guilds Calculation Mitigation by Guild (both current and future) Output Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score Corrective Factors Output Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score Future-Projected Results Worksheet Source: BASH Inc. Figure 10. The WHaMRAT—detailed wildlife risk assessment process.

The EZ-Version WHaMRAT 33 Doves/Pigeons, Corvids, and Blackbirds/Starlings guilds based on different flock sizes, with sever- ity increasing as flock sizes increase. In guilds for which flocking behavior is prevalent, a potential increase in severity due to flocking was determined by multiplying average bird mass within a specific guild by flock size and adjusting severity when threshold levels were met. The total number of individuals necessary to reach severity scores of 4 or 5 based on body mass was used to determine flock size by specific guild. In the Waterfowl Guild, flock size thresholds varied from < 5 to ≥ 5, whereas in much smaller birds, such as those found in the Blackbirds/ Starlings Guild, flock size thresholds are either < 100 or ≥ 100 individuals to influence a change in severity scores. In the Upland Game Birds Guild, an increase in guild severity score occurs only if Wild Turkeys are present. Because Wild Turkeys are significantly larger in body mass than most representatives of the Upland Game Birds Guild, it is necessary to increase the severity score if Wild Turkeys are present. Avian Wildlife Severity Scores that include a flocking adjustment to severity scores at the guild level are detailed in Table 2. Guilds Severity Waterbirds 2 Seabirds 2 Pelicans/Cormorants 4 Waders 2 If flocks ≥ 5 5 Waterfowl 3 If flocks < 5 4 If flocks ≥ 5 5 Raptors/Vultures/Owls 2 Upland Game Birds 2 If Turkeys 5 Cranes 5 Shorebirds 1 If flocks < 15 4 If flocks ≥ 15 5 Gulls/Terns 2 If flocks < 10 4 If flocks ≥ 10 5 Pigeons/Doves 1 If flocks < 20 4 If flocks ≥ 20 5 Parrots 1 Aerial Foragers 1 Woodland Birds 1 Corvids 2 If flocks < 10 4 If flocks ≥ 10 5 Grassland Birds 1 Blackbirds/Starlings 1 If flocks < 100 4 If flocks ≥ 100 5 Miscellaneous 1 Criteria for Score Severity Less than 300g 1 300–999g 2 1000–1999g 3 2000–3999g 4 Greater than 4000g 5 Weights expressed in grams (g) Source: BASH Inc. Table 2. The EZ-Version WHaMRAT avian guilds and severity scores.

34 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management When determining severity for mammals and reptiles, the process was identical to the avian description detailed above. However, threshold levels for severity by body mass for mammals and reptiles vary significantly from those for avian guilds, as aircraft will only encounter these animals (with the exception of bats) on the ground, and aircraft components that can be struck are less vulnerable to damage. Mammalian and reptilian Wildlife Severity Scores at the guild level are detailed in Table 3. 6.2 The EZ-Version WHaMRAT Wildlife Data Worksheet (Likelihood of Strike) Assumptions • Severity × Likelihood of Strike for 1 Guild = Wildlife Risk. The cumulative Wildlife Risk Scores of all guilds make up the Aggregate Wildlife Risk. • Wildlife Likelihood of Strike is based solely on estimates of abundance determined by objec- tive wildlife observations contained in Wildlife Hazard Assessments (WHAs), Wildlife Hazard Site Visits (WHSVs), or reference documents. Likelihood of Strike Likelihood of Wildlife Strike is a user-determined score based solely on an objective estimate of abundance of a particular wildlife species relative to airport operating surfaces. No consider- ation for the size of the wildlife present should be given when determining likelihood, as body mass is already accounted for in the severity index. In the WHaMRAT, users will determine the likelihood value for each guild previously identified in the severity tables based on estimated Guilds Severity Rodents 2 Lagomorphs 4 Bats 1 Mesomammals 4 Canids 5 Felids 5 Hooved 5 Bears 5 Turtles 2 Iguanas 2 Lizards/Snakes 2 Crocodiles/Alligators 5 Criteria for Score Severity 0–99g 1 100–599g 2 600–1999g 3 2000–9999g 4 Greater than 10000g 5 Weights expressed in grams (g) Source: BASH Inc. Table 3. The EZ-Version WHaMRAT mammalian and reptilian guilds and severity scores.

The EZ-Version WHaMRAT 35 abundance data by species and/or guild reported in a WHA or WHSV, or obtained from other local data sources. If such data do not exist, then the wildlife presence and likelihood values should be determined using abundance data from wildlife identification field guides or hand- books, or via Internet sources such as the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (USGS 2015). Most wildlife identification handbooks include information on range and sea- sonal presence of species, including observation rankings from “rare” to “abundant.” The USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center also provides species lists and observation rankings for numerous wildlife refuges, wildlife areas, and so forth that may be in close proximity to a given airport. Airport operators could extrapolate such data sources to make an educated esti- mate of species/guild presence and estimated abundance for their particular location by season. Table 4 shows the likelihood scores that are recommended to be input when using referenced sources that provide abundance information. 6.3 The EZ-Version WHaMRAT Operations Data Worksheet Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the initial Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied based on the number of average monthly aircraft movements as compared to the average monthly aircraft movements in airports across the United States. This adjustment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • The Operations Adjustment factor applied to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score accounts for monthly aircraft operations and aircraft class susceptibility to damage. (Note: The average num- ber of aircraft operations at airports across the United States is taken from the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) that contains the official NAS air traffic operations data.) Operations The Operations Data Worksheet calculates the risk associated with airport operations given the amount of monthly aircraft operations and the class of aircraft movements/operations at an airport. In ATADS, airports report four classes of aircraft movements to FAA: commercial, air taxi, general aviation, and military. In the WHaMRAT, a fifth class—Rotary Wing—is included, resulting in five classes requiring user inputs in this worksheet. Thus, the EZ-Version WHaMRAT is designed to accept input of the number of monthly aircraft movements broken down as follows: • Commercial: An aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds carrying passengers or cargo for hire or compensation (itinerant and local). Species Abundance Likelihood Score Not present 0 (or left blank) Rare 1 Uncommon 2 Fairly common 3 Common 4 Abundant 5 Table 4. Scoring likelihood of wildlife strike by abundance of species.

36 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management • Air Taxi: An aircraft originally designed to have no more than 60 passenger seats or a cargo payload of 18,000 pounds and carries cargo or mail on either a scheduled or charter basis, and/or carries passengers on an on-demand basis or limited-schedule basis (i.e., on four or fewer round trips a week on at least one route according to published flight schedules) only. • General Aviation: All civil aircraft, except those classified as air carriers/commercial or air taxis. • Military: All military aircraft, turboprop and jet (itinerant and local). • Rotary: An aircraft that uses lift generated by wings/rotors that rotate around a vertical axis or mast. The Operations Data Worksheet calculates the risk associated with airport operations given the amount of monthly aircraft operations and the class of aircraft movements/operations at the airport. To establish a comparative benchmark of operations, the average monthly aircraft opera- tions by aircraft class were determined for 551 civil airports with the largest number of opera- tions in the ATADS database. Operations and aircraft class tempo were used as the benchmark for establishing the corrective factor for a specific airport’s operations in calculating the Wildlife Risk Score. Once users have input the operations data by aircraft class, this value is compared to the average operations benchmark to determine the degree of the multiplicative adjustment factor on the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score that was determined in the Wildlife Data Worksheet. If an airport has greater than average monthly operations, the resulting adjustment will increase wildlife risk; if the airport has less than average monthly operations, the adjustment will result in a decreased wildlife risk. In general, as airport operations increase, the probability of a wildlife strike increases; how- ever, this increase is not linear but an arc-tangent function. Thus, as operations reach high values, the rate of increase of a possible wildlife strike decreases with increased operations. Each aircraft class is weighed differently in the calculation based on the aircraft class suscep- tibility to damage. The susceptibility weighting factor was determined by examining the FAA Wildlife Strike Database to determine damage levels recorded by various aircraft categories when exposed to strikes with similar wildlife species. In addition to user input into the current airport monthly operations by aircraft class, an additional user input into future airport monthly operations is available to determine the effect of planned increases or decreases in monthly air operations. Having input predicted future monthly airport operations, the user can project the effects of changes in airport operations relative to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. 6.4 The EZ-Version WHaMRAT Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet Assumptions • An adjustment factor is applied to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score based on the cumulative presence or absence of habitats that are incompatible with aircraft operations. This adjust- ment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • The effect on wildlife risk decreases as the distance from the airport property increases. • Mitigation efforts are effective and reduce the impact of incompatible habitat. Habitat Presence or Absence The Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet is designed to identify those habitats that are con- sidered incompatible with airport operations, and the WHaMRAT accounts for those habitats

The EZ-Version WHaMRAT 37 identified in FAA AC 150/5200-33B. The user identifies the current presence or absence of such habitats by placing an x in the appropriate habitat row specific to a column indicating its location relative to the airport property. The Habitat and Mitigation Worksheet lists specific habitats, but users also can add up to three user-defined habitats unique to their situation that may attract wildlife and therefore should be accounted for and considered. These additional habitats are identified as “User-defined.” Specific incompatible habitats listed in the WHaMRAT include: • Solid waste open landfill. • Enclosed trash transfer. • Composting operations. • Underwater waste discharge. • Stormwater collection. • Wastewater treatment facility. • Artificial marsh. • Natural wetlands. • Agricultural crops. • Livestock production. • Aquaculture. • Golf courses. • Woodlands/forests. • Landscaping. • Synergistic effects of authorized uses. • User-defined #1. • User-defined #2. • User-defined #3. The user input also allows for the identification of habitat presence at varying distances from the airport property. These distances account for (1) FAA separation criteria of 5,000 feet (air- ports serving piston-driven aircraft), 10,000 feet (airports serving turbofan-driven aircraft), and 5 miles, as identified in FAA AC 150/5200-33B (Figure 11), and (2) the landfill separation criteria identified in FAA AC 150/5200-34A. Each habitat distance location from the airport is weighted differently in a decreasing decay function as the habitat is located farther from the airport prop- erty. Thus, incompatible habitats at greater distances from the airport property have less effect on the adjustment factor applied to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. Specific distance catego- ries included in the WHaMRAT are: • On airport property, within the perimeter fence. • Outside the perimeter fence but within 10,000-foot or 5,000-foot separation distances. • At distances greater than 10,000-foot or 5,000-foot separation but within 5 miles, and in the traffic pattern. • At distances greater than 10,000-foot or 5,000-foot separation but within 5 miles and not in the traffic pattern. • Greater than 5 miles but there is wildlife movement potential across airport. Current Habitat Mitigation—Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied in the WHaMRAT based on the cumulative level of current habitat mitigation practices specific to habitats that are incompatible with aircraft operations. This adjustment becomes a component of the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score.

38 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management • The effect on wildlife risk decreases as a decay function when the distance from the airport property increases. • Increases in habitat mitigation will decrease wildlife risk, whereas decreases in habitat mitiga- tion will increase wildlife risk. Current Habitat Mitigation Once the user has identified all incompatible habitats, inputs are added about the habitat miti- gation efforts associated with these habitats. If an airport is performing some form of mitigation associated with a specific habitat, the user inputs low (1), moderate (2), or high (3) for the level of mitigation currently in place. These data inputs should include all habitats identified for all locations relative to the airport. Habitat mitigation outside of airport properties often is difficult and non-jurisdictional. Thus, the inputs for current habitat mitigation at increasing distances from the airport may be none (0) or left blank in the user input. Source: FAA AC 150/5200-33B Figure 11. Separation criteria.

The EZ-Version WHaMRAT 39 Future Habitat Mitigation—Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied in the WHaMRAT based on the cumulative level of documented habitat mitigation practices specific to habitats that are incompatible with aircraft operations. This adjustment can be used to determine a future- projected Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • The effect on wildlife risk decreases as a decay function when the distance from the airport property increases. • Increases in habitat mitigation will decrease wildlife risk, while decreases in habitat mitigation will increase wildlife risk. Future Habitat Mitigation The WHaMRAT offers users the option to input and evaluate future habitat mitigation efforts. This input is not necessary for the WHaMRAT to perform functions related to current mitigation efforts. The process used to input data for future habitat mitigation is identical to the process used for current habitat mitigation. However, users can account for increases or decreases in planned future habitat mitigation efforts associated with a particular habitat and location relative to the airport property and evaluate its effect. In summary, the user input into habitats and associated habitat mitigation efforts allows users to evaluate both current and future habitat mitigation effect on wildlife risk, based on habitat attraction and relative distance from the airport. Wildlife Mitigation by Guilds—Assumptions • An adjustment factor to the Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score is applied based on the cumulative level of current and future wildlife mitigation practices specific to wildlife guilds that are pres- ent and identified in the Wildlife Data Worksheet. This adjustment can be used to determine a future-projected Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. • One specific technique or method of wildlife mitigation may affect more than one guild. A combination of wildlife mitigation techniques or methods results in higher levels of wildlife mitigation for a specific guild. • Increases in wildlife mitigation will decrease wildlife risk, whereas decreases in wildlife mitiga- tion will increase wildlife risk. • Current wildlife abundance is measured with current guild mitigation efforts in place. There- fore, current mitigations of certain guilds will not change the current wildlife score. However, input of current mitigation levels against those guilds is required to correctly assess the impact of future mitigation efforts. • Future mitigation efforts should be at least at the same levels as current mitigation efforts. Failure to maintain current mitigation levels and failure to input the level of mitigation into the future guild mitigation column will increase the Overall Aggregate Wildlife Risk Score. Current and Future Mitigation by Guilds Users can input wildlife mitigation efforts targeted at specific wildlife species or guilds. As with the habitat mitigation input, users can input both current and future wildlife mitigation effort levels (low, moderate, or high) specific to a targeted guild. Airport staff or wildlife staff have numerous wildlife management and control options available. Many of these options are specific to a target species or guild; however, many other options are less specific to a particular species or guild and may affect several guilds. One example of such a mitigation option is maintaining turf at recommended heights of 6–12 inches. The managed turf height is effective on many guilds.

40 Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management Turf management, combined with additional measures (ranging from non-lethal harassment and deterrence to lethal options), can have a synergistic effect on wildlife control mitigation and substantiate user-input values of moderate and/or high when all wildlife control and mitigation measures are taken into account. By allowing users to input levels for both current and future wildlife mitigation efforts by guild, the WHaMRAT lets users evaluate potential future wildlife mitigation efforts and prioritize wildlife mitigation targeted at problem species/guilds. The goal for the EZ-Version WHaMRAT is to allow for universal application by all airport or wildlife staff, regardless of airport size, operations tempo, and wildlife management and control experience. The research team believes the best practice is for all airport or wildlife staff to use the EZ-Version WHaMRAT initially. The EZ-Version WHaMRAT provides valuable informa- tion and utility to all airports and provides a quantitative wildlife risk-based assessment of cur- rent and future scenarios for all users. The Advanced-Version WHaMRAT is available if a more experienced user desires more detailed user data input and potential evaluation capabilities.