Download choose to disk

Massachusetts Audubon Society
Lincoln, Mass. 01773
Position Statement
Wildlife Management at Airports
November, 1999
John J. Clarke, Director of Advocacy
E. Heidi Roddis, Environmental Policy Specialist
Introduction: Wildlife (including but not limited to birds) at and around airports can create
safety hazards due to the risks of collisions with aircraft. The Massachusetts Audubon Society
does not believe it is possible to eliminate all wildlife from airports and surrounding protected
airspace zones. Many airports are located within major migratory bird flyways, unavoidably
attracting migratory birds during migration for transitory periods. Furthermore, many airports
were built in low-lying areas in or near wetlands. The surrounding remaining wetlands often
contain highly productive wildlife habitats that support a diversity of animal species. Other
wildlife habitat types such as forests and grasslands are also located around airports. In
Massachusetts, several airports contain a significant amount of the state’s remaining grassland
habitat which supports rare grassland birds. Even artificial, constructed airport features such as
runways can attract wildlife due to factors such as the warmth of the pavement or the mistaken
perception that pavement areas are water bodies. Some airport-management practices designed
to improve safety, such as mowing grassy areas or clearing forested swamps off the ends of
runways, have the potential to unintentionally exacerbate wildlife/aircraft hazards. These
hazards can be reduced through careful consideration of the effects on habitat of
vegetation-management practices and other airport-management activities prior to selection of
preferred strategy.
Massachusetts Audubon’s Position: In managing aircraft/wildlife conflicts, aviation safety is
of paramount concern. However, Massachusetts Audubon believes that a zero-risk approach for
wildlife near airports is not realistic — the risk can never be reduced to zero because there
always will be some wildlife present in the vicinity of an airport. The goal of airport wildlife
management programs and practices should be to maximize public safety while minimizing
adverse environmental impacts. Adverse impacts to public interests served by wetlands, rare
species habitat, and other natural resources should be considered and weighed against the degree
of public-safety improvement achieved by any particular management measure.
Airport-management plans and practices must comply with state and federal environmental and
wildlife protection laws such as the Federal and Massachusetts Endangered Species Acts, the
Federal Migratory Bird Act, and international migratory bird protection treaties.
Airport management practices should be tailored to local site conditions and wildlife habitat and
species present in the vicinity. Airports should monitor the species, number, and locations of
wildlife at the airport, identify the risks of greatest concern, and develop and implement
appropriate management plans. The expertise of qualified biologists should be employed in
developing airport wildlife management plans. The amount of resources required for wildlife
management plans and activities will vary depending on the volume of aviation activity at a
Massachusetts Audubon Society position statement
Wildlife Management at Airports
November, 1999
particular facility and the surrounding wildlife habitat characteristics. Management plans and
practices should be reviewed and modified as necessary periodically.
Habitat modification and other nonlethal wildlife management practices should be given
preference over killing or relocation of animals whenever feasible. Unless modifications are
made to the habitat features that are attracting high-risks types and numbers of wildlife, the
habitat will continue to attract more individuals of the same problem species. Nevertheless, the
Massachusetts Audubon Society recognizes that there may be instances when the immediate
public-safety threat presented by wildlife at airports may warrant short-term relocation or lethal
control measures, in conjunction with a long term habitat management program.
Example - Grassland Management at Airports: Habitat management practices should be
targeted to reduce the most significant wildlife/aircraft hazards. Those designing management
plans should recognize that modifying habitat to reduce or eliminate one species will enhance
habitat for other species. For example, gulls and waterfowl are responsible for more incidents of
damaging strikes to civilian aircraft in the U.S. than all other types of birds combined. Flocking
birds such as gulls, Canada geese, crows, and starlings often feed and rest on expanses of short
turf. These birds will usually avoid tall grass where they do not have a clear, unobstructed view
of potential predators. Thus, allowing grassy areas to grow through less frequent mowing can
reduce aircraft hazards associated with gulls and geese. At the same time, reduced mowing
practices may enhance habitat for rare nesting grassland birds such as grasshopper sparrows and
upland sandpipers. These birds are significantly smaller than gulls and geese, and they do not
form large flocks. Grassland birds spend the greatest proportion of their time in the grass or on
the ground. Since they are rare, by definition there are few of them. Certain airports contain
some of the last remaining suitable expanses of grasslands for these species in Massachusetts.
Thus, management practices that favor smaller, less common, nonflocking birds over larger,
common, flocking birds may be an appropriate course of action at some sites. In such situations,
there can be a benefit to both aircraft safety and rare species through management for grassland
habitat rather than maintenance of closely mowed turf.
While some small risk may remain due to the presence of grassland birds, it is important to
remember that no management practice or habitat modification (including paving the entire
airport) will eliminate all wildlife and associated hazards. Ongoing monitoring of wildlife
presence around airfields and periodic review of management programs by qualified biologists
are important to ensure that the optimal practices are engaged. For example, the secondary
effects of tall grass as a potential attraction for blackbirds should be monitored and compared
with the effects of alternative management techniques. Adjustments to management practices
should be considered periodically as appropriate in response to monitoring of wildlife activity at
a particular airport.
Example - Raptors: Raptors such as hawks and owls are sometimes attracted to airports due to
the presence of prey species. At airports located on migratory flyways, the number of raptors
present at and around the airport may increase during peak migratory periods. Airport managers
should take into consideration the temporary nature of this influx, the fact that the presence of
raptors may help reduce the number of other birds in the area, and the legal protection status of
the raptors. Live trapping and relocation of raptors by qualified biologists is an option that is
2
Massachusetts Audubon Society position statement
Wildlife Management at Airports
November, 1999
available and should be considered as an alternative to lethal measures if the numbers and
locations of raptors are causing immediate and definite safety hazards.
Compliance with Laws and Regulations: Airport managers must comply with all applicable
environmental laws when developing and implementing airport and wildlife management
programs and plans. Some airports are located near private, local, state, or federally-owned
conservation lands. Managers of these airports should work cooperatively with the owners of
such properties to develop airport wildlife management strategies that take into account the
wildlife habitat values of nearby conservation lands. Applicable legal requirements for on-site
and off-airport wildlife management practices may include state and federal Endangered Species
Acts; local, state, and federal wetlands protection laws; laws pertaining to the protection and
proper management of publicly owned parklands and conservation lands; federal migratory bird
protection law; and other environmental and natural resource laws and regulations. These laws
protect public interests and must be considered in concert with the important need for aviation
safety.
Massachusetts Audubon’s Role: The Massachusetts Audubon Society has expertise in
wildlife biology and management that may be of assistance to airport managers in Massachusetts
as they develop or revise wildlife management programs.
Massachusetts Audubon reviews and comments on airport improvement projects undergoing
public review through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and/or the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The Society also comments from time to time on
various proposed changes to state and federal environmental laws and regulations. It supports
land conservation and habitat-protection projects and funding programs. Massachusetts
Audubon supports sound land and habitat management at and around airports, with a goal of
protecting the public interests served by a healthy environment and native wildlife populations.
In all such activities, the Massachusetts Audubon Society carefully considers public-safety issues
in formulating its position on a particular topic or proposal.
For more information, contact the Massachusetts Audubon Society’s Advocacy Department at
781-259-9506 x7260.
3