Transport Canada Transports Canada Wildlife Control Procedures Manual Transport Canada Safety and Security Aerodrome Safety Branch TP 11500 E *TP11500E* (03/2002) TP11500E Wildlife Control Procedures Manual Acknowledgements Introduction Overview of Wildlife Management Section A Wildlife-strike Statistics Section B Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques Section C Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports Section D Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques Section E Active Management Using Exclusion Methods Section F Active Management Through Removal Section G Integrated Control Methods — Birds Profiles Section H Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles Section I Improving Awareness of Wildlife-management Issues Section J Evaluating Wildlife-management Programs Section K Appendices Acknowledgements Acknowledgements This is the third edition of the Transport Canada Wildlife Control Procedures Manual. The first was completed by Harriet Nichols, Paul Macdonald and Robert O’Brien of Transport Canada, Airports Group. Shahnaz Zaheer, Tamara Skillen and Tracy Aradi—co-op students from the University of Waterloo and the University of Manitoba—completed much of the work for the 1994 second version. Credit for the third edition of this manual belongs to Kristi Russell, a student at the University of Waterloo, who dedicated considerable time and effort to the project during several co-op work terms with Transport Canada. In addition, Stewart Dudley and Brian Hanington from Stiff Sentences provided their usual outstanding editorial service; Mary Laurenzio and Tania Senior from Parable Communications deserve credit for the layout and formatting. Andrew Kennedy and Katherine St. James, also with the University of Waterloo co-op program, assisted Kristi in researching material for the new edition. Special credit must go to Dr. Richard Dolbeer from the United States Department of Agriculture, who generously assisted in the technical edit of the manual. Finally, our thanks to the many air-industry and wildlife experts whose contributions—large and small—were essential to the completion of the Wildlife Control Procedures Manual. It is our hope that this updated book will serve as a useful tool in the management of wildlife-related risk at airports throughout the world. Bruce MacKinnon Wildlife Control Specialist Transport Canada, Civil Aviation Aerodrome Safety Branch Ottawa, Canada January 2002 Introduction Introduction As air travel becomes more popular, so grows the need for effective wildlife management at airports. Over the years, aircraft noise has diminished while the numbers of aircraft have increased dramatically. Not only are birds and mammals less able to avoid aircraft movements—there are fewer places left for these animals to find refuge. The first recorded bird-strike fatality occurred in 1912, when an aircraft collided with a gull over the coast of California and crashed into the ocean, killing the pilot. Since then, the number of reported wildlife strikes has risen steadily. In 2000, there were 772 reported strikes to Canadian aircraft. Although none involved human fatalities, the strikes that adversely affected flight or inflicted damage incurred huge costs. The direct costs—primarily to airlines—associated with replacing and repairing damaged aircraft parts pale in comparison to the indirect costs incurred through aborted takeoffs, rescheduled flights, passenger and crew accommodations, and missed connection arrangements. Perhaps most damaging are the affects to airline reputation and reliability incurred when customers are inconvenienced by wildlife-related incidents. Through the implementation of effective wildlife-management plans—including active and passive wildlife-management techniques—the costs, risks and damages associated with wildlife strikes can be significantly reduced. _____ This document is an update of Transport Canada’s Wildlife Control Procedures Manual (TP11500). Last revised in 1994, the previous manual included guidance on wildlife-management procedures at Canadian airports, as well as information concerning available products and techniques and wildlife-control legislation. Since publication, considerable field research at many airports in Canada and the United States has led to improved management procedures. Furthermore, many new wildlife-management products have been introduced, while some control methods outlined in the 1994 edition require modification to remain effective. This revised manual includes a ranking of hazardous species found at Canadian airports, as well as methods for control of those species not included in the previous edition. Introduction The Wildlife Control Procedures Manual compiles information from a variety of Canadian and American publications to present up-to-date information on the wildlife-hazard management issue. The 1994 edition served as the National Airports Group (NAP) policy manual on wildlife management, and included policy and strategic planning information that is no longer relevant. Transport Canada has recently published a guide to wildlife control titled Sharing the Skies (TP 13549), which includes strategic information previously included in the manual. This new edition of The Wildlife Control Procedures Manual serves as a tactical guide for wildlife-management personnel at the airport and in the field, providing specific guidance on the management of individual species. Sections A and B are an overview of wildlife management from both national and international perspectives. The overview is followed by sections on longterm solutions available through passive wildlife-management techniques, including habitat modification and mitigating hazardous land-use activities adjacent to airports. Active management techniques are discussed in the following three sections, assessing various removal, exclusion and dispersal methods. Sections H and I discuss control methods for problem birds and mammals in the airport environment; suggested management techniques are limited to those that have proven effective through research and application. Section J concludes the manual with information on implementing and assessing wildlife control programs. The appendices contain, among other items, proposed amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) that specifically address—for the first time—wildlife management and planning at Canadian airports. The proposed regulation will ensure a more formal approach to wildlife management by establishing the criteria for the management of wildlife hazards at all designated airports. _____ Every airport is unique: their size, number of aircraft movements and type of air-traffic control programs vary significantly. Wildlife management programs are as varied as the airports they serve, and should result from thorough sitespecific inventories and assessments. Wildlife control is an art as well as a science, and the information contained in this manual will provide a starting point from which airport wildlife controllers can begin to manage existing wildlife and habitat problems. Section A Overview of Wildlife Management Introduction A.1 Established Practices and Principles for Airports A.1 Contractors and insurance A.2 Habitat modification A.2 Adjacent land-use activities A.3 Dispersal techniques A.3 Exclusion methods A.4 Removal methods A.4 Overview of Wildlife Management - A.1 Introduction Transport Canada regards all airport wildlife as a potential safety hazard. Departmental policy therefore encourages the siting, construction, maintenance, and operation of airports and their facilities in a manner that minimizes this hazard. The role of Transport Canada headquarters is to develop and promulgate regulations, standards and related applicable policies. This includes providing functional direction to regional offices on regulatory safety oversight programs and related guidance material. Regions are responsible to deliver the program in accordance with functional direction. The department does not play a direct role in the implementation of wildlife control programs at individual airports, but does provide awareness material and expertise upon request or through the normal cycle of distributing education and awareness material. Responsibility for program design and implementation now rests with management teams at each airport. A successful wildlife-control management plan reduces hazards to aircraft and minimizes maintenance problems by rendering airport property less attractive to animals. The safety benefits are real for all concerned: airports, airlines, the public—and wildlife. Airport wildlife can be controlled by: • • • • managing habitat so that airports do not attract wildlife, excluding wildlife from airports through the use of fences or other means, dispersing wildlife from the premises, and removing wildlife, either dead or alive. The best long-term control is achieved through habitat management; however, it is impossible to completely control wildlife in this way. Birds are particularly difficult to manage because they are mobile and they readily adapt to changing environments. In most situations, active removal or dispersal of wildlife is necessary, in conjunction with habitat management techniques. Established Practices and Principles for Airports Habitat management modifies and limits wildlife attractants on airport lands. By altering the airport environment, habitat management simplifies the task of A.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch excluding wildlife, and helps reduce the amount of time required to remove problem species. The need to initiate active dispersal or hazing against birds or mammals often arises when habitat management plans have not been fully or successfully implemented. Identification of site-specific problem species The development of a habitat management plan begins with an ecological site study that identifies specific problem areas. This study creates an inventory of wildlife in the vicinity of airports and includes identification, population sizes, locations, and movements of all species. The study describes the aerodrome features and areas that attract wildlife; problem areas are directly related to problem bird and mammal species on site. An effective reporting program is a key contributor to a successful ecological survey. The designated Wildlife Control Officer patrols the airport grounds and maintains a daily log of wildlife activity. Log entries include sighting times, locations, numbers and species observed, actions taken, and results obtained. From this data, activities and projects associated with the management plan can be ranked and executed accordingly. Contractors and insurance Some airports choose to hire private bird- and mammal-control firms rather than maintain wildlife control officers on staff. The existence of a well-crafted wildlife management plan is critical in contracting scenarios, as the contents of the plan inform and define the actions and responsibilities of the contractors. Agreements address many issues, including equipment supply, hours of operation, and ancillary duties. Insurance companies often impose certain conditions on contractors, not the least of which may be the requirement to maintain adequate public-liability policies—coverage that protects the airport operator in the event of damage or injury resulting from the work of the contractor. Private bird- and mammal-control firms should ensure their scope of work is properly detailed within the contract, as insurance may not cover work that is not specifically mentioned in the agreement. Habitat modification The most effective way to reduce wildlife hazards in the vicinity of airports is to ensure birds and mammals are not drawn to the grounds. All aspects of airport design should address and minimize the food, shelter, water and open Overview of Wildlife Management - A.3 space that attract wildlife. Modifying natural and man-made environments— following assessments of problem species and their attractants—can render these areas unappealing and inaccessible to wildlife. This is an effective long-term solution that can minimize problem species in specific areas. Open drainage ditches that attract birds Examples of airport habitat modifications include: • modifying buildings and signs to reduce nesting and perching areas, • designing drainage ditches to minimize standing water, and • removing vegetation from banks of water bodies. Airport managers are also advised to consider site-specific grass-management programs (which can deter many problem species) and should, when leasing airport lands for agricultural purposes, prohibit the harvesting of certain crops and limit practices—such as ploughing—to certain times of the day. Adjacent land-use activities Airports that were once miles from city limits must now face wildlife-control issues raised by the close-proximity of incompatible land-use activities such as landfill sites, garbage dumps, agricultural activities, and coastal commercial fish-processing plants. Airport operators should communicate with regional and municipal governments as active participants in land-use planning decisions. Where incompatible land uses exist or are being considered, airport operators should work to minimize the adverse effects. Creating education and awareness programs and establishing co-operative working relationships with governments, interest groups, and stakeholders, usually lead to compromises that accommodate all parties. Dispersal techniques Scare tactics and auditory deterrents are perhaps the most common and widely used method of wildlife control. These first-line techniques, used to repel wildlife immediately from the airport, include shell crackers, pyrotechnics, and A.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch gas cannons. Unfortunately, the low cost, ease of application, and immediate realization of results from these methods has led to their over-use. Generally, their effectiveness is short-lived; they are inexpensive in the short run but require repeated applications for the control of persistent wildlife types. And while costs escalate with the number of applications, so does the likelihood of habituation— and the requirement for new measures and budget allocations when it becomes clear that problem species have not been deterred or eliminated. The use of scare tactics and dispersal methods should not be considered a primary control method for persistent or resident wildlife species. These techniques can, however, provide the first line of defence for true transients and migrant species that cause periodic problems. In all other cases, dispersal techniques should be employed as components of integrated wildlife-control programs. Exclusion methods Exclusion methods comprise man-made barriers such as fences and netting that keep wildlife away from areas at airports where food, water and shelter can normally be found. These barriers are commonly used to restrict mammal movement and manage bodies of water. When successful, these measures provide permanent solutions to wildlife problems in protected areas. Removal methods Generally, removal methods—trapping, shooting, and poisoning—provide short-term solutions to the presence of problem species. Removal methods will eliminate the species temporarily, but if the attractant is not removed the population will simply replenish itself. Trained personnel and, in most cases, permits are required to carry out these measures. Please check with local authorities for guidance and information on legislation in your jurisdiction. Section B Wildlife-strike Statistics Introduction B.1 Number of strikes B.1 Aircraft crashes and loss of life B.2 Near crashes B.3 Direct damage resulting from bird-strikes B.6 Delayed-effect damage resulting from bird-strikes B.6 Multiple-cause accidents resulting from bird-strikes B.7 Trends in wildlife-strike incidents B.8 Geographical distribution B.8 Distribution by time of day B.8 Distribution by time of year B.9 Distribution by altitude B.9 Distribution by flight phase B.9 Distribution by aircraft speed B.10 Species involved B.10 Other considerations B.11 Collisions between mammals and aircraft B.12 Bird-aircraft interactions — International trends B.13 Summary B.18 Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.1 Introduction This section presents an overview of available wildlife-strike data as it pertains to aircraft and the animals with which they collide. Comprehensive data and analysis can be found in Sharing the Skies (TP 13549E), available from Transport Canada. Number of strikes Available data shows that since 1912, 223 people have been killed worldwide in at least 37 bird-strike-related civil-aircraft accidents. In military aviation, 165 fatalities have occurred in 353 serious accidents since 1950. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these numbers represent only a fraction of the total bird-strikerelated occurrences. Countless strikes go unreported each year for a variety of reasons, including: • bird-strike reporting is not mandatory in most parts of the world; • some countries, airlines and airports are reluctant to publish bird-strike statistics due to liability concerns and negative public perception of flight safety; • loss of information occurs in many developing countries due to lack of funding, expertise, and media coverage; and • damage caused by bird-strikes is sometimes attributed to other causes. Many member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) report occurrences of bird-strikes annually; ICAO summarizes and publishes this data for each year. Canada has a well-established bird and mammal reporting procedure of its own, outlined in Section J. Transport Canada also publishes an annual summary report that analyzes all Januaryto-December database information. This report can be viewed on-line at: http://info/aviation/aerodrme/birdstke/main.htm. B.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Aircraft crashes and loss of life The first bird-strike fatality was recorded in North America in 1912, when Cal Rodgers—the first man to fly across the United States—lost his life after a gull became jammed in the controls of his aircraft, causing the plane to crash. Most crashes—civil and military—follow collisions with large birds such as vultures and migratory waterfowl; however, flocks of small birds such as starlings and cowbirds are often involved. In military aviation, severe engine damage due to bird ingestion often results in the loss of low-flying single-engine aircraft. Fortunately, pilots are usually able to eject and parachute to safety. However, on September 22, 1995, a Boeing E-3B Sentry (AWACS) struck a flock of geese on takeoff from Anchorage, Alaska. As the aircraft lifted off, a senior controller saw geese rise and turn directly into the aircraft’s flight path. Birds were ingested into the number-one and number-two engines. The aircraft went down, exploded, and burned in a wooded area less than two kilometers from the end of the runway. All 24 crew members were killed. An official U.S. Air Force accident investigation concluded that the accident “was directly caused by the ingestion of Canada Geese into engines number one and number two.” Birds are suspected to have caused a number of otherwise unexplained civil and military aviation crashes. One involved a Vickers Viscount that went down in the Irish Sea in 1968. While no proof of a strike was established—much of the aircraft was not recovered for examination—Bewick’s Swans were known to be migrating in the same area that day. Crashes that may have involved bird-strikes are often never reported, either by aviation authorities or by the media. In April 2000, 21 people died when an Antanov AN-8 collided with birds on takeoff in Pepa, Congo. Few details regarding this accident were ever made available. Due to a lack of funding and expertise in the country, no investigation was ever completed, nor was the crash covered intensively by the media. Table 1.1 (see pages B.4 and B.5) outlines all recorded international bird-strike incidents involving fatalities or the loss of an aircraft. Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.3 Near crashes Occasionally, bird-strike damage is so extensive it is difficult to comprehend how a crash did not occur. For example, a KLM Boeing 747 struck a flock of Canada Geese just prior to touchdown at Calgary International Airport on October 26th, 1992. Multiple bird-strikes during this critical phase of flight— in close proximity to the ground—have the potential to lead to disaster. The aircraft landed without further incident and no one on board was injured; however, the aircraft sustained major uncontained damage to the number-one engine. The leading-edge slats were also severely damaged. Another near-accident occurred in a collision between a flock of migrating Snow Geese and a CP Air twin-engine B-737 on descent into Winnipeg International Airport with 82 passengers on board. The aircraft took several hits: one inflicted a heavy dent to the top of an engine air-intake cowling and another strike dented the bottom of the cowling on the opposite side. Had the aircraft been in a roll attitude at the moment of impact, geese could have entered both engines. Disaster was also averted when the pilot reduced airspeed after being issued a general warning that migrating waterfowl were in the vicinity of the approach path. In June 1993, a Canadian Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft with six crew and 110 passengers experienced a severe bird-strike during a scheduled flight to Vancouver. No bird activity was noted during the initial roll, but immediately after rotation the view from the windscreen was suddenly obscured by a flock of gulls—more than 60 dead gulls were later found on the runway. Multiple strikes occurred at approximately 30-feet AGL. The number-one engine lost power, exhibiting compressor stalls and high vibration. The number-two engine continued to develop full power, but vibration led the crew to suspect that it too was damaged. Once established in a climb, the captain declared an emergency and leveled off at 2,200-feet AGL before turning back. The power lever on the left engine was reduced to idle—the engine was torching and surging. Approximately 10 minutes after the bird-strike, the aircraft landed and taxied to the terminal. The aircraft’s leading-edge slats were badly damaged; both engines had to be replaced. The cost: more than $4 million. B.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Table 1.1 World-wide Bird Strike Accidents Involving Destruction Of Aircraft Or Fatality, 1912–1997 Helicopter Date Aircraft Location 3/2/81 Bell 206 Vancouver, Canada Transport Aircraft Date Aircraft Location 10/4/60 7/15/62 11/23/62 7/28/68 7/28/69 3/26/73 12/12/73 6/14/75 11/12/75 11/20/75 2/6/76 11/12/76 4/4/78 7/25/78 4/7/81 12/6/82 8/17/83 9/15/88 Boston, USA Lahore, Pakistan Maryland, USA Lake Erie, USA Khar, Ambadu, India Atlanta, USA Norwich, United Kingdom Watertown, USA Kennedy N.Y., USA Dunsfold, United Kingdom Bari, Italy Naples, Fla., USA Gossellies, Belgium Kalamazoo, USA Lunken, Cincinnati, USA Le Bourget, Paris, France Wilmington, USA Bahar Dar, Ethiopia Lockheed L188Electra (Allison 501) Douglas DC3 (P&W R1830) Vickers Viscount (Dart) Falcon 20 (CF700) Douglas DC3 (P&W R1830) Lear 24 (CJ610) Falcon 20 (CF700) NA265 Sabreliner (JT12A) DC10 (CF6) HS125 (Viper) Lear 24 (CJ610) Falcon 20 (CF700) B-737 (JT8D) Convair 580 (Allison 501) Lear 23 (CJ610) Lear 35 (TFE731) Lear 25 (CJ610) Boeing 737 (JT8D) Airplanes of 5700 kg and below Date Aircraft Location 4/3/12 2/10/29 – / – /55 1/10/59 – /03/63 2/1/64 7/2/71 4/16/72 8/30/76 4/23/77 10/19/79 8/6/81 – / – /81 Beech 35 Turbulent Cessna 180 Mitsubishi MU2 Saab MFJ15 Aero Commander 690 Swearington Merlin Cessna 402 Callair A9 Long Beach, Calif., USA Madras, India Aberdare Mtns, Kenya Serengeti, Tanganyka Bakersfield, Calif., USA Nr Belfast, United Kingdom British Columbia, Can. Atlantic City, USA Nr Awassa, Ethiopia Meigs Field, Chicago, USA Palo Alto, Calif., USA Near Musiars, Kenya Australia 11/24/87 12/26/91 1/25/92 5/4/95 8/10/95 9/25/95 1/19/96 1/26/96 9/25/97 10/22/97 Osprey Homebuild Piper PA31 Navajo (5Y–SRV) Cessna 401 (5Y–BGW) NF-5 F-15 E-3B Mir. 2000 S. Etendard Tutor T-34C Cape Liptrap, Australia Maasi-Mara, Kenya Maasi-mara, Kenya Norway Isreal United States France France Canada United States Wright Flyer Arado Cessna Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.5 Table 1.1 World-wide Bird Strike Accidents Involving Destruction Of Aircraft Or Fatality, 1912–1997 continued... Helicopter Part Struck Birds/Weight Occupants/Injury Windshield Raven / 1.2 kg 4/4 killed Transport Aircraft Part Struck Birds/Weight Engines Windshield Tailplane Engines Engines Engines Engines Engines Engine Engines Engines Engines Engine Engine Windshield Engines Engines Starlings / 80 gm Vulture / up to 10 kg Whistling Swan / 6 kg Gulls / 280 gm to 1.7 kg Cranes / up to 6 kg Cowbirds / 44 gm Gulls / 275 g to 420 g Franklin’s Gull / 260 gm Gulls / 485 g to 1.7 kg Lapwing / 215 gm Gulls / 280 gm to 1.7 kg Ring-billed Gulls / 485 gm Wood Pigeon / 465 gm Sparrowhawk / 105 gm Loon / 3.7 kg Black-headed Gulls / 275 gm Starlings / 80 gm Speckled Pigeon / 320 gm Airplanes of 5700 kg and below Part Struck Birds/Weight Gull Wing tip Tailplane Windshield Vulture Griffin Vulture / 5.4 kg Common Loon / 3.7 kg Gull Bald Eagle / 5 kg Geese Vulture Gull Gulls Ruppell’s Griffon Vulture / 7.5 kg Black Kite Engine Engine Windshield Strut/ top-surface wing Windshield Windshield White-headed Vulture / about 5.4 kg Wing tip Engine Gulls Engine Storks Engines Canada Geese Engine Gulls Windshield Gulls Engine Unknown Unknown Occupants/Injury 72/ 62 killed9 injured 3/1 killed 17/17 killed 3/ 4/ 7/7 killed/ 1-third- party injured 9/1 minor injury 6/3 injured 139/ 9/6 third party killed 3/ 11/11 injured 3/ 43/3 injured 2/1 killed1 injured –/1 injured 2/ 104/35 killed21 injured Occupants/Injury 1/1 killed 1/1 killed 1/1 killed 1/1 killed 1/1 killed 1/1 killed 3/2 killed 3/3 killed 22 killed 4/4 killed 4/2 killed1 injured 1/1 killed 1/1 minor injury 1/ 9/9 killed 7/7 killed 2/ 2/2killed 24/24 killed 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/2 killed B.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Direct damage resulting from bird-strikes While strikes can occur against the underside of the fuselage, the flaps, landing lights, and landing gear, the forward facing parts of the aircraft—including engines, wings, windshields and noses—are the most commonly struck. Windshield strikes can cause cracks, shattering, and penetration. In the worst cases, pilots are exposed to flying glass and bird debris, as well as the powerful airflow resulting from a compromised windshield. The propellers on piston-engine aircraft are strong and, although often struck, are rarely damaged by birds. The rotating blades also tend to protect engines, if only by reducing bird size and, therefore, the effect of impact. In fact, severe damage to piston engines as a result of bird-strikes is rarely reported. Military aircraft damaged by Turkey Vulture Exposed turbine engines, however, are highly vulnerable to bird impact. Compressor, rotor and stator blades can bend or break—in the worst cases, they are completely destroyed. In January 2001, a Delta Airlines MD-11 ingested a Herring Gull into the numberone engine on takeoff from Portland International Airport in Oregon, U.S. This caused an uncontained failure and the takeoff was aborted. The strike inflicted approximately $1 million in damage, including a torn engine cowl and burned tires and landing gear. Delayed-effect damage resulting from bird-strikes Some bird-strike damage is subtle enough to evade initial or cursory inspections. Referred to as delayed-effect damage, it usually occurs to turbine-powered engines. One such incident involved a DC-8 that struck a bird during takeoff from Rome. The engine remained in use after a visual check revealed no apparent damage. However 50 service hours later the engine failed while cruising over Lethbridge, Alberta. An inspection showed that a blade had failed and the Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.7 compressor was damaged. Although there was no proof, engine failure likely resulted from the bird ingestion. Caution should be continually exercised, as demonstrated in the case of a DC-8 bound for Tokyo from Vancouver. The aircraft struck a large flock of sparrowsized shorebirds as it lifted off the runway. The captain reported the strike to the tower, and ground staff found several hundred dead birds on the runway. This information was relayed to the captain, who then spoke to his company’s chief engineer. Although the cockpit instruments did not indicate trouble, the captain decided to return for inspection. Two hours later—after dumping 20 tons of fuel—the aircraft returned to the airport. A post-flight inspection revealed damage to eight fan blades in one engine, seven in another engine, and minor damage to the other two. The two seriously damaged engines had to be replaced. Upon examining the damaged blades, engineers speculated that fracture and disastrous engine damage was inevitable—likely within two or three hours of cruise-power operation, or about half way across the Pacific Ocean. Multiple-cause accidents resulting from bird-strikes An accident that is caused by the combined or successive effects of several factors is called a multiple-cause accident, illustrated in the following scenario. On takeoff, a B-747 collided with a flock of gulls. The crew heard noises that suggested a bird-strike. At the same time, they felt vibration—verified by instruments—in the number-four engine, which was subsequently shut down. The vibration ceased. The aircraft returned to the airport, where the runway was wet and slippery. At touchdown, the crew applied brakes and attempted engine reverse on number-one, -two, and -three engines. The latter engine malfunctioned and could not be reversed. With two engines reversed on one side, the aircraft began to yaw, skidded off the end of the runway, and stopped when the nose landing gear collapsed after striking a slab of concrete. All occupants were evacuated via the emergency chutes; a few passengers received minor injuries. Damage to the aircraft was substantial. Visual examination showed no birdstrike evidence on engines one, two or four, but the number-three engine had been struck by at least one gull, damaging the engine fan blades. Testing of the aircraft systems showed that a component of the thrust-reversing mechanism on the number-three engine was locked, and that the vibration monitor on the number-four engine malfunctioned because of a broken wire. B.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Several factors contributed to this accident, including the wet runway, the birdstrike and the faulty instrumentation. If the crew had shut down the number-three engine instead of number four—which had not been struck and operated normally—the landing could have been completed without further complications. While not necessarily demonstrated in the above incident, it is important to note that multiple-cause accidents often include some misjudgment or error on the part of the flight crew. Serious strikes have the potential not only to damage aircraft, but also to startle and distract pilots, and—in certain circumstances— impair their judgment. Trends in wildlife-strike incidents Geographical distribution Collisions between birds and aircraft occur whenever birds and aircraft occupy the same airspace; however, strike frequency varies greatly with location. For example, higher strike rates can be expected along migratory flyways and over bodies of water. Rather than simply counting the number of incidents, strike rates should be calculated (as the number of strikes per 10,000 movements) to accurately evaluate the strike risks in a particular region. It is generally accepted that a rate exceeding three strikes per 10,000 movements indicates the need to improve or re-evaluate the existing bird-management program. Distribution by time of day Most bird species are active during the day; however, many diurnal species limit their daylight functions to dusk and dawn. While nocturnal birds such as owls and nighthawks are, by definition, primarily active at night and rarely hunt during the daylight hours, many diurnal species—including geese and ducks—also feed and fly at night. Night migrations of many species, such as geese and swans, are common. While bird-strikes can therefore occur at any hour of the day and night, Transport Canada data to 2000 indicates that most strikes occur in the early morning and decrease slowly throughout the day. Very few strikes are reported between midnight and 0500h—not only are most birds inactive during this time, but also there are fewer aircraft movements. However, an examination of strike-rates indicates that the difference between rates for day and night are surprisingly small. Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.9 Distribution by time of year Monthly strike rates reveal three peak periods: • spring migration in March, • fall migration in October, and • July—likely due to the presence of naïve young birds and their dispersal from breeding areas. Distribution by altitude According to available data concerning the altitudes at which civil and military aviation bird-strikes have occurred, low-altitude strikes are the most common. Preliminary data analysis, however, shows that high-altitude strikes (above 500-feet AGL) involving large birds are occurring more frequently. These strikes often cause substantial aircraft damage and adverse flight effects, as aircraft are traveling at higher speeds and pilots are less aware of the presence of birds. Only a small percentage of strikes occur at heights above 3,000-feet AGL. Transport Canada data shows that within the airport environment 90 percent of bird-strikes in which altitude is recorded occur below 500-feet AGL. The highest reported bird-strike took place at 37,000 feet on November 29, 1973; a commercial jet airliner collided with a Ruppeli’s Griffon Vulture over Abijan, Ivory Coast. It is also common for strikes to occur at 0 feet AGL, immediately prior to takeoff and just after landing. Distribution by flight phase Most birds fly at altitudes below 500-feet AGL, where flight-phase strike statistics indicate the majority of collisions are likely to occur. In civil aviation, about 38 percent of strikes happen during takeoff; approximately 41 percent occur while aircraft are landing. These numbers support research and development efforts aimed at reducing bird hazards in the immediate vicinity of airfields. However, off-airport strikes during climb-cruise-descent may be more hazardous not only because they are more likely to involve large soaring birds and migrating flocks of waterfowl, but also because aircraft are traveling at higher speeds. Strikes that occur en-route also pose serious hazards, since flight crews cannot benefit from the control and warning systems often afforded in close proximity to airports. Strikes that occur outside airport airspace—above 500-feet AGL on takeoff and 250-feet AGL on approach—are deemed to be beyond airport operators’ direct spheres of influence. In response, researchers are currently developing radar systems capable of detecting such bird movements. B.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Distribution by aircraft speed In civil aviation, most bird-strikes occur at relatively low altitudes and involve aircraft flying below cruise speed. In the United Kingdom, for example, more than 80 percent of all strikes occur at speeds between 80 and 160 knots. Statistics such as these explain why most aircraft certification standards are limited to testing the impact of a single, 4-lb. bird at design cruise speed. Species involved The way birds behave in the face of approaching aircraft varies with the species. Birds of prey are reported to have attacked gliders and aircraft, whereas waterfowl tend to avoid airplanes. Birds such as woodpeckers—which spend their lives among trees—are unlikely to be involved in strikes unless they are migrating. In Canada, birds as big as a Sandhill Crane and as small as a Ruby-crowned Kinglet have been struck by aircraft, but what is perhaps most perplexing is that the list of species involved in strikes continues to grow. High-risk species are those that are most frequently involved in strikes, as well as those that cause the greatest damage. Larger birds tend to inflict more damage due to higher impact forces. Since they are more likely to be felt—and provide evidence in the form of easily identifiable remains (feathers, claws, or bills)— strikes to large birds are most often reported. Gulls, waterfowl, raptors, and vultures are some of the most hazardous species at airports. Loafing gulls on an airfield Gulls are a frequent problem at many North American and European airports; when species are identified. At least one third of reported strikes involve gulls. Exceptional at adapting to the human environment, these birds commonly use airports as loafing and pre-roosting sites. Gulls are good gliders, but cannot accelerate quickly to avoid approaching aircraft. Furthermore—and as often occurs with European Starlings and Dunlins—gulls often try to out-fly aircraft rather than move to the side. Many gull species are big enough to cause substantial aircraft damage, so it is not surprising they are considered the number-one hazardous bird at airports in many countries, including Canada. Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.11 Research shows that Ring-billed Gull populations in the lower Great Lakes region increased at the rate of approximately 12 percent per year during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Large, slow-flying birds such as hawks—often engaged in hunting activities over airfields—pose a high risk to aircraft. Eagles have been involved in fatal bird-strike accidents, perhaps as a result of the aggressive behaviour this species can display toward aircraft. Although vultures are not known to attack aircraft, the slow speed of these birds contributes to their involvement in many serious strikes, particularly in the Far East. Hooded Vultures and Black Kites are a nuisance at Dakar International Airport, Senegal, and at Yuncum Bathurst Airport, Gambia. The Turkey Vulture is becoming an increasing problem at North American airports due to its large size and soaring behaviour. Turkey Vulture populations are on the increase, and the birds are now found in southern Canada, where they are likely to pose problems at airports in the near future. Despite their wariness of humans and aircraft, waterfowl—swans, geese, and ducks—cause extensive damage. Among the largest flying birds in the world, waterfowl deliver high-impact force in collisions. Strikes involving waterfowl are most common in the former USSR and Canada, where population numbers are high. Canada Geese are an increasing problem in many Canadian cities, as these birds adapt quickly and become resident in urban environments. The North American population of non-migratory Canada Geese has grown to more than two million birds. The total North American population of Canada Geese is now over five million birds, increasing the risk of bird-strikes at many airports. Other considerations Investigations at a few airports have verified that some species are a problem only in specific areas and only at certain times of the year. The Snowy Owl is one example. Small numbers of this Arctic breeder move southward in some winters, hunting along runways and taxiways at airfields in southern Canada. Inexperienced and unafraid in the presence of aircraft, these large birds can pose a high risk. They have been involved in a few costly strikes at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The USAF has a special problem at Whiteman AFB, Missouri. The booming ground (the area in which birds perform social displays during the mating B.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch season) of the Greater Prairie Chicken—an endangered species—is located on the base’s main runway. The USAF has taken measures such as altering flight schedules to cope with the problem without killing the birds. These examples demonstrate that the nature of bird-strike hazards varies with location; each problem should be investigated on its own merits to determine the unique characteristics. Knowledge of the age of birds can help in determining effective control methods. While such data are scarce, what is known seems to indicate that young birds are more prone to contact with aircraft. For instance, at Kingisepp Airport, in the former USSR, six of seven gulls struck between early July and early August were identified as immature birds; Lester B. Pearson International Airport reported similar data in the 1970s. It is sometimes difficult to know exactly where a bird-strike occurred. In one instance, a Sabena aircraft flew from Belgium to Montreal, where its crew reported a bird-strike. Later the same week, Sabena reported another strike at Montreal. The airline was concerned; engine damage was extensive and costly. Bird remains obtained from the engines of both aircraft were identified as those of lapwings, a species not native to Canada but common in Belgium. Apparently, the birds were struck on takeoff and lodged against the engines’ inlet guide vanes. In Montreal, following the altered airflow during engine slowdown and reverse thrust, the carcasses were dislodged and drawn through the engines, severely damaging them. The hypothesis is not without precedent. In a similar experience, a duck carcass remained lodged against the inlet guide vanes of a Canadian aircraft during a flight of several hours. Collisions between mammals and aircraft While less frequent than bird-strikes—and occurring at fewer locations— collisions involving large mammals such as Elk, deer and Moose can be understandably serious. Mammal activity and sightings in the vicinity of airports are often responsible for missed approaches and aborted takeoffs. Deer are the most commonly struck mammals at North American airports. In Canada, a total of 18 deer strikes have been reported to Transport Canada. Damage is almost always substantial. In January 2001, a Lear 60 attempting to land at Troy, Alabama, struck two deer and skidded off the runway. Quick action on the ground saved the lives of the two pilots; however, the aircraft was destroyed. Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.13 Coyote strikes also occur in North America. At an airport in California, a Coyote was struck by the nose-wheel of an L-1011. Numerous Coyote incidents have been recently reported in Canada as well, including an unlikely occurrence at Calgary in which an Air Canada aircraft hit two Coyotes at once. Bat strikes were first reported in 1969. Mexican Freetail Bats did a great deal of damage to T-38 and T-37 aircraft at Randolph AFB, near San Antonio, Texas. These bats migrate in spring from Mexico into the South Western United States, where they inhabit large caves. Their numbers swell to an estimated 40 million by August. Each night, huge swarms of bats leave their roosts in search of airborne insects. Mammals seen on airport runways Bird-aircraft interactions — International trends The following organizations maintain major databases containing North American bird-strike information: • Transport Canada, • the Federal Aviation Administration (United States), and • the International Civil Aviation Organization (International). Key information from each is summarized below. The Bird-strike Information System (IBIS) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provides analysis of bird-strike reports received from different countries. Findings based on 1998 IBIS statistics reveal the following: • 64 percent of reported strikes occurred during daylight hours, 22 percent occurred at night, and the remainder occurred at dawn or dusk; • 72 percent of reported strikes involved turbofan aircraft (over 27,000 kg); • 34 percent of reported strikes occurred during approach, 20 percent during takeoff-run, and 17 percent during climb out; • 48 percent of reported strikes occurred below 100 feet; and B.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • in 81 percent of reported strike incidents the pilots were not warned of bird activity. A total of 16,488 reported bird-strikes took place between 1989 and 1992. Table 1.2 illustrates the different bird groups involved in these strikes. The following tables contain information compiled from the world bird-strike statistics of ICAO. These figures indicate that 98 percent of bird-strikes occurred during takeoff, climb, final approach, landing, and taxiing— reinforcing the critical role of effective airport-based wildlife control programs in preventing bird-strikes. Bird Type passerines # of Strikes 2565 Bird Type # of Strikes oystercatchers/sandpipers 151 gulls 2375 owls 110 raptors 1063 bats 101 plovers/lapwings 594 grouse/pheasant/partridge 88 pigeons/doves 497 parakeets 34 waterfowl 248 unknown herons 202 TOTAL 8460 16 488 Note: As all of these parameters are not reported for every bird strike, the totals may not add up to 16 488. Aircraft Classification # of Strikes Turbo fan over 27 000 12 417 Turbo prop under 27 000 1857 Flight Phase Parked # of Strikes 45 Piston under 5700 902 Taxi Other, unknown, glider 880 Take-off Run 3213 73 Turbo fan under 27 000 130 Climb 2179 Turbo jet under 27 000 114 En route 218 Helicopter 89 Descent 381 Turbo jet over 27 000 58 Approach 5018 Turbo prop over 27 000 30 Landing Roll 2701 Piston over 5700 11 Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.15 Height Above # of Strikes GroundLevel (AGL) (ft) 0 – 100 Indicated Air Speed # of Strikes Knots (IAS - KT) 7801 0 – 80 719 81 – 100 813 101– 200 984 201 – 500 1348 101 – 150 7319 922 151 – 200 2300 501 – 1000 1001 – 2500 1194 201 – 250 588 Over 2501 1195 Over 250 430 124 Unknown 120 Unknown Aircraft Damage # of Strikes Light Condition None 15 315 Minor 690 Day Substantial 483 Dusk 786 Night 3167 Effect On Flight None # of Strikes 12 078 Aborted take-off 255 Precautionary landing 442 Engine(s) shutdown 73 Forced landing 22 Fire 3 Penetration of windshield 7 Penetration of airframe Vision obscured 1 24 Dawn # of Strikes 451 10 682 B.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Parts Struck # of Strikes Parts Damaged # of Strikes Radome 1897 Radome Windshield 2175 Windshield 188 Nose 2247 Nose 101 1 engine 2688 1 engine 750 96 2 engines 135 2 engines 3 engines 10 3 engines 2 4 engines 2 4 engines 1 Propeller 408 Wing/rotor 2037 Fuselage 1840 Propeller Wing/rotor 25 29 365 Fuselage 82 845 Landing gear 50 Tail 131 Tail Lights 140 Lights Landing gear Pitot/static head 25 Pitot/static head Antenna(e) 16 Antenna(e) Tail rotor Other part 1 1120 Tail rotor Other part 40 100 8 10 0 59 Transport Canada compiles an annual Bird-Strike to Canadian Aircraft Summary Report that analyzes Canadian airport and aircraft information received throughout the year. In 1999, Canadian aircraft received 741 reported bird-strikes. While most had no direct effect on flights, precautionary landings followed 47 incidents, engine ingestions took place in five, and 18 incidents resulted in aborted takeoffs. In 42.6 percent of cases, carcasses could not be identified; however, when birds were recognizable: • • • • • 35 percent were gulls, 12 percent were Snow Buntings, 12 percent were sparrows and swallows, 9 percent were waterfowl, and 4 percent were hawks. Wildlife-strike Statistics - B.17 As previous figures indicated, most occurrences took place at or near airports: • • • • 37 percent during the takeoff run, 26 percent during landing roll, 24 percent during approach, and 8 percent during climb-out. Most strikes took place between July and October. Dash-8 aircraft received the highest number of reported strikes (103 incidents). In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publishes annual civil-aviation bird-strike reports in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The most recent report covers the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999, in which 28,150 bird-strikes and 681 mammal strikes were reported. Reports were compiled from all states and from foreign countries when U.S. aircraft were involved. • • • • • 51 percent of bird-strikes occurred between July and October. 65 percent occurred during the day. 53 percent occurred when aircraft were on approach or during landing roll. 39 percent occurred during takeoff and climb. Approximately 55 percent occurred below 100-feet AGL within the airport environment. The species most often struck include: • • • • gulls, 29 percent; doves, 12 percent; waterfowl, 12 percent; and raptors, 11 percent. The most commonly struck mammals were White-tailed Deer (49 percent) and Coyotes (10 percent). B.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Summary The analysis of wildlife-strike data has, in recent years, provided a wealth of valuable information that reveals a great deal about the nature of bird and mammal hazards. The data has become a critical aspect in wildlife-control program design, allowing airport authorities to mount targeted and effective campaigns against the unique dangers found at individual airports around the world. The data are also used by engine and airframe manufacturers in the design of aircraft components. An interesting finding in the 10-year report involved bird ingestions into turbofan engines. The number of ingestions per 1 million movements was 5 times greater for underwing-mounted engines (e.g. Boeing 737) compared to fuselage-mounted engines (e.g. MD-80). Section C Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques Introduction C.1 The ecological survey (wildlife hazard assessment) C.1 Taking action at airports C.2 Transient and resident wildlife species C.2 Wildlife attractants at airports C.3 Food C.3 Water C.4 Shelter C.5 Attractive Habitat — Suggested methods of control C.5 Runways, aprons, and taxiways C.5 Grassland C.7 Cropland C.9 Brush C.10 Woodlots C.10 Landscaped areas C.11 Water-body management C.11 Airport buildings and structures C.14 Miscellaneous bird attractions C.16 Edible waste and edible-waste storage C.16 Garbage dumps C.16 Perching and nesting sites C.17 Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.1 Introduction Successful wildlife management inevitably results when airports alter the features that make these locations attractive to high-risk species. Referred to as habitat modification, this procedure involves fundamental and sometimes drastic alterations to both the natural and man-made aspects of airport environments. Sources of food, water and shelter (places to nest, feed, loaf, or roost in safety) are removed or modified, and the number of resident animals and species are reduced; as a result, strikes occur less frequently. While more costly than many other techniques, habitat modification offers the greatest possibility for a lasting solution. Although initial costs may be high, long-term wildlife-management costs are significantly reduced, as the need for ongoing scaring and killing activities is minimized. The key to effective habitat modification is to remove existing attractions without introducing new enticements that may appeal to other species. Many species are rarely involved in strikes—a robin nesting beside a hangar is of little concern, yet action should be taken to prevent a flock of gulls from loafing on a runway. Every species on the airport presents a risk; however, larger flocking species are particularly hazardous and should therefore be dealt with first (see Section H). Therefore, habitat modification should be aimed primarily against those species that pose the greatest risk to aircraft safety. The ecological survey (wildlife hazard assessment) An ecological study that focuses on the conditions that attract hazardous wildlife to the airport should be completed before any major habitat changes are implemented. The ecological investigation of airports and their immediate vicinities should indicate: • • • • • How many birds and other wildlife hazardous to aviation are in the area, Which species are involved, How the birds are distributed, both spatially and temporally, Why they are there, and How they move in relation to airports and aircraft flight paths. Observations should be made during all hours of the day, and during all seasons to take into account daily and seasonal fluctuations. C.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Studies should include data on geography, hydrology, soil, climate, vegetation, and building designs. Birds and other fauna in the area should be considered, as well as human activities such as agricultural and waste-disposal operations. The research will provide the factual information needed to understand why hazardous species are present at airports and, as a result, will also suggest what habitat modifications might be in order. Unfortunately, biologists have conducted few year-round studies of airports, although cursory ecological surveys have been made at many of the world’s airfields. Occasionally, a quick survey is all that is needed to locate the primary source of bird problems. Sometimes the major attractions for birds are so obvious—such as open garbage dumps near the ends of runways—that no biological expertise is required. More elaborate airport ecological studies are concerned with the physical and temporal distribution of the species, as well as the factors that affect this distribution. For example, some studies have investigated both the availability of food and the food preferences of hazardous birds frequenting airports. At Toronto’s Lester B. Pearson International Airport, biologists studied the relationship between raptors and their prey. An examination of the LaughingGull problem at Atlantic City, New Jersey, determined that certain plants attracted Japanese Beetles, which in turn drew the gulls from a nesting area 15 miles away. The gulls came in numbers large enough that the airport sometimes had to be temporarily closed, even when—at one point—the President’s aircraft was on site. Taking action at airports While animals can move freely between airports and adjacent areas, operational wildlife-management activities are generally limited to the zones where the majority of strikes occur—specifically, both the grounds inside perimeter fences and airspaces below 500-feet AGL on takeoff and below 200feet AGL on approach. It is in these areas that wildlife-control personnel have the greatest ability to introduce effective measures. Transient and resident wildlife species Birds and mammals can be grouped generally according to their activities and the time they spend at airport sites. Such species categorizations, including transient and resident, may be used to establish programs and procedures for the control of many animals. Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.3 Transient species are those that periodically inhabit airport sites, including migratory species that pass through airfields on a seasonal basis, and other species that visit daily while traveling between feeding and roosting sites. Transient species are attracted primarily by food sources and resting areas. Resident species are those that are native to airports for all or most of the year. Such species forage at airports while relying on these locations for permanent shelter, as well as loafing, breeding and nesting sites. As a rule, habitat modification techniques are the most effective control method for transient and resident wildlife types. While transients respond well to scare tactics and dispersal methods (not getting the opportunity to habituate to these methods), resident and daily-transient species require extensive, longterm habitat modification programs. Transient and resident categories include mammals as well as birds. Caribou also fall into the migratory category, moving in large herds and often entering airport areas in northern Canada. In the west, Elk have been known to move down from the mountains on a seasonal basis, often infringing on airport lands in search of better feeding areas. Wildlife attractants at airports As mentioned earlier, most birds and mammals are attracted to airports by sources of food and water, and by the availability of shelter, where they can safely rest, nest, and roost. Food Wildlife are attracted by the presence of: • • • • • • • • • garbage (edible waste), fruit-producing trees and bushes, seed-producing vegetation, green weeds, grass, aquatic vegetation, agricultural grains, large numbers of rodents or small birds, and large numbers of insects and earthworms. C.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Eliminating bird-food sources at airports is a difficult task. For example, a long-grass program might be implemented to deter gulls. Long grass, however, will attract rodents, and under some circumstances may lead to an increase in raptor populations. When it is unclear which food sources are the major attractants, it is also difficult to determine how to eliminate them. Additionally, most airports do not have the money and equipment required to purchase and apply chemical repellents, or to conduct large-scale removal of vegetation. All these obstacles point to the need for thorough ecological surveys at each site—surveys that will provide wildlife-management personnel with the critical knowledge they require to develop effective measures. Water Waterfowl and shorebirds are particularly attracted to surface and standing water. As a general rule, all physical features that hold standing water should be modified or eliminated. Pits or depressions that regularly collect water should be drained and backfilled; clogged waterways should be cleared. Using wire to cover bodies of water—such as lagoons—inhibits birds from landing. The banks surrounding these areas should be graded to a 4-to1 slope to discourage birds from resting in the water—birds are less likely to frequent areas when unable to spot predators above the banks. Open water near a runway The regular clearing of drainage ditches minimizes bird and mammal attractants. When clogged with vegetation and eroded soil, ditches retain water. Not only are birds attracted by the presence of water for drinking and bathing, they also benefit from the insect and aquatic life that flourish in these locations. Ditches should be graded so that water runs off as rapidly as possible. Grass and other vegetation should be cut on the sloping banks. The ideal solution, when practical, is to replace ditches with buried drainpipes. Special attention should be paid to wetland areas such as swamps, bogs, fens, and marshes, which are not always easy to drain and fill. In some cases, Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.5 Federal or Provincial regulations protect wetlands. Existing Federal and Provincial guidelines should be consulted before any wetland modification takes place. Shelter Shelter habitat includes safe areas where wildlife loaf, perch, roost, and nest. Depending on the species, birds will find natural or man-made shelter in the following areas: • • • • • • • • • • • • forests; dense brush; dead trees; brush piles; water bodies; drainage ditches; sewage lagoons; open short-grass fields; building roof ledges, crevices, and holes; overhead wires; towers; and vents and ducts. Birds often seek the shelter of airport buildings and long-grass areas. These animals also find safety in open airport spaces that afford clear views of the surroundings, allowing birds to see approaching predators. Nesting also occurs at airport buildings and in long grass, as well as in shrubbery and forested areas nearby. In most cases, wildlife shelters—once identified—can be effectively managed with little cost and effort. Attractive Habitat — Suggested methods of control No two airports are ecologically or operationally the same, nor do they share identical wildlife problems. Consequently, it is difficult to prescribe a solution for a particular problem without first conducting a thorough investigation. The following guidelines, however, provide a general overview of control methods as they apply to certain airport terrains. Runways, aprons, and taxiways Problem areas should always be prioritized in accordance with the hazards they pose to aircraft safety. Not surprisingly, runways take highest priority, C.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch including approach/departure paths and adjacent areas. When wildlife are kept clear of these areas, the hazards to incoming and departing aircraft are greatly reduced. The hard surfaces of aprons, taxiways, and runways attract certain species: • Gulls and shorebirds like to loaf on tarmac, as asphalt and concrete are often warmer then surrounding areas, especially in colder weather. During periods of heavy rain, these birds often feed on the worms that crawl onto runways. (At Heathrow Airport in England, several gull strikes occurred on a single day after extensive rains brought worms to the surface.) • Crows have been reported to drop rats on runways to kill them. • Grit from broken pavement and concrete is used by some birds to break down food in their gizzard. Suggested control Worm outbreaks are predictable, so airport authorities should conduct thorough clean-up operations with sweepers as soon as worms begin to invade runways. For pro-active, permanent solutions, consider these approaches: • Apply vermicide (worm-killing chemical) to the grass strips beside runways. • Apply worm repellent along runway edges. Note: See Section E, Dispersal Methods, on the use of chemicals for killing earthworms along runways and taxiways. When spraying for insects along the grassy strips beside runways, ensure a relatively broad area is treated, otherwise insects will quickly return. Because of the publicity regarding the undesirable side effects of many pesticides, use of these materials should be continually monitored to determine the effects on target and non-target species. One reported success was at a U.S. Air Force base where starlings had caused extensive damage to a C-130 during lift-off. The 250 dead starlings found on the runway were part of a large group that was feeding on Crane Fly larvae in areas nearby. Subsequently, these areas were sprayed with a mixture of insecticide (diazinon) and moth crystals (para-dichlorobenzene); the latter chemical was added as a starling repellent. The results were favourable and the starlings avoided the area. It is likely that they were driven away by the depletion of their food source, because subsequent studies have shown that starlings are not repelled by para-dichlorobenzene. Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.7 Another attraction that draws birds to airport tarmacs is the presence of posts, lights, and markers. Many birds, especially birds of prey, like to perch rather than stand on the ground. Any unnecessary posts or structures on the airfield should be removed. Perching can be prevented by installing sharp spikes commonly known as porcupine wire with trade names such as Nixalite. Owl perched on a sign at airport If strips of porcupine wire are attached with hook and loop fasteners, they can be easily removed for maintenance purposes. Individual posts can be made less attractive by embedding a single large nail in the top of the post. Other techniques include the application of commercial products that leave a sticky residue which makes perching uncomfortable. Applying these materials should be continually repeated, however, as exposure to sun, rain and dust reduces their effectiveness. Furthermore, these products can interfere with routine maintenance activities on lighting fixtures etc. Apart from these specific measures, airport authorities should work diligently to ensure runways and taxiways are kept clean. Inspections should be routine, and all materials that might attract birds—such as carrion, spilled crops, and refuse—should be removed immediately. Grassland While grass may be aesthetically appealing, easy to maintain, and functional in absorbing water and snow melt, it is probably the dominant bird-attracting feature at airports. Both long and short grass can pose problems, as they each attract different species. In response, site-specific grass-management programs should be implemented, acknowledging airports’ particular hazardous species. Along runways, strips of short-cut turf—generally less that 10 cm high— should be firm enough to support aircraft that leave the runway, and to withstand braking. These grassy sections should also ensure visibility of signs and lights. Many airports also maintain short grass throughout infield areas. Long-grass programs have been implemented around the world and have proven effective against some species, specifically gulls and starlings. (Long grass refers to grass that is greater than 15 cm in height). C.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Long grass also harbours ground-nesting birds (partridges, pheasants, ducks, owls, harriers), numerous small mammals (mice, voles, hares, rabbits), and large numbers of insects. Birds loafing on grassland Birds such as gulls and plovers, however, do not generally frequent long grass because it obstructs their view, interferes with their movement, and impedes their ability to achieve the wing-beat needed for takeoff. Long grass is also dense, making it difficult for birds to find such food as worms and insects. When employing long-grass programs, potential insect infestations should be closely monitored. Suggested control In Canada, there is no single recommended grass height that is effective at all airports. Transport Canada recommends that each airport should complete a site-specific study, then experiment to determine an appropriate, optimal grass height. The decision to maintain short or long grass depends primarily on which bird species pose the highest hazards. Grass-height research has been done in North America and Europe. The U.S. Air Force now requires airfield grass to be maintained at a height of 17 to 35 cm. The USDA has recommended that JFK International Airport maintain grass between 15 and 25 cm. In recent years, Vancouver International Airport has undertaken an experimental program using Reed Canary Grass maintained in some areas at a height of over 75 cm. A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture has contradicted previous research in stating that Canada Geese are not deterred by long grass—a finding that reinforces the need for studies and experimentation prior to the implementation of grass programs at airports. Drainage is one factor to be considered before adopting new grass lengths at airports. As grass restricts the drying action of air currents, long grass could worsen existing drainage problems. Drainage problems should therefore be solved before experimenting with new grass lengths. Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.9 Vehicle access to grassy areas should be restricted so as to minimize damage and alteration to grass height. Ensure grass areas are free of broad-leaf weeds, which attract some mammal species such as Groundhogs. These weeds also provide food sources for a variety of wildlife species—such as Snow Buntings—if allowed to go to seed. Weeds can be selectively controlled with a variety of herbicides, which should be applied in the spring. The implementation of long-grass programs often raises the risk of insect infestations. Airport operators and wildlife-management personnel are therefore advised to establish working relationships with local agriculturists or pesticide contractors, as these experts are familiar with resident insects, and in some cases can either predict infestations before they occur, or suggest remedies during an outbreak. Cropland Many forms of agriculture—including fruit, vegetable, and grain farming, as well as many livestock activities—create food sources that attract wildlife. For this reason, agricultural practices in the vicinity of airports should be strictly monitored and—when possible—controlled. Suggested control Airport operators should carefully consider the potential risks associated with the leasing of airport lands before lease contracts are signed. Cereal grain, market vegetable, and other bird-attracting crops grown on such lands should be kept as far away from the runways as possible. Ploughing and harvesting activities, which attract flocks of birds to runway areas, should be relegated to hours of darkness or periods when the problem species are away from airports—during nesting season for gulls, for instance, and early spring and late autumn for migratory species. Transport Canada guidelines state that areas leased for agricultural purposes should be at least 1200 feet from runways. Under the guidelines, the following crops are acceptable (listed in order of preference): • • • • • hay, alfalfa, flax, soy beans, fall rye, C.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • • • • fall wheat, spring wheat, barley, and other cereal grains except corn and oats. Deciding what crops, if any, to allow at an airport requires important consideration. Farmers and airport operators should work closely throughout the planting and harvesting process. Remember, reducing the number of birds is in the farmer’s interest as well as that of the public, as crop damage and aircraft damage are both minimized. Crop selections and harvesting practices within the airport boundary should be similar to and conducted at the same time as those on lands adjacent to airports. This ensures that birds that are dispersed from the airport feel comfortable at a distance, and are therefore less likely to return. If, however, airport lands are ploughed when adjacent lands are not, then birds will favour the airport, thereby heightening the risk of strikes. Brush Found on undeveloped airport grounds, brush, or wasteland, commonly features tall weeds, grasses, and shrubs—all of which attract birds and other wildlife such as Coyotes. Suggested control Brush and bushy vegetation should be eliminated from airports; at the very least, it should be cleared to within 150 metres of runway ends and runway centre lines. Cutting, clearing and herbicide treatments can be employed for this purpose. Woodlots These parcels of tree-covered land provide a multitude of nesting, resting, roosting, and feeding opportunities for birds. Tree species that produce soft fruits, berries, or high numbers of seeds are especially attractive to all types of wildlife. Trees also provide cover for medium-sized and large mammals. Large trees located at the edges of open areas provide excellent vantage points from which raptors can survey for food. In addition, trees can create an edge effect—an intermediate area often rich in bird life because it borders two different habitats, such as grassland and wooded areas. Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.11 Suggested control Trees should be located as far as possible from runways, certainly not within 150 metres of runway ends or runway centre-lines. If tree cutting is not feasible, all undergrowth should be removed. Trees can also be thinned at their tops to make them less attractive as roosting sites. Trees should be frequently inspected for colonies of nesting birds, like crows, and for roosts of such species as starlings. While airport crow colonies rarely go unnoticed, starlings are relatively inconspicuous, leaving their roosts at dawn and returning at dusk. This was demonstrated at Lahr Air Force Base, Germany, where starlings roosted by the thousands in a large stand of dense, tall shrubbery that was separated from the runway only by a narrow strip of grass. Clearing this shrubbery solved the roosting problem and reduced the hazard it created. Landscaped areas Many airports—civil and military— landscape the areas surrounding buildings, roads and hangars for aesthetic purposes. Decorative trees and shrubs, however, often produce seeds and berries that attract birds, while also providing shelter, roosting, and nesting sites. Dense stands of evergreen trees are particularly attractive roosting sites for starlings and crows. Habitat modification by tree removal Suggested control Trees and hedgerows should be cut back a minimum of 150 metres from runway or taxiway centre lines. Some varieties of trees and shrubs are acceptable; however, appropriate horticultural stocks should be selected on the basis of expert advice obtained from government or university scientists. Table C.4 lists trees and shrubs that provide food for birds at airports. Water-body management Birds in search of food, drink, shelter and bathing opportunities are attracted to all airport water features: shorelines, marshes, lakes, ponds, pits, creeks, canals, ditches, gullies, wet meadows, and pools—even puddles. In addition, water bodies—even temporary ones—often support large insect populations. C.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch C.4 Ornamental Trees and Shrubs Attractive to Birds Serviceberry Alleghany serviceberry Yellow birch Gray birch River birch Paper birch Western white birch Flowering dogwood Japanese dogwood Cornelian cherry Pacific dogwood Cockspur thorn Toba hawthorn Englich hawthorn Paul's scarlet hawthorn Cutleaf peashrub Weeping caragana Tidy caragana Silverleaf dogwood Siberian dogwood Yellowdoe dogwood Red osier dogwood Yellow twig dogwood Peking cotoneaster Early cotoneaster Rockspray cotoneaster Hedge cotoneaster Russian Olive American beech Purple beech Weeping birch Betchel crabapple Pissard plum Amur choke cherry May Day tree Autumn Flowering Higan cherry Shubert choke cherry White cedar Witchhazel Oregon grape Virginia creeper Western sand cherry Flowering almond Alpine currant Austrian brier rose Shining rose Redleaf rose Burnett rose Korean spice viburnum Wayfaring tree European highbush cranberry Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Betula lutea Betula populifolia Betula nigra Betula papyrifera Betula commutata Cornus florida Cornus kousa Cornus mas Cornus nuttali Crataegus crus-galli Crataegus x mordenensis "Toba" Crataegus oxyacantha Crataegus sp. Caragana arborescens Caragana arborescens Caragana microphylla Cornus alba Cornus alba Cornus alba Cornus stolonifera Cornus stolonifera Cotoneaster acutifolia Cotoneaster adpressa praecox Cotoneaster horizontalis Cotoneaster lucida Eleagnus angustifolia Fagus grandifolia Fagus sylvatica Fagus sylvatica Malus ioensis Prunus cerasifers Prunus maackii Prunus padus commutata Prunus subhirtella Prunus virginiana Thuja occidentalis Hamamelis virginiana Mahonia aquifolium Partenocissus quinquenfolia Partenocissus tomentosa Partenocissus triloba Ribes alpinum Rosa foetida Rosa nitida Rosa rubrifolia Rosa spinosissima Viburnum carlesii Viburnum lantana Viburnum Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.13 Water bodies also attract aquatic mammals such as Muskrat and Beaver. Not only can both of these species inflict severe damage through lodge and dam construction, but they are also attractants, luring carnivorous animals to airports. While there may be some controversy regarding desirable grass lengths, there is general agreement that standing water is a major bird attractant. All manuals and instruction pamphlets recommend that standing water on airfields should be drained or backfilled, and that access to open water should be eliminated whenever possible. Birds at a water site Suggested control Eliminating water bodies is the best solution, although measures such as replacing drainage ditches with buried culverts can be costly. If water-body elimination is not suitable, the following guidelines should be followed: All water bodies should be cleared of emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation by cutting, dredging, or through the use of herbicides. The banks should also be cleared of cover vegetation such as cattails and brush. The banks of water bodies (particularly ponds, streams) should be graded to a 4-to-1 slope, which will discourage burrowing by Muskrats and damming by Beavers. Steep banks also discourage birds from using water, as they then find it more difficult to spot predators. Steep banks also create a clearly defined edge to which grass can be easily mowed, thereby reducing boundary habitats. Low areas, where temporary pools form after rainstorms and spring melt, should be filled or fitted with improved drainage systems. In areas where gulls and waterfowl cause major problems, physical barriers should be erected to prevent access to water. Barriers are available in the form of nylon mesh or wires that are strung across the surface to prevent birds from settling on the water. Wires should be strung across the surface of ponds at a height of roughly 18 cm and at intervals of 36 cm. To protect birds from flying C.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch into these barely visible barriers, streamers should be attached to the wires. Fences should also be installed around the perimeter of the water so that birds cannot walk beneath the wires. One alternative to wire and netting is Bird Balls™, which have been used successfully in the western United States since 1993. Bird Balls™ can be spread out over small water bodies to trick birds into thinking that there is no water in the area. The balls are superior to netting and wire because they adjust to fluctuating water levels and snow loads, readily shift to accommodate in-water obstacles, are unaffected by the strongest winds, are very easy to install and require little maintenance. Bird Balls are, however, relatively expensive. If water bodies cannot be covered or drained, dredging will increase the water depth and, as a result, decrease the surface area. Coastal airports featuring tidal waters report that bird activity tends to increase as the water rises, as birds are forced to move further up the shore. In response, airport wildlife-management activities should be increased as tides rise. Airport buildings and structures Sparrows, starlings, pigeons, gulls, and crows have adapted to human development, and make full use of the many opportunities that human activity provides. The built-up areas of airports offer these so-called city birds a variety of nesting and resting sites, as well as sources of food. Large buildings, such as hangars, provide many places for birds to nest and rest. Gulls and pigeons like to sit on roofs and ledges. Sparrows, starlings, swallows, and pigeons have been found nesting in and on hangars. During aircraft overhauls, bird droppings, feathers, and nesting materials can affect exposed electronic equipment. Airport structures such as unused sheds, deserted farmhouses and outbuildings, old windbreaks and rotten fence posts also lure wildlife with the promise of nesting, resting, roosting, and feeding opportunities. These unused structures should be removed from airport lands. Birds pose not only collision hazards in the vicinity of buildings, they also are a serious nuisance because they soil these locations. Bird droppings create a slippery mess, and can corrode the skin of aircraft. Droppings also deface the roofs and facades of airport buildings. These droppings are often sources of bird-borne disease, which are known as zoonoses. For instance, approximately Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.15 90 percent of gulls carry salmonella. Bird zoonoses are transmitted to humans through direct contact with bird droppings and nasal discharge, or by breathing the powder of dried droppings. Dried bird feces on helicopter pads that are used for medical evacuations at facilities such as hospitals and harbours can create a significant human health issue. Appendix 2 outlines three of the most common bird zoonoses that can infect humans. As it is difficult to know if birds are infected, the greatest security is found in a clean environment; therefore, all bird droppings are removed promptly. Suggested control Screening the many holes and openings in hangars is a first step in denying birds access to these buildings. In active hangars, however, doors are opened frequently; even when they are kept closed there is usually some space above or below the doors through which birds can move. Flexible netting around hanger doors has proven most successful in these situations. Netting installed across the base of rafters has proven successful in excluding birds from the rafter system. Unfortunately, major architectural changes are expensive and rarely feasible. Minor changes, however, can also be effective in reducing the bird presence. • Block or cover all holes, such as access vents, using screen or similar material. Blocking or covering drains can also prevent rodents becoming a problem inside a building. • Block and seal all crevices and holes on the outer surface of the building with screen, concrete, or brickwork. • Slope building ledges to an angle of 45 degrees or greater using boards, plastic sheeting or concrete; this eliminates attractive roosting and nesting sites. Vertical plastic blinds installed in doors that are frequently left open will repel many birds from entering hangars or other buildings. • Install netting, sheet metal, or other suitable barrier materials under overhanging eaves and ledges to prevent access by swallows. • Fine parallel wires can be attached to antennae, towers, and overhead wires to discourage birds from perching and roosting. Spiked material such as porcupine wire can also be installed, although this is generally an expensive alternative. • Use a caulking gun to apply soft, sticky material to perches; birds will avoid roosts treated in this way. The downside to this technique is that re-applications C.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch should be made regularly and, in locations featuring a number of perches, the task of continually treating the roosting spots can be daunting. Miscellaneous bird attractions Besides the attractions associated with various habitats, airports offer many man-made enticements, including edible waste and edible-waste storage sites, garbage dumps, and perching sites. Edible waste and edible-waste storage Edible waste is created at airport restaurants, flight kitchens, and at points where in-flight meals are prepared. Proper storage is critical to ensure the material is inaccessible to birds until it is removed to off-airport disposal sites. Airport property leases should contain clauses that address waste disposal and reduce bird attractions. Feeding of birds in taxi-cab stands should be prohibited. Open edible food waste storage Gulls, crows, and pigeons regularly patrol terminal loading areas where food and garbage is often dropped during aircraft servicing. Frequent and unannounced inspections by airport staff can help ensure that more care is taken in the disposal of edible material. Garbage dumps Often an eyesore and a health hazard, garbage dumps are also a major source of food for high-hazard birds. Waste disposal sites located at airports literally breed danger; removing such facilities from airport lands should be the first act in any program to reduce bird problems. If off-airport garbage disposal is impossible, edible refuse should be mixed with earth and buried immediately after being dumped. Disposal operations also attract fewer birds when conducted at night. Several airports—including Vancouver International— have eliminated their dumps and significantly reduced bird populations. In the current Canadian guidelines contained in TP 1247, Guidelines for Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports, garbage dumps are to be located no less than eight kilometres from airport reference points. Zoning regulations at 55 Habitat Modification — Passive Management Techniques - C.17 Canadian airports contain legislation that regulates the siting of garbage dumps, food waste landfill sites, and other high hazard bird attractants. Further research is underway to investigate whether this distance is appropriate. If dump-site plans are proposed for locations within that range, wildlifemanagement officers should participate in the planning process to ensure aviation safety is given the highest priority. At the very least, bird-control measures must be taken at all waste disposal sites in the vicinity of airports. Perching and nesting sites Perching sites are important for birds, offering vantage points that overlook the immediate surroundings. Perches are places from which birds sing, call and display. They also act as observation points, hunting lookouts and as places to rest, digest, preen, roost, and gather socially. As potential perches for birds, lone trees, hedgerows, fences, gates, posts, shrubs, stumps, junk, weed patches, and boulders should be removed from airport lands. Power lines are popular perches, and should be relocated underground. Although a labour-intensive solution, porcupine wire should be fitted to runway, approach, taxiway, and apron lights to discourage their use as perches. Birds are quick to find whatever nesting opportunities are available. At airports, they nest under bridges, in culverts, old shacks and work huts, and on radar towers. For example, at Leningrad Airport in the former USSR, a Great Spotted Woodpecker pecked a hole through the foam plastic cover of a radar antenna to create a nest. Aircraft parked on aprons or fields are also popular nesting locations. Birds usually enter aircraft through small access holes just large enough to accommodate them. Removing such nests is therefore difficult, as access panels or whole subassemblies may need to be opened or removed. One report described 29 nests—made by eight different bird species—that had been found in various aircraft. While the likelihood of nesting in aircraft increases dramatically with the time they are out of service, nests can appear over a weekend—even in a single day. In the former USSR, it was reported that starlings began bringing nesting material into an opening in an AN–10 as soon as the aircraft had come to a stop after landing. Within one hour at Montreal airport, starlings placed so much nesting material in the inlet of a Vanguard engine that shutdown and component replacements were required. Two North Star (DC–4) aircraft that were parked for a long time on the infield at Toronto airport were “liberally sprinkled” with starling nests. The birds C.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch created an additional hazard by flying back and forth across runways and taxiways to reach the aircraft. It was recommended that these aircraft be moved farther away from operational runways, and that parked aircraft—out of service even for a short period—be checked for nests at least twice a week between April and June. Section D Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports Introduction D.1 Planning in the vicinity of airports D.1 By-law development D.2 Extremely hazardous land-use practices D.3 Food-waste landfill sites D.3 Case histories D.4 Coastal commercial fish plants D.6 Moderately hazardous land-use practices D.6 Crop production D.6 Wastewater treatment and wastewater discharge plants D.7 Recreational activities D.7 Managed and supplemented natural habitats D.7 Other activities D.8 Conclusion D.8 Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports - D.1 Introduction Airports naturally attract many species because of both the wide-open and short-grass areas that provide basic protection from predators and humans. As discussed in Section C, airports also provide access to food and water sources. Wildlife-management programs at many airports effectively diminish the power of these attractants by modifying and managing habitats, as well as by using techniques to disperse birds. However, even when airport bird-control activities are effective, they can be neutralized by the presence of attractive land-use activities that are outside the airport boundary and, therefore, beyond airport operators’ spheres of influence. In these cases, hazardous bird species will persist in their use of airports as convenient stopovers and resting places before and after feeding at nearby locations. Particularly severe problems arise when birds make regular flights across airport properties—when they fly between roosts and feeding areas, for instance. The greatest problem at many airports is the presence of one or more waste disposal sites within the vicinity of the airport. These facilities provide food for a large number of birds, which may then use adjacent airports as loafing and resting sites. Where wildlife hazards are concerned, regulations that minimize attractants in surrounding areas should mirror procedures employed on airport lands. This regulatory harmony can be found through compatible land-use planning, a process that has resulted from the need to establish a co-operative environmental relationship between airports and the communities they serve. While relatively simple, this concept has delivered, in practice, impressive results through the development of airport/community-system plans, as well as legislation for compatible land uses, easements, and zoning. Implementation, however, requires careful study, coordinated planning, cooperation, and compromise by experts and stakeholders in all related fields. Planning in the vicinity of airports The goal of airport zoning regulations is to prohibit hazardous land uses outside airport properties. These land uses include: • garbage dumps, • food-waste landfill sites, • sewage outlets, D.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • • • • • fish plants, fish piers, abattoirs, pig farms, and bird-attractant agriculture. According to a Transport Canada guideline contained in Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports (TP1247), no bird-attractant land use should be allowed within an eight-kilometre radius of airport reference points. The operative word, however, is guideline: this minimum distance is not enforced under current Transport Canada regulations except at the 55 Canadian airports which have a waste disposal clause contained within their zoning regulations. Where hazardous land uses are already established and prohibitions are not an option, remedial actions may be taken: • to ensure that municipal officials responsible for planning and zoning enforcement are aware of existing guidelines; • to inform owners and managers about the hazards their operations create; and • to develop management programs to minimize the attractiveness of the operations. In Saskatoon, city officials decided to locate a storm-water retention pond at the threshold of the airport’s main runway. The pond drew many geese, ducks, and gulls to the area and, as a result, became a tourist attraction—bird feed was sold, and a waterfowl-nesting platform was placed in the pond. The Saskatoon Airport Authority recognized this problem and met with city officials and stakeholders who, until the meeting, were unaware of both the guidelines applying to and the hazards associated with the pond. Once informed, all parties began working together to minimize risks. By-law development The development of planning policies and planning statements is the first step toward ensuring compatible airport-vicinity land-use activities. On the basis of these documents, municipalities may then enact zoning by-laws, which are implemented to regulate land uses, and to set restrictions on various aspects of development. Through these by-laws—which are occasionally amended to Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports - D.3 reflect changing needs and objectives—an ecological, social, and economic balance is maintained within municipalities. In many cases, airports now face urban-development pressures that were nonexistent when the facilities were first built. Thus, it has become increasingly important for operators to be aware of and involved in decisions that pertain to land-use activities near airports. It is also important to form partnerships and communicate with all stakeholders in the area. Extremely hazardous land-use practices Food-waste landfill sites When landfill sites are proposed, Transport Canada often participates in local planning processes to identify any airport and aviation-related concerns. An aviation analysis is often conducted to assess the bird hazards that may result when the landfills are established. If studies reveal that additional bird hazards are probable, then landfill operators or proponents can be responsible for establishing programs that will control or minimize bird activity. It is preferable that these programs reflect those in place at adjoining airports, and make use of the same dispersion techniques (see Section E, Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques). The use of over-wiring or netting to cover the working face of landfills— the area where waste is currently dumped—could prevent or greatly reduce gull use. It has been demonstrated at many sites that portable installation units allow the netting or wiring to be easily shifted as the dumping location changes. Landfills should also be covered daily with soil to reduce bird-food sources, or prior to any period when the landfill will not be attended such as weekends. Landfill site near airport Case histories Thunder Bay, Ontario Located about three miles from the shore of Lake Superior, Lakehead Airport (now Thunder Bay Airport) had only a minor autumn-migration bird-hazard D.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch problem prior to 1960. In that year, however, the city of Fort William closed the municipal garbage incineration plant and opened a sanitary landfill area adjacent to the airport. Immediately, Herring Gulls began to frequent the airfield. The gulls could not be driven off despite intensive efforts during a twoand-a-half year period; as many as 2,000 gulls were often located on airport lands. A presentation to the Fort William council by the Bird Hazard Committee (the predecessor to Bird Strike Committee Canada) resulted in the decision to discontinue the landfill and return to the incineration of municipal garbage. As soon as the dump was closed, gull numbers at the airport decreased significantly, and the bird-hazard returned to an acceptable level. However, the operation of a new landfill near the airport has contributed to recent bird hazard issues, including severe damage to an Air Canada DC-9 in 1997 which resulted in the loss of one engine and a forced return to the airport. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island In 2000, a compost facility was proposed in Winslow South near Charlottetown, PEI. As the facility was to be located three kilometres from the Charlottetown airport reference point, a bird-hazard study was undertaken prior to construction. The study concluded that the compost facility would have to incorporate numerous bird-mitigation measures—measures that permitted both the airport operator and Transport Canada to monitor operations and gull activity at the site. Additionally, a Bird Management Plan—addressing issues such as material storage, monitoring, and clean-up of food waste—would have to be implemented before the facility’s Certificate of Approval was issued. The study also recommended that the operators should post a $20,000 bond to address future bird-control issues. It is as yet too early to comment on the effects of either the presence of the compost facility or the measures proposed by Transport Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba In 1996, BFI Waste Systems built a landfill site north of Winnipeg International Airport (YWG). While the site is beyond the eight-kilometre bird-hazard protection zone, it is nonetheless located under the approach path of the airport’s runway 18. As a result, Transport Canada, BFI Waste Systems, the Winnipeg Airport Authority, and other stakeholders worked at length to develop a bird-control program for the newly constructed facility. The parties agreed on measures to cover waste, harass birds, drain standing water, and replant disturbed soils. BFI now reports that while birds continue to fly over the site en-route to other feeding areas, management measures appear to have discouraged the birds from stopping at the site. The Winnipeg experience demonstrates the need for effective bird-hazard programs at all landfill sites Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports - D.5 even remotely close to airports. All parties in the community, however, should recognize that the ideal solution remains to locate such sites as far from airports as possible. San Francisco, California The mix of gulls, garbage, and airports is particularly dangerous in the San Francisco Bay area. Gulls are not only attracted by garbage available on the face of the airport-area dump, they also forage immediately beneath the surface. Some estimates put the airport gull population as high as 15,000. Several different dumping methods were tried, including digging large trenches into which the refuse was tipped and immediately covered. This was partially effective, although the gulls continued to swarm the trenches during the short intervals the garbage was exposed. The birds also began feeding from the daily stream of arriving garbage trucks. The airport ornithologist noted that the gulls arrived at the dump shortly before dawn and left just after sundown. At night, the birds went to resting areas, some in shallow water near the coastline, others in water located on the airport itself—water that airport authorities drained immediately. Meanwhile, household refuse was collected by day and stacked in a covered area that was inaccessible to birds. While this covered area was some distance from the airport, it was still easily accessible to the points of collection. After nightfall, the refuse was transported to the dump, deposited in open trenches and then covered with earth. When the gulls arrived the next morning, their food source was no longer available. Not only was the gull population dramatically reduced—from approximately 15,000 to several hundred within one week—the risks to aviation safety also decreased significantly. Coastal commercial fish plants Coastal commercial fish plants are extremely attractive to several bird species, particularly gulls. These birds pose a high hazard to aircraft because of their large size, their behavioural characteristics (flocking and soaring), and their preference for airport environments. Gulls are also willing to undertake farranging daily flights for food. Commercial fish plants are therefore strongly discouraged on lands adjacent to airports. As in the case of landfills, fish plants that must be located near airports should be mandated to adopt strict control programs that minimize and control all wildlife attractants. D.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Moderately hazardous land-use practices Transport Canada recommends that certain practices not be permitted within 3.2 kilometres of airport reference points. (To better define some airport areas, more than one reference point may be established.) These practices are moderately hazardous to airport activities because they attract bird species that: • are small and not particularly far-ranging in their food-searching activities; or • are of concern during limited time periods, such as migration and during inclement weather. Wastewater treatment and wastewater discharge plants Any activity that creates bodies of water in the vicinity of airports also creates indirect hazards to aircraft safety. These facilities should be located as far as possible from airport lands, and should practice appropriate wildlife-control measures. Crop production Topographies and near-rural locations often make airport areas popular for agriculture. Some operators also promote the use of their lands for crop production, thereby increasing airport revenues. (See Attractive Habitats in Section C). In any case, when land is used for crop production it is important that airport operators be involved, ensuring crop choices that minimize the attraction of hazardous species. All proposed uses and crop selections should also be reviewed by wildlife biologists. Grains and cereals are major bird attractants and should be avoided when possible. The following table lists some of the crops commonly grown around airports, and presents alternatives. When wildlife problems occur, immediate action should be taken, perhaps to modify ploughing and harvesting practices, or change crop types. In extreme cases, termination of agricultural practices may be necessary. Implications of Land-use Activities in the Vicinity of Airports - D.7 Moderately hazardous land-use practices Crops Not Recommended Grains: Barley Oats Wheat (particularly Durum) Suggested Alternatives Rye Buckwheat Flax Canola Corn Sunflower Timothy Alfalfa Clover Fruits: Berries Cherries Vegetables (except potatoes) Grapes Apples Livestock Feedlots: Beef Cattle Piggeries Recreational activities • Drive-in theatres • Golf courses • Marinas • Picnic areas • Outdoor restaurants • Beaches • Racetracks Managed and supplemented natural habitats • Migratory waterfowl refuges • Designated game and mammal refuges • Wildlife feeding stations • Bird-nesting colonies • Roosting sites Pasture-fed Livestock D.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Other activities The list below presents basic wildlife attractants, their common locations, and suggested remedial actions. Attraction Typical Activities Suggested Remedial Action Food waste • Restaurants (indoor and outdoor) • Picnic areas • Improve maintenance and disposal • Cover garbage containers Freshly tilled/ ploughed soil • Cropping activities • Sod farming • Plough and till at night High insect/ mouse activity • Grass and hay cutting • Baling hay (before and after) • Cut or bale at night • Remove bales as soon as possible Livestock manure piles • • • • • Lagoons • Sewage lagoons • Stormwater retention ponds Barnyards Stables Racetracks Fairgrounds Game farms • Exclude birds through the use of fine wires • Locate as far as possible from airports Conclusion Effective airport-area land management is fundamental to safe aircraft operations. Wildlife attractants should be eliminated or at the very least minimized. Amid the spiraling growth of many North American cities, airports are increasingly forced to actively participate in urban planning and development. Not only should operators remain abreast of the changes happening around them, but also they should establish effective communication and co-operation with all stakeholders in the communities the airports serve. Section E Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques Bird dispersal techniques E.1 Habituation — A multifaceted approach E.2 Vehicle use in wildlife management E.3 Auditory deterrents E.4 Birds E.4 Pyrotechnics (highly recommended) E.4 Gas Cannons and Exploders (limited recommendation) E.8 Report Shells (no available recommendation) E.10 Phoenix Wailer Systems MKII (limited recommendation) E.11 Bird Gard AVA (limited recommendation) E.13 Bird Gard ABC (limited recommendation) E.14 Av-Alarm (limited recommendation) E.15 Distress Calls (highly recommended) E.16 Alarm Calls (highly recommended) E.19 Predator Calls (limited recommendation) E.21 Chemical Repellents E.23 Chemical products for birds E.24 Tactile Repellents E.24 Behavioural Repellents (limited recommendation) E.26 Benomyl (limited recommendation) E.29 Tersan (limited recommendation) E.30 Methyl Anthranilate — ReJeX-iT® (no available recommendation) E.31 Chemical repellents for Mammals Taste repellents E.33 E.33 Section E Visual Repellents — Birds E.35 Scarecrows, Flags, and Streamers (limited short-term recommendation) E.36 Predator Models (limited short-term recommendation) E.37 Hawk Kites and Balloons (limited short-term recommendation) E.38 Gull Models (limited short-term recommendation) E.40 Falconry (no available recommendation) E.41 Border Collies (no available recommendation) E.42 Radio-controlled Model Aircraft (limited recommendation) E.44 Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.1 Bird dispersal techniques Dispersal techniques discourage birds by scaring them with visual devices such as scarecrows, or with auditory devices such as cannons and pyrotechnics. It is critical to experiment with a combination of methods, whether together or in rotation. This experimentation should be informed—and monitored—through the periodic analyses of daily wildlife reports, which will reveal: • the effectiveness of applied control techniques for various bird species; • the effectiveness of different dispersal techniques at different times of the day and under different weather conditions; and • the amount of time birds remain dispersed. Birds are naturally wary of unfamiliar sounds and objects in their environment. Unfamiliar noises, for example, may put them at alert, or cause them to take flight. Loud and abrupt noises, such as those produced by gas cannons, are initially most effective for many species of birds. Gradually, however, birds do become comfortable—or habituated—to all dispersal techniques. Birds that are flushed upon first hearing an unfamiliar loud noise may merely become alert the second or third time they are exposed to the sound. If birds repeatedly hear the same noise and do not associate the sound with actual danger, they will eventually stop responding. Under these circumstances, the most effective way to prevent habituation is to reinforce the threat by occasionally killing a few birds. Wildlife-control officers are advised to monitor bird responses to scaring techniques; the resulting information will assist in modifying and improving dispersal methods. The use of trained raptorial birds has proven effective for dispersing some species of birds under certain circumstances at some airports. The costs and complexity of this technique, however, make it unfeasible for many sites. Even in cases where devices and techniques do work, they may not be effective on all problem species, or in all geographic areas. Perhaps most importantly, devices and techniques are only as effective as the wildlife-management teams that use them. Only skilled and persistent wildlife-management teams have the knowledge to ensure success. Finally, if birds cannot be excluded from critical takeoff and landing paths, pilots should be warned about peak daily and seasonal bird-activity periods. E.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Habituation — A multifaceted approach Habituation is the process whereby animals become accustomed to sights and sounds that might initially be frightening. Habituation occurs eventually with all scaring techniques when they are not reinforced with demonstrations of actual danger. The only exception is single-species distress cries; if used properly, they rarely result in habituation. Environmental factors can affect the responsiveness of birds and therefore the rate of habituation. For example, feeding birds are less responsive to loud noises than resting birds—particularly if they are hungry. Small birds on open ground—far from protective cover—are more responsive than birds near cover. Gulls, on the other hand, prefer to be able to see approaching predators; they may be more responsive when their view is blocked by vegetation. Some birds respond faster to loud noises in the morning than they do later in the day. Some birds respond in daylight and not at dusk. Habituation occurs when birds learn that sounds or objects present no real danger. Most birds tend to avoid novel stimuli, unsure whether or not the threat is real. Certain curious species will investigate promptly. A flock of starlings may avoid a model of a hawk for only a few hours before realizing its harmlessness. As habituation occurs through repeated exposure to the same scaring technique, it is necessary to continually change the appearance or location of the device, the combination in which devices are used, or the direction from which the sound originates. Even with all these dynamic adjustments to a dispersal program, birds may still become habituated. This is particularly true of gulls, which often must be re-educated to respond through the shooting of one individual. This demonstrates the true danger of the noises to the remainder of the flock. Should shooting become necessary, target individuals at the top of airborne flocks so that they fall past lower-flying birds. This approach has proven more effective than targeting members of resting flocks, or the last birds in flying flocks. It is worth repeating that, as noted above, a mix of dispersal techniques should continually be altered—randomly—so that target species are kept off balance. For additional information on this subject, refer to the Aerodrome Safety Circular on an Evaluation of the Efficacy of Products and Techniques for Airport Bird Control which is available online at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/aerodrome/menu.htm . Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.3 A copy of the report can be obtained by calling: 1-800-305-2059 or E-mail: http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation. Vehicle use in wildlife management The field vehicle is an essential part of any wildlife management program, providing transportation for officers as well as the necessary equipment for dispersing or removing wildlife. The vehicle should meet these general specifications: Four-wheel drive Off-road access at airports demands this feature, not just for mobility, but also for stability—four-wheel drive vehicles are less likely to chew up airfields and expose soil, which can attract birds. A well equipped field vehicle FOD (Foreign Object Debris)-resistant tires This is a critical feature, as these vehicles often travel among runways, taxiways and various off-road locations. The sharp debris found at landfill and waste-disposal sites also poses significant tire hazards. Wide tire ‘footprints’ improve flotation above mud and soft ground; wide tread patterns not only pick up less mud and fewer stones, they also shake off these adherents when they do become lodged between the treads. Safety and communications equipment Amber rotating beacons are standard on all airfield vehicles. VHF radios are essential as well, tuned to ground-movement frequencies so all related personnel can remain in contact regarding bird movements. Adjustable spotlights are excellent for night observation of birds and large mammals. Cassette or digital playback components—including exterior-mounted loudspeakers—permit the broadcast of pre-recorded distress calls. Cartridge containers For safety reasons, separate containers should be maintained for each calibre of used and unused ammunition cartridges. E.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Auditory deterrents An effective—but temporary—scaring technique involves the use of a variety of noises including sirens, car horns, human voices, amplified recordings, and pyrotechnics (firearms, cannons). Natural bird-dispersing sounds include the alarm and distress calls of problem species, as well as the calls of their predators. A wide range of these calls is now commercially available. Some manufacturers advocate the use of abstract sounds that are above and below the range of human hearing. As research has shown that birds hear the same sound frequencies as humans, products generating such abstract sounds are ineffective. Birds are less likely to habituate to natural sounds that have meaning to them, such as the calls of flockmates in distress, or calls of predators. Habituation can also be reduced by frequently moving the sound sources, ensuring sounds are used sporadically, and through the occasional killing of birds to confirm that the sound does indicate danger. Wildlife-control personnel should keep in mind that many scaring devices have been evaluated only in terms of their effectiveness in agricultural use. At airports, wildlife management is a year-round endeavour, but the protection of crops is seasonal, and therefore habituation is not necessarily a concern. Birds Pyrotechnics (highly recommended) Pyrotechnics are highly recommended for bird dispersal at airports. This technique can be extremely effective when used as part of a well-balanced and dynamic wildlife-management plan. Pyrotechnics include various ammunitions that are fired from shotguns, starter and flare pistols, and purpose-built pyrotechnic launchers. They include shell crackers, flares, firecrackers, rockets, and mortars. The loud and abrupt noise emitted by some pyrotechnics is similar to that of shotguns, making them particularly effective against game birds that are familiar with the effects of weapons. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.5 Some pyrotechnics also involve flashes of light, providing a visual as well as an auditory deterrent. Some devices travel 25 to 300 metres before exploding in a flash of bright light. Others travel as far as 100 metres while emitting a continuous screaming or whistling noise. Firearms, particularly shotguns, are now widely used as delivery systems for scare cartridges. The cartridge comprises a double-charge 12-gauge shotgun shell; the first charge delivers a timed-fuse secondary shell into the midst of offending wildlife, where the second shell explodes. Some cartridges incorporate powder flashes for a visual effect, while others whistle in flight. The effective range, according to several manufacturers, is approximately 69 metres. Similar shells can be delivered from either 22-calibre starter pistols, or specially designed handguns. These weapons not only lack the range of shotguns, their quality is in question as well. Some ammunition appears to have a limited shelf life, and there have been instances in which the second charge has exploded in the barrel of the gun. For safety reasons, short-barrel, pump action 12-gauge shotguns should be used; ammunition expiry dates should be checked regularly. Single-shot guns are recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture because these breech-loading guns allow easy inspection of the barrel. Safety and application Precautions should be taken in any program using pyrotechnics: Dispersal guns and shell crackers • Operators should wear eye and ear protection at all times. • Shell crackers should be fired from open choke-type guns. • Shell crackers may misfire, so gun barrels should be checked regularly for obstructions, particularly after a misfire. • Cracker shells are corrosive, so guns should be cleaned daily. • Pyrotechnics are fire hazards, and should not be used over dry vegetation. • Pyrotechnics should not be fired from inside vehicles. Not all shell crackers will discharge completely, and may become lodged in E.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch the barrel. If this is the case, point the gun in a safe direction and wait at least three minutes before inspecting the breech. After removing the shell, contact the local police office to dispose of the ordinance. Regular and proper gun cleaning is especially important. First, attach a bristle brush to a rod and push it through the barrel a few times to loosen all unburned powder. Repeat these steps with a softer brush. Next, use a clean cloth to coat the inside of the barrel with gun oil. Apply a thin layer of oil to the external surfaces of the gun to protect against moisture and rusting. Finally, check all parts of the weapon to ensure that they are in proper working condition. The following firearm safety considerations should be observed: • Never point the firearm at anyone, whether loaded or not. Keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction, usually straight upward. • Never keep the firearm loaded, even with the breech open. • Examine the firearm and liner daily. If either appears to have a fault, report it as unserviceable immediately. Before firing a pistol, ensure the barrel is dry. • Never load firearms in or fire from inside a vehicle. • Ensure that cartridges are handled carefully so as not to become distorted, damaged, or wet. • Do not use excessive force when inserting cartridges into adapter sleeves. If cartridges do not slip in easily, set them aside and treat them as misfires. • Wear gloves and long sleeves for protection against possible skin burns should cartridges misfire. • Whenever possible, avoid firing cartridges directly up-wind. • Use a pump-action shotgun because of its enclosed action or a breech-loaded single-shot gun because of the ease with which the barrel can be inspected. • Never use choke-barreled guns, as they may impede the flights of the second charges. • Always pick up spent shells and, when doing so, be aware of the potential fire hazard of delayed second blasts. • Avoid firing over runways. • Always pick up FOD. In general, volleys that explode in the air are more effective than those that explode near the ground. Use the minimum number of rounds required to achieve the desired results. The effect of additional rounds will only lead to habituation. The first shots flush the birds; closely following second shots often cause them to disperse. Ensure that the carcasses of all killed birds are quickly removed, thereby Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.7 deterring scavengers. If scavengers are not a problem at the site, the presence of a dead bird in an agony position may act as an effective deterrent. Use of the scare cartridge, particularly with birds, requires cooperation between the user and ATC personnel so that birds are not dispersed into the path of oncoming aircraft. Generally speaking, a series of carefully placed shots can direct the birds to safer areas, or off airport land entirely. A coordinated effort between two or more shooters can be highly effective. Advantages • Used correctly, pyrotechnics provide one of the most effective methods available for bird dispersal. • The direction of dispersal can often be controlled by the placement of shots. • Pyrotechnics are effective for both day and night. • Pyrotechnics can be used as complementary devices with other deterrents. Disadvantages • Use of pyrotechnics is labour intensive. • Pyrotechnics give rise to FOD on runways. • Birds may habituate to pyrotechnics, especially if they are used improperly. • There is a degree of fire hazard associated with these devices if used in dry conditions. Effectiveness The effectiveness of scare cartridges has been both overemphasized and maligned. This technique is most effective for the occasional dispersal of transient species. Although often used alone, the effectiveness of pyrotechnics can be greatly enhanced when they are used in association with taped distress calls and long-term habitat-management techniques. If used too frequently, habituation will occur. From time to time, reinforcement is necessary through the killing of individual birds. Effective against: • gulls, crows, starlings, and waterfowl. Limited effectiveness against: • raptors when deployed at short range. • small birds, such as Snow Buntings. E.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Not effective against: • most problem shorebirds at Canadian airports. • pigeons or House Sparrows. Permits required Permits are required from Environment Canada for all bird scaring or hazing activities that involve migratory birds if firearms are used. The definition of firearms can be found in the Criminal Code of Canada. Permits may be required from Provincial wildlife authorities to scare other species, including blackbirds. Gas Cannons and Exploders (limited recommendation) Use Bird dispersal. Description Gas cannons have been in development for some time, primarily for agricultural purposes. The most recent versions comprise portable gas canisters that emit a loud bang in a particular direction at preset or radio-controlled intervals. They are louder than 12-gauge shotguns and require little or no attention by ground personnel. Once placed, the cannons can be adjusted to emit blasts at varying time intervals, from 30 seconds to 30 minutes. Some deliver two shots in rapid succession. Other models mount on a rotating bracket, and can be set to fire at random intervals. As a result, each successive shot seems to come from a different direction. Remote-control firing mechanisms are also available, allowing airport personnel to adjust the timing and direction of shots from a distance. The main disadvantage to gas cannons is habituation. Some species, such as gulls, soon learn not to flee at the sound of a loud bang. This occurs particularly rapidly when cannons fire at regular intervals, as most do. To counteract the habituation, continually vary the location of cannons, adjust timing and change the direction from which shots are fired. To ensure easy A Cannon Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.9 re-deployment of gas cannons, mount them on small trailers that can be towed behind patrol vehicles. Application While little concrete information exists concerning cannon deployment— despite frequent use at airports—some experts recommend the following: For dispersal of gulls: • place cannons every 50 m along runways. For dispersal of blackbirds: • place one cannon every four to 10 hectares. This last recommendation is based on research conducted in cornfields. Dispersal over a 10-hectare area was achieved by using two synchronous cannons: one firing at two-minute intervals, and the other every two-minutes, seven-seconds. Although most cannons are automatic and need attention only about once every two weeks, their effectiveness is greatly enhanced when they are moved frequently—at least every two or three days, and preferably more often. Birds will eventually habituate to cannons unless other supplementary techniques are employed—specifically, occasional killing. Advantages • Low labour costs; cannons need only to be checked once a day. • Inexpensive to operate (although reasonably expensive to acquire). • Direction, timing, and volume of the blasts are easily controlled. • Portability. • Effective day and night. Disadvantages • Rapid habituation will occur unless cannons are relocated frequently and are supplemented by other bird control measures. • Gas cannons can be a hazard during flying hours because random firing may cause birds to disperse into the paths of aircraft. • Older gas cannons may pose fire hazards. • Their short range means many cannons may be required to cover the expanse of airport grounds. • Regular maintenance is required. E.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Effectiveness Calgary International Airport employs cannons on an as-needed basis, and reports they are effective for short-term control of non-resident bird species. Vancouver International Airport also uses gas cannons that are carefully positioned over problem sites where birds gather at the airfield, including puddles. Cannons should not be relied upon as the sole—or even the major—component of bird-control programs. These devices are recommended for occasional use as part of integrated programs, in conjunction with other products and techniques. Due to their igniters, cannons should not be deployed near fuel. Effective against waterfowl and other game birds that have learned to fear the sound of gunfire; however, young birds migrating in early fall—prior to the opening of hunting season—may habituate as quickly as non-game species. Permits required None. Report Shells (no available recommendation) Use Dispersing soaring birds at altitude. Description Report shells—also referred to as aerial salutes or sound shells—are fireworks devices similar to those used at public displays. Fired remotely or manually, report shells explode at the end of their trajectory—at altitudes up to 450 feet—making a loud and abrupt noise that scares birds. Application Report shells have not been tested by Transport Canada, but are known to be generally effective for bird dispersal. Advantages • More effective for deterring birds at higher altitudes. Disadvantages • Difficult to aim; they also result in debris. Report shells should only be used when pointed away from aircraft movement areas. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.11 • Unsuitable for the quick clearance of birds, as they take longer to prepare than bird-scaring cartridges. Effectiveness Report shells are best employed to reach birds in flight; however, consideration should be given to aircraft activity and conflicts with adjacent land owners. Permits required A Fireworks Supervisor Card—presented upon the successful completion of a one-day course—must be obtained from Natural Resources Canada, Explosives Regulatory Division (ERD). For course schedule and information, visit the Natural Resources Canada website at: www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/explosif, or contact the regional office in your area: Atlantic Region Tel: (902) 426-3599 Fax: (902) 426-7332 Email: [email protected] Contact: Kim McCulloch Western Region Tel: (403) 292-4766 Fax: (403) 292-4689 Email: [email protected] Inspector: Doug Clarke Pacific Region Tel: (604) 666-0366 Fax: (604) 666-0399 Email: [email protected] Inspector: John Martin Québec Region Tel: (514) 652-3999 Fax: (514) 652-0999 Email: [email protected] Inspector: Roland Lescault Ontario Region Tel: (613) 995-8439 Fax: (613) 943-8305 Email: [email protected] Inspector: John Hendrick Phoenix Wailer Systems MKII (limited recommendation) Use Bird dispersal. Description The Phoenix Wailer is an electronic bird-deterrent device featuring 94 selectable audio and ultrasonic sounds. The wide variety of sounds—greater E.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch than other similar devices—are said to prevent habituation. These systems protect up to 3,000 feet of runway. Pheonix Wailer in use Application The Phoenix Wailer produces 94 random variations of irritating electronic sounds, the emissions of which alternate between speakers and at varying speeds. The resulting stress environment—combined with the sound-movement effect—is meant to unsettle birds. For airports that are in close proximity to populated or noise-sensitive areas, a light-sensitive switch deactivates the speakers at night. This feature can be over-ridden to counter birds that become problems after dusk. The unit may be fitted with remote speakers that can be spaced at greater intervals, thereby providing a larger coverage area and, according to the manufacturer, heightened confusion among birds. Advantages • Birds do not habituate quickly to the random combination of sounds. • The output is controllable for use near built-up areas. • Low maintenance. Disadvantages • Research to date shows that while the synthetic sounds emitted from these systems have no biological relevance to birds, such ultrasonic devices offer limited, short-term effectiveness. This limited benefit, however, is outweighed by the relatively high cost of the product. Effectiveness The Phoenix Wailer has been used at many Canadian airports including Halifax, Calgary, and Vancouver. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Phoenix Wailer is not effective in airport environments; therefore, this product is not recommended for long-term airfield use. The Phoenix Wailer may, however, be effective for short periods of time in areas where birds repeatedly concentrate (e.g. around a spring run-off puddle). Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.13 Permits required None. Bird Gard AVA (limited recommendation) Use Bird repellant. Description Bird Gard AVA is an electronic bird repellant that emits pre-recorded bird distress calls. Application The AVA units use as many as six remote speakers which, when placed 30 m apart, broadcast over approximately 4 hectares. Speakers can be placed at ground level. Attached to a 12-volt auto battery or 110-volt AC source, the device can be set to run during the day, at night, or on a 24-hour cycle. Advantages • The manufacturer suggests that distress cries repel many types of flocking birds and Canada Geese. • Labour costs are low, as the operation is automatic and the unit may be left unattended. Disadvantages • The distress cries do not repel pigeons, doves, or gulls. • Habituation is likely and the units should be moved frequently. Effectiveness AVA units are purportedly effective in repelling various flocking and nonflocking birds such as Canada Geese, blackbirds, waxwings, and woodpeckers. The alarm sounds are also purportedly effective against certain mammals such as bats, deer, and Coyotes. Permits required None. E.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Bird Gard ABC (limited recommendation) Use Repels stubborn bird species. Description Bird Gard ABC offers the same type of control as Bird Gard AVA but at a lower cost and with fewer features. Bird Gard ABC uses actual recorded distress calls, which are electronically reproduced, to imitate an attack on one of their own kind by a predator. The manufacturer suggests that birds cannot tell the sound from the actual cries. Application The units contain electronic controls, a speaker, 110-volt AC adapter, vinyl weather cover, and mounting bracket. Optional motion sensor and extension speakers are available. Bird Gard ABC may also be adjusted for day, night, or 24-hour usage. Per-unit coverage is 0.4 to 0.8 hectares (1 to 2 acres). Advantage • The manufacturer suggests the species-specific standard unit may repel Brown Thrushes, starlings, and robins. • Within a one-acre area, custom units may repel Redwing Blackbirds, sparrows, finches, and gulls. • It is automatic and can therefore operate unattended. Disadvantage • Habituation is likely if the units are not moved frequently. Effectiveness The ABC model may be effective on specific, stubborn species. Permits required None. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.15 Av-Alarm (limited recommendation) Use Bird dispersal. Description Av-Alarm is an electronic noise generator that uses between one and three speakers. This product is similar to the Phoenix Wailer, but has fewer sound selections. Warning: Wear ear protection when within range of an operating unit. When set at high volume, the Av-Alarm is loud enough to damage human hearing. Application In agricultural applications, Av-Alarms have been found to protect 3.3 to 20 hectares of crop from bird depredation. There have been no specific tests of AvAlarms at airports, but given their range, several units would be necessary to disperse birds from an entire airfield. As with other noise-making devices, birds are likely to habituate to Av-Alarms. In order to be effective, this product’s sounds should be selected to target specific problem species. Units should also be moved frequently. Advantages • Low labour and maintenance costs. • Can be used to disperse birds from a variety of habitats. Disadvantages • Habituation occurs quickly if product is not moved frequently, or if it is not used in conjunction with other control methods. • Hearing protection is required for personnel working near the alarm. Effectiveness There have been few quantitative tests of the effectiveness of Av-Alarm. Those that have been conducted were brief and primarily in agricultural applications. Nevertheless, most tests indicated that the alarms do decrease crop damage and the numbers of birds. Other studies show that birds quickly habituate to the noise, and that distress and alarm calls are more effective. Used in combination with other techniques, Av-Alarm was effective in reducing short-term bird numbers. E.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch One effective technique involved turning on the Av-Alarm system as flocks landed nearby; however, this strategy requires continuous monitoring, thereby driving up labour costs and defeating the purpose of an automated system. LGL Ltd. studies conclude that the sounds broadcast by these systems are not biologically based, and are therefore unlikely to have long-term effectiveness— a quality required for airport use. This product is not recommended as a standalone element of airport control programs. Permits required None. Distress Calls (highly recommended) Use Dispersal of many bird species. Description Many species of birds emit distress calls when they are captured, restrained, injured, or otherwise in danger. Distress calls signal danger and warn other members of the species to disperse. Specific to each species, distress calls—with a few exceptions—only affect other birds of the same species. Some species, including House Sparrows, are not known to have distress calls. Application Detailed instructions on the use of distress cry tapes can be obtained from the suppliers listed at the end of this section. It is important to vary the playback of tapes so that birds do not become habituated. In airport applications and in agricultural areas, the techniques used involve playback of a call for 5 to 60 seconds at intervals ranging from 3 to 10 minutes. It is recommended that tapes be played in a 10-second-on, 10-second-off rotation for 1.5 minutes, or a 15-second-on, 25-second-off rotation for 2.5 minutes. Effective tapes—and proper use—will normally drive gulls into the air within a few seconds. Note that distress-call tapes are specific both to species and region. Ottawa Herring Gulls gave no response to Herring Gull distress tapes from Russia until the fourth time they were played—a dozen repetitions were required before the gulls took flight. Occasional reinforcement killing may be necessary. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.17 Distress calls can be used to disperse starlings, blackbirds, and crows from night-roosting sites. Operators and equipment should be in position two hours before sunset. At least two sets of equipment should be used to vary the location of sounds, as two birds in distress signify a greater danger and therefore result in a quicker response. If the roost is large and birds approach from several directions, more units may be necessary. Distress calls are then broadcast as each flock approaches the roost. Broadcast may become continuous near sunset. On the first night, a substantial number of birds may enter the roost despite the broadcasts of distress calls. As these birds will not disperse once they have settled into the roost, it is pointless to continue the broadcast; however, repetition of the procedure over three to five successive evenings should completely disperse the roost. Advantages • Because birds respond instinctively to distress cries, habituation tends to occur much more slowly than it does to man-made sounds. • This technique can be used day or night—and in all weather conditions. Disadvantages • With few exceptions (see below), birds will only respond to distress cries of their own species. Some species do not emit distress calls. • An assortment of tapes should be available, and the appropriate tape for each species should be used. Distress calls for some species are not yet available. • Playback equipment should be of good quality for best results. Digital recordings are preferable. • Some species, particularly gulls, may circle over the sound source to investigate the danger for several minutes before dispersing. The use of pyrotechnics can speed the dispersal once the birds are in the air. Effectiveness Used alone or in combination with pyrotechnics, distress calls are one of the most effective methods available for dispersing many bird species. There are, however, some variations in responsiveness both within and between species. As noted above, most birds—except for some gull species that spend much of the year in mixed flocks—respond only to calls of their own species. Mixedflock gulls may respond to calls of the species with which they associate. As noted above, even within a species, calls may vary with the location. One study showed that alarm calls that dispersed Herring Gulls in North America were ignored by Herring Gulls in Western Europe. If possible, it is advisable to E.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch obtain recordings of distress calls that were recorded close to the area where they will be used. LGL Ltd. studies conclude that distress calls are highly recommended for dispersing many bird species and should be an essential part of wildlifecontrol programs. Gulls Gulls can be effectively dispersed by distress-call playback. The birds may not flush for several seconds, but then will usually approach the sound source and circle for several minutes before dispersing. Once circling, the gulls can be more effectively dispersed with pyrotechnics. Gulls are likely to return some time after being dispersed by distress calls; the few reports available—based on observations at landfills—indicate that the time before return varies from 15 minutes to 90 minutes. Gulls often loaf rather than feed at airports, and as they are more attached to feeding areas, distress calls may prove relatively effective in dispersing these birds for longer periods. Crows Similar response to gulls; crows will approach the sound source before dispersing. Starlings and Blackbirds These species respond with immediate dispersal by the entire flock. One study, however—conducted at a stockyard where starlings were feeding in cattle troughs—found that distress calls dispersed only about half the birds, and that they returned within 10 minutes. There is no information on how long these species will remain away from less attractive areas. Distress calls can be effective in dispersing starling and blackbird roosts, but, as noted above, several days of effort may be required. Herons Black-crowned Night Herons are the only species of heron for which relevant information is available. Distress calls deterred this species from feeding at a fish hatchery, but many birds remained in nearby trees rather than dispersing. Permits required None. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.19 Suppliers Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, Ohio State University Website: blb.biosci.ohio-state.edu Email: [email protected] Offers original recordings of many species from numerous areas, mainly in the United States. Recordings are available on 1/4-inch open-reel tape, on cassette, and on three-minute continuous loops. Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University Website: birds.cornell.edu/BRP/ Phone: 1-607-254-2408 Original recordings are available on cassette, 1/4-inch open-reel tape, and CD. Species available: • Gulls: Ring-billed Gull, Western Gull, Herring Gull, Glaucous-winged Gull, California Gull. • Blackbirds: Red-winged Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Brewer’s Blackbird, Common Grackle. • Corvids: Common Crow, Black-billed Magpie, Blue Jay. • Others: Canada Goose, Black-crowned Night Heron, European Starling, robin, Snow Bunting, and numerous other species not usually considered problems at airports. Scientists studying bird behaviour or vocalizations in the biology, zoology, or ornithology departments of local universities and museums may have useful recordings that they would be willing to copy for use at airports. Alarm Calls (highly recommended) Use Bird dispersal. Description Alarm calls are given by some gregarious birds species when a predator is detected. The normal response of flockmates in the open is to flush and fly for cover. Like distress calls, alarm calls are species-specific. Application Alarm calls are employed in the same way as distress calls. Using alarm calls in combination with pyrotechnics and occasional killing enhances effectiveness. E.20 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Advantages • Because the response to an alarm call is instinctive, the probability of habituation is reduced. Disadvantages • Quality alarm-call recordings are not available for many species. • Bird alarm calls are higher in pitch and lower in volume than other calls. As a result, alarm calls do not carry as well over wide areas. Effectiveness Because of the difficulty in obtaining quality alarm-call recordings, few assessments have been made. As the alarm calls of many species tend to be similar, it has been suggested that a generic call might have broad effectiveness. The study of a mixed-species flock feeding on grapes did find that all birds initially responded to the alarm call of one. Within a few days, however, this alarm call worked only on its own species. This suggests that the early response of the other species was to the sight of responding birds, rather than to the alarm call itself. At least one species—the Herring Gull—is known to have a two-part alarm call. The first part alerts the flock; the second disperses it. Permits required None. Suppliers Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, Ohio State University Website: blb.biosci.ohio-state.edu Email: [email protected] Offers original recordings of many species from numerous areas, mainly in the United States. Recordings are available on 1/4-inch open-reel tape, on cassette, and on three-minute continuous loops. Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University Website: birds.cornell.edu/BRP/ Phone: 1-607-254-2408 Offers original recordings of many species from numerous areas. Recordings are available on cassette, 1/4-inch open-reel tape, and CD. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.21 Scientists studying bird behaviour or vocalizations in the biology, zoology, or ornithology departments of local universities and museums may have useful recordings that they would be willing to copy for use at airports. Predator Calls (limited recommendation) Description Calls given by hawks, falcons, and owls may be effective in dispersing birds. Application Predator sounds can be broadcast using the same equipment as distress or alarm calls. The use of these calls warns birds of the presence predators; birds respond with heightened awareness and, in some cases, take flight. Advantages • Habituation to the call of a natural predator is generally slow. Disadvantages • The predator call should specifically address the species to be dispersed. Effectiveness Only one perfunctory assessment has been conducted regarding the use of predator calls to deter birds. In that study, the calls of a Peregrine Falcon were successful in dispersing gulls at Vancouver International Airport. It should be noted, however, that predators usually hunt silently and do not announce their presence. The use of predator calls therefore seems to be an unnatural presentation of stimulus. According to LGL Ltd. studies, it is difficult to evaluate the efficacy of predator calls because their biological nature remains unclear. This product does, however, warrant more research to determine its long-term effectiveness. Permits required None. E.22 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Suppliers Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics Website: blb.biosci.ohio-state.edu Email: [email protected] Cornell Lab of Ornithology Website: birds.cornell.edu/BRP/ Phone: 1-607-254-2408 Auditory Deterrents Avian Systems Corp. Av-Alarm, Bird Guard AVA and ABC Website: www.aviansystems.com Toll Free: 1-888-828-9318 Scarecrow Bio-Acoustic Systems Sound Deterrents Website: www.scarecrowbio-acoustic.co.uk Email: [email protected] Phone: 01.825.73.2601 Phoenix Agritech Phoenix Wailer Website: www.pheonixagritech.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-902-662-2441 Reed Joseph International Pyrotechnics, Cannons Website: www.reedjoseph.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-647-5554 Stoneco Pyrotechnics Website: theshellcracker.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-833-2264 Wildlife Control Technology Pyrotechnics Website: www.wildlife-control.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-235-0262 Margo Supplies Ltd. Pyrotechnics, Cannons, Av-Alarm Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Predator calls Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics Predator Calls Website: blb.biosci.ohio-state.edu Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-614-292-2176 Cornell Lab of Ornithology Predator Calls Website: birds.cornell.edu/BRP/ Phone: 1-607-254-2408 Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.23 Chemical Repellents Chemicals are used primarily to foul areas that are attractive to birds, such as perching, nesting, and loafing sites. Used with growing frequency for wildlife control at airports, chemicals either repel birds through taste, smell, or illness following ingestion. While certain bird-control products have proven effective at airports, mammal-repulsion products have had limited success; their development is ongoing. A major advantage of this control method is that it is not subject to habituation. Most of these chemicals induce a physiological reaction to which animals do not generally become accustomed. Taste repellents Of the many kinds of chemical repellents that may be useful at airports, taste repellents are the most common. These bitter-tasting chemicals can be painted onto cables to prevent mammals from chewing. Taste repellents can also be used to deter deer from feeding on vegetation. Behavioural repellents The chemicals used to repel through ingestion may also be classed as poisons. Sufficient doses will kill individual birds. The most familiar and widely used of these chemicals is 4-aminopyridine, marketed in several strengths under the brand name Avitrol. As the erratic behaviours and distressing cries of treated birds may disperse other flock members, this chemical is also considered a behavioural repellent. Birds that ingest this product usually die. Other limited-use repellents act through odour or fumigation. For example, naphtha flakes are sprinkled on favoured perching areas of House Sparrows. At present, there are no studies to support the effectiveness of this treatment. Tactile repellents This class of control applications discourages problem birds from landing and roosting on building structures. Tactile repellents are generally sticky mixtures and may include a chemical that mildly irritates birds’ feet. The repellent properties do not stand up well to variable weather conditions and dust, so these materials are best used indoors. Some require specific application procedures and occasional renewal to be fully effective. While they appear to offer only limited effectiveness, they are not affected to any large extent by habituation. E.24 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch All chemicals used in pest control in Canada must be registered by Health Canada’s Pest Control Products Act. This applies to products used in both lethal control of wildlife, and to repellents. Registered chemicals undergo controlled testing to demonstrate their efficacy and safety. The labels of all chemical pesticide products must include both instructions for use and safety precautions—instructions that must be strictly followed. Federal registration does not guarantee products will be available—or be permitted for use—provincially. For example, the Pest Control Products Act may register a product for commercial use, permitting its sale in large quantities; however, no licensing may be necessary under Federal law. Each province, however, has the authority to further restrict the use of that product to provincially licensed applicators. Transport Canada strongly recommends that airport operators and wildlifecontrol personnel consult local pest-control company experts prior to the application of any chemical repellents. Chemical products for birds Tactile Repellents There are several kinds of chemical repellents that may be useful for airport bird control. The most common are tactile repellents, which are sticky substances that discourage birds from roosting on ledges and other flat surfaces. Although application of the repellent is fairly labour intensive, the treatment is effective for up to one year. Use Prevents birds from roosting on ledges, window sills, and the tops of signs. Registered for control of pigeons and sparrows. Description These products consist of a soft sticky material that remains tacky through a temperature range of -9°C to 48°C. As a result, these products may be ineffective in many outdoor Canadian locations during the winter months. Birds attempting to land on treated areas are not trapped, but they are repelled by the stickiness of the product. Stickiness is retained for a year or more under most conditions. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.25 Application The substance is applied from cartridges with a caulking gun or from pails using a putty knife. Spray cans and small tubes are also available for application in small areas. Dust, loose paint, droppings, and dirt should be cleaned off surfaces before the repellent is applied; the pre-treatment of porous surfaces such as masonry and unfinished wood with silicone sealant or paint is also recommended. To ensure quick and easy clean-up, the product may also be applied over waterproof and oil-resistant tape. Manufacturers’ recommendations for use suggest applying a strip 1-cm wide and 1-cm high, 1.5 cm from the edge of the site, or along the highest point of a perching area. For wide spaces, two or more strips 10-cm apart are recommended. The application should be checked every six months to ensure that weathering has not affected the stickiness of the product. In some cases, scraping the surface will restore stickiness. Advantages • Remains effective for a year or more after application. • Habituation is rare. Disadvantages • Initial and subsequent applications are labour intensive. • All roosting ledges should be located and treated or birds may simply move to a new area. • The products’ ineffectiveness at temperatures below -9°C limit their value at Canadian airports during the winter months. • The appearance of the material is not aesthetically pleasing, and may therefore be inappropriate for the exterior of some buildings. • No quantitative efficacy reports have been completed on these products; their overall effectiveness remains undetermined. Applying “Hot Foot” E.26 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Effectiveness These products are effective in controlling pigeons, but relatively ineffective for sparrows. Sparrows require a very small area for perching, and may therefore be able to avoid contact with the repellent. Even though these products are effective for the purposes claimed, they may not solve a bird problem if numerous roosting areas remain untreated. These products have been used in attempts to prevent raptors from perching on antennas, but there is no information on their effectiveness in this application. Should these products be employed at airports, it is imperative to monitor and record their success. Behavioural Repellents (limited recommendation) Behavioural repellents can cause visible signs of stress in birds, including disorientation and erratic behaviour. Frightened by such unstable behaviour, unaffected members of the flock often disperse. Avitrol is the most common product available. The chemical should be placed in bait and eaten by the birds. Proper dilution of treated bait with untreated bait is therefore critical to prevent lethal control of large numbers of birds. Use Dispersing flocks of blackbirds, starlings, House Sparrows, pigeons, and gulls. Description Avitrol (4-aminopyridine) is a poisonous chemical that kill birds when they ingest a treated bait. This chemical causes visible signs of distress in birds when they are dying, causing other members of the flock to disperse. Application Blackbirds and Starlings Commercial cracked-corn mixes of Avitrol are spread over feeding areas. The mix contains only six treated kernels per 100 so that only a small proportion of the flock is affected. In one case, a blackbird roost in a cattail marsh was dispersed through the use of Avitrol. Bait trays were placed above the level of the cattails to feed incoming birds. The trays were pre-baited for three days with untreated corn. On the fourth day, Avitrol bait—at a ratio of 1:10 treated-to-untreated Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.27 kernels—replaced the pre-bait. Most of the birds were dispersed to other roost areas between 800 metres and 9.6 kilometres distant following four days of treatment. To protect non-target species, bait trays were placed two hours before sunset and removed in the morning. Pigeons Pre-baiting with untreated bait is essential for pigeon control. As well as accustoming pigeons to the bait, pre-baiting concentrates the population and draws the birds to preferred control areas. Elevated areas, such as roofs, are recommended as pre-bait areas; they are out of public view and deter nontarget species such as Mourning Doves, which prefer to feed on the ground. Pre-baits should be set out in numerous small piles of about 100 grams rather than in a smaller number of larger piles. On a roof 15 metres by 30 metres, 10 to 20 pre-bait piles are adequate. The response of the pigeons will dictate the duration of pre-baiting. If the pigeons have been exposed to Avitrol previously, and have become bait shy, as many as three to four months of pre-baiting may be necessary. Longer periods may also be required if an attempt is being made to move pigeons from their accustomed feeding areas. Normally, however, about two weeks of pre-baiting will be necessary. Treated bait is provided once pigeons have been concentrated in the control area. Some pigeons may be killed by the bait. If there is concern about dead pigeons being found in public areas, the ratio of treated to untreated kernels should be 1:30. If this does not give adequate control after two weeks, the ratio should be increased to 1:20, and then to 1:10 after a further two weeks. If there is no particular concern about carcasses, treatments can begin at ratios of 1:15 or 1:10. House Sparrows A pre-mixed commercial grain is available specifically for sparrow control. Prebaiting is necessary and should be carried out in areas where non-target species will not be attracted. At airports, pre-baiting can take place near buildings and away from natural-habitat areas such as bushes and grass. Gulls Pre-baiting—usually with bread—is necessary for gull control. Once the gulls are accustomed to feeding on the pre-bait, Avitrol-treated bread replaces the pre-bait at a ratio of 1:10 treated-to-untreated bait. Because pre-baiting may in fact attract gulls, Avitrol use on airports is of questionable value. Avitrol can be useful, however, to disperse gulls from landfills near airports. Where gull E.28 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch populations are large, three treated bait stations should be placed at each of eight widely separated locations on the landfill. This treatment rate may be reduced by half at landfills with fewer gulls. Advantages • Flocks of birds can be dispersed by killing only a few birds if appropriate mixes are used. • Avitrol can successfully disperse pigeons and House Sparrows—species for which other dispersal techniques are not effective. Disadvantages • Extensive pre-baiting may be necessary, and the pre-bait may itself attract additional birds. • This product is recommended only for areas in which a direct threat to aircraft safety is not posed, as the direction of dispersal cannot be controlled. (Affected gulls and blackbirds, for instance, may circle upwards and fly erratically into aircraft flight paths.) • Improper dilution can result in large numbers of dead birds, which may lead to a negative public perception of bird control. • To prevent habituation or bait shyness, it is important to vary the pre-bait food source. Not only is this time consuming, it also poses a challenge to maintain a constant dosage level through changing food sources. Effectiveness Blackbirds and Starlings Avitrol is quite effective in dispersing large blackbird flocks (over 1000 birds) in crops. At airports, Avitrol is likely to be useful only in agricultural lease areas and in roost dispersal. Transient flocks feeding on the airfield itself can be more effectively controlled through pyrotechnics. Use of Avitrol at roosts in trees and bushes has not been tested, but delivery of the bait would likely be more difficult in this habitat. Starlings cannot be dispersed from roosts with Avitrol. Pigeons and House Sparrows Avitrol offers limited effectiveness in dispersing pigeons and House Sparrows. As long as food or shelter remains attractive, the same or new individuals will re-invade the treated area. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.29 Gulls Avitrol can be effective in dispersing gulls; however, gulls often return, and bait shyness can become a serious impediment to the continued effectiveness of the treatment. Behaviourial repellents should be used in conjunction with other control methods as part of an overall management plan. Permits required Avitrol is a restricted chemical. Permits are required, and the agent should be administered by a licensed Pest Control Officer. Benomyl (limited recommendation) Use Killing earthworms, particularly along runways and taxiways. Description Benomyl is a fungicide supplied as a wettable powder. This product can be used on and around runways to reduce earthworm populations. Application Benomyl should be sprayed annually at a ratio of 2.25-kg active ingredient per hectare in a 30 m band around runways and taxiways. This can be applied in conjunction with herbicides. LGL Ltd. states that because earthworm control is not a registered use for Benomyl, permits for this purpose are often difficult to obtain. Health Canada has advised, however, that the product can be used for its registered purpose as a turf-management agent at airports. Advantages • The reduction in earthworm populations results in a substantial reduction in the number of worms on paved areas in wet weather. This, in turn, reduces the attraction of birds, particularly gulls, that feed on worms. Disadvantages • As earthworms are no longer present to work the soil, there is often an increase in thatch from grass-cutting operations. This may increase the numbers of small mammals near the runway and, in turn, attract hawks and owls. The potential for this problem is not serious enough to overcome the advantages of worm reduction. E.30 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Effectiveness Benomyl is effective in reducing numbers of earthworms. Permits required At airports, Benomyl should be used for its registered purpose as a turfmanagement agent. Tersan (limited recommendation) Use Killing earthworms, particularly along the grass aprons of runways and taxiways. Description Tersan is a turf fungicide supplied as a wettable powder for pest control. Application Tersan is applied as a spray on grass aprons or turf areas. It requires thorough coverage, and should be applied every one or two weeks. This product should be used at airports where earthworms attract a significant number of birds. Advantage • Provides long-term protection. • The reduction in earthworm populations results in a substantial reduction in the number of worms on paved areas in wet weather. This, in turn, reduces the attraction of birds, particularly gulls, that feed on worms. Disadvantages • As earthworms are no longer present to work the soil, there is often an increase in thatch from grass-cutting operations. This may increase the numbers of small mammals near the runway and, in turn, attract hawks and owls. The potential for this problem is not serious enough to overcome the advantages of worm reduction. • This fungicide may cause eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation. It may also be harmful to grazers, and it may contaminate surface water. Because of these environmental concerns, Tersan is not widely used at Canadian airports. Effectiveness Tersan is effective in reducing the numbers of earthworms on and near runways. LGL Ltd. recommends this product for use where earthworm populations are creating major bird hazards near runways. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.31 Permits required At airports, Tersan should be used for its registered purpose as a turfmanagement agent. Methyl Anthranilate — ReJeX-iT® (no available recommendation) Use Repels birds from unsafe airport feeding areas by inducing them to forage for food in their natural habitat. Description These products contain naturally occurring flavour additives that render treated food sources unpalatable to all species of birds. The products act as sensory repellents, affecting the behaviour of the birds without causing lasting physical harm. Application With appropriate equipment, ReJeX-iT can be sprayed on animal food and water sources such as ponds, landfills and turf. The product can also be used in fogging applications to disperse birds in hangars and other structures. Advantages • ReJeX-iT represents an alternative to the poisoning and shooting of nuisance birds. • Its toxicity is extremely low. • It is biodegradable in low concentrations. Disadvantages • If not used according to directions, discharge of high concentrations of the product into water bodies could cause environmental hazards. • Excessive exposure to the product may cause eye and skin irritation. • Large applications of ReJeX-iT can be costly. Effectiveness ReJeX-iT AP-50 may be used to repel birds such as Ring-billed Gulls, Canada Geese, and Mallards from landfills and temporary pools of standing water. ReJeX-iT TP-40 may be used to repel starlings, Brown-headed Cowbirds, Ringbilled Gulls, Canada Geese, and Mallards at landfills and from standing water. E.32 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch ReJeX-iT AG-36 may be used to repel Canada Geese from turf areas. ReJeX-iT has the potential to provide control of specific problem bird species at airports. LGL Ltd. states that experimentation with varying formulations, application frequencies and concentrations may be required. Given the relatively high cost of ReJeX-iT applications, these experiments should be carried out on a small scale prior to full implementation of the product. Permits required In Canada, turf-applied products are registered for use against ground-feeding birds such as Canada Geese. Suppliers Flock Fighters Chemical Bird Aversion ReJeX-iT Website: www.flockfighters.com Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Phone: 1-219-447-0982 or 1-800-489-6651 Becker Underwood ReJeX-iT Website: www.bucolor.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-232-5907 Canadian Sani-Corp Hot Foot Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-604-985-7141 Bird X Inc Bird Proof Website: www.bird-x.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-662-5021 DuPont Canada Benomyl, Tersan Email: [email protected] Website: www.dupont.ca 1-800-387-2122 Abell Pest Control ReJeX-iT Website: www.abellgroup.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-416-675-1635 or 1-888-949-4949 PMC Specialties Group ReJeX-iT Website: www.pmcsg.com Phone: 1-513-242-3300 Liphatech Rodent Control Website: www.liphatech.com Toll Free: 1-800-558-1003 Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.33 Chemical repellents for Mammals Mammal repellents comprise chemical formulations that are placed in food, and—to protect against chewing damage—chemical applications that are used to coat cables and equipment. In both cases, animals are repelled by the offensive taste of the chemicals. To repel foraging mammals, applications should cover the animals’ preferred vegetation. These applications tend to be time-consuming and labour intensive. Additionally, these chemicals have a relatively short effective life span when used outdoors, so they should be reapplied periodically. Taste repellents Use Taste repellents deter rodents and canids from chewing above-ground cables, and deter deer and Elk from inhabiting airport property by rendering forage plants unpalatable. Description Most repellent chemicals are dissolved in a liquid carrier that is either sprayed or painted on the area to be protected. The active ingredients in commercial repellents include thiram, ammonium soaps, putrescent egg solids, bone-tar oil, or a combination of plant extract oils. Many other substances are available, but are not sold for the specific purpose of repelling wildlife. These include tankage or feather meal (by-products of the meat-processing and chicken-processing industries), human hair clippings, mothballs, creosote, and predator fecal odours. Application These products are sprayed in diluted form or painted in the concentrated form that is supplied by the manufacturer. Manufacturer’s labels give information on the correct application. Advantages • Once applied to cables and other non-edible items, some repellents will remain effective for a year or more. E.34 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Disadvantages • Spraying of vegetation should be repeated every two or three months to counteract weathering and accommodate new plant growth. • Products containing putrescent egg solids may attract Coyotes. Effectiveness Rodents Repellents containing thiram at concentrations of at least 1:25 are effective in repelling ground squirrels. The concentrations required to repel other species have not been specifically reported. The period of effectiveness probably varies with the manufacturers’ formulations, but there is no information on which formulations have the greatest duration. Deer, Elk and Moose Most testing on the effectiveness of repellents has been done on Whitetail Deer. Effective active ingredients include thiram, putrescent egg solids, ammonium soaps, tankage, and feather meal. Most commercial repellents seem to be effective for approximately two to three months, but heavy rains may reduce this duration significantly. Products that are not effective repellents include bone-tar oil, human hair, creosote, and mothballs. Tests with Mule Deer indicate that fecal odours of deer predators are effective repellents; however, no commercial formulation of such odours is available. Research indicates that products containing putrescent egg solids are effective for both Mule Deer and Elk. Thiram seems to be less effective as an Elk repellent than putrescent egg solids. Although certain products are demonstrably effective as repellents under experimental conditions, this does not necessarily translate to success under field applications. To date, the effectiveness of all repellents is measured in the reduction of damage to vegetation, not the elimination of damage. If there are no other food sources, or if treated vegetation is a preferred food, deer may continue to eat despite chemical applications. Canids To deter wild canids such as foxes and Coyotes, thiram seems to be the longest lasting and the most effective. Products containing putrescent egg solids are effective deer repellents, but will attract canids. Permits required None Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.35 Visual Repellents — Birds Visual repellents have been used for many years, commonly in the form of scarecrows. While there have been many innovations for the protection of agricultural crops over the years, most are unsuitable or ineffective for airport control programs. Some recent developments have involved the use of predator models that are often animated. Unfortunately, rapid habituation means their acceptance as an effective control method has not been widespread. When used in conjunction with taped distress calls and firearms, dead birds will sometimes scare away flocks of the same species. Placing fresh carcasses in open areas also offers limited effectiveness; however, scavengers will also be attracted to dead animals. Some wildlife officers report success in dispersing flocks simply by tossing a recently dispatched gull into the air while playing distress calls. Such acts should be carried out only with good judgment, and with consideration for any onlookers who might take offense. Agony posture Placing taxidermically-mounted gulls—prepared in what are termed agony postures—in open areas has also led to some success, although such models are unable to withstand harsh weather conditions. Habituation is once again a major problem that is encountered in using these methods of control. Transient birds are the most likely to be scared by visual deterrents since the opportunity to habituate to these tactics does not arise. With problem resident birds, however, a combination of visual and auditory deterrents—usually exploders—will increase effectiveness. Examples of visual deterrents include scarecrows, flags and streamers, flare pistols, strobe lights, predator models, hawk kites, gull models, and heliumfilled balloons. E.36 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Scarecrows, Flags, and Streamers (limited short-term recommendation) Use Deterring birds from resting on airport property. Description The primary aim of a scarecrow is to resemble a predatory human as closely as possible. They can be constructed from such available materials as old clothes, grain sacks, and straw. Streamers and various flags are available commercially, but effective flags can be made on site as described below. Scarecrows Scarecrows should be brightly coloured, and move in the wind to appear lifelike. Studies show that the most effective scarecrows possess realistic human facial features. Scarecrows should be placed every 4 to 6 hectares for best results. Birds will rapidly habituate to scarecrows unless they are moved at least every two to three days. Anecdotal evidence states that scarecrows are most effective when placed in fields immediately after harvest. Flags Flags are successfully used to protect crops from waterfowl. The most effective flags consist of a simple 60-cm x 90-cm sheet of 3-mm black plastic attached to a 1.2-m piece of lath. The short side of the plastic sheet is wrapped around the lath and stapled through a piece of cardboard to prevent ripping. The use of coloured plastic seems to lessen the effectiveness of these devices. Heavier plastic and larger flags are too rigid in the wind; smaller flags are not as visible. In areas where waterfowl have become accustomed to feeding, four flags are recommended per hectare, placed in an offset grid pattern. One flag per hectare suffices in areas frequented by waterfowl. Reflective streamers Streamers are useful for deterring blackbirds and House Sparrows from feeding in crops. Streamers are made from reflective mylar tape—an elastic, three-layered tape that has a silver metal layer on one side and a coloured synthetic resin on the other. The tape flashes when it reflects sunlight, and produces a noise as it flaps and stretches in the wind. In experimental applications, the best effect was achieved when tapes were strung three metres apart with two to four twists per 30 metres. Ensure there’s enough slack to allow undulations of 0.5 to 1.0 metre at the centre. More twists and tighter streamers resulted in reduced movement and effectiveness. Placing streamers across rain ponds is an effective deterrent, especially for shorebirds and ducks. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.37 Inflating balloons and placing them across ponds, approximately one metre above the ground is also effective. Advantages • These devices are inexpensive. Disadvantages • Scarecrows should be moved frequently to counteract habituation. • As breakage occurs often and easily, flags and streamers should be replaced. • Broken parts should be picked up immediately to avoid FOD. Effectiveness Evaluations are available only for reflective streamers. Although they substantially reduced the numbers of blackbirds, cowbirds, and House Sparrows feeding in fields, streamers did not completely deter these birds. No effect was observed for Goldfinches and Mourning Doves. Black flags, as described above, are reported to be useful in deterring waterfowl, especially when used in combination with exploders and other noise-making devices. The effectiveness of scarecrows is also increased when combined with other methods. Scarecrows rapidly lose their effectiveness when used alone and left in the same location for several days. Overall, visual deterrents are recommended for short-term small-area use and as minor components of wildlife-management programs. Permits required None Predator Models (limited short-term recommendation) Use Deterring prey species from landing and resting at airports. Description Models range from very poor to excellent imitations of various predators. Application Models can be mounted on posts or other supports in areas where prey species roost or feed, but should be moved frequently to prevent habituation. Experiments E.38 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch in the use of models show that placing a dead bird—or model—in the talons of the predator model increased the effectiveness of this technique. Effectiveness was further increased when a live starling was tethered to the model. Advantages • Models can be inexpensive. • Associated labour costs are low. Disadvantages • Models should be moved frequently to prevent habituation. • Owl models in open areas have been known to attract crows. Effectiveness Some species of birds are not particularly responsive to predator models, and the species of predator the model represents may affect the response to it. For example, in one study Mourning Doves were much less responsive to two taxidermically-mounted hawk species than were starlings or Blue Jays. Predator models are only recommended for use at airports when they are part of integrated programs. Permits required None Hawk Kites and Balloons (limited short-term recommendation) Use Deterring birds from landing at airports. Description These kites are similar to stationary models in their resemblance to predators. Kites may be either tethered to the ground, or suspended from helium balloons or flexible poles during periods in which there is no wind. Application Balloons are tethered to lines that are up to 60 metres long. Kites are attached to tether line with fishing swivels. In agricultural areas, one kite for each two to four hectares is effective in reducing bird damage. In one test of balloon longevity, polyurethane balloons were found to be more durable Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.39 than rubber balloons; blue balloons were found to deteriorate quicker than those of other colours. Advantages • Habituation does not occur as rapidly as with stationary models because the movement of the kite ensures a more realistic appearance. Disadvantages • At airports, kites and balloons may themselves be hazardous to aircraft should they be ingested into jet engines. • Balloons and kites should be checked at least every second day to ensure proper operation, and to refill with helium if necessary. • Kites and balloons deteriorate rapidly and should be replaced regularly. In one study of several types of weather balloons, none lasted longer than a week. More durable balloons are available—made primarily for advertising purposes—but cost several hundred dollars each. • Kites and balloons can be damaged by high winds, as well as the wash generated by aircraft. Effectiveness All tests of kite balloons effectiveness were conducted in agricultural areas, particularly vineyards. These devices are effective in deterring some species of birds from areas of one to two hectares around the kite. Species that were effectively deterred included Blue Jays, Mourning Doves, and starlings. The overall numbers of birds in the areas tested were reduced between 27 and 65 percent. The lower reduction was achieved in a study in which the kites were left in the same position for six weeks. Kites that were tethered to a five-metre flexible pole from a two-metre tether line were found to be less effective than kites tethered to balloons. Presumably, this result relates to the short distance the kite could travel in the groundtethered position, compared to the 30- to 40-metre coverage that was afforded when tethered to a balloon. Studies by LGL Ltd. conclude that kites and balloons can be useful as bird deterrents on airfields, but the effectiveness of these devices is limited by habituation. If these products are to be used, they should be supplemented with other scaring devices to ensure optimum effectiveness. Permits required None E.40 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Gull Models (limited short-term recommendation) Use Deterring gulls from loafing at airports. Description Models should be faithful replicas or actual dead specimens. Application Placement of the models should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Observations should be made of both where the gulls are loafing and whether they display a preference for one location over another. Models should be placed in areas where gulls rest and cause particular hazards. Models and dead gull specimens—both in agony positions—warn all other birds in the vicinity that danger exists. Ensure that if gulls are dispersed from the area where the models are placed, the birds are not simply moving to new airport loafing areas at which they will cause even greater hazards. Some gulls may even initially be drawn to models. In both these instances, supplementary deterrents, such as pyrotechnics, may be required. Advantages • Gull numbers should be reduced in areas where models are deployed. Disadvantages • Model effectiveness depends on the realism of the product; therefore, they should be custom made. • In some cases, models will only encourage gulls to change their preferred loafing area, not disperse them entirely from airports. Effectiveness Experiments at airports in various parts of the world have shown that gull models and dead specimens can deter other gulls from loafing nearby for periods ranging from eight days to eight months. Effectiveness varies with the species and the geographic location, and may also be affected by the realism of the model and the state of the dead specimen (carcasses that are overly weathered may be ineffective). To enhance the effectiveness of gull models, they should be used in conjunction with other scaring techniques. Permits required None. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.41 Falconry (no available recommendation) Use To disperse birds from airports. Application Falconry is a centuries-old art; however, it was not employed as a bird-control technique at airports until the 1970s. In this method, trained falcons—and occasionally other birds such as merlins and hawks—pursue, scare, and sometimes kill problem species. Although highly specialized and reliant on professional falconers, falconry has proven a successful airport bird-control method in some situations. Falconry at airports Falconry plays upon some birds’ natural fear of raptors—their presence in the area is sometimes enough to temporarily disperse problem species. The natural reaction of most prey species is to form a tight flock and attempt to fly above the falcon. If this fails, they will fly for cover, often away from the airport. Caution should be exercised, however, as the direction of dispersal is not always controllable and flocks may fly along or across active runways. Advantages • Some birds have an innate fear of raptors and, as the danger is real, do not habituate to their presence. The biological basis of this control method is strong. • Professional falconers can assist in developing a comprehensive wildlifemanagement program in which falconry is an integral component. E.42 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Disadvantages: • Requires full-time employment not only of experienced falconers, but also suitable birds, which are at times scarce. • Falconry cannot be employed in bad weather conditions such as fog, high temperatures, heavy rain, or high winds. • Several falcons of different sizes are required to chase the various birds that are found at airports. • The presence of any bird at airports can pose a risk to aircraft, so falconers should be in complete control of their birds—and in contact with control towers—at all times. • Full-time falconry programs are costly. • Large birds such as Canada Geese are not deterred by falcons. Effectiveness Studies by LGL Ltd. conclude that there is a biologically sound basis to the use of falconry for bird control. Pest birds are sometimes readily dispersed and habituation does not occur. The threat is increased when falcons are allowed to kill periodically. Anecdotal evidence from major Canadian airports shows that falconry, while expensive, is an effective means for controlling birds. The practice offers real public relations benefits as well, since many animal-welfare groups look upon falconry as a humane method of wildlife control. Falconry is not, however, a stand-alone solution; it should be used in conjunction with other wildlife-control measures. Permits required None-other than those obtained from Provincial authorities for keeping protected raptors. Border Collies (no available recommendation) Use To disperse birds/deer from airports and prevent their return. Application It is reported that Border Collies can serve as an effective means of wildlife control in airfield environments by introducing a true predator into the ecosystem. Border Collies are canids, representing an actual, not perceived, threat to wildlife, thereby Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.43 eliminating the problems of habituation. Border Collies should be used by a handler who can either be a trained airfield employee or from a professional organization employing Border Collies, which can also provide a comprehensive wildlife-management program for the airport. Since Border Collies are under the direct control of a handler, in theory they disperse wildlife only in prescribed areas and at the direction of the handler. Border Collies can be stopped at any point in time at the approach of an aircraft, avoiding potentially dangerous dispersals, by either recalling the dog to the handler or lying the dog down. This allows them to work during flight operations, even at the busiest of airfields. Dispersal of birds and wildlife relies on visual cues, so noise does not affect the efficacy of their actions. Advantages • Birds have an innate fear of wolves and canids and, as the danger is real, do not habituate to their presence. The biological basis of this control method is strong. • Border Collies can work in almost all weather conditions and can travel over all forms of terrain, including following waterfowl into marshes or open water. • Border Collies can work for long periods of time and can learn from various situations and adapt to changing circumstances as required. • Border Collies have the instinct to herd animals but have been bred to avoid “going in for the kill”. Since they do not harm the birds being harassed, they can be used to deter protected species of bird and wildlife. • A single handler and Border Collie can cover extensive territory in conjunction with a vehicle. The dogs can be directed on command to change directions, lie down, approach the birds, back away, continue searching, or to quit working without the handler ever having to change position. • Border Collies can be directed with relative precision, enabling directional dispersals of birds or wildlife. This avoids the tendency of birds, for example, to scatter and then to regroup in an area just behind their initial staging area. • Border Collies have a lifespan of approximately 14-15 years. The dogs are capable of working as early as 1 year of age and may continue working until they are 11-12 years old. • Border Collies are environmentally friendly and the positive public relations from a Border Collie program can be as valuable as their bird deterrence capabilities. Disadvantages • Use of a Border Collie requires full-time employment of trained handler(s), with ongoing training required for both dog and handler(s). E.44 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • The dogs are minimally effective against the smallest bird species such as swallows and Dunlin, and do not prevent gulls and other birds from flying over the airport or raptors from hunting on the airport. • Border Collies require daily work and exercise, even without birds present, and so should be taken out every day for work. • Both dogs and handlers should be professionally trained. Qualified dogs are expensive (equivalent to drug and bomb-trained dogs) and training for airport staff is considerable. Outsourcing of wildlife control with a professional organization employing Border Collies can also be costly. Effectiveness Studies by KLECE ecological consulting have shown a dramatic reduction in airfield bird populations after the employment of a single Border Collie. Further studies from Vancouver International Airport have shown birds visiting the airport dropped by almost fifty percent after the first year of utilizing Border Collies. Pyrotechnic usage also dropped dramatically, resulting in a substantial cost savings for the wildlife management program. Cold Lake AFB has successfully eliminated runway incursions by deer through the use of a single Border Collie in their airfield environment. Border Collies are now being tried at airports and airbases all over the world. Permits required None Radio-controlled Model Aircraft (limited recommendation) Use Bird dispersal. Application Standard radio-controlled aircraft can be used to harass and disperse birds from airports. While these aircraft can be painted to resemble falcons, models are now available in the shape of these birds. Radio-controlled aircraft have proven effective at some airports; however, well-trained operators are required. Computer simulators are available for a modest price and are highly effective tools for training airport staff in using the models. A high degree of hand-eye coordination is required but most individuals, with enough practice, can become adept at their control. Active Management Using Dispersal Techniques - E.45 Advantages • Radio-controlled model aircraft eliminate the hazards associated with flying live birds, which can be unpredictable in certain situations. • Can be used at night. • Effective on a broad range of species. • A basic radio-controlled model aircraft program is relatively inexpensive to acquire and maintain. • The steering capability of the model aircraft allows for the directional dispersal of birds away from active areas of the airfield. • The dynamic presence of radio-controlled model aircraft prevents birds from returning to and landing in areas. • Model aircraft can cover an extensive range away from the operator, limited only by line of sight. • Radio-controlled model aircraft can be an effective means of dispersing soaring birds at higher altitudes, such as hawks and eagles. Disadvantages • Requires skilled operators. • Response time is often slow. Radio-controlled model aircraft should be fueled, charged, and transported around the airfield at all times in order to be effective. • Model aircraft cannot be used in heavy winds, and moderate to heavy rain and snow. • Ineffective against geese resting on bodies of water. Radio-controlled model boats should be used instead. • Habituation is not a problem but the deterrence effect is not long-term, as the birds often return the next day or many hours later. • Air traffic control personnel are often hesitant to allow operation of radiocontrolled model aircraft near active runways • Nearby landing and refuelling areas are needed. Maintenance of aircraft can be time-consuming. Permits required None E.46 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Suppliers Bird Control International Inc. Falconry Phone: 1-519-853-1771 Bird X Inc. Predator Models, Bird Light, Streamers, Flags Website: www.bird-x.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-662-5021 Border Collie Rescue Inc. Border Collies Website: birdstrike.bcrescue.org Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-877-SHEEPDOG or 1-352-473-0100 Mobile: 1-352-281-0359 Current Corporation Night Vision Products Website: www.currentcorp.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-604-461-5555 Falcon Environmental Falconry Website: www.falconenvironmental.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-613-525-9998 Intercept Technologies Inc. Falconry Website: intercept-technologies.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 905-936-5469 LeBaron Outdoor Products Ltd. Predator Models Website: www.lebaron.ca Email: [email protected] Toll Free- 1-800-567-3377 Margo Supplies Ltd. Streamers, Flags, Scarecrows Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Reed Joseph International Balloons, Streamers, Flags Website: www.reedjoseph.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-647-5554 Section F Active Management Using Exclusion Methods Introduction F.1 Birds F.1 Netting F.1 Porcupine Wire (Nixalite) F.3 Bird-B-Gone F.4 Avi-Away F.4 Fine Wires (small-area applications) F.5 Fine Wires (large-area applications) F.6 Bird Balls™ F.8 Suppliers F.9 Mammals F.10 Fences F.10 Non-electric Fences F.10 Galvanized steel chain-link fence F.10 High-tensile fixed-knot fencing F.11 Gates F.12 Cattle Gates F.12 One-way gates F.12 Electric Fences F.13 ElectroBraid™ Fence F.13 Rodent-proof buildings and exteriors F.14 Physical abilities of rodents F.14 Preventing access F.14 Suppliers F.15 Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.1 Introduction Airports provide the necessities of life—food, water, and shelter—for many wildlife species. Eliminating these necessities, and preventing access to them, dramatically reduces wildlife problems at airports. Netting is an effective method to prevent birds from roosting and nesting in and on airport buildings. A grid of fine wires stretched above a source of food or water deters some species of birds by interrupting their flight patterns. An alternative to wires is Bird Balls™, a product described later in this section. Many Canadian airports are already surrounded by security fencing, which is an effective means to prevent medium-sized and large mammals such as deer, Moose, and bear from entering airport lands. To be effective, however, security fencing must not only be high, it must also be kept clear of drifting snow, and subjected to frequent checks. Gates must close tightly and be snug to the ground. If fencing does not surround airport perimeters, it can be used around selected wildlife habitats that are attractive to mammals. For example, fencing around ponds is effective in barring Beaver and Muskrat. Fencing also prevents access to crops that may be grown on airport lands. Rodents present unique problems at airports, often chewing electrical cables; copper and steel cable-sheathing products are available to prevent this kind of damage. Metal flashing and grates are effective in preventing rodents from gaining entrance to airport structures. Birds Netting Use Netting may be used in a variety of ways to prevent birds from gaining access to food or roosting areas. Description Available nettings range from those that feature small 3- to 3.5-centimetre mesh openings, to fishnets with openings of several metres. Netting is generally available in 3- to 4-metre wide rolls that are 16 to 1200 metres in length. Lightweight netting—designed to protect crops from bird predation—is also F.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch available. The manufacturers and distributors listed at the end of this section also supply netting that is resistant to deterioration by sunlight. Application To be effective, netting must prevent birds from gaining access to food, water, and shelter. If barred from access, birds are likely to leave airport lands and look elsewhere for attractive habitat. Due to the sheer volume that would be required—and the resultant high cost— netting is only used to cover the most valuable and attractive crops, such as fruit. Netting is also effective in barring birds from small and temporary bodies of water. At airport buildings, netting can be used to: • make curtains that can be hung across open hangar doors; • create covers for smaller holes and openings; • isolate the ceiling support structure so that birds cannot nest or perch in beams and girders; • hang at 45o angles beneath eaves to prevent nesting by swallows. Advantages • Barring birds from crops, as well as roosting and nesting sites, reduces the overall numbers of birds in the area. • Netting provides a long-term solution when installed in hangars to deny birds access to beams and girders. Disadvantages • Polypropylene netting deteriorates in sunlight and needs to be replaced regularly. • The installation and removal of netting is labour intensive. Effectiveness As part of an integrated management plan, netting is effective in barring birds from airport lands and buildings. Permits Required None Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.3 Porcupine Wire (Nixalite) Use Porcupine wire, typically marketed as Nixalite, prevents birds from perching and roosting on flat surfaces such as ledges and signs. Description Nixalite is a system of stainless steel strips that feature needle-like wire prongs. The prongs project from a 0.5 centimetre base and come in two lengths – 5 and 9.5 centimetres. Strips are available in either single (90o) or double (180o) radius. Application The manufacturer of Nixalite supplies the application hardware and provides instructions on spacing the strips. To remain effective, the prongs must be kept free of all debris, specifically leaves, garbage and twigs that can be used as nesting material. It can be applied with Velcro strips for easy removal when maintenance is required. Nixalite Advantage • Nixalite permanently excludes many birds from areas where it is installed. Disadvantages • Nixalite is expensive. • Unless all ledges are treated, birds are likely to move to a new location nearby. • Some birds, such as Red-tailed Hawks, have sufficiently long legs to perch on Nixalite-covered surfaces. Effectiveness When properly installed and maintained, Nixalite effectively prevents birds from perching and roosting. Permits Required None F.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Bird-B-Gone Use Bird-B-Gone prevents birds from perching or roosting on ledges, signs and flat surfaces. Description Bird-B-Gone comprises strips of durable plastic porcupine wire that is resistant to ultraviolet light. The product is safe to install and prevents birds from perching and roosting on all surfaces. Application The manufacturer of Bird-B-Gone provides instructions on spacing the strips and recommends various installation techniques. Several tools required for installation are not included: a hacksaw to cut the base, and nails, screws, glue, ties, or Velcro to attach the base to chosen surfaces. Advantages • Bird-B-Gone permanently excludes birds from areas where it is installed. • Bird-B-Gone is less expensive than Nixalite. Disadvantage • Unless all ledges are treated with the product, birds are likely to move to new locations nearby. • Some birds may not be deterred. Effectiveness When properly installed and maintained, Bird-B-Gone effectively prevents some birds from perching and roosting. Permits Required None Avi-Away Use Avi-Away prevents birds from roosting and perching on flat surfaces such as ledges. The product can be used to deter birds from entering large-door buildings such as hangars. Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.5 Description The Avi-Away system consists of a control unit and cable installed along the area to be protected. When a bird lands on the cable, it completes an electrical circuit and receives a mild shock. The manufacturer claims that in addition to the repelling effect of the shock, the alarm call given by the bird disperses other birds in the immediate area. Application Avi-Away cables should be installed along ledges where birds congregate; control units must be installed indoors. The manufacturer supplies the system’s mounting hardware, including extension brackets that allow installation below the top of hangar doorways and other large openings. Advantage • Avi-Away permanently excludes all birds from locations where it is installed. Disadvantages • Avi-Away requires periodic maintenance. • Unless all ledges are treated, birds are likely to move to new locations nearby. Effectiveness Avi-Away’s overall effectiveness is questionable, as the repellent effect of the product relies on birds landing on its cables; some birds will inevitably avoid the cables. Further, the manufacturer’s claim that birds’ alarm calls will repel other birds must be tempered with the knowledge that only birds of the same species may be affected. Permits Required None Fine Wires (small-area applications) Use Fine wires prevent birds from roosting and perching on ledges, pipes, and flat surfaces. Description In this method, one-millimetre diameter stainless-steel wires are stretched across roosting and perching areas at a height of 2-4 centimetres. F.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Application Attach wires at each end of the roosting and perching sites using “L” brackets. Use turnbuckles to ensure the wires are taut. “L” brackets should be welded in place, or attached to conduit and piping with cable clamps or aircraft hose clamps. Advantage • Fine wires permanently prevent some birds from roosting and perching. Disadvantages • Installation of wires is labour-intensive. • Unless all sites are treated, birds are likely to move to new locations nearby. Effectiveness Fine wires effectively prevent some birds from roosting and perching along pipes, however the product is unlikely to deter smaller birds such as sparrows from using ledges. Permits Required None Fine Wires (large-area applications) Use Fine wires extended over specific areas restrict the access of gulls, waterfowl and crows to sources of food and water. Description A grid of fine wires or monofilament strands (less than 0.5 millimetre in diameter) is installed at 2.5- to 12metre intervals above sources of food and water. The wiring should be strung no less than 1 metre above ground or water. Application At airports, grids of fine wire should be installed over ponds, standing water and other wetlands. Wire grids can also Fine wires on water Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.7 be installed over flat roofs where gulls congregate. In areas near airports, grids of fine wire should be used over landfills. Several general guidelines apply: • Wire must be 0.5 millimeter or less in diameter—small enough to be difficult for birds to see. • Stainless-steel wire is the most durable, although monofilament line and steel-core Dacron line are also acceptable if installed inconspicuously. • Strands of wire should be installed in parallel and on a horizontal plane. Spacing between strands of wires will vary according to the species of bird the installation is intended to deter. Trials at one landfill, for instance, revealed that strands of wire strung at 6-metre widths reduced the numbers of Ring-billed Gulls, while wire spaced at 12 metres was even more effective at deterring Herring Gulls. In a test at Calgary International Airport, wires spaced at 3.5 to 4 metres prevented most ducks from using a pond. As a result of the test, authorities recommended: • reducing the wire spacing in an attempt to deter more birds; • covering associated pond areas, including mud flats and aquatic vegetation; and • installing additional wires around the periphery of ponds, specifically between the ground and the tops of the brackets to which the horizontal wires are attached. It was also recommended that wires be installed before the arrival of waterfowl in the spring, since the grid seemed to be effective against transient waterfowl but not against those already nesting on the pond. Advantages • Following its initial installation, little labour is involved in maintaining the system. • A grid of fine wires significantly reduces the attraction of water and food to many species of birds. • Birds that gain access to areas covered with fine wires are extremely nervous and, therefore, more susceptible to scare techniques. Disadvantages • Wire systems must be checked regularly. F.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Stainless-steel wire is difficult to handle during installation, as it frequently kinks and breaks. • Monofilament wire deteriorates rapidly in sunlight. • Some bird mortality may occur when birds fly into wires. Effectiveness Fine wire grids have been tested against Ring-billed and Herring Gulls, crows, waterfowl, pigeons, shorebirds, and some small birds. In general, fine wire grids are ineffective against shorebirds, pigeons, and such small birds as blackbirds, starlings, and swallows. Wire is most effective against waterfowl when grids have been installed before waterfowl become attached to nesting territories. Unfortunately, fine-wire grids have not been tested against migrating waterfowl. Due to the concentrated availability of food sources, it is difficult to disperse gulls from landfills. According to several studies, however, the use of widely spaced overhead wires has been effective in reducing the number of gulls at landfills, reservoirs, and ponds. Permits Required None Bird Balls™ Use Bird Balls prevent birds from landing on bodies of standing water. Description Bird Balls are designed as an alternative to netting and wires. When installed, the hollow-plastic balls cover the entire water surface. From the air, birds see a solid surface and move on to search for water elsewhere. Advantages • Bird Balls are easy to install. • Unlike wires and netting, Bird Balls do not break or tear. • Bird Balls are effective in all weather conditions. • Bird Balls require little maintenance. • Bird Balls adjust to fluctuating water levels. Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.9 Disadvantages • Bird Balls are considerably more expensive than netting and wires. • Bird Balls are only effective on bodies of standing water. Effectiveness To date, no independent studies of Bird Balls have been completed. LGL Ltd., however, states that the technology associated with Bird Balls is simple, straightforward, and sound. Permits required None Suppliers Abell Pest Control Nixalite Website: www.abellgroup.com Phone: 1-416-675-1635 Bird X Inc. Netting Website: www.bird-x.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-662-5021 Bird Barrier Netting and wire Website: www.birdbarrier.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-503-5444 or 1-800-662-4737 Margo Supplies Ltd. Streamers, flags and scarecrows Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Nixalite of America Nixalite Website: www.nixalite.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-624-1189 Wildlife Control Technology Bird Balls™ and netting Website: www.wildlife-control.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-235-0262 F.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Mammals Fences Fences are the most important tool to control mammals at airports. A variety of fencing options are available to address the range of hazardous species: A March 2000 study by Transport Canada and LGL Ltd. evaluated these fencing options, particularly for deer. These findings are summarized below. The complete report is available online as an Aerodrome Safety Circular, Evaluation of the Efficacy of Various Deer Exclusion Devices and Deterrent Techniques for use at Airports, http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/aerodrome/menu.htm The report can be obtained by calling: 1-800-305-2059 or E-mail: http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation Non-electric Fences Galvanized steel chain-link fence Use Used to prevent mammals from accessing airport lands. Description and application Used for security at airports throughout North America, galvanized steel chain-link fencing is the standard against which all other types of fencing are compared. It is described in detail in the Transport Canada Airport Fencing Manual (AK-70-21). This fencing is made of woven mesh, anchored by steel posts and topped with projecting arms that support multiple strands of barbed wire. Chain-link fencing provides a good physical barrier to deer. Advantages • Relatively maintenance-free following initial installation. • Galvanized steel construction resists chewing, clawing, tearing, etc. • Standard 2.4-metre height with 3-strand barbed-wire extension blocks access by most mammals. Disadvantages • At $43,000 per kilometer, cost may be prohibitive. • Snowdrifts can reduce fence height in the winter months. Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.11 • Soil erosion and digging by canids can compromise the effectiveness of these fences. • Can interfere with Instrument Landing systems (ILS). Effectiveness Galvanized-steel chain-link fencing is recommended for use at Canadian airports. High-tensile fixed-knot fencing Use Used to prevent mammals from accessing airport lands. Description and application High-tensile fixed-knot fencing is used in areas where chain link disrupts ILS. This fencing comprises high-tensile wire that is available in weave widths between 7.6 and 15.2 centimetres, and in heights of 2.4 to 3.7 metres. Posts made from either galvanized steel pipe or pressure-treated wood is used to support the fence. The recommended post spacing varies from 6 to 7.6 metres. Advantages • High-tensile fixed-knot fencing lasts 20 to 30 years; maintenance is limited to soil-erosion control. • Its tightly locked wire prevents mammals from squeezing through. • 3.7-metre high fencing provides protection against White-tailed Deer (generally capable of jumping 3 metres). • High-tensile fixed-knot fencing does not interfere with ILS. Disadvantages • At $30,000 per kilometre, cost can be prohibitive. • Snowdrifts reduce fence height. • Soil erosion and digging by canids can compromise the effectiveness of these fences. Effectiveness High-tensile fixed-knot fencing is recommended for use at Canadian airports. The 3-metre fence design, which uses smooth high-tensile wire to add height to the basic 2.4-metre fence, is effective at most airports. In areas where deer populations are high, 3.7-metre high fencing is recommended. F.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Gates Cattle Gates Use Used in conjunction with perimeter fencing in areas where vehicular access is required. Description and Application Their name is misleading, as cattle gates actually comprise metal grids installed over ditches at gaps in airport fencing. The grids—constructed of 7.6-centimetre pipes spaced at 12.7-centimetre intervals—permit access by vehicles while providing inadequate footing to such large mammals as deer, whose hooves slide between pipes. Effectiveness Cattle gates are effective for deterring large mammals from accessing airport lands. One-way gates Use Permit non-lethal removal of deer from inside airport perimeters. Description and Application When mammals—specifically deer—manage to enter areas surrounded by fencing, they are often unable to find their way out. One-way gates allow mammals to exit areas otherwise enclosed by fencing. One-way gates use spring-steel bailer lines hinged and arranged to form funneling valves. This design permits easy passage from inside the fence while hindering access from outside. Advantage • One-way gates save wildlife control officials from having to trap or shoot mammals. Disadvantages • Maintenance costs are high in areas affected by frost heave, which causes these gates to slip from alignment. Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.13 • One-way gates hinges must be lubricated regularly. • When panicked, mammals do not recognize one-way gates as escape routes. Effectiveness One-way gates are recommended for use in conjunction with perimeter fencing. Although one-way gates require frequent maintenance, they prevent the need to capture or kill mammals trapped inside perimeter fencing. Electric Fences ElectroBraid™ Fence Use Used to prevent mammals from entering airport lands. Description and application ElectroBraid™ fence features copper strands that are woven into its polyester cords, which are then strung 15 to 30 centimetres apart between fiberglass or wooden posts. The cords are then attached to the positive post of a grounded fence charger to produce 4,000 to 5,000 volts DC. Advantages • Mammals avoid this fencing after experiencing electric shock. • ElectroBraid is visible enough to prevent accidental contact. • It costs significantly less than traditional chain-link fence. Disadvantages • ElectroBraid requires frequent maintenance. • Vegetation growing around this fencing can cause short-circuits. • Snow must be regularly cleared from around this fencing. Effectiveness ElectroBraid™ fencing is recommended for long-term mammal control at airports. Regardless of the brand of electric fencing selected, routine checks must be conducted to repair damage from soil erosion, chewing, digging, and frost heave. Snow accumulation must be considered when determining optimal fence heights. F.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Rodent-proof buildings and exteriors Commensal rodents (rats and House Mice) often live year-round in buildings. Some wild rodent species, however, will invade buildings only in the fall as they search for winter nest sites. Plugging all access holes during careful summer inspections of these buildings proves highly effective in limiting those animals seeking fall access. Physical abilities of rodents Rats and mice are able to climb most rough, vertical surfaces, including wood, brick, and weathered sheet metal. These animals gnaw through a variety of materials, including lead and aluminum sheeting, wood, rubber, and hard plastic. Rats will not hesitate to dive through plumbing traps, and are capable of traveling considerable distances through sewer lines. Results of rodent chewing cable Rodent teeth curve slightly inward, making it difficult for them to gnaw on hard, flat surfaces. These animals will quickly exploit edges: rats will work to enlarge holes as small as 1 centimetre in diameter. Mice can slip through holes as small as 6 millimetres. Preventing access Rodents and birds enter buildings through drains, openings in ventilation systems, as well as holes around pipes and wiring. Small holes can be temporarily filled with packed steel wool, but permanent sealing is recommended using cement, 24-gauge (or heavier) sheet metal and 19-gauge hardware cloth (1.3-centimetre mesh for rats, 6.3-millimetre mesh for mice). Drains should be covered with fixed grates. Rodents are able to crawl up the corrugations in some types of metal sheathing unless angle iron or metal flashing protects the bottom edges. House Sparrows will crawl into corrugations in sheet metal and nest within a wall, if the lower end is left open. Active Management Using Exclusion Methods - F.15 Suppliers ElectroBraid™ Fencing Website: www.electrobraid.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-888-430-3330 Geotek Inc. Fencing Website: www.geotekinc.com Email: [email protected] Toll Free: 1-800-533-1680 Margo Supplies Ltd. Electric fencing Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Section G Active Management Through Removal Introduction G.1 Lethal Chemicals G.2 Birds G.4 Ornitrol Mammals G.4 G.5 Rodenticides G.5 Slow-acting rodenticides — Anticoagulants G.7 Acute Rodenticides G.11 Tracking Powders G.12 Fumigants G.13 Coyote Fumigants G.15 Additional acute poisons for other wildlife G.16 Lethal Chemical Suppliers G.17 Traps G.18 Birds G.19 Live traps G.19 Raptor Traps G.20 Mammals Live Traps G.22 G.22 Live Trapping — Deer G.24 Drive-netting G.25 Rat and Mouse Traps G.26 Mole Traps G.27 Section G Pocket-gopher Traps G.28 Fur-bearing Animal Traps G.29 Glue Boards G.30 Trap Manufacturers and Distributors G.31 Live-ammunition Shooting G.32 Surfactant Water Sprays Wildlife-control Products Manufacturers and Distributors G.33 G.34 Active Management Through Removal - G.1 Introduction Removing wildlife from airports through the use of traps, poisons, and firearms is necessary and effective in certain circumstances; however, wildlifecontrol personnel should remember that animals are present at airports because of the availability of food, water, and shelter. The removal of individual animals—prior to eliminating these key attractants—may eliminate an immediate hazard but will not provide a long-term solution, as other animals will replace those that have been removed. Wildlife removal may be effective in situations in which: • the species involved is not mobile, and is unlikely to be replaced immediately; • the species involved is of a solitary nature—high-density populations of this species are rare and unlikely to be found in areas surrounding airports; • the immediate removal of a few animals is required—generally for short-term results; • a large population of concealed animals (i.e., rodents) must be reduced; and the removal of a few animals by shooting enhances the effectiveness of non-lethal frightening tools such as pyrotechnics. Rodents present a special case. Neither far ranging nor particularly mobile, rodents are also major attractants to such predators as foxes, Coyotes, and raptors—themselves hazardous species at airports. Rodent removal can be, therefore, highly effective in reducing the numbers of various problem species. Site-specific rodent problems should be professionally assessed prior to initiating large-scale lethal-control programs; the population dynamics of many species ensure that removed animals are replaced quickly. The harsh nature of many removal programs requires sensitivity on the part of wildlife-control personnel. The integrity—and survival—of airport wildlifemanagement programs depend on the respectful treatment of all animals; in poisoning, shooting, and trapping, their suffering should be minimized. When handling mammals, especially predators such as Coyotes and Raccoons, extreme caution must be exercised to protect against such animal-borne diseases as rabies. Wildlife-control personnel should be vaccinated, and wear heavy gloves at all times. If these measures cannot be followed, professional wildlife exterminators should be consulted. G.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Finally, wildlife is afforded various levels of protection under federal and provincial laws. While special permits and licenses are required to trap, shoot, and poison some species, endangered species have complete protection. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designates endangered and protected species in this country; their listings can be viewed at www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/Species/English/SearchRequest.cfm. Lethal Chemicals Chemicals used to kill wildlife fall into three categories: • acute toxins that kill after ingestion of a single lethal dose, • anticoagulants and decalcifiers requiring the ingestion of several doses over a period of days, and • fumigants that suffocate burrowing animals in the ground. Poisons are generally confined to use on small animals, specifically rodents, because: • bait placed in confined areas—including burrows—is not accessible by other animals, • small amounts of poison treat large rodent populations at relatively low costs, and • problems associated with rodent carcass disposal are minimized, as the carcasses are generally concealed in burrows, away from predators as well as the eyes of the public. Occasionally, poisons are used against Coyotes, which sometimes damage electrical cables and pose strike hazards. Lethal chemicals are also registered for killing pigeons, House Sparrows, and starlings. Safety Knowledge of proper handling methods is critical to ensure the safety not only of the user, but also the environment and non-target species. All chemical pesticide product labels include safety precautions and instructions for use. These products should be used only as directed. If not used properly, poisons may seep into soil and ground water. Poisoned animals may be consumed by predators; toxic carcasses could be eaten by scavengers, causing secondary poisoning. For these reasons, proper placement of poisons is critical, as is the removal of exposed dead animals. Active Management Through Removal - G.3 All chemicals used in pest control—including those employed against wildlife—must be registered with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada, pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act. Registration applies to herbicides (weed control), insecticides (insect control), fungicides (mould and fungi control), as well as all animal and insect repellents—chemical and mechanical. Registered chemicals undergo controlled testing to demonstrate their efficacy and safety. These tests determine: • • • • • chemicals’ toxicity, the qualifications required to handle chemical products, potential health hazards, possible adverse effects on food and drinking water, and overall environmental impact. Federal pesticide regulations were implemented and enforced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Pesticides Directorate) until April 1, 1995. Federal regulation of pesticides was then transferred to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada, pursuant to the Pest Control Products Act. For further information on the Pest Control Products Act, telephone 1-800-267-6315 or visit the Health Canada website at www.hc-sc.gc.ca. Provincial restrictions may be more stringent than those of the federal Pest Control Products Act, as each province also has the authority to restrict the use of chemical products. Furthermore, certain products registered for use by the federal government may not be available in some provinces. G.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Birds Methods used to poison birds include poison perches, bait stations, and egg oiling, which suffocates developing bird embryos. Ornitrol Use/Description Ornitrol affects the fertility of birds, ultimately reducing the size of local populations. In Canada, it is registered only for use on pigeons. Application The chemical is injected in corn baits. Pigeons should be pre-baited to ensure that as many birds as possible consume the chemical. The program should be carried out in early spring (March) and again in mid-summer (July). Advantage • Successful sterilization programs lower the overall local population of pigeons, reducing the need for other control methods. Disadvantages • Unless sterilization programs are carried out over wide areas, rapid repopulation will occur. • As female pigeons reproduce for five to 10 years, several years of treatment are necessary to effectively reduce pigeon numbers. Effectiveness In one study that compared Ornitrol’s urban/rural effectiveness, reproduction was almost completely suppressed for three to seven months in rural pigeon populations. On the other hand, city numbers were reduced by only 10 percent, largely because untreated birds continually re-populated the area. For this reason, Ornitrol is unlikely to have substantial effects at airports, where large pigeon populations reside. Although Ornitrol suppresses reproduction in blackbirds, it is an ineffective means of control at airports, as these birds flock from many breeding areas. Permits required As Ornitrol is a restricted chemical, only licensed pest-control officers may use this product. Active Management Through Removal - G.5 Mammals Rodenticides Although marketed by several companies under a variety of names, only two acute-toxin rodenticide compounds are registered for use in Canada: strychnine and zinc phosphide. Both chemicals are restricted for use only by licensed pestcontrol operators. Mammals that ingest lethal doses of these chemicals usually die within a few hours. The active ingredients in registered anticoagulant rodenticides include warfarin, diphacinone, chlorophacinone, brodifacoum and bromadiolone (often called bromone). These chemicals cause death through extensive internal bleeding. Rodents may not succumb for as long as 26 days after ingestion; most die within one to 10 days of initial poisonings. Many anticoagulant-rodenticides formulations can be purchased without a license. The third group of rodenticides dissolves the calcium in mammals’ bones, eventually causing heart failure. Cholecalciferol is the active chemical in these poisons. These three groups of chemicals produce substantially different results. For example, although acute toxins—such as strychnine—may seem the most effective, their distinct tastes and fast action may deter substantial proportions of rodent populations from eating lethal amounts of bait. Surviving rodents then frequently become bait shy and cannot be controlled through the use of the same chemical. First-generation anticoagulants (including warfarin, diphacinone, and chlorophacinone) have been in use since the late 1940s. They are much safer to use than acute toxins, due to their lower inherent toxicity. Further, an antidote is available in the event of accidental poisoning. Persistent improper use of these first-generation anticoagulants can result in resistant rodent populations; directions should be followed closely. More powerful second-generation anticoagulants came into use in the late 1970s. The active ingredient in these products is either brodifacoum or bromadiolone. For some species, particularly mice and voles, one feeding is sufficient to cause death. Resistance to second-generation anticoagulants is not widespread. G.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Application Baits Several factors should be considered when delivering rodenticide to target animals: • palatability of the bait, • placement of the bait so that target animals will find it, • bait shyness or avoidance, and • risks to non-target species. Rodents have highly developed senses of taste and smell; both play a role in the acceptance of baits. Rodents finding unusual tasting or smelling bait are likely to feed sparingly on it or reject it. As a result, a less-than-lethal dose is consumed. Baits Rodents may reject baits under the following circumstances: • The baits are mouldy. • The fats or oils in the baits’ formulations have become rancid. • The baits have been stored in close proximity to herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and paint thinners and have taken on the flavours and odors of these volatile chemicals. • The baits are contaminated by dust, bird droppings, or other foreign materials. • The baits have aged and their moisture content has fallen below the level of fresh grains. • The baits are insect-infested. • Low- and high-quality baits have been mixed to save money; as a result, rodents reject the entire mixture. Principles of bait acceptance and rejection There are three general principles governing bait acceptance and rejection among rodents and other wildlife species: • Animals must accept the taste and smell of the bait. • As prey for a wide variety of animals, rodents are wary of anything new and potentially threatening, including food. This wariness is referred to as neophobia. • Learned food aversions—including the avoidance of a particular food through association with discomfort or illness—is perhaps the most important factor governing bait acceptance and rejection. This principle provides the basis for Active Management Through Removal - G.7 bait shyness. Learned food aversions can be acquired for a specific food after only one experience. These aversions are often strong and long-lasting. Pre-baiting with non-toxic bait is recommended to overcome animals’ natural wariness of unfamiliar bait, especially when acute toxins are to be used. This procedure conditions the rodents to accept the bait. While pre-bait should closely resemble the poisoned substance, compounds that mimic the taste of toxins are as yet unavailable. Even so, it is commonly accepted that pre-baiting increases the effectiveness of poisoning programs by establishing a momentum to consume, thereby reducing neophobia. Pre-baiting is rarely necessary when using anticoagulants, since these products seldom induce food aversions. Risks to non-target species While there is comparatively little information on the secondary effects of acute poisons, most available research indicates that scavengers are unlikely to be seriously affected by eating the carcasses of rodents killed by anticoagulants. Of greater concern—particularly in areas populated by endangered species—is the possibility that non-target species may eat bait that has been placed for rodents. Endangered species that may be attracted to grain baits include Plains Pocket Gophers, Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, Whitetail Jackrabbits, Whooping Cranes, and Greater Prairie Chickens. The best way to avoid poisoning non-target species—particularly birds—is through the use of enclosed bait stations, which also protect bait from inclement weather. Slow-acting rodenticides — Anticoagulants Uses Anticoagulant rodenticides cause internal bleeding and kill such rodents as rats, mice, and ground squirrels. Description Several anticoagulant compounds are available. Products containing warfarin, diphacinone or chlorophacinone require multiple feedings to be effective. Products containing brodifacoum or bromadiolone often kill small rodents— such as mice and voles—through single feedings; two or more feedings are usually required to kill larger rodents. G.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Products containing cholecalciferol, which decalcifies rodents’ bones, require more than one feeding. Although the toxic effect of cholecalciferol differs from anticoagulants, its application is identical. These poisons can be purchased as pre-treated baits, or in bulk for on-site preparation. Pre-treated baits may be combined with grain, or formed into pellets or blocks in which the grain carrier is embedded in paraffin for protection from inclement weather. Application The general principles of poison bait use, discussed earlier in this section, should be followed when applying these particular poisons. Application techniques specific to larger mammals are discussed in succeeding pages. Mice and Voles The majority of airport rodent problems involve Deer and House Mice, as well as Meadow Voles. Deer Mice occasionally infest airport buildings in search of winter nesting sites, House Mice are more likely to infest airport buildings year-round. Several studies have shown the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone and bromadiolone are all highly effective in controlling these and other rodents. All baits—including pellet baits, in which grain is embedded in a paraffin coating—should be broadcast only when dry weather is forecast for at least two days; even light rain will leach much of the active ingredient, and reduce its effectiveness. Use large numbers of small pellets containing low concentrations of the active ingredients. Bait stations should be constructed of waxed paper tubes 12-centimetres long and 4-centimetres in diameter. Fasten the bait inside using edible glues. Bait stations must be checked every 48 hours, and restocked as necessary. Any grain bait can be used; however, Deer Mice prefer oats. To reduce spilling and exposure to non-target species, and to protect bait from dust and moisture, use bait stations that feature only two openings, rather than open containers. Bait stations should be made of cardboard or plastic and feature openings on opposite sides, which allow rodents to see an escape route as they enter. Mouse-station openings should be 2.5 centimetres in diameter— rat stations, 6 centimetres. Bait stations should be placed along walls and known rodent travel routes, which can be detected by the presence of droppings. Active Management Through Removal - G.9 Whether broadcasting bait or establishing bait stations, the following guidelines will help ensure successful outcomes: • Place sufficient quantities of bait. • Do not rush the process; allow as many rodents as possible to access the poison over time. • Replenish bait on a regular basis. • Place bait stations close together; mouse-bait stations should be spaced at 2-metre intervals. For rats, place stations within 7 to 10 metres of each other. • Use palatable baits; rats will accept paraffin-treated blocks, while loosegrain and pellet baits are more palatable to mice. Ground squirrels Ground-squirrel control programs should be conducted in the spring—no less than two weeks after the first sightings of squirrels. Timing is critical, as baits are less effective once succulent new plant growth is available. Since several feedings are necessary to control ground-squirrel populations, bait stations should be used. Several bait-station designs are available, including those constructed from discarded tires, which are cut in half and enclosed with wire. Bait stations should be placed near runways, burrows and feeding areas, and spaced no more than 60-metres apart. Stations should also be checked and refilled daily, as squirrels can recover from anticoagulants if more than 48 hours elapse between feedings. Mouldy and contaminated baits must be replaced. Squirrels may require a few days to become accustomed to bait stations. Once the animals have begun eating, poisons may require at least a week to take effect. It is important, therefore, to ensure plentiful fresh bait remains available. Some products provide anticoagulant baits in loose form. Where permitted by law, these baits may be scattered in the vicinity of squirrel burrows and replenished regularly. Ground squirrels do little feeding at their burrows, however, so baits should neither be placed in the burrows, nor piled at burrow entrances. Three to four alternate-day treatments are usually sufficient. Although spring is the optimum time to bait, grain baits also will be readily taken in late summer. However by this time, populations may have greatly expanded. G.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Pocket gophers Although chlorophacinone is available in Canada for use against pocket gophers, no Canadian information exists concerning its use and effects. Information supplied here is based on research completed in the United States. Unlike ground squirrels, pocket gophers feed almost exclusively inside their burrows. The complexity of these burrow systems, however, make repeated baiting of underground tunnels difficult. Similarly, anticoagulants have proven ineffective in burrow applications, as moist soils tend to leach the active ingredient from bait. Recent experiments, however, have shown that paraffin-treated bait blocks containing the active ingredient bromadiolone effectively control pocket gophers. In these experiments, 100 grams of cylindrical wheat baits were placed in burrows. Pocket gophers readily accepted the baits and frequently took them to their nests. In one case, a second pocket gopher, invading the burrow of a recently killed gopher, consumed the remainder of the bait and was also killed. Several paraffin-treated baits should be placed in each burrow system. To ensure they can be easily manipulated by the animals, baits should weigh no more than 100 grams. Wildlife officers should note that pocket gophers will close any unwanted holes in their burrows, so openings made for bait placement should be carefully re-covered to prevent the animals from covering baits. These experiments were conducted on a species of pocket gopher not found in Canada; however, the behaviour of Canadian species is similar. Advantages • Bait shyness is rare, since symptoms of poisoning occur well after bait ingestion. • Many bait formulations are available. Disadvantages • Resistance may develop in populations repeatedly poisoned with the same active ingredient. • Some baits may not be accepted. • Repeated placement of baits may be necessary. Effectiveness These chemicals are highly effective when used properly. Active Management Through Removal - G.11 Permits required Consult Provincial regulations to determine whether permits are required for specific products. Acute Rodenticides Uses Acute rodenticides kill all rodents, regardless of size. Description The active ingredients in these products are strychnine and zinc phosphide; both toxins are registered for killing rodents. Application For all species but gophers, application is similar to that of anticoagulants. Acute rodenticides are recommended for single annual applications and in outdoor situations only. Although only one baiting period is necessary, extensive pre-baiting with non-poisoned bait is highly recommended to overcome bait shyness. Pocket gophers For effective control of pocket gophers, toxic baits must be placed within burrow systems. Pocket-gopher burrows consist of a main burrow 30- to 45centimetres underground, from which lateral burrows angle upward to the surface, ending in fan-shaped mounds of earth. Baiting pocket gophers may be done either by hand or by using mechanical burrow builders. When baiting by hand, place baits at two or three locations throughout main burrow systems. Metal probes may be used to locate tunnels, which are then opened using shovels. Holes should be sealed completely after placing bait to prevent gophers from closing holes and—in the process— covering baits. Push-button bait dispensers—attached to hollow probes—serve as effective alternatives to shovels. Burrow builders are drawn behind tractors, and automatically deliver bait to the tunnels they make. Spaced at intervals of up to 7.5 metres, artificial burrows should be constructed at the same depths as those of natural pocketgopher tunnels. As these depths vary according to geographic area, local burrow measurements must be made. Tunnels should then be dug to intersect existing pocket-gopher burrows, allowing exploring gophers to find bait. G.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Advantage • Only single baiting periods are required. Disadvantages • Bitter chemical tastes may prevent rodents from ingesting enough bait to cause death. • Surviving rodents may experience bait shyness. • The high level of toxicity in acute rodenticides, compared to anticoagulants, increases both handling hazards and likelihood of killing non-target animals. • Purchase and application costs are high. • Use of burrow builders is restricted by soil conditions. Good burrows will not be formed in dry soils; wet soils accumulate on packer wheels and, as a result, tunnels are closed improperly. Effectiveness These chemicals are effective when rodents take bait in sufficient quantities. Baits broadcast on grain lose approximately one-half their toxicity within one week. Studies indicate the effectiveness of zinc phosphide and strychnine against pocket gophers depends on geographic location; presumably, this reflects variations in the susceptibility of pocket-gopher populations. Nonetheless, effective control using strychnine is thought to rely on bait concentrations of at least one percent. Permits required Strychnine is restricted under federal law. Zinc phosphide is not classified as a restricted chemical by Health Canada; however, several provinces have imposed their own conditions upon the chemical’s use. Check with local authorities prior to use. Tracking Powders Uses Tracking powders are used to kill rats and House Mice. Description Tracking powders combine zinc phosphide with inert ingredients. Rodents pick up the powder on their fur and then ingest the poison while grooming. Active Management Through Removal - G.13 Application Tracking powders are spread along rodent travel paths and placed in specially designed stations. Advantage • Tracking powders may be used on bait-shy rodents. Disadvantages • For indoor use only. • Must be kept away from food storage and preparation areas. • Airport personnel may come in contact with tracking powder. Effectiveness The dispersal of tracking powder is difficult to control, making the product an unattractive alternative to toxic baits. Permits required Structural Exterminator licenses are required by federal law. Provincial regulations vary. Check with government and local pest-control authorities. Fumigants Use Fumigants kill rodents and moles in their burrows. Description Ignited cartridges or pellets reacting with soil moisture in burrows produce lethal gases. Application Rodents Adequate gas must be generated to fill entire burrow systems. Therefore—to ensure thorough fumigation—all rodent entrance holes must be located. Between two and five entrance holes exist for most Groundhog burrows. Due to the size of these burrows, fumigant devices must be placed in each entrance, which may be as much as 15 metres apart. Ground squirrel holes are much closer together. There may be as many as eight entrances to the burrows of Richardson’s Ground Squirrels, the main problem species on the Prairies. Similarly, the Columbian Ground Squirrel—a problem G.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch species in the Rocky Mountains—has as many as thirty-five entrance holes. Thanks to the relatively small size of their burrow systems, however, placing pellets or cartridges in two or three entrances usually proves sufficient. Fumigation will not be effective unless rodents are in their burrows. As these animals are unlikely to be present in their holes during the day, night fumigations are most effective. Daytime fumigation can be done if the rodent is observed entering a burrow. Pellets or lit cartridges should be placed—not thrown—as far down entrance holes as possible. Be sure to seal holes with sod after stuffing wadded newspaper into the entrances—this reduces the likelihood that pellets or cartridges will be accidentally covered. Sand or earth placed around the sod prevents gas from escaping. After sealing off the entrances, observe the surrounding areas for escaping smoke, and close off any holes or leaks. Moles Moles search for worms and insect larvae by swimming through soil near the surface. Moles live much deeper, however, and may not be accessible through surface feeding tunnels. Attempts to kill moles are rarely successful when fumigants are placed in the mounds of soil that result from feeding activity. Advantages • Animals die in their burrows, making carcass recovery unnecessary. • Unlike other lethal baits, fumigants are effective against Groundhogs. Disadvantage • Locating holes and active feeding tunnels is time-consuming and labourintensive. Effectiveness Fumigants are effective in the control of Groundhogs; however, given the difficulty locating all entrances to burrow systems, trapping may be a better alternative. Against ground squirrels, poisoning is more effective and less labour-intensive than fumigants. For moles, fumigation is the only chemical control method available. Its effectiveness is low, therefore fumigation is not recommended. In the case of all species, fumigation is most effective when soil moisture is high. Active Management Through Removal - G.15 Permits required Requirements vary according to product type. Fumigant cartridges may be purchased by anyone. Calcium cyanide use is restricted in some provinces. Coyote Fumigants Use Fumigants are used to kill Coyotes inside their dens. Description Gas cartridges—containing 65-percent sodium nitrate and 35-percent charcoal— produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and other nitrous gases when ignited. Application Fumigants should be used only during periods in which Coyotes are in their dens with pups—usually from late March to late June. At other times, trapping is the preferred control method. Den activity may be measured through the presence of tracks, by listening for sounds from within dens, and by observing pups lounging outside den entrances. Advantages • Fumigants kill all Coyotes inside dens. • Fumigation is less labour-intensive than trapping. Disadvantages • Fumigation is only useful when Coyotes are inside their dens with pups. • Public education and awareness programs may be required to ensure the public is properly informed. Effectiveness As noted above, fumigation is only effective against Coyotes from late March until late June—when the animals are in their dens. Permits required Structural Exterminator licenses are required under federal regulations. Check with Provincial authorities to ensure no additional regulations exist. G.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Additional acute poisons for other wildlife Although rodenticides form the largest group of lethal control chemicals registered for use in Canada, two other acutely toxic compounds are registered for use against Coyotes: sodium monofluoroacetate (compound 1080) and strychnine, which is also used to control pigeons and pocket gophers. Application Strychnine for pigeons Effective control programs using strychnine must include pre-baiting using non-toxic bait that is identical to the strychnine carrier. Pre-baiting not only ensures pigeons become familiar with the feed, the process also establishes feeding locations—rooftops, for example—that protects non-target species and the public from exposure to baited poisons. The length of time required for pre-baiting depends on pigeons’ responses. If pigeons are bait shy as a result of previous exposure to strychnine, three to four months of pre-baiting may be necessary. Longer periods may also be required to move pigeons to preferred control areas. Poisoned bait can be introduced once pigeons are accustomed to feeding in control areas. Both pre-bait and poisoned bait should be placed in 100-gram piles no more than two-metres apart. Sodium monofluoroacetate or strychnine for Coyotes Sodium monofluoroacetate or strychnine is mixed with meat baits and placed in locations frequented by Coyotes. Advantage • These highly toxic compounds quickly kill any animal ingesting baits. Disadvantages • These compounds are as dangerous to humans as they are to animals. • Carcasses must be located and removed immediately. Effectiveness Control programs using these chemicals are sometimes highly effective. Active Management Through Removal - G.17 Permits required Use of these chemicals is restricted to licensed personnel only. Furthermore, use of sodium monofluoroacetate is subject to approval of Provincial wildlife authorities, who also control its distribution. Lethal Chemical Suppliers Abell Pest Control Chemical control methods Website: www.abellgroup.com Phone: 1-416-675-1635 Gardex Chemicals Fumigants, tracking powder, rodenticides, Avitrol and perches Website: www.gardexinc.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-561-7302 Liphatech Rodent control Website: www.liphatech.com Toll-Free: 1-800-558-1003 PMC Specialties Group Chemical control methods Website: www.pmcsg.com Phone: 1-513-242-3300 United States Department of Agriculture Equipment for use with rodenticides and fumigants Pocatello Supply Depot Website: www.aphis.usda.gov Email: [email protected] G.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Traps Two types of traps are available: kill and live traps. Kill traps dispatch animals quickly and efficiently. Live traps may simply restrain animals; complex livetrap devices include those in which animals are captured and then killed through such secondary means as drowning. Live traps are often employed to capture and transport wildlife to release areas away from airport lands. As this method is time-consuming and costly, it is used mainly for protected and highprofile species. When using traps, careful handling is critical. Trap placements must be logged and mapped to ensure people frequenting the areas know where the devices are located. Trap locations should also ensure that the capture of non-target species are minimized. Check traps at least daily to minimize the suffering of snared animals, and to prevent scavengers from feeding on carcasses. As effective trap use requires some knowledge of animal behaviour, airport personnel who are considering trapping programs should consult professional trappers and pest-control agents. Airport personnel must also determine which species are protected from trapping, and obtain any required permits. Kill trapping Kill traps are generally used on small animals. Although not strong enough to dispatch larger animals, these traps can still be dangerous when handled improperly. Airport personnel may trap rats, mice, moles, Groundhogs, and pocket gophers after consulting with knowledgeable authorities. Larger animals— such as Beavers, Muskrats, foxes, Coyotes, and deer—should be left to experienced trappers. Live trapping Live traps range from simple restraining snares and leg-hold devices to box and barrel traps used to trap various sizes of animals, from sparrows to bears. Live traps should be frequently checked to minimize the discomfort of trapped animals. Airport personnel should consult reference guides and knowledgeable authorities to learn proper methods for setting and baiting traps. Active Management Through Removal - G.19 Live trap — birds Live trap — mammals Birds Live traps, as well as raptor traps, are used to capture birds that are then either killed or transported to pre-approved release areas away from airports. Time consuming and costly, live trapping is often employed against protected and high-profile species that are relocated from the airport. Live traps Use Live traps are used to capture sedentary birds such as pigeons and House Sparrows. Other birds—such as starlings, blackbirds, and crows—may also be captured; however, trapping these species is often not an effective method for lowering their population numbers. Description A wide variety of traps are commercially available, including traps that use decoy birds and devices that catch several birds at once. Application Pigeons Pigeons are easily trapped where they feed. Pigeon traps should be left open and baited for two or three days before being set. Decoy birds improve the effectiveness of pigeon traps. Pigeons are not easily trapped at their nightroosting sites. G.20 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch House Sparrow House Sparrows are readily trapped when bait areas are established prior to placing traps. When placing traps, the baited areas should surround the traps. Allowing some trapped sparrows to remain in the baiting area will cause other sparrows to respond to the distress calls. Advantages • Live trapping of pigeons and House Sparrows is the preferable control method in airport public areas. • Live trapping has proven to be the only effective way to remove House Sparrows. Disadvantages • Live trapping is labour-intensive. • Traps must be checked at least once daily to remove birds and replace baits. • Birds must be dispatched or moved to release areas. • It is unlikely that all problem birds will be captured through live-trapping programs. Furthermore, unless the attractants are removed, captured and released birds may return. Effectiveness Live traps are effective for capturing sparrows and pigeons. To trap sparrows, trigger devices—as well as those that deposit birds into a holding chamber when sprung—are more effective than funnel traps. Permits required None Raptor Traps Use Used to capture hawks, falcons, and owls for release away from airport lands. Description Raptor traps are difficult to obtain commercially; however, plans are available from the Journal of Wildlife Management, issue 35:832-835. Application Set traps in open locations and either stake or weight down the bait cages to stabilize them against winds. Place one or two prey animals (pigeons, House Active Management Through Removal - G.21 Sparrows, or mice) in each bait cage. Provide food and water for the bait animals. Traps must be checked at least twice a day; trapped raptors must be moved immediately to holding facilities or directly to release locations. Raptor-trapping programs should be undertaken only following consultation with wildlife officials or others with experience handling these birds. Advantages • As permits to kill these birds are rarely granted, live trapping may be the only way to reduce raptor numbers at airports. • Raptors can be trapped without harm. Raptor trap Disadvantages • Facilities must be provided in which to house these birds prior to their transfer to release sites. • To reduce the chance that raptors may return to airports, release sites must be at least 30 kilometres distant. Effectiveness Trapping is often ineffective as long as food and other attractants remain plentiful at airports. Many adult birds simply return, even if they are released at considerable distances. When trapped birds do not return, their removal often allows less-experienced and therefore more hazardous birds of the same species to move onto airport lands. Trapping is most effective in winter, when raptors tend to be sedentary. In summer, few raptors are present at airports unless they are nesting in the immediate area. In spring and fall, many raptors are migrating and, if removed, are replaced at airports by other birds. Permits required Permits from Provincial authorities are required to trap raptors. Goshawk Perch Trap Often used by wildlife-control officers to capture raptors, goshawk perch traps are made of two pieces of wood that are hinged together. A spring mechanism made of elastic shock cords is used to pull in the sides. Attached to poles, the G.22 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch trap jaws close to capture birds. Although well-padded, these traps often injure birds. A variation is the Swedish goshawk trap, which closes over raptors when sprung. Swedish Goshawk Trap A variation of the goshawk perch trap, the Swedish goshawk trap consists of a trigger mechanism enclosed in a large, open “A” frame and mounted on a bait cage. Pigeons, starlings, rats, and mice serve as decent lures. A bird dropping into the trap will activate the trap to close and snare the bird safely. Bal-chatri Trap This small and modifiable trap is comprised of 1-inch chicken wire formed into a cage and numerous small nylon nooses attached to the wire. Bait is placed in the cage, and the nylon nooses entangle the birds’ feet upon landing on the cage. The trap should be attached to a nearby branch or bush to prevent the bird from dragging the trap too far. Sliding Padded-Pole Trap A padded leg-hold trap is placed at the top of 5- to 10-foot poles where the bird would perch. The jaws of the trap must be well-padded to prevent injury, and 12-gauge steel wire should be attached to the trap chain ring and the bottom of the post to allow the trap to slide to the ground and the bird to rest. Mammals Live Traps Use Live traps are used to capture mammals as large as deer, bear, Raccoons, and feral dogs. Description Most live traps are made of galvanized wire, and are open at one or both ends. A trigger is tripped when mammals enter these traps, closing the door. Traps used to capture deer and bear are more specialized. Live mammal traps Active Management Through Removal - G.23 Application Traps are set near dens, in travel paths and at feeding areas of target mammals. Pre-baiting with traps that are fixed open increases the probability of capture. Trap manufacturers provide bait suggestions for several species. Trapped mammals should be removed to release areas at least 15 kilometres from airports. When releasing mammals, traps should be opened from a distance using a long piece of twine; this protects the handler and minimizes stress upon the animal. Although capturing most mammal species is straightforward, skunks pose obvious problems. To minimize the likelihood of spraying, place a tarpaulin or other cover over traps to provide a dark and secure environment for skunks. Once caught, skunks usually do not spray as long as traps are handled gently. Following each use—and the capture of all animals—traps should be steam cleaned to remove scents and odours. Advantage • Protected and high-profile problem mammal species may be captured and removed alive. Disadvantages • Live trapping is labour-intensive and highly inefficient in removing large numbers of mammals. • Building or buying large numbers of traps is expensive. • Live trapping often requires the expertise of trained personnel. Effectiveness As live trapping is too labour-intensive for use in the removal of abundant species, the technique is best applied for the removal of individual problem animals from airports. Permits required Provincial wildlife authorities may require permits to live-trap fur-bearing species, including Beavers, Muskrats, and foxes. When bears roam onto airfield properties, Provincial wildlife-control personnel should be called upon to capture the animals through live trapping or controlled hunting. Grizzly Bears have been assigned a special status by the Committee on G.24 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and cannot be killed without formal hunting protocols. Live Trapping — Deer Use Live traps are used to capture deer for relocation elsewhere. Application There are two main types of deer traps: corral traps and box traps. Traps should be placed near perimeter fencing and baited, as deer generally follow fence-lines once inside airport grounds. When bait is taken, doors are triggered shut, trapping the deer inside. Deer are then tranquilized and relocated off airport lands. Professional wildlife-control officers should be called upon to assist in these live-trap programs. Advantage • Deer can be removed alive from airport lands. Disadvantages • The effectiveness of live traps declines in summer and fall as natural food sources become more abundant. • Qualified wildlife-control officers are required to trap and relocate deer. • Despite the non-lethal intent of this procedure, deer often die due to the stress of capture and relocation. • Sites suitable for deer relocation are often limited near urban airport settings. Effectiveness Deer traps are most effective in winter and spring, when natural food is scarce and baits are attractive. The effectiveness of these traps, however, decreases in summer and fall when natural food sources become readily available. Active Management Through Removal - G.25 Drive-netting Use Used to capture deer located inside airport fences for relocation elsewhere. Application Deer are directed into portable nets that are extended from vehicles and raised by hand. When herding deer, people are positioned to block potential exit routes. Once captured, the animal’s feet are tied and their eyes blindfolded, subduing them until they reach relocation areas. At night, lights improve the effectiveness of drive-netting, allowing personnel to direct the deer into the traps. Advantages • Effective when relocating several deer. • Deer can be removed alive from airport lands. Disadvantages • Drive-netting is an extremely labour-intensive live-capture technique; many trained wildlife-control personnel are required. • Despite the non-lethal intent of this procedure, deer often die due to the stress of capture and relocation. • Sites suitable for deer relocation are often limited near urban airport settings. Effectiveness Drive-netting is effective in winter when deer are easily located by tracking and when their movements are somewhat restricted by snow. Permits required Permits issued by Provincial natural-resource ministries are required before airports can implement any deer control program involving lethal or non-lethal trapping. All control programs involving firearms must be undertaken by licensed specialists. Federal law strictly regulates the acquisition and use of firearms. For information regarding the requirements under federal law, contact the Canadian Firearms Centre at 1-800-731-4000 or www.canadianfirearms.com. G.26 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Rat and Mouse Traps Use Used to kill rats and mice. Standard snap-traps kill rodents individually; more elaborate multiple traps can kill up to 30 mice. Application Snap traps Snap traps should be placed on rodent travel paths—usually along walls or at the edges of open areas—with triggers set against walls. When using doubletraps, set them side-by-side with their triggers against the wall, or end-to-end with their triggers facing out. Mousetraps should be placed no further than 1.8 metres apart. As rats travel more widely, their traps may be spaced at greater distances. Mouse traps Effective snap-trap baits include bacon, nutmeats, peanut butter, and marshmallows. When mice are nesting in fall, cotton balls also serve as effective bait. More wary than mice, rats initially should be allowed to take bait from unset traps to reduce trap shyness. Multiple-capture traps Several varieties of mechanical traps—which catch up to 30 mice at one setting— are available. Some multiple-capture traps attract mice to large bait reservoirs, while other devices merely take advantage of the tendency of mice to enter small dark holes. These traps should be set in areas of greatest mouse activity; the trap entry hole should be placed near the wall. Traps should be checked frequently. Drown live mice by emptying them into buckets of water. Advantage • Carcasses are readily found and removed. Disadvantage • Trapping is labour-intensive. Active Management Through Removal - G.27 Effectiveness Traps are effective when used properly. Permits required None Mole Traps Use Mole traps are used to kill moles while they feed in surface tunnels. Description Mole traps are simple spring-operated traps that either impale or crush moles. Application Moles feed on worms and insect larvae by swimming through soils near the surface. The actual living area of the mole, however, is deeper in the soil and consists of one or more enlarged burrows. Relatively straight connecting tunnels link these burrows to feeding areas. As feeding tunnels may be used only once, traps should be placed in connecting tunnels near areas where fresh digging is evident. For traps that crush moles, dig out portions of tunnels and insert traps, packing soil firmly under the traps’ trigger pans. For traps that impale moles, dig out the tunnels and pack soil firmly where trap triggers rest. Raise the traps’ springs, set safety catches and push supporting stakes into the ground on either side of the tunnels. Trigger pans should just touch the packed earth replaced in tunnels. Releasing the safety catches allows springs to force traps’ spikes into the ground. This ensures that the spikes penetrate the tunnel when traps are sprung. Set both types of traps to spring easily. Do not disturb any other part of the tunnel system. Moles spring traps by heaving soil up in an attempt to re-open tunnels. Effectiveness Although labour-intensive, trapping is the most effective way to reduce mole populations. Permits required None G.28 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Pocket-gopher Traps Use Used to kill pocket gophers. Description There are two types of pocket-gopher traps: metal-jawed traps that act as modified snap-traps, and box traps that snare pocket gophers. Application Pocket-gopher traps must be placed in gophers’ burrow systems. These systems consist of main burrows 10 to 45 centimetres below the surface, and lateral burrows that angle upward to the surface, ending in fan-shaped mounds. In lateral burrows, set one trap with the trigger facing down. In main burrows, set two traps end-to-end with triggers facing out. In both cases, anchor traps at the surface with wire and stakes. Seeking to keep their tunnels closed off from the surface, gophers are attracted to traps by incoming air. Holes above box traps should be closed enough to make tunnels dark, while still allowing air to enter through the trap’s shielded vent. Experimentation may be required with jawed traps to determine whether or not the hole can be covered. Advantage • Trapping is the only non-chemical method available to reduce pocketgopher populations. Disadvantages • Trapping is labour-intensive. • Unless the population is small, trapping is unlikely to be effective. Effectiveness The effectiveness of pocket-gopher trapping varies according to geography and time of year and, as a general rule, is too labour-intensive to be an effective means of control. In dealing with small, localized populations, however—and following poisoning programs—this method can be beneficial. Permits required None Active Management Through Removal - G.29 Fur-bearing Animal Traps Use/Description Leg-hold, conibear, snare, and other specialized traps are useful in capturing and killing medium-sized fur-bearing animals, such as Muskrats, Beavers, and foxes. As alternatives to leg-hold traps, several recently developed models trap and kill animals immediately. Application Successful trapping of fur-bearing animals requires both knowledge of the behaviour of target species and skill in trap placement. Accordingly, professional trappers should be contracted to deal with most fur-bearing animals at airports. Groundhogs, however, are easily caught by placing traps at the main entrance of active burrows. As Groundhogs are more likely to see and avoid traps when they are entering their burrows, traps should be set at night or, in hot weather, during the middle of the day, when the animals are underground. Advantage • Traps are useful for removing animals that cannot be poisoned—such as Groundhogs, Muskrats, and Beavers—or against animals that airport personnel may be prohibited from poisoning, such as foxes and Coyotes. Disadvantage • Trapping fur-bearing animals requires the skill of professional trappers. Effectiveness Trapping is effective when traps are set properly. Permits required Permits issued by Provincial ministries of natural resources are required to trap fur-bearing animals. G.30 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Glue Boards Use Glue boards are used to trap and kill rodents inside airport buildings. Description Glue boards are trays containing sticky substances that adhere to rodents’ feet and fur when the animals step on these boards. Rodents trapped by glue boards will frequently suffocate after burying their noses in glue. Nevertheless, glue boards should be checked frequently to ensure that rodents do not die lingering deaths due to starvation. Application Glue boards should be placed flush against walls or along rodent travel paths. Boards for mice should be at least 10 centimetres long with glue 2 to 3 millimetres thick; these measurements should be doubled for rat boards. Glue boards are ineffective in extreme temperatures—below 2°C or above 49°C. Although available commercially, glue boards may also be prepared on site using bulk glue and convenient materials such as plywood, floor tiles, and paper plates. Pipe versions of these traps are also effective. For mice, use 30-centimetre lengths of 30- to 50-millimetre diameter PVC pipe. For rats, use 75-millimetre diameter PVC pipe. Spread glue on heavy paper and insert it in the pipe. Glue handling is made easier by keeping a thin film of soapsuds on both hands and tools. Use covers to keep glue boards free of dust, grease, and water. Although glue odour does not repel rodents, offensive odours can be absorbed from nearby solvents or pesticides. Glue boards made of non-absorbent materials such as plastic are recommended. Advantages • Unlike poison, glue boards may be used in food-preparation areas. • Location and disposal of rodent carcasses is straightforward. Active Management Through Removal - G.31 Disadvantages • Temperature and dampness can reduce the effectiveness of glue boards. • Rodents caught on glue boards may die slowly after considerable struggle. Permits required Provincial authorities should be consulted prior to using glue boards. Trap Manufacturers and Distributors Animal Management Inc. Website: www.animalmanagement.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-888-744-8173 Bert ‘Ram’ Trap Ltd. Phone: 1-204-842-5189 Fax: 1-204-842-3287 LeBaron Outdoor Products Ltd. Website: www.lebaron.ca Email: [email protected] Margo Supplies Ltd. Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Reed Joseph International Website: www.reedjoseph.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-647-5554 Tomahawk Live Trap Company Website: www.livetrap.com Email: [email protected] G.32 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Live-ammunition Shooting Firearms are heavily restricted, and should be used only after all other control methods have failed, or in cases in which immediate removal of persistent animals is required. If firearms must be used, education programs should be instituted to raise public awareness. Although limited in their application, shotguns act in support of scare and dispersal tactics. With flocking birds such as gulls, for instance, the occasional shooting of one bird may be needed to illustrate the significance of loud, sharp noises to the rest of the flock. In removing large and particularly dangerous animals, firearms are required to deliver immobilizing drugs. This technique is particularly useful for removing problem bears, which are usually first snared or caught in culvert traps. When using firearms, empty casings should always be recovered; they can cause serious damage when ingested into turbine aircraft engines. Effectiveness For maximum effectiveness and safety, integrated control programs involving firearms require close cooperation among airport staff and skilled field biologists experienced with guns. Due to their short lethal range, shotguns are preferred over rifles. Shotgun volleys are also less likely to ricochet off flat surfaces such as runways. Permits required Airport personnel must receive special permits to kill such persistent and highly hazardous species as gulls and starlings; many other birds are protected by federal and provincial law. All control programs involving firearms must be undertaken by licensed specialists. Federal law strictly regulates the acquisition and use of firearms. For information regarding requirements under federal law, contact the Canadian Firearms Centre at 1-800-731-4000 or www.canadianfirearms.com. Active Management Through Removal - G.33 Surfactant Water Sprays Use Used to kill birds or disperse them from roosts. Description Surfactants, such as PA-14, are added to water as it is sprayed at roosting sites. The surfactants allow water to penetrate bird feathers. Once the birds become wet, their body temperatures drop and, in cold weather, they are likely to die of hypothermia. Studies indicate water mixed with PA-14 has been successful in the control of both blackbirds and starlings. Spraying is typically done at night when birds are roosting. Advantages • The water-spray method is inexpensive, requiring minimal labour and maintenance. • Surfactants are non-toxic. • Spray can be directed at specific problem areas. Disadvantage • Despite the benefits noted above, water spraying is a more complicated birddispersal method than pyrotechnics. Effectiveness LGL Ltd. recommends water spray with or without surfactants for lethal control or dispersal of birds, particularly in cold temperatures. G.34 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Wildlife-control Products Manufacturers and Distributors Bert ‘Ram’ Trap Ltd. Phone: 1-204-842-5189 Fax: 1-204-842-3287 Margo Supplies Ltd. Website: www.wildlife-mgmt.com Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-403-652-1932 Bird X Inc. Website: www.bird-x.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-662-5021 Nixalite of America Website: www.nixalite.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-624-1189 PBI Gordon Corp. Website: pbigordon.com Toll-Free: 1-800-821-7925 Avian Systems Corp. Website: www.aviansystems.com Toll-Free: 1-888-828-9318 Phoenix Agritech- Phoenix Wailer Website: www.fox.nstn.ca/~phoenix/phoenix/html Email: [email protected] Reed Joseph International Website: www.reedjoseph.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-647-5554 Stoneco Website: theshellcracker.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-833-2264 Wildlife Control Technology Website: www.wildlife-control.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-235-0262 Trillium Windmills Inc. Website: www.trilliumwindmills.com Email: [email protected] Weitech Electronic Pest Control Website: www.weitech.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-343-2659 Flock Fighters Chemical Bird Aversion Website: www.flockfighters.com Email: [email protected] Becker Underwood ReJeX-iT Website: www.bucolor.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-232-5907 Canadian Sani-Corp Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-604-985-7141 Active Management Through Removal - G.35 Abell Pest Control Website: www.abellgroup.com Phone: 1-416-675-1635 PMC Specialties Group Chemical Website: www.pmcsg.com Phone: 1-513-242-3300 Liphatech Rodent control Website: www.liphatech.com Toll-Free: 1-800-558-1003 The Current Corporation Night vision products Website: www.currentcorp.com Email: [email protected] T.C. Management Falconry Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-914-295-5002 Bird Control International Inc. Falconry Phone: 1-519-853-1771 Falcon Environmental Website: www.falconenvironmental.com Email: [email protected] Reed Joseph International Website: www.reedjoseph.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-647-5554 Scarecrow Bio-Acoustic Systems Website: www.scarecrowbio-acoustic.co.uk Email: [email protected] Bird Barrier Website: www.birdbarrier.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-503-5444 or 1-800-662-4737 Wildlife Control Technology Bird Balls™ Website: www.wildlife-control.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-235-0262 Electro-Braid Fencing Website: www.electrobraid.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-888-430-3330 Geotek Inc. Website: www.geotekinc.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-800-533-1680 Tomahawk Live Trap Company Website: www.livetrap.com Email: [email protected] Animal Management Inc. Website: www.animalmanagement.com Email: [email protected] Toll-Free: 1-888-744-8173 LeBaron Outdoor Products Ltd. Website: www.lebaron.ca Email: [email protected] G.36 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics Website: blb.biosci.ohio-state.edu Email: [email protected] Cornell Lab of Ornithology Website: www.birds.cornell.edu/BRP/ Phone: 1-607-254-2408 Section H Integrated Control Methods — Birds Profiles Bird-identification techniques H.1 Field guides H.1 Bird-remains identification H.1 Ranking the hazard levels of birds and other wildlife H.2 Weather H.4 Wind H.4 Temperature H.4 Visibility H.5 Rainfall H.5 Bird Profiles H.5 1. Waterfowl H.7 2. Gulls H.11 3. Raptors H.14 4. Swallows and Nighthawks H.19 5. Pigeons and Doves H.21 6. Shorebirds H.23 7. Crows H.25 8. Herons, Cranes and Egrets H.26 9. House Sparrows H.28 10. European Starlings H.28 11. Other Small Birds H.30 12. Miscellaneous Birds H.32 Protected Species H.37 Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.1 Effective control of birds at airports can only be achieved once existing species have been identified. Bird-identification skills, therefore, should be developed among wildlife-control personnel. Appropriate control measures—such as modifications to bird habitats—can then be implemented. Most birds can be identified by specific behavioural characteristics or unique physical markings, including: Size Season and time of day Voice Shape Geographic distribution Feet Colour and pattern Group size Bills and beaks Habitat Flight pattern Habits Observing both the bills and feet is particularly important when examining bird remains. Bills provide information concerning the feeding habits of birds, while feet give evidence of habitats. Understanding feeding habits and habitat preferences helps wildlife-management personnel understand what has attracted specific birds to airports. Bird-identification techniques Field guides Providing pictures, range maps, and written descriptions of birds, field guides are invaluable tools in bird identification. A number of excellent field guides to North American birds are available. The three commonly used guides in Canada are The Golden Guide, The Peterson Guide, and The National Geographic Society Birds of North America. Each book groups birds into families based upon such physical and behavioural characteristics as beak and body shape, and food and habitat preferences. A basic profile of various problem bird species is provided later in this section; additional resources are listed in Section K. Bird-remains identification The remains of birds involved in aircraft strikes are often difficult to identify, especially when they have been ingested by jet engines. Identification in these circumstances relies on a number of techniques, usually associated with the identification of feather remains. Feather identification is not only an important tool in wildlife control, it is also a useful aid to manufacturers who apply the H.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch knowledge acquired through the various techniques in the design and modification of aircraft engines, windshields, and airframes. Pursuant to an agreement with the United States Air Force and the Smithsonian Institution, Canadian airports receive feather-identification services free of charge. To identify birds involved in Canadian bird-strikes, airport personnel are advised to seal any feathers in a plastic bag and send them to: Carla Dove Smithsonian Institution, Division of Birds NHB E-605, MRC 166 Washington, DC USA 20560 A detailed description of the Smithsonian Institution Feather Identification Program is contained in the April 2001 issue of Flying Safety, which is available on-line at http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/aprmag01/menu.htm. The Aerodrome Safety Information Circular describing the feather identification process is available online at: http://tcinfo/aviation/aerodrme/circulars/english/97_001i_e.htm. Ranking the hazard levels of birds and other wildlife Although all birds and mammals are potential hazards at airports, each species poses a different level of risk. Wildlife-management programs are most effective when they take into account the comparative risks posed by problem species. For instance, control priorities are generally established according to the risk of collision—and the impact damage-potential—posed by particular species. Ranking these species assists authorities in determining their wildlife-control priorities and assigning resources to combat problem species. A ranking of hazardous species in Canada (see Figure H.1 and H.2) has been adapted from the work of Dr. Richard Dolbeer, who conducted similar work in the United States. Dr. Dolbeer’s system ranks species’ risks according to three factors: • percentage of strikes causing damage, • percentage of strikes causing major damage, and • percentage of strikes causing effect-on-flight. Using this method, each species found at Canadian airports is scored according to an ascending hazard scale between one and twenty-one. For example, due Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.3 to their large body mass and flocking behaviour, Canada Geese pose greater threat to aircraft safety—and therefore receive a higher score—than swallows. As a result, wildlife-control authorities understand that if flocks of geese and swallows are present at the airport, they should give priority to countering the presence of the geese. H.1 Ranking the Hazard Level of Candian Bird Species 1993-1999 Species Geese (all species) Gulls(all species) Number of Incidents 138 Rank 1 1604 2 Hawks (buteos) 175 3 Ducks (all species) 150 4 Owls (all species) 76 5 Rock Dove 53 6 Eagles (Bald & Golden) 30 7 Sandhill Crane 17 8 Sparrows/ Snow Bunting 623 9 Shorebirds 155 10 Blackbirds/Starlings 407 11 Crows/Ravens 139 12 Swallows 309 13 65 14 Mourning Dove Herons (all species) 9 15 Vultures (turkey) 3 16 American Kestrel 20 17 Adapted from: Dolbeer, Richard et al. Ranking Wildlife Hazards to Aviation. January 1999. (unpublished) H.2 Ranking the Hazard Level of Canadian Mammal Species 1993-2000 Species Number of Incidents Rank Deer 43 1 Coyote 78 2 H.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Weather Weather conditions affect both bird movement and behaviour. The short-term forecasting of bird movements can benefit from information available at meteorological offices. Keep in mind, however, that bird behaviour is influenced by weather not only near airports, but also by conditions tens or hundreds of kilometres away. For example, migratory waterfowl will stage in northern regions of Canada. When a cold front passes through, these birds will ride the winds aloft that follow the passage of the front, thereby conserving energy required in the flight south. By tracking cold front conditions in the fall, therefore, airport operators to the south can often predict when waves of migratory waterfowl will enter their areas. Wind Three wind factors affect bird movement and behaviour: Wind-chill: Birds expend a great deal of energy maintaining normal body temperatures in cold weather. To avoid winter winds, therefore, birds move to the shelter provided by airport buildings. Wind direction: As previously described, birds often preserve energy by delaying migration until winds are blowing in the direction of their flight. Determining wind direction can be helpful in predicting the numbers of birds on airfields and along proposed air routes. Wind speed: As a rule, wind speed is greater at high altitudes as opposed to low altitudes, where friction caused by the ground decreases wind speed. As a result, birds flying at lower altitudes take more time to travel given distances when facing strong head winds—thereby increasing their time in the air and the likelihood of strikes. Temperature Temperature plays a significant role—especially as it affects bird migration patterns—in determining the food sources available to birds. Seed-eating birds, for instance, will migrate earlier when faced with a shortage of food, and gulls will vacate an area when surface water freezes. Although many birds feed on airfield grass areas, only birds with particularly strong beaks can penetrate the baked and frozen grounds that result from extreme hot and cold conditions. High temperatures also drive insects deeper below ground, further decreasing food availability. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.5 Extreme heat also creates unique meteorological effects, such as thermals. These rapidly rising currents of heated air are sometimes over 1000 metres in height; birds—especially raptors—harness these thermals to quickly gain altitude. As they often occur over the open asphalt found at airports, thermals contribute to a heightened risk of strikes between birds and aircraft. Visibility In poor visibility—in mist and fog, for instance—birds are reluctant to leave familiar surroundings. Bird dispersal under these conditions can therefore be difficult. It should be noted, however, strikes are less likely in these conditions, as bird movements are minimal. Obviously, any birds attempting to rest on runway surfaces during these conditions must be dispersed. Rainfall An obvious hazard to aircraft flight, rain also poses the following indirect hazards: • In wet weather, invertebrate animals—such as worms—rise to the surface and provide an attractive food supply for insectivorous bird species. • After rainfall, birds may be drawn to the driest areas, which may include the short grass adjoining runways and taxiways, or the tarmac itself. • Rainwater collects in puddles and ponds, in which birds bath. Bird Profiles The following guide provides fundamental tables and descriptions for use in the identification of various problem bird species. More detailed identification resources are available through the references provided in Section K. For the purposes of this basic guide, information concerning each bird species falls under the four headings outlined below. Biology Describes and discusses: • • • • • • sizes, appearances, body, bill, head and wing shapes, legs and feet, common colour forms, flight and movement characteristics, H.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • geographic locations, • preferred habitats, and • major behavioural characteristics such as typical flock size, human interaction, feeding actions, and habits at airports. Food and attractants Lists typical sources of food and other common attractants. Control Wildlife-control methods are recommended pursuant to those outlined in Sections C through G. Similar species Lists species with similar attributes. The birds addressed in this section fall into 12 groups: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Waterfowl (geese and ducks) Gulls Raptors (hawks, owls, kestrels, and eagles) Swallows Pigeons and Doves Shorebirds (Dunlins, sandpipers, and plovers) Crows and Vultures Herons and Cranes House Sparrows Starlings Other Small Birds (Snow Buntings and blackbirds) Miscellaneous Birds (pheasants, flickers, robins, larks, and Peregrine Falcons) Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.7 1. Waterfowl Geese Biology Snow Goose (Anser caerulescens atlantica and A.C. caerulescens) • Male: 2744 to 3450 grams (6 to 7.5 lbs) • Female: 2517 to 3087 grams (5.5 to 6.5 lbs) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis moffitti and other subspecies) • Male: 4741 grams (10.5 lbs) • Female: 4044 grams (9 lbs) Geese Brant (Branta bernicla) • Male: 1370 grams (3 lbs) • Female: 1230 grams (2.5 lbs) Their flocking behaviours and large sizes make several species of geese particularly hazardous to aircraft in Canada. The greatest number of these geese is observed during the spring and fall migratory periods, when flocks comprising hundreds of geese take flight in their familiar V-formations. These flocks rest and feed in marsh areas as well as both barren and agriculturally developed fields. The Snow Goose—white and blue-gray in colour—and the Brant breed only in Canada’s far north. During spring and fall migratory periods, however, these birds appear further south in tidal flats, lakes, marshes, open fields, and grain stubble. Canada Goose populations have grown dramatically in North America, and pose increasing problems at many Canadian airports. Between 1985 and 1997, the North American Canada Goose population increased by 54 percent; today, the total population is estimated at over five million. The majority (60 percent) of Canada Geese are migratory; the remaining 40 percent reside in large urban centers, such as Vancouver and Toronto. Canada Geese adapt quickly to changing food sources and nesting locations. As a result, the species has extended its winter range further north, increasing the need to control geese not only during peak migratory periods but year-round. H.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Food and attractants Airports along their migratory routes provide geese with extremely attractive resting and feeding areas. Geese also inhabit other areas of dry open land, such as grass fields, tundra, and corn and grain fields, as well as areas of open water. Geese feed primarily on vegetation, aquatic plants, grass shoots, seedlings, sprouts, and the stubble of many grains. Airport grass can be a strong food attractant. Controls • During peak migratory periods, pyrotechnics are effective for clearing birds from airports. Scare tactics work best when they combine a range of products, such as gas cannons reinforced with live ammunition. Screamer shells have also proven both effective and cost-efficient in dispersing Canada Geese. • Distress and alarm calls are highly recommended for the dispersal of geese. There is a strong biologically based link between alarm calls and escape responses in birds. Furthermore, birds habituate slower to distress and alarm calls than to pyrotechnics. • The use of Border Collies has proven to be an effective means of dispersing waterfowl at a number of airports around the world. • Wet areas should be eliminated. Enclose drainage ditches and fill temporary pools that form after rainstorms and during spring melt. • Remove aquatic and edge vegetation from open water areas through cutting, dredging or herbicide use. • Erect physical barriers around areas of open water. • Cover areas of open water with wire or netting hung 18 centimetres above the surface and at 36-centimetre intervals. To avoid injuring birds, hang streamers from the barrier. When covering water, fences should also be constructed around the edges to prevent geese from walking under overhead wires. • Cover small industrial ponds with floating plastic balls (such as Bird BallsTM), which prevent geese from seeing these bodies of water from the air. Balls are easy to install, adjust to changing water levels and survive various climatic conditions. • Ensure airport ponds have 4-to-1 shoreline slopes. Geese find such ponds less attractive, as on-shore predators are harder to observe from the water. • At Vancouver International Airport, extremely long grass up to 75 centimetres high has proven effective in keeping both geese and ducks off airport lands. Studies completed recently in the United States, however, indicate typical long grass (10 to 20 cm) does not deter geese. To ensure their effectiveness, therefore, long-grass programs should only be implemented following sitespecific studies. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.9 • Replacing grass with herb-rich vegetation—otherwise known as poor-grass regimes—has been an effective control measure at airports in the Netherlands. High wildflowers-to-grass planting ratios provide benefits similar to those of long-grass programs. Botanical expertise should be sought in applying both poor-grass regimes and wildflower-control methods. • All nests of Canada Geese and other waterfowl found on airport property should be removed immediately, preferably before eggs are laid. Adults tending the nests should be dispersed. If the birds persist in returning, they should be shot or otherwise removed. A permit is required for this control measure if eggs are destroyed or geese are shot or captured. • Many residents living near airports feed geese and perceive of them as positive additions to the urban environment. These people should be informed of the hazards geese pose to aircraft. This may be accomplished through communication campaigns that include public meetings and the distribution of awareness and education materials. Local ordinances may also be passed. • Encourage farmers near airports to modify their practices, eliminating attractive crops—such as corn and other grains—and ploughing under stubble, thereby reducing the food supply available to geese. • Lethal-control programs are often required in areas where geese take up permanent residence. Although not as effective as lethal control programs, some airports remove geese using trap-and-relocation programs. These initiatives are becoming much more difficult to implement, as very few communities in North America will accept relocated Canada Geese. Similar species Tundra Swan and White-fronted Goose Ducks Biology Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): • Weight range: 720 to 1580 grams (1.5 to 3.5 lbs) Although several duck species pose hazards to aircraft, the Black Duck—found primarily in central and eastern Canada—and the Mallard—found in central and western Canada—typify the wildlife-control challenges presented by these birds in Canada. H.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Food and attractants Ducks are attracted to ponds, lakes, and slow streams—shallow-water bodies that provide submerged and emergent vegetation and good edge cover. Ducks nest in this habitat throughout their range, which stretches north into tundra regions. Temporary water arising from both spring melt and prolonged rains also attracts these birds. Ducks During nesting season, ducks remain solitary or in pairs. During fall migration, however, they gather by the hundreds in flocks. They feed in shallow water on submerged aquatic plants and aquatic insects, and in agricultural fields on grain and corn stubble. Controls • Enclose drainage ditches and fill temporary pools to eliminate wet areas that form after rainstorms or during spring melt. • Erect physical barriers around areas of open water. • Cover areas of open water with wire or netting hung 18 centimetres above the surface and at 36-centimetre intervals. To avoid injuring birds, hang streamers from the barriers. When covering water, fences should also be constructed around the edges to prevent birds from walking under overhead wires. • Cover small industrial ponds with floating plastic balls (such as Bird BallsTM), which prevent ducks from seeing these bodies of water from the air. Balls are easy to install, adjust to changing water levels and survive various climatic conditions. • The use of Border Collies may be an effective way to disperse ducks that have settled on the ground. • Encourage farmers near airports to modify their practices, eliminating attractive crops—such as corn and grain—and ploughing under stubble, thereby reducing the food supply available to ducks. • Plant corn and grain away from airports in small plots known as lure areas. The roosting and flight patterns of ducks should be studied prior to establishing lure areas to determine the effectiveness of this control strategy. • During peak migratory periods, scare tactics—such as shell crackers—have proven effective in clearing ducks from runways and taxiways. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.11 2. Gulls Biology Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) • Male: 566 grams (1.3 lbs) • Female: 471 grams (1 lb) Herring Gull (Larus agentatus) • Male: 1226 grams (2.5 lbs) • Female: 1044 grams (2.3 lbs) Franklin’s Gull (Larus pipixcan) • Weight range: 220 to 335 grams (0.5 to 0.75 lb) Ring-billed Gull Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) • Weight range: 730 to 1400 grams (1.5 to 3 lbs) Gulls are a high-risk species. Since 1993, they have been involved in more strikes at Canadian airports than any other bird. Their large size, slow speed, flocking behaviour—and rapid habituation to most control measures— combine to make gulls particularly hazardous. The flat, wide-open areas found at airports also provide ideal resting and feeding sites for gulls. Depending on the species, gulls nest in colonies numbering in the thousands, usually at waters’ edge. Gulls often arrive at roosts after nightfall, a behaviour pattern that creates serious strike risks after dark. Gulls pose unique wildlife-control challenges. Usually appearing in late summer, immature gulls are relatively ignorant of aircraft. Although most gulls migrate south in the fall, many spend the winter months in southern areas of Canada near such food sources as landfills, and will often remain as long as there is some open water. Gulls will often travel considerable distances in search of good feeding areas—some have been known to travel up to sixty kilometers between feeding and roosting sites. H.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Ring-billed Gull A major problem species at airports in the Great Lakes region, Ring-billed Gulls are medium-sized birds noted for the black ring around the end of their beaks; young Ring-billed Gulls also have a distinct black band on their tails. These birds are extremely social and have been known to travel long distances daily in search of food. Herring Gull Found throughout much of Canada, Herring Gulls are large birds that are distinguished by the red dot on their beaks. Herring Gulls are not as sociable as Ring-billed Gulls, and are unlikely to stray far from water. Franklin’s Gull Common to the Prairies in spring, Franklin’s Gulls are small, black-headed birds that feed primarily on insects found in prairie fields. This species closely resembles Bonaparte’s Gull, found primarily in the northern Prairies. Glaucous-winged Gull Found along the Pacific coast, Glaucous-winged Gulls are large white birds with dark wing tips. Food and attractants Gulls feed and nest in lakes and ponds, and on flat, open areas. After feeding, gulls tend to loaf in parking lots and on runways. As scavengers, gulls eat a variety foods, including insects, earthworms, grubs, sprouting vegetation, food waste, small animals (dead and alive), fish, berries, and other small fruits. Gulls forage for these foods in many habitats, including short-grass fields, freshly ploughed fields, garbage dumps, restaurants and picnic areas, beaches, shorelines, shallow water, waste-treatment plants, and airports. Controls Although gulls easily habituate to most control methods, the following measures have proven effective, particularly when used in combination as part of a comprehensive control program. • As gulls prefer to loaf on short grass and pavement, cutting airport grasses no shorter than 10 centimetres reduces the attraction to gulls. Gulls find it difficult to observe predators in long grass. These birds also have difficulty accessing small invertebrates—convenient sources of food—in long grass. As long grass may not be appropriate at all airports, Transport Canada recommends that each airport determine the most effective grass heights Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.13 • • • • • • • based on local conditions. Airports should constantly monitor grass management programs to gauge their effectiveness. Other control measures should be used in concert with long grass. Pyrotechnics, for instance, prevent gulls from loafing on runways; insecticides control insect populations. Improved drainage reduces standing water, which provides drinking and bathing sites. Store garbage indoors, or in well-sealed outdoor dumpsters. Scare tactics and persistent harassment are effective in reducing the number of gulls. Shell crackers and flares, for instance, should be reinforced with live ammunition, distress-cry tapes, and falconry. Scare tactics should also be modified regularly to prevent habituation, and used in conjunction with habitat modification techniques. When necessary to remove gulls with live ammunition, #4 steel shot is recommended. Target gulls flying at the head of flocks to best demonstrate the danger to other birds. Placing dead birds at strategic locations and in agony postures also reduces the likelihood that other gulls will return. Lethal control is a necessary part of any gull control program, and it is used as a means to reinforce non-lethal control techniques. Suspend wires over bodies of water and preferred nesting sites to prevent gulls from landing. As with waterfowl, wires should be suspended at 36centimetre intervals approximately 18 centimetres above water. Spray chemicals such as Tersan and Benomyl along runways to kill earthworms. This will decrease the availability of food and drive gulls elsewhere. Neither Tersan nor Benomyl—both available from DuPont Canada—are registered for killing earthworms, and therefore should be used for turf management purposes. Encourage nearby farmers to modify agricultural practices. Night ploughing, for instance, significantly reduces strike hazards in the vicinity of airports because birds do not normally feed at night. Similar species Bonaparte’s Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, and several other gull species. H.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch 3. Raptors Red-tailed Hawk Biology Buteo jamaicensis • Male: 1028 grams (2 lbs) • Female: 1224 grams (2.7 lbs) Found across Canada—and north to the tree-line—Red-tailed Hawks reside in rural areas year-round. Red-tailed Hawk colours vary depending on the region—paler in the Prairies, darker in the Northwest. Red-tailed Hawk Red-tailed Hawks are able to soar to great heights. They usually hunt for small animals while perched on utility poles, fence posts and dead trees. In winter, Red-tailed Hawks have been known to travel great distances in search of prey. Alone or in pairs during the summer, large numbers may gather during migration or in areas containing abundant food. Food and attractants Red-tailed Hawks hunt for mice, rats, voles, birds, ground squirrels, Woodchucks, rabbits, hares, and Muskrats in open areas such as agricultural fields and airport lands. These birds are often attracted to airports through the availability of prominent perching sites. Controls • As the hawk is a perching bird, the removal or modification of perching sites is recommended. The sharp projections of porcupine wire or a single spike —both placed on post tops—effectively discourage perching. • Minimize food supplies by reducing small-animal populations through vegetation and water-body management. Given the broad diet of hawks— and the difficulty managing all their food sources—food-supply management should be considered only one aspect of an overall control program. • Use rodenticides to control specific problem species such as ground squirrels and voles. • Employ live trapping for removal from airport lands. Following the implementation of such programs in Toronto and Windsor—where hawks were trapped, banded and released 50 kilometres away—only four percent Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.15 of birds returned to the airports. Adult, territorial birds are more likely to return than are juvenile birds. Unfortunately, the removal of experienced hawks from airports often results in their replacement by migratory and non-resident birds, which may pose greater risks to aircraft. It is important to ensure that whatever technique is used for Red-tailed Hawk management in fact reduces the strike rate for this species. Similar species Rough-legged Hawk, which inhabits the far North in summer, and migrates south in fall. Swainson’s Hawk ranges through the Yukon, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. The Ferruginous Hawk is found in the Prairies. Great Horned Owl Biology Bubo virginianus • Male: 1318 grams (3 lbs) • Female: 1768 grams (4 lbs) Great Horned Owls are common throughout Canada, and range as far north as the tree-line. During the day, they prefer to roost in forested areas. During twilight hours and at night, they hunt over open fields, marshes, wet areas, and agricultural fields. Great Horned Owls usually winter in their home area, but may travel some distances in search of food. These owls establish nests early in spring in tall trees. Great Horned Owl Food and attractants Large and powerful, Great Horned Owls hunt many animals, including mice, rats, squirrels, rabbits, hares, birds, Woodchucks, skunks, and snakes. These birds prefer open areas—fields, agricultural areas, and airports—where there is an abundance of food. Controls • Eliminate perch sites and replace them with perch barriers and tactile repellents. • Use night-vision technology to study and monitor local owl behaviour. H.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Eliminate nesting sites, such as those found in derelict buildings. • Engage wildlife-control officers to live-trap and relocate owls that have become comfortable at airports. • Modify agricultural practices and clean up garbage. Although they do not feed on garbage or agricultural products, owls are attracted by rodents that favour such food sources. Similar species Short-eared and Long-eared Owls Snowy Owl Biology Nyctea scandiaca • Male: 1806 grams (4 lbs) • Female: 2279 grams (5 lbs) A large, predominantly white bird found in the far North, Snowy Owls spend summers in Canada’s treeless tundra regions. These birds will, however, wander southward in winter in search of prey. Snowy Owl Perching on low mounds, snow banks, and fence posts rather than in trees, Snowy Owls are usually seen alone or in pairs. Unlike many owls, they are active primarily during the day. Food and attractants When they venture south, Snowy Owls are attracted to airfields, as the open spaces resemble the birds’ natural habitat—tundra. Perching low or gliding silently over the ground, Snowy Owls hunt for such small animals as mice, rats, rabbits, ptarmigan, lemmings, and ground squirrels. Controls • Eliminate perch sites, replace them with perch barriers, or treat them with tactile repellents. • Engage wildlife-control officers to live-trap and relocate owls that have become comfortable at airports. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.17 • Modify agricultural practices and clean up garbage. Although they do not feed on garbage or agricultural products, owls are attracted by small rodents that favour such food sources. • Grade and eliminate low mounds and rubble heaps to reduce available perches. Eagle (Bald and Golden) Biology Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) • Male 3477 to 4130 grams (7.5 to 9 lbs) • Female 4913 to 5350 grams (11 to 12 lbs) Eagles are the largest bird of prey found in North America. Although not a common problem at Canadian airports, eagles were involved in 27 reported incidents between 1993 and 1999; their large size and tendency to soar make them significant hazards. Food and attractants Eagles feed on rodents, and are attracted to the open areas that provide these sources of food. Eagles will soar in thermals over airports. Controls Few products or techniques have proven effective to control eagles. When used by trained wildlife-control personnel, however, the Ruggieri CAPA anti-birdstrike cartridge is a safe, long-range, and reliable scare method. For greatest effectiveness, however, use pyrotechnics sparingly. Note: Eagles are a protected species in Canada. The use of toxins or other lethal control measures against these birds is prohibited by law. American Kestrel Biology Falco sparverius • Male: 111 grams (0.25 lb) • Female: 120 grams (0.25 lb) H.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch American Kestrels, also known as Sparrowhawks, are small falcons found throughout Canada. They range north to the tree-line in the summer, and migrate to southern Canada during the winter. Food and attractants Commonly seen alone or in pairs along roadsides, in agricultural areas and at airports, American Kestrels often perch on—and observe prey from—utility wires, small dead trees and posts near open-field areas. They also fly over fields in search of such animals as mice, voles, and small birds, as well as large insects, such as grasshoppers and crickets. Controls • To eliminate habitat that attracts small animals and insects, establish vegetation and drain water from airfields. • Remove dead trees and modify perches using porcupine wire and other tactile repellents. Similar species Merlin Turkey Vulture Biology Cathartes aura • Average Weight: 1135 to 1589 grams (2.5 to 3.5 lbs) Once common only to areas south of Canada, Turkey Vultures are now found throughout the countryside, as well as in many cities of southern Canada. Turkey Vultures tend to roost in large numbers on rock ledges, cliff faces, hollow trees, and even in abandoned buildings. Although presently a low-risk bird in Canada, Turkey Vultures have been involved in only three reported strikes between 1993 and 2000; the Turkey Vulture population in Canada continues to increase. The large body mass and low-level soaring behaviour of these birds makes them an increasing strike threat at Canadian airports. Food and attractants Turkey Vultures feed primarily on carrion and are often found at landfills. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.19 Controls As noted above, Turkey Vultures are considered low-risk birds at Canadian airports, as the species is not yet common in Canada. These birds have, however, been involved in a number of aircraft losses during low-level flying missions undertaken by the United States Air Force. While work is being done in the United States to better understand Turkey Vulture behaviour, pilots should be advised to avoid areas frequented by soaring Turkey Vultures. 4. Swallows and Nighthawks Swallow Biology Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) • Male: 16.2 grams (0.03 lb) • Female: 15.8 grams (0.03 lb) Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) • Weight range: 17.5 to 26.7 grams (0.03 to 0.05 lb) Barn Swallow These small flocking birds are found throughout southern Canada, the Yukon, and western Northwest Territories. Swallows are easily identified by their small size and erratic, swerving flight. Two species are airport hazards: Barn Swallows, with their forked tail, build mud nests in protected areas on building ledges, under eaves and against walls; Cliff Swallows prefer to build their juglike nests under eaves. Both species also nest inside buildings, such as hangars, barns, and garages. Swallows are not considered high risk, although these birds have been involved in a large number of bird-strikes at Canadian airports; strikes against flocks, in particular, can result in significant aircraft damage. Food and attractants Swallows catch and eat insects while in flight. These birds are attracted to areas that produce large insect populations, such as wetlands and cut grass. Large numbers of swallows also reside at airports located near water, where the birds feed on aquatic insects such as crane flies that are blown over airport lands. H.20 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Controls • Nest removal is the most effective way to control swallows at airports. Airport buildings and structures should be checked regularly for nests, which should be removed immediately. Hidden nests can be located by watching the ground in preferred nesting areas for accumulated bird droppings and straw. • Block and screen holes, cavities, vents, and ledges to prevent access to the interiors of airport hangars and buildings. The application of screen and plastic or metal sheeting prevents nests from adhering to the underside of eaves. • Eliminate insect-breeding areas—such as slow-moving water—through vegetation management. • Consult with area farmers to determine effective aerial spays for eliminating insects. Of note, a study at Vancouver International Airport has shown that chlorpyrifos eliminates crane-fly populations. The study also found that the insecticide’s ecological impact was minimized when applied in the spring. • Use falconry as a scaring technique. • When using pyrotechnics, vary the sounds and locations daily to avoid habituation. Similar species Tree Swallow, Bank Swallow, and Purple Martin Common Nighthawk Biology Chordeiles minor • Male and female: 62 grams (0.12 lb) In summer, Common Nighthawks range throughout Canada and as far north as the tree-line; in winter, they migrate to South America. These birds are active primarily at dusk and during the night, although they are occasionally seen during the day. In shape and size, they resemble small falcons; however, Common Nighthawks are distinguished by their nocturnal habits, predominantly dark colour, erratic flight patterns, and insect-eating behaviour. Food and attractants Common Nighthawks are commonly seen in small groups of five to ten. They feed entirely on moths and other insects captured in flight near such insectattracting and insect-producing sites as light towers, wet areas, and damp fields. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.21 Control • Eliminate habitats that produce or attract insects, establish vegetation, and drain water from airfields. Consult nearby farmers to determine effective insecticides. Similar species Small falcon 5. Pigeons and Doves Common Pigeon (Rock Dove) Biology Columba livia • Male: 369 grams (0.8 lb) • Female: 340 grams (0.7 lb) Year-round inhabitants of urban areas throughout southern Canada, pigeons—or Rock Doves—roost and nest on sheltered ledges inside and outside buildings. Pigeons are prolific breeders of particular concern at airports, where they are commonly found around hangars and terminals. Flocks of up to 50 birds are common, producing abundant and unsightly droppings that may contain various disease-causing agents. Clean-up and disposal of these droppings should be done only when wearing proper protective gear, including gloves, respiratory masks and goggles. Food and attractants Although tight flocks may be seen flying rapidly over the countryside, pigeons rarely venture far from specific buildings upon which they have chosen to roost. Pigeons feed on grains, seeds, garbage scraps, and seedlings, and are attracted to gravel areas by the availability of grit. Controls • Remove all nests promptly. Nests are commonly found in hangars, on ledges, under bridges and, in some cases, in parked aircraft. • Reduce available nesting and roosting sites by modifying buildings to limit ledge space; close entry holes through the use of screens and boards. • Use scare tactics and pyrotechnics in concert with other control methods. H.22 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Live-trapping, according to an Israeli study, is the most cost-effective, environmentally-friendly method for the long-term control of pigeons. Live-trapped pigeons should be removed and killed because pigeons have a strong homing instinct. • Air rifles have proven to be highly effective in lethal-control programs at airports. • Use chemicals to kill or drug pigeons for removal. Avitrol-treated corn kills pigeons ingesting the treated corn and disperses other members of the flock. Alpha chlorase-treated corn can be used to drug pigeons so they can be captured and killed humanely. • Hire local pest-control companies. These firms deal with pigeons on a regular basis and are licensed to use various chemical products. Mourning Dove Biology Zenaida macroura • Male: 123 grams (0.25 lb) • Female: 115 grams (0.25 lb) Similar in overall appearance to pigeons, the smaller Mourning Doves are, however, brown with long pointed tails. They are common throughout most of rural southern Canada, and are normally seen in tight flocks of up to 20 birds. Flocks of up to 1,000 birds have also been observed. Most Mourning Doves migrate south in winter, although some birds remain in the extreme southern parts of Canada. Mourning Dove Food and attractants Mourning Doves are attracted to open areas near forests, woodlots, and agricultural fields and—unlike pigeons—often roost on telephone wires. Mourning Doves feed on seeds and insects found in agricultural areas and open fields. They also forage for grit in gravel pits and along roadsides. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.23 Controls • Noises and shell crackers are effective in dispersing Mourning Doves. • Remove weeds from fields. • Ensure stubble and split grain is not left on agricultural fields. 6. Shorebirds Plovers Biology Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) • Weight range: 122 to 192 grams (0.25 to 0.4 lb) Various types of small to medium-sized shorebirds are common to all regions of Plover Canada. The Killdeer and Golden Plover are particularly common at airports, preferring open habitats with little undergrowth; both species nest in dry, short grass and gravel-rich fields—Golden Plover in tundra regions of the far North and the Killdeer throughout southern Canada. Being migratory birds, plovers are most often observed in flocks during the fall. Throughout the summer, however, Killdeer are commonly seen in pairs or small groups. Plovers resemble sandpipers, but are distinguished by their short beaks and short, thick necks and bodies. Food and attractants Most plovers feed on small insects, crustaceans, grubs, and worms they find in shallow water and in the surface soil of wet fields and mud flats. The Killdeer and Golden Plover, however, prefer dry areas, such as short-grass fields, freshly ploughed fields, and areas rich in gravel. Controls • Improve drainage to eliminate attractive wet areas, such as ponds and other wetlands. • Maintain long grass, as plovers prefer short grass or gravel—areas that provide clear views of predators and better access to food. • Scare tactics, such as shell crackers, gas cannons, and falconry should be used in peak migratory periods. H.24 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Similar species Black-bellied Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, Semipalmated Plover, and Sandpipers Sandpipers/Dunlins Biology Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) • Male: 137 grams (0.3 lb) • Female: 164 grams (0.4 lb) Dunlin (Calidris alpina sakhalina) • Male: 55 grams (0.1 lb) • Female: 60 grams (0.1 lb) Various species of sandpiper are common to all regions of Canada. Although similar to plovers in several ways, sandpipers have longer beaks and more slender necks and bodies. Sandpiper As a rule, sandpipers prefer wetlands, such as ponds, lake shorelines, and mudflats. The exception is the Upland Sandpiper, which prefers the dry, grassy fields found in western and south-eastern Canada. Of particular concern to airport wildlife authorities, Upland Sandpipers migrate south in flocks during fall. The Dunlin is another problem species—a common shoreline species that breeds in the far North, but is seen farther south in flocks during fall and winter, particularly along the Pacific coast. Food and attractants Sandpipers feed on a variety of grubs, worms, crustaceans, and insects found in the soil of mud flats, wet-grass areas, beaches and fields. Upland Sandpipers are often seen perching on fence posts. Controls • Improve drainage to eliminate attractive wet areas, such as ponds and other wetlands. • Maintain long grass, as sandpipers prefer short grass or gravel—areas that provide clear views of predators and better access to food. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.25 • At Vancouver International Airport, pyrotechnics—such as screamers and whistlers—have proven effective in dispersing Dunlins. Propane cannons, meanwhile, were found to drive birds upwards rather than out of the area. • Falconry is an effective but costly method of scaring shorebirds. Similar species Common Snipe and Long-billed Curlew 7. Crows American Crow Biology Corvus brachyrhynchos • Male: 458 grams (1 lb) • Female: 438 grams (1 lb) American Crows are large, black birds commonly seen across Canada and north to the tree-line. Adaptable to many habitats—including forests, agricultural areas, cities, towns, open fields, and garbage dumps—American Crows are often seen alone, in pairs or in flocks ranging from five to 50 birds. Owls are an arch enemy, and large numbers of crows often congregate during the day to harass roosting owls. Food and attractants American Crows eat a variety of foods, including grains, stubble, sprouting plants, vegetables, and berries, as well as small rodents and dead animals, which they find in fields, garbage dumps, and along roadsides. At airports, American Crows will generally roost in tall, prominent trees. Controls • Limit available foods by enclosing refuse containers, removing animal carcasses, and cleaning picnic areas. • Distress calls and pyrotechnics are useful to disperse crows, especially when roosting. Similar Species Raven (north and far north) and Northwestern Crow (west coast) H.26 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch 8. Herons, Cranes and Egrets Great Blue Heron Biology Ardea herodias • Male: 2576 grams (5.7 lbs) • Female: 2204 grams (4.8 lbs) Tall, wading birds commonly found throughout southern Canada—the Great Blue Heron feeds along the edges of shallow ponds, rivers, lakes, marshes, Great Blue Heron and swamps as well as in grassy fields. While hunting, Great Blue Herons are often difficult to see; they move slowly in shallow marshes looking to spear small animals. Great Blue Herons are often seen flying at dusk and dawn—beating their wings slowly with their necks curved back against their bodies as they fly. These are solitary birds, except during migration, when they are often seen in pairs. Food and attractants Great Blue Herons are attracted to still and slow moving waters—such as ditches and ponds—that are abundant with edge and aquatic vegetation. In these habitats birds feed on most small aquatic animals, including fish, frogs, snakes, insects, salamanders, and crayfish. Great Blue Herons will also frequent open fields, including airports, to feed on rodents such as voles and mice. Controls • Improve drainage to eliminate attractive wetlands, such as ponds and marshes. • Suspend wires and netting or use Bird Balls™ to cover large ponds that cannot be drained or filled. • Reduce rodent populations in grassy areas. • Reduce available food supply by eliminating the vegetation that surrounds water. • Scare tactics, such as shell crackers, are effective when used in conjunction with other control methods. Similar species Sandhill Crane and Whooping Crane Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.27 Sandhill Crane Biology Grus canadensis tabida • Male: 5797 grams (13 lbs) • Female: 5345 grams (12 lbs) Sandhill Cranes are tall wading birds that summer in the far north as well as in areas of central and western Sandhill Crane Canada. These birds are often seen in flocks through southern Canada during fall migration. Sandhill Cranes nest in wetlands, such as marshes, bogs, wet fields, and on the weedy edges of lakes. They forage for vegetation and small animals in wetlands, open fields, and agricultural areas—usually following harvest. Often confused with the Great Blue Heron, Sandhill Cranes are slate gray with red-capped heads; young birds are brown. More commonly seen in flocks than Great Blue Herons, Sandhill Cranes are characterized in flight by rapid wing beats and outstretched necks. Food and attractants Sandhill Cranes are attracted to marshes, bogs, and the weedy edges of lakes. They also prefer open fields and freshly ploughed earth. These birds feed on a variety of small animals, including frogs, fish, mice, snakes, grasshoppers and grubs. During the fall, Sandhill Cranes enjoy resting in fields that offer the stubble of wheat, barley and oats. Controls • Improve drainage to eliminate wetlands, such as ponds. • Cover drainage ditches and fill in temporary pools created by heavy rain and spring melt. • Use insecticides in grassy areas to decrease the availability of food. • Encourage nearby farmers not only to plough under grain stubble, but also to plough at night. • Use scare tactics, such as shell crackers and noise makers. • Sandhill Cranes are a protected species in Canada; it is illegal to use lethal means to control these birds without Federal permit. Similar species Great Blue Heron and Whooping Crane H.28 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch 9. House Sparrows Biology Passer domesticus • Male: 28 grams (0.06 lb) • Female: 27 grams (0.06 lb) House Sparrows are commonly found in flocks of various sizes in cities and towns throughout southern Canada. They nest in holes and cavities both outside and inside buildings, and in dense vines and shrubbery near buildings. House Sparrows will winter in buildings such as airport hangers, maintenance garages, and storage sheds if food sources are available nearby. Food and attractants House Sparrows feed on seeds, grain, small fruits, and garbage scraps. Controls • Block or screen any holes, vents, and cavities in hangars and other buildings. • Limit available food by cleaning up garbage and enclosing refuse containers. • Remove sparrows through trapping and the use of Avitrol. • Scare tactics disperse House Sparrows quickly from runways and taxiways. House Sparrow 10. European Starlings Biology Sturnus vulgaris • Male: 85 grams (0.18 lb) • Female: 80 grams (0.17 lb) European Starlings are a flocking species found throughout farms, parks, cities, and towns in southern Canada. These birds are, however, gradually expanding their range northward. They are able to squeeze through openings less than two inches wide to nest in holes or cavities outside and inside buildings, including mailboxes, ventilation ducts and aircraft-engine intakes and ports. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.29 During fall, large flocks of European Starlings gather to roost in trees, reed beds, under bridges, and on buildings. These birds spend winters in areas that provide adequate food and shelter, including farms and cities in southern Canada. Their winter plumage is spotted white; in summer, they are predominantly dark in colour. Their dark winter bills change to yellow during breeding season. Food and attractants European Starlings are attracted to short-grass fields, barnyards, freshlyploughed fields, granaries, berry-producing bushes, and food-processing plants. These birds feed on insects, seeds, grains, small fruits, and food scraps. Controls • Remove all nests found in airport buildings. Prevent future nesting by sealing cracks and holes and placing screen vents over other openings. • Discourage roosting by closing buildings and placing porcupine wire on ledges, rooftops, and rafters. Netting or wires can also be placed over indoor roosting areas. Tactile perches are also recommended. • Cut back or remove trees used for perching. • Spraying roosting birds with water in cold weather is both a dispersal method and a lethal control, as wet birds are likely to die in low temperatures. • Keep grass long to decrease the ability of small birds to see prey and find food. As European Starlings feed on insects, aerial spraying of insecticides is effective in conjunction with long-grass programs. • Eliminate fruit and berry-producing vegetation to minimize food supply. • Encourage farmers to feed livestock in open sheds during the late afternoon, and to keep water for these animals at low levels. • Use scare tactics, such as shell crackers and distress-cry tapes, to disperse birds. Scare tactics should be modified and varied frequently to avoid habituation. • Lethal controls include the use of Avitrol, starlicide, and live-ammunition shooting. • Trapping is largely ineffective against the high numbers of European Starlings generally found near airports. H.30 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch 11. Other Small Birds Snow Bunting Biology Plectrophenax nivalis • Weight range: 34 to 56 grams (0.07 to 0.12 lb) White with black wing tips, Snow Buntings are sparrow-like flocking birds that migrate to southern Canada from the far North. Snow Bunting Food and attractants In winter, flocks of 50 to 100 Snow Buntings are attracted to exposed weeds and low bushes in wide-open areas where they feed on weed seeds and dried berries. Snow Buntings often find food and grit at runway edges exposed by snowplows. Control • In late summer and fall, reduce standing weeds—particularly adjacent to runways—through cutting or a seasonal-herbicide application. • Scare tactics, such as shell crackers and noisemakers, work well against Snow Buntings, although the flocks are often simply moved from one part of the airport to another. • Fill holes and cavities and place screens on vents to prevent Snow Buntings from entering airport buildings. • Halifax International Airport recently devoted half of its wildlife-management program resources to falconry—with effective results against Snow Buntings. The hunting characteristics of the falcon used at Halifax were similar to those of the Gyrfalcon—a species Snow Buntings fear innately. Similar species Various sparrows, Horned Lark and Lapland Longspur Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.31 Blackbirds Biology Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) • Male: 64 grams (0.14 lb) • Female: 42 grams (0.09 lb) Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) • Male: 127 grams (0.28 lb) • Female: 100 grams (0.22 lb) Yellow-headed Blackbird Cowbird (Molothrus ater) • Male: 49 grams (0.1 lb) • Female: 39 grams (0.09 lb) Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) • Male: 80 grams (0.17 lb) • Female: 49 grams (0.1 lb) These four species of blackbirds are common throughout specific regions in Canada: • Red-winged Blackbird: southern Canada, the Yukon and North-west Territories. • Yellow-headed Blackbird: southern Canada west of Ontario. • Cowbird and Common Grackle: southern Canada. Migrating in flocks numbering in the thousands, all four species are attracted to wet, marshy areas surrounded by such vegetation as bulrushes, willows, and cattails. The Common Grackle and Cowbird are also found in open areas near forests and parkland. Food and attractants All species of blackbirds are attracted to short-grass fields, pastures, barnyards, corn and grain fields, and fruit-producing bushes. These birds feed on insects, grains, and soft fruits. H.32 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Controls • Improve drainage to eliminate wetlands. • Eliminate vegetation surrounding permanent wetlands, such as ponds and ditches. • Eliminate fruit- and berry-producing vegetation. • Encourage nearby farmers to modify agricultural practices and eliminate corn and grain stubble. • Combine long-grass programs—in which lengths are maintained between 10 and 15 centimetres—with regular pesticide applications to control insect infestations. • Use scare tactics, such as shell crackers and distress-cry tapes, to disperse birds. This technique is best employed in the early morning and late afternoon when blackbirds are actively feeding; scare tactics should also be modified and varied frequently to limit habituation. • Lethal-control methods include the use of Avitrol and live ammunition. Similar species Rusty Blackbird and Brewer’s Blackbird 12. Miscellaneous Birds Ring-necked Pheasant Biology Phasianus colchicus • Male: 1317 grams (3 lbs) • Female: 953 grams (2 lbs) Generally seen in pairs or groups up to five, Ring-necked Pheasants are common in many parts of southern Canada. Because of their size and potential to damage aircraft, pheasants should not be allowed to nest or feed on airports. Ring-necked Pheasant Food and attractants Ring-necked Pheasants prefer dense undergrowth in open country, forest edges near agricultural areas, and marshes and ditches offering sufficient cover. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.33 These birds feed on weed seeds, sprouting plants, berries, insects and crops such as corn, grain stubble, soybeans, and alfalfa. Control • Pyrotechnics quickly disperse persistent birds. • Eliminate brush from open areas. • Encourage nearby farmers to modify agricultural practices and eliminate corn and grain stubble. • Trained dogs were used successfully to locate nests at the former Canadian Forces Base in Lahr, Germany. Flicker Biology Colaptes auratus auratus • Male: 135 grams (0.3 lb) • Female: 129 grams (0.3 lb) Flickers reside as far north as the tree-line throughout Canada. In southern British Columbia and Alberta Flickers are yellow in colour; elsewhere they are generally orange-red. Small groups of three to five Flickers are often seen in favourable feeding areas. Food and attractants Flickers nest in cavities in dead trees and fence posts. These birds feed on insects—such as ants—that they find in open fields, on fence posts, and in rotten logs and trees. Control • Eliminate potential nesting sites, such as logs and dead trees. • Combine long-grass programs with regular pesticide applications to control insect infestations. • Use scare tactics to disperse Flickers from runways. H.34 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Robin Biology Turdus migratorius • Weight range: 64 to103 grams (0.13 to 0.25 lb) In summer, Robins can be found as far north as the tree-line throughout Canada. Small groups of three to five may be seen in favourable feeding areas. Large flocks are rarely observed—even during migration. Food and attractants Robins prefer nesting in stands of trees found in parkland and residential areas. They feed in open fields and short grass, eating small berries and fruits, grubs, insects, and earthworms—particularly after rainstorms. Control • Combine long-grass programs—in which lengths are maintained between 10 and 15 centimetres—with regular pesticide applications to control insect infestations. • Eliminate berry-producing shrubs and bushes. • Use scare tactics to disperse Robins from runways. • Use earthworm-inhibiting chemicals, such as Benomyl or Tersan, in extreme cases only. Meadowlark Biology Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) • Male: 102 grams (0.22 lb) • Female: 76 grams (0.16 lb) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) • Male: 112 grams (0.25 lb) • Female: 89 grams (0.2 lb) During the summer, Meadowlarks are found across most of southern Canada, except in the Maritimes. Although they are sometimes observed in small groups in favourable feeding areas, flocks of Meadowlarks are rare. Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.35 Food and attractants Meadowlarks prefer the abundant long grass and weed growth of open fields, where they feed largely on insects, berries, and seeds. Control • Employ habitat-management techniques through grass cutting and general clean-up of old field habitats. • Eliminate weeds. • Use scare tactics to disperse Meadowlarks from runways. Horned Lark Biology Eremophila alpestris • Male: 32 grams (0.07 lb) • Female: 31 grams (0.06 lb) Horned Larks are sparrow-sized birds commonly found throughout Canada, including the Far North. During the fall, Horned Larks form flocks and migrate to southern Canada and the United States. Horned Lark Food and attractants A ground species, the Horned Lark prefers open, gravel-rich fields that provide grass and weed clumps for cover, as well as weed seeds and insects for food. Controls • Cut grass and modify habitat to decrease available food sources. • Eliminate weeds and establish turf species. • Use scare tactics to disperse Horned Larks from runways. H.36 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Peregrine Falcon Biology Falco peregrinus • Male: 611 grams (1.3 lb) • Female: 952 grams (2 lbs) Once found throughout most of Canada, Peregrine Falcon populations declined to very low numbers by the 1970’s. Although populations have increased in recent years, they are still considered endangered everywhere in Canada and in many regions of the United States. Successful programs have been conducted to re-establish Peregrine Falcons in southern Canada through the release of captive-bred birds in many major centres. Peregrine Falcons are large birds with long, slender, pointed wings and slender tails that assist them in flying rapidly and directly. They breed primarily on high cliffs, building ledges and bridge girders, but can be seen hunting during fall and spring migrating periods in open areas—such as airports—where prey is abundant. Young birds are predominantly brown. Food and attractants Peregrine Falcons are attracted to open areas, where they feed on small and medium-sized birds such as pigeons, ducks, shorebirds, blackbirds, Mourning Doves, and gulls. Controls Given their low population numbers, Peregrines Falcons are not considered a problem species at airports, nor are they likely to become significant strike hazards in the near future. Nonetheless, it is illegal to kill or disturb Peregrine Falcons in their nesting areas in both Canada and the United States. If Peregrine Falcon carcasses are found—or they are involved in aircraft strikes— reports should be filed with the Canadian Wildlife Service. Similar species • Prairie Falcon: found in the southern Prairies and British Columbia • Gyrfalcon: found in the far North • Merlin Integrated Control-methods Profile — Birds - H.37 Protected Species The federal government of Canada protects most native bird species. Prior to implementing control programs, wildlife-control personnel are advised to consult the listing of protected species at www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/Species/English/SearchRequest.cfm. Furthermore, Appendix D of Transport Canada’s Sharing the Skies (TP 13549E) provides a complete listing of legislative and regulatory measures governing wildlife management and the environment, along with relevant website addresses at which further information can be found. Section I Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles Mammal Profiles I.1 Deer and other Ungulates I.2 Whitetail Deer I.3 Mule Deer I.3 Control measures and management techniques I.4 Visual- and auditory-deterrent techniques I.6 Deer-removal methods I.6 Elk I.8 Moose I.8 Woodland Caribou I.9 Bears Black Bear Canids I.10 I.11 I.12 Grey Wolf I.12 Coyote I.12 Red Fox I.13 Muskrat and Beavers I.15 Muskrat I.15 Beaver I.16 Leporids Snowshoe Hare (also known as the Varying Hare) Moles Starnose Mole I.17 I.18 I.19 I.19 Section I Squirrels I.19 Red Squirrel I.20 Ground Squirrels I.21 Richardson Ground Squirrel I.21 Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel I.22 Woodchuck I.22 Pocket Gophers I.23 Northern Pocket Gopher I.24 Mice I.24 Meadow Vole I.25 Rats I.25 Norway Rat Other Problem Mammals I.25 I.26 Raccoon I.26 Badger I.27 Skunks I.28 Striped Skunk I.28 Other Small Mammals I.29 Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.1 Mammal Profiles Mammals can be categorized as posing either direct or indirect strike hazards to aircraft. Due to their size, large mammals such as deer or Coyotes are generally considered direct threats. Smaller mammals, including rodents, are categorized as indirect threats because they attract direct-threat predators such as raptors and Canids. Mammals also pose an assortment of airport-maintenance problems, such as chewing through electric cables, burrowing—which can damage mowing machinery as well as weaken aircraft movement areas—and tunneling under fences. Most mammal-control programs comprise these key methods: • fencing to exclude large mammals. • poisoning through the use of lethal chemicals that repel or kill animals, and • trapping and shooting to remove or disperse animals. When developing and implementing mammal-control programs at airports, several general principles should be considered: • Install effective security fencing to prevent large mammals from entering airport lands. • Eliminate broad-leaved plants—such as weeds, clover, and alfalfa—on all areas within 300 metres of runway centre lines. • Apply herbicides regularly to prevent the recurrence of broad-leaved plant cover. • Close all fence gates when not in use. • Install cattle gates where fence openings are frequently used. • Ensure all necessary Federal, Provincial, and Municipal permits are obtained before mammals are killed or removed. • Inform the nearest Canadian Wildlife Service office whenever endangered species are involved. • Maintain mammal-control files to ensure a log of interaction with these species. • Report all mammal strikes by completing and submitting Transport Canada’s Bird/Wildlife Strike form. • Maintain and keep available a list of the names and telephone numbers of local wildlife authorities. I.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch This section provides an introductory guide to the following mammals considered hazardous to aircraft in Canada: • • • • • • • • • • • Deer and other Ungulates (Elk, Moose, and Caribou) Bears (Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, and Polar Bears) Canids (Coyotes, Wolves, and Foxes) Muskrats and Beavers Leporids (Hare and Rabbits) Moles Squirrels and Woodchucks Pocket Gophers Mice Rats Raccoons, Badgers, and Skunks Readers are presented with cursory descriptions of the mammals and their behaviour, as well as effective control methods to employ against these animals. Deer and other Ungulates Biology Ungulates are hoofed mammals that shed their antlers once a year. These animals pose extremely serious hazards to aircraft, straying onto active runways and taxiways, and disrupting the schedules and budgets of airlines. Strikes can significantly damage aircraft. Food and attractants Ungulates are attracted to airports by: • cover provided by broad-leaved vegetation, such as trees and shrubs; • food, particularly grasses and legumes, such as clover and alfalfa; and • protection afforded by open airport lands. Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.3 Whitetail Deer Biology Height: approximately 1 m (3 ft) (The height of all Ungulates is measured to the shoulder) Weight (males): up to 182 kg (400 lbs) Weight (females): up to 90 kg (200 lbs) Location: Whitetail Deer are found throughout southern Canada in swamps and young-growth forests. Whitetail deer Features: • Flagging tails. • Coats are reddish in summer and blue-gray in winter. • Males have two-beam antlers with prongs. At airports, deer disrupt operations, delaying takeoffs and landings and temporarily closing runways. Strikes can cause significant damage to aircraft. Food and attractants Deer are attracted to the large open tracts of land available at airports—land that is isolated from heavily populated areas. The diet of Whitetail Deer consists mainly of grass, twigs, and buds. Similar Species Mule Deer Mule Deer Biology Height: approximately 1 m (3 ft) Weight (males): up to 180 kg (400 lbs) Weight (females): up to 68 kg (150 lbs) Features: • Coats are reddish in summer and bluegray in winter. Mule deer I.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Tails are white with black tips; they have a white patch on their hind. • Antlers on males rise vertically, then divide evenly and slant backward at the first fork. Food and attractants Mule Deer prefer coniferous-forest and grassland habitats, where they eat grass, twigs, and buds. Similar Species Elk, Whitetail Deer Control measures and management techniques In March 2000, LGL Limited conducted a study for Transport Canada to determine the most effective means of preventing deer strikes at airports. The authors examined existing literature and proceedings from wildlifemanagement conferences, and communicated with wildlife workers, including airport managers, game-farm owners, and staff at public zoos. Several deer-exclusion devices and deterrent techniques were reviewed and rated; the findings regarding recommended fencing are summarized throughout this section. Fencing is also discussed in Section F. The report is available online as an Aerodrome Safety Circular, Evaluation of the Efficacy of Various Deer Exclusion Devices and Deterrent Techniques for use at Airports: http://www.tc.gc.ca/Civil Aviation/aerodrome/menu.htm. The report can be obtained by calling: 1-800-305-2059 or E-mail: http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation Perimeter fencing Effective perimeter fencing is the most important component of successful deer-control programs—especially when combined with habitat-management techniques, such as vegetation removal. Electric fencing Electric fencing administers a rapidly pulsed charge of 4,000 to 5,000 VDC. Its 80-percent effectiveness rate declines rapidly when fences are poorly maintained; weed growth and snow cover, for instance, can short-circuit electric fences. Furthermore, the stresses of high populations, the fall rutting season, and the Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.5 presence of hunters can motivate deer to cross these fences regardless of the pain these barriers inflict. Airport fence with hole Electro-Braid™ Electro-Braid is a recent Canadian product developed for both horse ranching and deer control, ElectroBraid is essentially copper wire that has been braided into polyester rope. Placed 15 to 30 centimetres apart, seven to nine strands of this rope are strung horizontally between fiberglass or wooden posts. The strands are then attached to the positive post of a grounded fence charger producing 4,000 to 5,000 VDC. Electro-Braid is highly visible, ensuring fewer accidental contacts by deer. Non-electric fencing Non-electric fencing must be at least three metres high to provide effective physical barriers to deer. To remain effective, this fencing should be patrolled regularly, and cleared of accumulated snow and underbrush. Non-electric fencing must also be durable enough to resist damage by chewing or ripping. Galvanized-steel chain-link fencing Galvanized-steel chain-link fencing is described in detail in Transport Canada Airport Fencing Manual (AK-70-21). Galvanized-steel chain-link fencing is used at most international and regional airports in Canada and is recognized as an effective, long-term measure for deer control at airports. This fencing is comprised of 2.4 metre-high woven steel mesh supported by well-anchored steel posts and topped by three strands of barbed wire. The height and strength of this fencing combine to create an effective physical barrier to deer. The relatively high initial cost, however—approximately $43,000 per kilometre— may prove prohibitive for some airports. High-tensile fixed-knot fencing High-tensile fixed-knot fencing is effective in areas where galvanized-steel chain-link fencing disrupts Instrument Landing Systems. Sold under several brand names, including Solidlock® and Tightlock®, this fencing is made of I.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch high-tensile horizontal wires. The spacing of the wire widens toward the top of the fence, at which deer contact is less likely. This fencing controls a variety of wildlife, including Moose, deer, Elk, wolves, and Coyotes. The tightly locked wires resist distortion and prevent animals from crawling beneath or squeezing through. To be effective, these fences should be at least 3.7 metres in height (Whitetail Deer have been known to jump three-metre fences). Cattle gates Cattle gates should be installed when fence openings must be maintained for vehicle traffic. These barriers are essentially steel grates placed in the ground between fence posts. Cattle are discouraged from crossing as they are unable to gain footings on the open piping that comprises these grates, which are nonetheless strong enough to support vehicle traffic. Visual- and auditory-deterrent techniques Deer will respond to visual and auditory removal techniques, such as pyrotechnics and flags, on a short-term basis. Most deer, however, adapt to sound or visual markers and learn to ignore them if they are not associated with real danger. Visual and auditory deterrents, therefore, are not recommended for long-term deer control at airports. Pyrotechnics can provide short-term effectiveness when deployed by trained personnel. As habituation occurs quickly, however, long-term solutions should be implemented. In areas where hunting is permitted, deer avoid the sound of gunfire. The effectiveness of this auditory deterrent is likely due at least in part to the seasonal nature of hunting activities, to which deer do not have the opportunity to habituate. Deer-removal methods One-way gates One-way gates are used in conjunction with perimeter fencing to allow deer to exit fenced areas. As they permit deer to escape on their own, these gates reduce the dangers to deer posed by trapping and handling procedures. Gates Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.7 should be installed in areas of highest deer traffic. One-way gates require regular maintenance. Drive Netting Through this practice, deer are directed into 15-metre long 17.8-centimetre rectangular nylon mesh nets that are either extended from vehicles or quickly raised by a number of people. The deer are then blindfolded and their feet secured prior to relocation. Although expensive and labour intensive, drive netting is recommended when many deer must be quickly removed from airport properties. Drive netting is often more effective in winter, when fresh tracks assist in locating deer. Live trapping The live capture of deer for relocation is accomplished using corral and wirebox traps. Corral traps are 30- to 75-metre circles of 3-metre high wire mesh that is secured against trees. A single door, hinged at the top to open inward, is triggered to close when deer enter. Wire-box traps are triggered to close when deer enter a wire enclosure while seeking bait. Deer trapped by both devices are tranquilized and relocated by trained wildlife managers. Live traps are particularly effective during winter and early spring when deer are susceptible to baiting. Accordingly, the effectiveness of live traps declines as seasonal food sources become more abundant. As the practice requires the expertise of professional wildlife biologists, live trapping may not be affordable at airports with limited wildlife-control budgets. Shooting In some circumstances, it is necessary to use firearms in the removal of deer from airports. Baits such as shelled corn and alfalfa can be used to attract deer to locations at which the animals are shot. Population control Several Canadian airport managers, in co-operation with Provincial authorities, allow legal seasonal hunting to reduce local populations of deer. In areas where deer populations are high—or population migration from other I.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch areas is a source of concern—hunting specific deer populations near airports is an effective control method. Elk Biology Height: up to 1.5 m (5 ft) Weight (males): up to 450 kg (1,000 lbs) Weight (females): up to 270 kg (600 lbs) Features: • pale yellowish patches on their rump. • brown bodies with small white tails. • In fall, males have huge spreading antlers, which they shed in spring. Elk Elk are active in the morning and evening in groups of 25 or more. Bulls congregate in groups during summer. In spring, Elk move up mountains for food and cover, returning when snow covers their feeding areas. Food and attractants Elk eat grass, herbs, twigs, and bark. Similar species Moose, deer Moose Biology Height: up to 1.8 m (6 ft) Weight (males): up to 500 kg (1,100 lbs) Weight (females): up to 360 kg (800 lbs) Features: • Dark brown bodies with gray legs. Moose Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.9 • Large snouts with a hairy-looking bell on their throats. • Antlers are flat with small prongs, and are shed early in the year. Generally active at night, Moose are often seen feeding in ponds and other wetlands. Food and attractants Moose feed on marsh vegetation, twigs, and bark. Similar species Elk and caribou Woodland Caribou Biology Height: up to 1.2 m (4 ft) Weight (males): up to 270 kg (600 lbs) Weight (females): up to 160 kg (350 lbs) Features: • heavy set, dark brown bodies. • white rumps and necks. • large feet with round hooves; above each hoof is a white band. • all males and some females have semipalmated antlers with a prominent tine over the nose. Woodland Caribou Woodland Caribou move up and down mountains in small groups searching for food. Food and attractants Woodland Caribou feed on all plant life. Similar species Mule Deer Controls (all Ungulates) • Install appropriate perimeter fencing. • Remove tree, shrub, and ground cover. • Mow grass areas regularly. I.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Conduct controlled hunting and live-trapping programs. • Monitor seasonal herd movements and implement control programs before hazards to aircraft develop. • To ensure Ungulates are not attracted to airport lands, encourage minimal destruction of suitable habitat in surrounding areas. Bears Biology Length: up to approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) Weight: up to 680 kg (1,500 lbs) Features: • All bears have thick coats of hair and rounded ears. • They generally have poor eyesight, but excellent senses of smell. • Bears walk flat-footed on all four feet, which have five toes each. • When not too heavy, most bears are able to climb trees. Bears are the largest living carnivores—excellent swimmers who spend much of their time catching spawning fish. These animals eat a variety of plants and animals, depending on availability, and will roam great distances when food is scarce. The females pick den sites, where they give birth to young. During winter, most species hibernate in the dens, from which they will occasionally emerge. Black Bear Grizzly Bear Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.11 Black Bear Biology Weight: up to 400 kg (900 lbs) Features: • Either black or cinnamon brown in colour. • They often have a white spot on their chest. Black Bears are primarily nocturnal. They mate during July and August of every second year; cubs are born between late December and February. Food and attractants Black bears feed on carrion, small animals, berries, fish, and garbage. Similar species Grizzly Bear (B.C., Yukon and Alberta) Controls • Discouraged berry crop production, beehive operations, and garbage disposal at and near airports. • Install adequate perimeter security fencing. • Eliminate tree, shrub and broad-leaved plant cover—particularly plant species that produce fruit and berries. • Employ scare tactics such as pyrotechnics in peak periods. • Conduct controlled hunting and live-trapping programs. Whenever possible, bears should be relocated to distant locations. Qualified Provincial or Federal government wildlife officers should be consulted prior to the institution of any hunting or live-trapping programs. Note: Having been assigned special status by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Grizzly Bears may not be hunted except under established Provincial hunting protocols. I.12 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Canids All canids are dog-like in general appearance, with five toes on their front feet and four on their back. These animals are primarily nocturnal, and often hunt for large game in pairs or in packs. Canids are of concern as a strike hazard, as they may be attracted to runways by the smell of rubber. Grey Wolf Biology Weight: 32 to 55 kg (70 to 120 lbs) Length: 1 to 1.2 m (43 to 48 inches) Location: found throughout Canada in wilderness areas, forests, and tundra Features: • More dog-like than the Coyote. • Usually dark grey or black in colour; Grey Wolves in the Arctic are nearly all white. • When running, Grey Wolves hold their fully fluffed dark-tipped tails high in the air. Food and attractants Grey Wolves eat both plants and animals. When hunting large animals, such as deer and caribou, Grey Wolves move in pairs or groups. Similar species Coyote Coyote Biology Weight: 9 to 23 kg (20 to 50 lbs) Length: 0.8 to 0.9 m (32 to 37 inches) Location: found throughout Canada except in the Atlantic provinces Features: • Coyotes are grey or reddish-grey with rusty-coloured legs, feet and ears, and a white throat and belly. Coyote Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.13 Coyotes run with their tails hanging down between their legs and, in the evening, call to one another using high-pitched yaps. Urban Coyote populations, specifically in the Greater Toronto Area, are on the rise as these animals adapt to human environments. Food and attractants Coyotes eat birds, vegetables, fruits, small rodents, and rabbits. In populated areas, they will often raid vegetable gardens in search of food. The abundance of small mammals and other prey animals, as well as the availability of shelter, attracts Coyotes to airports. Well-drained soils provided in gravel berms, for instance, make suitable sites for Coyote dens. Airports located in urban or semi-urban settings also provide habitats in which there is minimal human disturbance. Controls (wolves and Coyotes) • Remove accumulated gravel and sand that provide potential den sites for Coyotes. • Dismantle existing Coyote dens, a practice best undertaken in summer. • Reduce the number of birds, small mammals and other sources of food through habitat- and grass-management techniques. • Protect cables from being chewed above and below ground through the use of stainless-steel braid or BX-cable sheathing. Copper, bronze, and aluminum cable sheathings are not suitable. • Apply chemical repellent coatings to electrical cables above ground to prevent damage from chewing. • Install barbed-wire aprons around the base of fences to discourage digging. • Fumigate Coyote dens. (See Section G) • Remove persistent Coyotes through controlled hunting and trapping programs. Similar species Dogs and wolves Red Fox Biology Weight: 5 to 7 kg (10 to 15 lbs) Length: 0.5 to 0.6 m (22 to 25 inches) Location: found throughout Canada in both forest and open country I.14 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Features: • Roughly the size of small dogs. • Generally reddish-yellow with darker hair on their backs, and white bellies. • Tails are dark, bushy and white-tipped. • Legs and feet are black. • Eyes are elliptical, while dogs’ eyes are round. Food and attractants Red Foxes eat mice, rabbits, ground squirrels, birds, eggs, insects, fruit, and berries. They will eat some clay and gravel in small quantities for the vital minerals. Red Foxes also raid garbage dumps in search of carrion. Red Fox Red Foxes often find airports attractive because of: • • • • the abundance of small mammals and other prey; well-drained den sites, such as those provided by gravel berms; the absence of humans; and shortages of suitable habitat in areas adjacent to airports. Similar species Grey Fox Controls • Destroy the dens of problem animals. Gravel and sand berms not associated with essential roadways, runways, and taxiways should be eliminated to reduce the number of potential den sites. • Reduce the number of birds, small mammals, and other sources of food through habitat- and grass-management techniques. • Protect cables from being chewed above and below ground through the use of stainless-steel braid or BX-cable sheathing. Copper, bronze, and aluminum cable sheathings are not suitable. • Apply chemical repellent coatings to electrical cables above ground to prevent damage from chewing. Studies in the United States have shown that quinine hydrochloride prevents foxes from gnawing on hoses and wire. Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.15 • Remove foxes from airports using controlled hunting and live-trapping programs. Note: the Grey Fox and Swift Fox are endangered species; nonlethal control methods must be employed against these species. • Encourage minimal destruction of suitable fox habitats in areas near airports. • Employ extermination programs using hydrogen-cyanide, sodium monofluoroacetate, or strychnine baits. Equally hazardous to humans, these chemicals should be handled by properly trained personnel only. Muskrat and Beavers Muskrat Biology Weight: up to 2.2 kg (5 lbs) Length: 0.2 to 0.25 m (8 to 11 inches) Location: Found throughout Canada, except in northern areas of both Quebec and Newfoundland Features: • Bodies are blackish brown, blending to reddish on the sides and lightcoloured bellies. • Throats often feature a white flash. • Eyes are small; ears are short and barely visible. • Front feet have four clawed toes; each rear foot has five partially webbed toes. • Tails are long, naked, black, and flattened on the sides. Muskrats are mostly nocturnal, but they do appear at times during the day. Although largely an aquatic species, Muskrats will move over land between habitats. Unlike Beavers, Muskrats build poorly-constructed shelters. First, they heap available rushes and weeds until the pile rises above the waterline. They then chew a cavity in the centre of the mound to create a nest chamber; each chamber also has an underwater entrance. In constructing homes, Muskrats often cause considerable damage by undermining streams and ditches. As prey, Muskrats attract other mammals and raptors. I.16 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Food and attractants Muskrats feed on the roots and stems of water plants, corn and clover. In summer, Muskrats eat aquatic vegetation; in winter, they eat clams and frogs. If food is scarce, Muskrats will eat the inner walls of their den. Similar species Beaver Beaver Biology Weight: up to 29 kg (65 lbs) Length: 0.7 to 1 m (30 to 40 inches) Location: Found throughout Canada, except in northern areas of both Quebec and Newfoundland Features: • Feet all have five toes; hind feet are fully webbed. • Tails are broad, flat and scaly. • Underfur is brown and covered with long stiff guard hairs. • Belly and head are lighter in colour than the rest of the body. • Teeth are large; Beavers must gnaw continually on wood to keep teeth at proper length. Beaver The largest rodent found in Canada, Beavers build dams to form artificial ponds in areas where there is plentiful Poplar and aspen. Beavers may be seen most often in the mornings or evenings but will work all night to build or repair dams using twigs, mud and logs. Entrances into Beaver homes are always underwater. Beavers pose problems at airports through their dam-building activities, which cause flooding and draw other species that are attracted to water. As prey, Beavers attract larger mammals to airports. Finally, Beavers also burrow into the banks of ditches, promoting erosion. Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.17 Food and attractants Beavers eat small twigs and the bark of aspen, poplar and birch trees. Similar species Mountain Beaver Controls (Muskrat and Beaver) • Install and maintain standard security fencing to prevent Beavers from entering airport lands. • Protect trees in areas around waterways by wrapping their bases with hardware cloth, mesh wire or other metal barriers. • Remove all cattails, trees and shrubs within 200 metres of all bodies of water; replace them with a cover of low, sparse-growing grasses that have small seed heads. • Eliminate all unnecessary bodies of water. Remove aquatic vegetation from areas that cannot be drained or filled. • Remove problem animals using live-trapping and kill programs. Destroy all lodges and dams after Beavers have been removed. • Grade banks of drainage ditches and bodies of water to 4-to-1 slopes. Leporids Rabbits and hares pose significant indirect threats at airports, as they attract predatory birds—such as hawks and eagles—and such mammals as wolves, Coyotes, and foxes. Whitetail Jackrabbit Differences between hares and rabbits • Jackrabbits and hares belong to the genus Lepus, while rabbits belong to the genus Sylvilagus. • Hares are larger than rabbits in every way; hares have longer ears, hind legs and feet than rabbits. • The fur on the soles of hares’ feet is much denser than that of rabbits. • Hares have a divided upper lip. I.18 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch • Rabbits nest in burrows or in well-defined nests in depressions, while hares nest above ground. • Rabbits are born naked and sightless, whereas hares are born with fur and good vision. • Newborn rabbits remain in their burrows, while hares are ready to move about in a few hours. Food and attractants Leporids are attracted to broad-leaved plant cover and forbs, such as legumes, clover, and alfalfa. Controls • Discourage Eastern Cottontail Rabbits and Snowshoe Hares by removing all trees and shrub cover. • Eliminate broad-leaved plant cover, such as weeds, clover, and alfalfa, to ensure airport lands are less attractive to Whitetail Jackrabbits and European Hares. Snowshoe Hare (also known as the Varying Hare) Biology Weight: 1 to 2 kg (2 to 4 lbs) Length: 0.3 to 0.5 m (13 to 18 inches) Location: found in swamps, forests and thickets throughout the southern regions of both Ontario and Quebec Features: • Ears are small, but feet are extremely large. • Coats are yellow in colour; the tips of the fur turn white in winter. Food and attractants Snowshoe Hares eat vegetation in summer and twigs and bark in winter. They find these foods in fencerows and shrub areas, where they also hide from predators. Similar species Whitetail Jackrabbit, Prairie Hare, European Hare (an introduced species), and Eastern Cottontail Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.19 Moles Moles are virtually blind and have no external ears. These animals are found mostly in wet, loose soil in which they dig tunnels in search of food. The tunnels act as food traps for worms and burrowing insects. Additional tunnels, dug one to two feet below ground, serve as their living spaces. Moles dig tunnels with their front feet, which are usually turned outward. They push dirt behind them and through an outlet hole to mounds on the surface, which often interfere with grass-cutting operations. Moles rarely leave their tunnels, and are therefore more attractive prey to mammals than birds. When moles do venture above ground—usually to collect grass for nests—they quickly close openings on their return. Starnose Mole Biology Length: up to 20 cm including 7 cm tails (8 inches, including three-inch tails) Features: • Coats are dark brown or black. • Noses are tipped with a naked fringe of 22 rose-coloured feelers used for detecting food in their tunnels. Townsend Mole Food and attractants Starnose Moles eat worms and insects. Similar Species Townsend Mole (Western Canada) and Hairy-tail Mole (Eastern Canada) Squirrels Woodchucks, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and tree squirrels are all members of the squirrel family. Primarily active during the day, they have four toes on their front feet and five toes on their back feet. The tails of squirrel species are always covered with hair. I.20 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Some squirrels create intricate underground burrow and tunnel systems that feature living quarters and several entrance holes. These burrows have only one escape route, used for quick getaways in times of immediate danger. The entrances to these escape routes, which are kept clear of dirt, drop straight down for two feet or more. In inclement weather, squirrels are able to remain underground for extended periods of time. Red Squirrel Biology Weight: 225 grams (0.5 lb) Length: 20 cm plus 15 cm tail (8 inches plus 6 inch tail) Location: found across Canada, primarily in areas containing evergreen or mixedhardwood trees in which they build their nests Red Squirrel Features: • Coats are predominantly red. • Bellies are white; a black line runs along their side in summer. • Backs become paler in winter. Raptors are attracted by the presence of these squirrels. Food and attractants Red Squirrels eat cones, seeds, nuts, and fungi. They store their food in tree cavities and under loose bark, or bury it in the ground. They locate hidden food not through memory, but their acute sense of smell. Similar species Grey Squirrel, Fox Squirrel, and Ground Squirrels Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.21 Ground Squirrels Biology Length: 17 to 50 cm (7 to 20 inches) Location: found in western Canada Features: • Coats are smoke grey, and are either mottled, speckled, or striped. • Eyes are large. • Ears are set low on their heads. Each year ground squirrels burrow underground networks of tunnels that feature many entrance holes. All dirt excavated from tunnels is carried out in their cheek pouches. At night, all entrances are plugged with grass or sod. On cloudy and dark days, ground squirrels are likely not to venture from their burrows. Unlike many other small mammals, ground squirrels are true winter hibernators. During hibernation, their body temperatures and heartbeats drop to minimum levels; by spring, these animals will have lost nearly one-half of their body weight. As attractive prey to many carnivorous mammals and raptors, ground squirrels should be eliminated from airport lands. Richardson Ground Squirrel Biology Location: found primarily on the Prairie plains Features: • Coats are drab smoke-gray washed with cinnamon buff. • Backs may feature a variety of colours, including red, brown, and black. • Bellies are pale or white. • Underside of their tails are clay coloured to light brown, with white buff borders. • Front feet have long claws, used for digging. Food In spring and summer, Richardson Ground Squirrels eat green vegetation; in fall, they eat seeds. I.22 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Similar species Columbian Ground Squirrels are larger with dark red feet and legs, and a mottled gray underbelly. This species is a mountain- and Arctic-tundra dweller that does not hibernate. Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Biology Weight: 150 to 340 grams (5 to 9 oz) Length: 11 to 15 cm plus 6 to 12 cm tail (4.5 to 6 inches, plus 2.5 to 5 inch tail) Location: found primarily on the Prairie plains Features: • Bodies are brown and feature 13 to 15 whitish stripes on the sides and backs Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrels are a small, solitary species named for the stripes described above. The openings of their burrows—built in short-grass areas—are carefully concealed. Food Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrels eat seeds, insects and, occasionally, other small mammals. Similar species Chipmunk (which is smaller and striped differently) Woodchuck Biology Weight: up to 4 kg (9 lbs) Length: 40 to 50 cm (16 to 20 inches) Location: found in open woods, fields, and rocky ravines across Canada—but in greatest abundance in the east. Features: • Coats range in colour from yellowish to darker brown. • Bellies are lighter. • Noses are white tipped. Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.23 Woodchucks are large, heavy-bodied marmots with short legs. They are diurnal and hibernate from October to February in dens that contain many tunnels, which they stock with green fodder. As attractive prey to carnivorous mammals and raptors, Woodchucks should be eliminated from airport lands. Woodchuck burrows also can undermine pavements and building foundations and interfere with mowing operations. Woodchuck Food Woodchucks eat grass, roots, tubers, and garden crops. Similar species Hoary Marmot and Ground Squirrels Pocket Gophers Pocket gophers are small to medium-sized mammals found in the four western provinces. They have enlarged front claws, short naked tails and small ears and eyes—all well suited to their underground environment. Although predominantly brown in colour, some pocket gophers are also black or white—making identification of individual species difficult. External, fur-lined, reversible cheek pouches in which they carry food are easily visible—when filled—as slits on either side of their mouths. Their large, yellow incisor teeth are always visible, as their lips close behind them. All species in this family are burrowers and are seldom seen above ground. When pocket gophers do exit their burrows, they rarely roam more than a few feet from the openings. They are loners and will kill any other pocket gopher entering their burrows—except in breeding season, when males enter females’ burrows. One pocket gopher—its den up to six feet underground—is able to construct a maze of tunnels covering an entire acre of land. Although the openings are immediately plugged after use, pocket-gopher burrows can be located by seeking out fan-shaped mounds of soil. I.24 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Pocket gophers are able to run backwards as quickly as forwards, their tails being endowed with tactile organs that enable them to feel their way through tunnels. Pocket gophers maintain underground stores of food for winter, but do not hibernate. Northern Pocket Gopher Biology Weight: 78 to 130 grams (2.75 to 4.5 oz) Length: 13 to 15 cm (5 to 6 inches) Location: found across central Canada in grassy plains and meadows Features: • Males are larger than females. • Coats are grayish in colour, often with a brown wash. • The backs of their ears have black patches. Food Northern Pocket Gophers eat roots, tubers, and plants. Similar species Townsend Pocket Gopher and Plains Pocket Gopher Mice The common House Mouse arrived in North America from Europe with early settlers during the 1700’s. They then spread across the continent. Mice destroy property, endlessly gnawing and burrowing in search of food and safe places to live. House Mice have tails with little hair, a yellow underbelly and protruding eyes. As attractive prey to most carnivorous mammals and raptors, mice should be eliminated from airport lands. Mouse Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.25 Meadow Vole Biology Weight: 28 to 70 grams (1 to 2.5 oz) Length: 8 to 13 cm including 4 to 6 cm tail (3 to 5 inches including 1.5- to 2.5-inch tails) Location: found in low, moist areas or high grasslands across Canada. Features: • Coats vary in colour from gray-brown to dark brown, and feature long, soft fur. • Bellies are a silvery colour. Meadow Voles nest above ground and breed throughout the year; females bear young up to eight times annually. As attractive prey to most carnivorous mammals and raptors, Meadow Voles should be eliminated from airport lands. Food and attractants Meadow Voles eat grass, sedges, seeds, bark, and grain. Similar species Mountain Vole and Tundra Vole Rats Norway Rats arrived on ships from Europe in the mid-1700’s and spread rapidly through much of North America. Norway Rat Biology Weight: 200 to 283 grams (7 to 10 oz) Length: 18 to 20 cm plus 20 to 25 cm tail (7 to 8 inches, plus 8 to 10 inch tail) Location: found across Canada Features: • Coats are brown. • Bellies are pale. • Tails are long and scaly. I.26 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Norway Rats are medium-sized rodents that produce as many as 12 litters each year. Active control is required to prevent rapid population increases. Food Norway Rats are omnivorous, eating anything they can digest. They tend to feed in garbage dumps and live in buildings, junkyards, burrows, or in riprap along shorelines. Similar species Black Rat Other Problem Mammals Raccoon Biology Weight: 5.5 to 16 kg (12 to 35 lbs) Length: 45 to 70 cm (18 to 28 inches) Location: found in southern regions throughout Canada Features: • Coats are salt-and-pepper coloured. • Tails are long and bushy with alternating rings of yellow, white, and black. • Eyes feature a black mask of fur. • Feet each have five toes with nonretractable claws. Raccoon Raccoons do not hibernate, dwelling year-round in hollow trees, warm rock caverns, and buildings. In addition to creating havoc around airport buildings, Raccoons are attractive prey to large raptors and such mammals as wolves, foxes, and Coyotes, and should be eliminated from airport lands. Extreme care should be exercised when handling Raccoons, as they may be infected with a new strain of rabies that has moved north from the United States. Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.27 Food and attractants When not feeding on garbage or refuse around buildings, Raccoons hunt at night, mostly around water. Good swimmers, Raccoons catch fish, crayfish, frogs, and other water creatures. They raid cornfields and nests, consuming eggs and young birds. Raccoons also eat mice and berries. Similar species None Badger Biology Weight: 6 to 11 kg (13 to 25 lbs) Length: up to 0.5 m (up to 22 inches) Location: found from the Great Lakes region to British Columbia in open habitat Features: • Coats feature a white stripe running from their noses over the tops of their heads. • Ears have single black spots in front. • Cheeks are white. • Bellies and tails are yellow. • Feet are black. Badger Badgers are strong, heavy-bodied, short-legged, short-tailed animals. When hunting for gophers or ground squirrels, Badgers will dig holes straight into rodent lairs faster than their prey can vacate them. When attacked by larger animals, Badgers retreat through long tunnels to lairs deep beneath the ground. Badger den holes interfere with airport grass-cutting operations. They also present hazards to taxiing aircraft at small airports. Food Badgers eat small rodents, rabbits, and birds. Similar species None I.28 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Skunks Skunks have long, slender bodies and short legs. They are predominantly nocturnal. In winter, female skunks den together during gestation. When skunks are disturbed, they will stamp their foot and raise their tail with the tip hanging down. If disturbances continue, skunks will raise the tips of their tails and spray from two large musk glands at the bases of their tails. Skunks can spray as many as six times per encounter, each to a distance of 3 metres. Striped Skunk Biology Weight: 3 to 6 kg (6 to 14 lbs) Length: 33 to 45 cm (13 to 18 inches) Location: found throughout Canada, except in Newfoundland and the Yukon Features: • Bodies are black. • Coats feature a narrow white stripe that runs up the middle of the forehead, broadens at the nape, divides into a V at the shoulder and continues to the tail, which often has a white tip. Skunk Skunks prefer semi-open country and areas on the perimeters of human habitat. In addition to their distasteful odour and the havoc they cause around airport buildings, skunks are attractive prey to large raptors such as Great-Horned Owls and such mammals as wolves, foxes, and Coyotes. All skunks should be eliminated from airport lands. Food and attractants Skunks eat small mammals, eggs, carrion, insects, grubs, and garbage. Similar species None Integrated Control Methods — Mammal Profiles - I.29 Other Small Mammals Attractants Small mammals are attracted to airport lands by: • the availability of food; • the absence of humans; and • the shortage of suitable habitat near airports. Controls • Ensure existing plant cover minimizes the attractants to small mammals. Use chemical poisons to eliminate attractant plant species. Reduce or eliminate broad-leaved plant cover, such as trees and shrubs. Mow grassy areas regularly. Use low, sparse-growing, small seed-head grasses. • Eliminate attractive burrow sites, such as well-drained berms preferred by ground squirrels. • Reduce damage to above- and below-ground electrical cables through the use of armoured sheathing. Stainless-steel or BX-metal sheathing should be used to protect cables from mice, pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and other small mammals. • Apply chemical repellent coatings to above-ground electrical cables to reduce chewing damage caused by ground squirrels, pocket gophers, moles, and mice. Coatings should be re-applied every two years, or sooner, as rain and sunlight reduces effectiveness. See below for descriptions of suitable chemicals. • Reduce the number of small rodents through poisoning programs conducted soon after spring thaws. The arrival of new rodents to previously treated areas may necessitate one or two additional applications. See below for descriptions of suitable chemicals. The following chemical repellent coatings may be applied to above-ground electrical cables to reduce chewing damage: Alphachlorohydrin Repellent coating, moderately effective against small rodents and leporids Thiram (Skoot) Repellent applied as a paint-based mix, moderately effective against small rodents and leporids. I.30 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch The following chemicals are recommended for use in poisoning programs against small mammals and rodents: Chlorophacinone/diphacinone Anticoagulant poison, moderately to highly effective against all small mammals. Fumarin Anticoagulant poison, moderately to highly effective against all small mammals. Pindone Anticoagulant poison, moderately to highly effective against all small mammals. Warfarin Most commonly used anticoagulant poison, highly effective against all small mammals. Sodium monofluoro-acetate Highly effective acute poison, toxic to all mammals and humans. Strychnine A restricted product, highly lethal to all mammals; its effectiveness is considered low due to poor bait acceptance. Zinc phosphide Acute poison, highly effective against all small mammals. Aluminum phosphide A restricted acute poison highly hazardous to humans; comes in tablet form that releases phosphine gas; moderately effective on ground squirrels and pocket gophers. Hydrogen cyanide A restricted, highly effective acute poison applied as dust and pumped into ground-squirrel and pocket-gopher burrows. Section J Improving Awareness of Wildlife-management Issues Roles and responsibilities J.1 Budgetary considerations J.2 Reporting procedures J.2 Transport Canada Wildlife-management Resources J.3 Publications J.3 Videos J.4 Research papers J.4 Improving Awareness of Wildlife-management Issues - J.1 Roles and responsibilities Effective, comprehensive wildlife-management programs depend on the participation and co-operation of all airport personnel. While airport field personnel require precise operational awareness of specific measures at their airports, relevant working knowledge of wildlife-management policies and procedures should also extend to air-traffic service providers (ATS), airportmaintenance, planning, finance, marketing, and airline personnel. Authorities should ensure that awareness programs are in place to properly inform all airport workers. The critical minute-to-minute operational communication between ATS providers and airport field personnel should also include co-ordination in planning efforts. Not only should ATS providers be involved in the development of wildlife-control programs, but also they should be consulted and informed regarding any changes to these initiatives. Measures should be in place to ensure that airport-development practices are obliged to carefully consider the ramifications for wildlife control. Such wildlife hazard reviews ask key questions aimed at ensuring a safe environment. • • • • Are new hazards being created? Will existing hazards be compounded? Will existing wildlife-control programs be affected? What are the budgetary considerations for wildlife control? Indeed, the operating costs of new wildlife-management programs—as well as initiatives upgraded to accommodate development—should be factored into the budgets of all construction projects. The negotiation of airport agricultural leases should also respect the safety concerns of wildlife-management programs. All agreements should not only ban crops known to attract birds, but also they should allow for the immediate removal of crops that are found to draw new problem species to airports. J.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Budgetary considerations Airport wildlife-management programs are not luxury items—they are critical expenditures that, in the long run, save money. Wildlife dispersal activities, for instance, ensure that taxiways and runways remain clear, ensuring airline schedules—and revenues—are unaffected. Habitat-management efforts reduce the numbers of hazardous birds—and the number of wildlife strikes. Fewer aircraft airframes and engines are damaged, saving literally millions of dollars in expensive maintenance. Finally—and in addition to the direct financial savings enjoyed through effective wildlife management—safer skies mean a confident fare-paying public, and demonstrate that wildlife control is, in fact, an investment. Airlines should be considered active partners in the development and day-today implementation of wildlife-management programs. Airlines possess unique expertise and may be helpful in advising airport field personnel in effective control methods. Reporting procedures According to estimates, only 14 to 30 percent of all bird strikes are reported. As successful wildlife-management programs are derived in part from the critical information acquired through strike reports, it is imperative that the aviation industry ensures accurate and complete data are made available. Airlines should be encouraged to notify airport ATS providers of all strikes, near misses and unusual bird activity. Transport Canada’s Bird/Wildlife Strike Report can be used to note aircraft-wildlife interactions that occur in this country. While most strikes involve commercial carriers, airports should not overlook the effects of bird strikes on general aviation, which accounts for the majority of aircraft movements at many airports. Improving Awareness of Wildlife-management Issues - J.3 Transport Canada Wildlife-management Resources Transport Canada offers a wealth of resources to assist airports in developing and implementing effective wildlife-management programs. These materials—described below—may be viewed and ordered online at http://www.tc.gc.ca/AviationCivile/Aerodrome/menu.htm Publications Sharing the Skies (TP 13549E) A strategic guide to airport wildlife management—the first book to deliver a comprehensive, system-safety approach to wildlife management in the aviation community. The first seven chapters of the book provide background information on problems associated with wildlife at airports; the final chapters offer a range of solutions. Airport Wildlife Management Bulletins (TP 8240) Published semi-annually, Transport Canada’s wildlife management bulletins provide the aviation community with updated information and research on wildlife control and flight safety. The bulletins contain information concerning bird and wildlife strikes, as well as more extensive information on topics ranging from liability issues to wildlife-control technologies. Pilot Brochure (TP 12422) Designed for pilots, this brochure—Bird Avoidance—provides an overview of the bird-hazard problem, as well as best practices for preventing bird strikes. Bird Strike Summary Report The annual Bird Strike Summary Report provides brief, easy-to-read statistics and analysis on all bird- and wildlife-strike incidents reported at Canadian airports. Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form These forms are used by airport personnel and pilots to report bird and mammal strikes to Transport Canada. This critical strike information is entered into the department’s database, analyzed annually and compiled in the Bird Strike Summary Report. A copy of this form is attached in Appendix 3. Bird strikes may also be reported online at http://www.tc.gc.ca/Aviation/aerodrme/birdstke/strikes/index-f.htm J.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Videos Crossed Paths Offers a general overview of the hazards birds pose to aircraft. Also describes a number of measures that can be taken by airport operators to minimize the hazards, including habitat modifications and active bird-dispersal techniques. There’s Something Out There Designed to compliment the wildlife-control training seminar developed by Transport Canada. This video provides specific instructions to those involved in the management of wildlife at airports and describes techniques currently being used in Canada, including habitat modification, falconry, and pyrotechnics. Not In My Backyard Designed for airport operators and municipal officials involved in establishing waste disposal facilities. This video examines the hazards posed by landfill sites adjacent to airports, and suggests a range of solutions. Research papers Evaluation of the Efficacy of Products and Techniques for Airport Bird Control (TP 13029) This is an LGL Limited research paper that rates the effectiveness of products currently used in wildlife control at airports. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Various Deer Exclusion Devices and Deterrent Techniques for Use at Airports This is an LGL Limited research paper that examines the range of fencing and trapping methods available to keep deer off airfields. Section K Evaluating Wildlife-management Programs Record keeping K.1 Daily recording forms K.1 A preliminary checklist K.2 Sources for record-keeping software K.3 Evaluating Wildlife-management Programs - K.1 Record keeping As all wildlife-management programs should be closely monitored and evaluated on an on-going basis, maintaining complete and accurate records is critically important. Record keeping can be conducted using traditional paper records, but this approach limits the ability to effectively analyze data. Software is now available which permits not only the recording and analysis of airport wildlifemanagement data, but also the efficient development of risk assessments and management plans. Canadian suppliers of wildlife-management software are listed at the end of this section. At a minimum, records should include: • wildlife species and numbers both prior to and during the implementation of control programs; and • details of wildlife-control methods, such as types of control and frequency of application. Long-term record keeping assists airport authorities by: • • • • • providing complete histories of wildlife movements and preferred habitats; measuring the overall effectiveness of wildlife-control initiatives; predicting the arrival times of major migrant species; determining major wildlife trends at airports; and estimating the costs of wildlife control programs. Daily recording forms Completed on-site by airport personnel directly involved in wildlife-control activities, daily recording forms contain information on: • • • • • • • dates and times of animal observations, details of animal actions, species identification, estimated numbers of observed animals, locations where observations took place, control methods implemented, and immediate effects, if any. K.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch A sample recording form—Wildlife Control Activities—is provided in Appendix 4. This standardized form provides entries under the following headings: Date: Recording the dates of wildlife observations assists in identifying seasonal trends, and allows follow-up investigations on factors such as weather patterns. Time Start: When used in combination with “Time Finish”, this information accurately indicates the time devoted to particular control methods, as well as personhours required to employ them. Numbers and Type: Using field guides for reference, information concerning the types and numbers of bird or mammal species should be entered as accurately as possible. Control Method: Recording the control methods used to counter problem species assists in the evaluation of the effectiveness of wildlife-control programs. Result/Effects and Comments: Allows for concise observations of the immediate effects delivered through the applied control method. Location: This should be habitat-specific, identifying such areas as short or long grass, ponds or runways. The accurate identification of problem locations allows airport personnel to target specific attractants. Weather: Weather conditions should be limited to one or two descriptive terms, such as cloudy/rain or sunny/windy. Initials: This section identifies the airport personnel who recorded the data. A preliminary checklist As critical a task as it may be, developing an effective airport wildlife-control program is also a monumental challenge. Authorities will face a number of questions throughout the process, and perhaps the following list should be among them. Far from exhaustive, this list may nonetheless provide important Evaluating Wildlife-management Programs - K.3 preliminary indications about an airport’s level of preparedness. (Appendix 5 of this manual contains a detailed civil-airport, wildlife-control program assessment system.) If the answer to any one of these questions is “no,” then the work of preparing an airport to counter the many hazards posed by wildlife may be far from over: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Has an airport-specific wildlife risk assessment been conducted? Has a wildlife-management plan been developed? If so, has the plan been implemented? Has an on-site wildlife-control officer been appointed and assigned responsibilities? Has a program been developed to train those involved in wildlife control? Has a wildlife-control coordinating committee been established and provided with well-defined responsibilities and terms of reference? Has a memorandum of understanding been signed by all concerned parties, including ATS providers, wildlife-control officers, and airport operations managers? Has a reporting procedure been developed to cover all aspects of the wildlife-control program? Has a land-use strategy been established regarding lands on and near the airport? Has an ecological survey been conducted? Has a list of all on-site attractants been completed? Has a list of all attractants in the surrounding area been completed? Have control methods been researched and implemented at the airport? Additional information regarding the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARS) requirements and standards for wildlife management and planning at Canadian airports is included in Appendix 1. Sources for record-keeping software Winfield Solutions Phone: (613) 398-1221 Website: www.winfieldsolutions.com E mail: [email protected] Intercept Technologies Inc. Phone: (905) 936-5469 E mail: [email protected] Appendices Further Reading (Bibliography) Appendix 1 Common Bird Zoonoses Appendix 2 Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form Appendix 3 Wildlife Control Activities Appendix 4 Wildlife Hazard Management Assessment Appendix 5 Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARS) Wildlife Management and Planning Appendix 6 Appendix 1 Further Reading (Bibliography) Appendices - 1.1 Air Canada. “Potential For Bird Strikes is Growing, An Agenda for Action.” Flightline, Air Canada’s Flight Operations Safety Review (November 1998). Reprinted from Air Safety Week. Alge, Thomas L., GE Aircraft Engines. Canada. Transport Canada. Commercial Transport Engine Bird-Ingestion Design Considerations. Minutes of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of Bird Strike Committee Canada, April 1996. Richmond, B.C. Canada: Transport Canada, 1996. Alge, Thomas L. and John T. Moehring. The Worldwide Bird Problem—Effects on Aircraft, Status of the Problem and Control of the Hazard. Paper. Joint Meeting of the Flight Safety Foundation 49th Annual International Seminar, the International Federation of Airworthiness 26th International Conference and the International Air Transport Association. Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 14 November 1996. Ashford, Norman, Clifton A. Moore, and H.P. Martin Stanton. Airport Operations. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1997. Aviation Week & Space Technology Aerospace Source Book. New York: The McGraw Hill Companies, 2000. ---. The Engine Birdstrike Hazard as Influenced by the Global Environment of Current Regional Airlines and Corporate Jet Operations. Paper. 9th Annual European Aviation Safety Seminar (EASS) of the Flight Safety Foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 4 March 1997. Banilower, Howard. Bird Ingestion Into Large Turbofan Engines, Final Report. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration Report CT-93-14. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 1995. Banfield, A.W.F. The Mammals of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. Banilower, H. and C. Goodall. Bird Ingestion Into Large Turbofan Engines. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration Report CT-93/14. Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 1995. Bird Strike Committee Europe. Proceedings. May 13-16, 1996. London, U.K.: International Bird Strike Committee, 1996. 1.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Bird Strike Committee USA. Understanding and Reducing Hazards to Aircraft. A presentation to Bird Strike Committee U.S.A. 1998. Brooke, M and T. Birkhead. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Ornithology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Business Aviation Fact Book. National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). Washington, D.C.: NBAA, 1999. Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America, Second Edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1964. Blokpoel, H. Bird Hazards to Aircraft. Toronto: Irwin Clark, 1976. Cadma, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, 1987. Canada. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Aviation Occurrence Report: Bird Strike to Canadian Airlines International Boeing 737-275, C-GIPW, Calgary International Airport, Alberta, 17 June 1993, Report Number A93W0082. Ottawa: Transportation Safety Board of Canada. 1994. Canada. Transport Canada. Aerodrome Standards & Recommended Practices TP 312. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1993. Canada. Transport Canada. Aeronautics Act, current amendment. Ottawa: Transport Canada. Canada. Transport Canada. A.I.P. Canada (TP2300E). Ottawa: Transport Canada. Canada. Transport Canada. Airport Wildlife Management Bulletin TP8240 No. 1-22. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1987-1998. Canada. Transport Canada. Annual. Bird Strikes to Canadian Aircraft: 1999 (and previous years) Summary Report. Transport Canada, Aerodrome Safety Branch. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1999. Canada. Transport Canada. Aviation Forecasts 2000 – 2013. Ottawa: Transport Canada, June 2000. Canada. Transport Canada. Bird Avoidance (TP12422). Ottawa: Transport Canada. Appendices - 1.3 Canada. Transport Canada. Bird Hazard Management: Turning Awareness into Prevention TP 13200. Transport Canada Safety & Security. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1995. Canada. Transport Canada. “Land Use Adjacent to Airports.” Airport Wildlife Management. Bulletin No. 14. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1994. Canada. Transport Canada. Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports TP 1247. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1989. Canada. Transport Canada. Sharing the Skies TP13549E. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 2001. Canada. Transport Canada. Summary of Canadian Bird Strike Statistics for 1997. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1998. Canada. Transport Canada. System Safety Directorate. Report of a Post-occurrence Safety Review of a Birdstrike Occurrence to B-737, CDN Flight 661, at Calgary International Airport, June 17, 1993. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1993. Canada. Transport Canada. To current amendment. Canadian Aviation Regulations, Part VI—General Operating and Flight Rules (TP12604E), current amendment. Ottawa: Transport Canada. Canada. Transport Canada. Transportation Development Centre. Initial Estimates of the Costs of Bird-Aircraft Strikes to Canadian Civil Aviation. Montreal: Transport Canada, 1997. Carlson, Janice E. “Moves to Reduce Bird-Aircraft Accidents.” US Air Force News. United States. United States Air Force. AMC (Air Mobility Command), Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. February 1996. Cleary, E. and R. Dolbeer. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration/U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999. 1.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Cleary, E.C., S.E. Wright and R.A. Dolbeer. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1992-1999. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Airport Safety and Standards (Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database, Serial Report Number 5). Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 2000. Curtis, Todd. Assessment of Bird Strike Accident Risk Using Event Sequence Analysis. Bird Strike Committee Europe meeting no. 23. London, U.K.: International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC), 1996. Curtis, Todd. North American Bird Hazard Reduction Efforts Since the 707 AWACS Accident at Elmendorf AFB. Proceedings, The International Society of Air Safety Investigators. Seattle: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1997. Current Market Outlook. Seattle: The Boeing Company, 1999. Diamond, A.W., and F.L. Filion. The Value of Birds. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) Technical Publication No. 6 (conference proceedings). Kingston, Ontario: ICBP, 1987. Deacon, N. Airfield Bird Control—Applying the Principles. Proceedings and Papers, International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no.23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 319-325 Dobbyn, J. S. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Don Mills: Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 1994. Donalds, T. “ORM for Airfield Wildlife Hazard.” The Combat Edge. 20-22 December, 1997. Erskine, A.J. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Nimbus Publishing Ltd. and Nova Scotia Museum, 1992. Eschenfelder, Captain P. Wildlife Hazards to Aviation. Shannon, Ireland: International Society of Air Safety Investigators, October 2000. Friend, M., ed. Field Guide to Wildlife Diseases: Volume 1. General Field Procedures and Diseases of Migratory Birds. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 167. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, 1987. Appendices - 1.5 GAMA Statistics. Washington, D.C.: General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 9 February 2000. Gauthier, J., and Y. Aubry, eds. The Breeding Birds Of Quebec: Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Southern Quebec. Canada. Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. Association Quebecoise des Groupes D’ornithologues (Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds). Montreal: Environment Canada, 1996. General Aviation Statistics. United Kingdom: General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association (GAMTA), September 1999. General Electric. “Engine Successful in Bird Strike Test.” News Release. Evendale, Ohio: General Electric, 10 July 1995. Global Market Forecast 1999 – 2018. Blagnac, France: Airbus Industrie, 1999. Godfrey, W.E. The Birds of Canada, Revised Edition. Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1986. Green, J., J. Bahr, R. Erwin, J. Buckingham and H. Peel. Reduction of Bird Hazards to Aircraft: Research and Development of Strobe Light Technology as a Bird Deterrent. Canada. Transport Canada. Transportation Development Centre. Report prepared by The Delta Environmental Management Group Ltd. (Vancouver) and The Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, Texas). Montreal: Transport Canada, 1993. Greneker, G. Radar to Detect Foreign Object Ingestion by a Jet Engine. Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering, 13th Annual International Symposium on Aerosense, Session 1: Radar Sensor technology IV. Proceedings Volume 3704. Orlando, Florida, 1999. Hayes, P. Legal Liability—Bird Hazards at Airports. Canada, Report to Transport Canada Safety and Security. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1997. Hygnstrom, S.E., R.M. Timm and G.E. Larson, eds. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. United States. Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal Damage Control. Great Plains Agricultural Council Wildlife Committee. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 2 volumes. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1994. 1.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Hodges, K. “Growth Across the Board.” Airports International. July/August 1997. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems-Specification with Guidance for Use. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 1996. Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. Victoria International Airport Wildlife Management Plan. Canada. Transport Canada. Ottawa: Transport Canada, 1996. Joseph, R. J., Jr. and N.K. Johnson. A Century of Avifaunal Change In Western North America. Studies in Avian Biology No. 15. Cooper Ornithological Society. Proceedings of an International Symposium at the Centennial Meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society. Sacramento, California: Cooper Ornithological Society, 1994. Leshem, Y., J. Shamoun-Baranes, M. Yanai, R. Tamir and Y. Yom-Tov. The Development of a Global Database on Bird Movements and Bird Strikes in Military and Civilian Flight. Paper. The International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 24, Stara Lesna, Slovakia. September 1998: IBSC, 1998. Lovell, C.D. and R.A. Dolbeer. Validation of the United States Air Force Bird Avoidance Model. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1)1999: 167-171. MacKinnon, B. The Role and Value of Awareness Programs in Reducing Bird Hazards to Aircraft. Proceedings and Papers. International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no.23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 237-246. Manual of Operations (MANOPS). NAV CANADA, current amendment. Martindale, Ian. Rolls-Royce plc. Bird Ingestion and Rolls-Royce Aero Engines. Paper. The International Bird Strike Committee Meeting, no. 23, London U.K. May 1996: IBSC, 1996. Murie, O. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1954. Nordwall, Bruce D. 1997. “Radar Warns Birds of Impending Aircraft.” Aviation Week & Space Technology. 10 March 1997: 65-66. Appendices - 1.7 Parker, Richard. Pratt and Whitney. Harmonizing Engine Design Rules United States – Europe. Paper. Bird Strike Committee Europe meeting no.22. Vienna: BSCE, 1994. Perrow, Charles. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Harper Collins, 1984. Perry, Bob. “An Early Morning Wake-up Call.” Air Line Pilot November/December 1995: 36-39. Phillips, Edward H. “Bird Strike Threat Draws New Warning.” Aviation Week and Space Technology. 5 February 1996. Piers, M. The Development and Application of a Method For the Assessment of Third Party Risk Due to Aircraft Accidents in the Vicinity of Airports. Netherlands. National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR. Amsterdam: Government of the Netherlands. Rao, Arun and Alistair Pinos. “Bird Strike Threat is Best Countered by Effective Wildlife Control Augmented by Land-use Management.” ICAO Journal. October 1998. Reason, James. Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Reason, James. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1997. Regional Aircraft Market Outlook. Montreal: Bombardier Aerospace, March 7, 2000. Richardson, W.J. Serious Bird Strike-Related Accidents to Military Aircraft of Europe and Israel: List and Analysis of Circumstances. Proceedings and Papers. International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no.23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 33-56. Richardson, W. J. (Canada) and Tim West (U.K.). Serious Birdstrike Accidents to Military Aircraft: Updated List and Summary. WP-SA1 Proceedings and Papers International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 25, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April, 2000. IBSC, 2000. 67-97. 1.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Riddington, R. The Large Flocking Bird Hazard. Civil Aviation Authority of the U.K (CAA). United Kingdom: Flight Safety Foundation, 2000. Robinson, M. The Potential for Significant Financial Loss Resulting from Bird Strikes in or Around an Airport. Proceedings and Papers. International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no.23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 353-367. Rochard, B. Airfield Bird Control—Setting the Standards. Proceedings and Papers, International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no.23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 311-318. Roland, Harold and Brian Moriarty. System Safety Engineering and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990. Rolls-Royce plc. “Rolls-Royce Trent Passes Major Bird Strike Test.” Journal of Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. 1 November 1993. Rowe, Richard. “The Catastrophe Business.” Airports International. June 1996. Seegar, W.S., M.R. Fuller, P.W. Howey and Y. Leshem. Satellite Telemetry, a Tool for Tracking and Monitoring Bird Movements from a Local to Global Scale. Proceedings and Papers, International Bird Strike Committee meeting no. 24, Stara Lesna, Slovakia. September 1998: IBSC, 1998. 443-462. Seubert, J. L. Assessing the Implementation of Wildlife Hazard Management Programs at Civil Airports. Proceedings of Bird Strike Committee Europe (BSCE) meeting no. 22. Vienna: BSCE, 1994. 275-284. Shannon, H.D., W.S. Seegar, G.S. Young, C.J. Pennycuick, M.R. Fuller, M.A. Yates, B.J. Dayton, M.B. Henke, M.A. Bramer, T. Maechtle and L. Schueck. Bird Flight Forecast and Information System. Proceedings and Papers, International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 24, Stara Lesna, Slovakia. September 1998: IBSC, 1998. 297-301. Short, J.J., M.E. Kelley and J. McKeeman. Recent Research into Reducing Birdstrike Hazards. Proceedings and Papers, International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 23. London, U.K: IBSC, 1996. 443-462. Appendices - 1.9 Speelman, Ralph J., Malcolm E. Kelley, Robert E. McCarty and Jeffrey J. Short. Aircraft Birdstrikes: Preventing and Tolerating. Paper. The International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 24, Stara Lesna, Slovakia. September 1998: IBSC, 1998. Sportel, Terah Sunshine. Aircraft Types and How They are Affected by Birds; Fleet Distribution—World-Wide. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Faculty of Environmental Studies, 1997. Steele, W. K. Bird Hazards and their Management at Melbourne International Airport. Birds Australia. Report for Melbourne Airport. 1997. Thorpe, J. Fatalities and Destroyed Civil Aircraft Due to Bird Strikes, 19121995. International Bird Strike Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 23, Paper IBSC/WP1. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996. 17-31. United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Aviation Accident/Incident Database 1993 -1997. Available online. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Final Rule 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes based on European Joint Aviation Requirements, Federal Register: (Volume 61, Number 92). Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 1996. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 CFR Parts 23, 25 and 33, Airworthiness Standards; Bird Ingestion, Federal Register: December 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 238). Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 1998. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Revised Standard, CFR Part 33, Airworthiness Standards; Bird Ingestion, Federal Register: September 14, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 2000. United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Recommendations A-96-38 through –42. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, 1996. Waring, Alan and A. Ian Glendon. Managing Risk: Critical Issues for Survival and Success in the 21 Century. London: International Thomson Business Press, 1998. 1.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Welty, J.C. and L. Baptista. The Life Of Birds, Fourth Edition. Toronto, Ontario: Saunders College Publishing, 1988. World Jet Inventory, Year End 1999. Woodinville, WA: Jet Information Services, Inc., 2000. Appendix 2 Common Bird Zoonoses Appendices - 2.1 Common Bird Zoonoses Type Description Birds Involved Arboviral encephalitis Inflammation of the brain caused by Arboviral infection. Many species such as waterfowl and wild birds. Histoplasmosis Infection by the pathogenic fungus Histoplasma capsulatum. No birds directly involved as the fungus, H. capsulatum, does not infect birds. Acquired through inhalation of spores from fungus in soils contaminated by bird droppings. Source or mode of infection Transferred to birds from blood-sucking insects (such as mosquitoes and ticks). Humans acquire it from infected mosquitoes. Clinical signs of infection in people First symptoms: fever, chills and headache. More serious symptoms: drowsiness, nausea, coma, confusion, rigidity and convulsions; may cause death. Different indications of symptoms depending on severity: ranging from asymptomatic to permanent pulmonary calcification and permanent lesions. Precautions and preventions Prevent mosquito bites by wearing protective clothing; use repellents, scare tactics and mosquito netting and screening; modify habitats. Clean up bird droppings regularly; moisten droppings to prevent spores from becoming airborne; wear face masks, disposable coveralls, gloves, boots, surgical caps and goggles during clean-up. Psittacosis Infection by the bacterium Chlamydia psittaci. Found in both wild and domesticated birds but is more commonly found in the latter. Transmitted to host through inhalation of aerosolised particles or by ingesting contaminated food; also acquired through direct contact with infected bird tissues, feces and secreta. Mostly asymptomatic or mild. Mild symptoms: similar to flu. Severe symptoms: fever, chills, malaise, myalgia, loss of appetite, headache, cough and chest pain. Wear gloves to prevent bird bites and direct contact with feces; wear facemasks, protective clothing and surgical caps; moisten and spray a 1% solution of household disinfectant on the dropping to prevent the bacteria from becoming airborne. Appendix 3 Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form Appendices - 3.1 Transport Canada Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form. 3.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Transport Canada Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form. (back) Appendices - 3.3 U.S. Department of Transportation Bird/Wildlife Strike Report Form. Appendix 4 Wildlife Control Activities Appendices - 4.1 Wildlife Control Activities _______________________________________________ Daily Log Date: _______________________________W.C.O.: ________________________________ Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Time Start/Finish: Type (Species): Control Method: Weather: Location: Number: Result/Effects and Comments: Initials: Sightings: (A - Airfield, V - Vicinity) Birds: Mammals: Appendix 5 Wildlife Hazard Management Assessment Appendices - 5.1 Bird Strike Committee Europe BSCE22/WP Vienna, 29 August to 2 September 1994 Assessing The Implementation Of Wildlife Hazard Management Programs At Civil Airports John L. Seubert Abstract This paper describes a proposed system for assessing the implementation of wildlife hazard management programs at civil airports. Important management functions and control techniques for controlling wildlife hazards are listed; and habitats, land uses, and food sources are identified that are attractive to wildlife on or in the vicinity of airports. (Keywords: Wildlife Hazards, Civil Airports) 5.2 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Wildlife often cause hazards to aviation and many airports have developed wildlife management programs to alleviate these hazards. For example, in recognition of this problem at certified civil airports in the United States, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require the development of wildlife hazard management plans if ecological studies show that wildlife cause safety problems (FAA 1987). The purpose of this paper is to propose a system for assessing the implementation of existing wildlife hazard management programs at either certified or uncertified civil airports. The only papers found describe various methods for evaluating bird management on military aerodromes (Lucid and Slack 1980, Rosseleer 1981, Kull 1984). This paper concerns civil airports and employs different methods. As the result of a review of pertinent literature, personal knowledge, and discussions with individuals directly involved in controlling wildlife hazards to aviation, I have identified key elements of wildlife hazard management programs. (For the purpose of this paper, domestic animals are included under wildlife.) Management functions and control techniques for mitigating wildlife hazards are listed; and habitats, land uses, and food sources are identified that are attractive to wildlife on or in the vicinity of airports. In this system, the elements described in Tables 1-4 are assessed as to the degree that management programs are being implemented. Assessments should be periodic, at least twice a year, so that shortcomings and improvements can be detected (Exhibit A). The table listings are not intended to cover every possibility – the lists can be changed to meet differing situations. The proposed system would provide a rapid means of assessing civil airport programs to control wildlife hazards. This would provide benefits to airport administration/management, government agencies responsible for aviation safety, or other organizations that assist in programs to enhance safety, such as aviation insurance underwriters, or consultants. Four assessment categories are used to indicate how well airport wildlife hazard management plans are being implemented. If an assessor finds that an airport has initiated action to reduce a wildlife hazards according to plan and is on schedule, the action would be considered satisfactory, and the assessment symbol (AS) checked (") would be “S”. If no measures have been taken, the assessment would be unsatisfactory – “U”. If implementation of a control measure was behind schedule or only partially accomplished, the assessment could be either needs improvement “NI”, or unsatisfactory “U”, depending on the seriousness of the hazard. If it is apparent that certain listed techniques or items are not applicable, the assessment would be “NA”. If an assessment Appendices - 5.3 is either “NI” or “U”, a comment by an assessor is required (Exhibit A). Examples of assessments requiring comments are as follows: A. Management functions related to wildlife hazards on or in the vicinity of airports (Table 1). • • If permits have not been obtained (Code 1.1) for shooting or trapping birds and/or mammals the AS would be “U”. If animal remains found on runways are being counted to document bird strikes, but are not being identified by species (Code 1.9) the AS would be “NI”. B. Bird control on or in the vicinity of airports (Table 2). • • If bioacoustics were not being used (Code 2.4) the AS would be “U”. If the installation of plastic or steel wires (Code 2.11) over two airport ponds was behind schedule the AS could be “NI” or “U”, depending on the degree of potential hazard. If the raptors were not being trapped and relocated (Code 2.24), the AS would be “U”. • C. Mammal control on or in the vicinity of airports (Table 3). • • If fencing (Code 3.3) was in need of repair the AS would be “NI”. If rodenticides (Code 3.12) were not being used to control a rodent population attracting raptors, the AS would be “U”. D. Airport habitat and food sources related to wildlife hazards (Table 4). • • If airport litter control was inadequate (Code 4.17), the AS would be “NI”. If vegetation used as a roost site (Code 4.29) was not being eliminated or made unattractive, the AS would be “U”. Examples of off-airport land uses and food sources are listed in Table 5. Wildlife hazards to airports frequently are attributable to these attractants, but airport managers have no authority over the use of private property. On rare occasions, relief might be obtained if a business or a landowner has not complied with zoning, health, or safety regulations (e.g. garbage dumps). Airport managers should initiate programs to reduce/eliminate the hazards of off-airport wildlife attractants (e.g., garbage dumps, certain agricultural activities), by informing local jurisdictions and landowners of the hazards, and suggesting ways of alleviating them (Code 1.8). 5.4 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Table 1. Management Functions Related To Wildlife Hazards On Or In The Vicinity Of Airports ASSESSMENT CODE 1.1 ITEMS Acquiring wildlife control permits from federal, state, and local agencies. 1.2 Arranging for ecological assessments, studies, and monitoring, as needed, to evaluate the hazard potential of wildlife attracted by habitats, land uses, and food sources located on or in the vicinity of airports. 1.3 1.4 Delegating authority and responsibility. Ensuring that airport habitats are managed to reduce or eliminate wildlife attractions. 1.5 Ensuring that airport policy prohibits the feeding of wildlife and the exposure of food wastes. 1.6 Establishing a communication capability between wildlife control and ATC personnel. 1.7 Evaluating wildlife hazard management programs – at least twice a year. 1.8 Interacting with local jurisdictions and land owners about zoning, land use, and the resolution of wildlife hazard problems in the vicinity of airports. 1.9 Maintaining wildlife control log books that would be a daily record of wildlife control activities, environmental changes, wildlife interactions, and animal remains identified by species. 1.10 Maintaining a system for warning pilots about wildlife hazards (NOTAMs, ATC, BIRDTAMs, RADAR observations, etc.). 1.11 1.12 Monitoring bird concentrations (e.g. local movements). Operating a wildlife patrol system with a trained field staff (wildlife specialists, control officers, etc.), conducting surveillance/inspections of critical airport areas (runways, etc.), and effecting wildlife control when needed or requested. 1.13 Reporting all aircraft wildlife interactions to aviation authorities (e.g. bird strikes). 1.14 Supervising, implementing, and coordinating airport wildlife hazard management programs. 1.15 Training personnel responsible for implementing airport wildlife hazard management programs, especially the field personnel. S NI U Appendices - 5.5 Table 2. Bird Control On Or In The Vicinity Of Airports ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS Disperse, Deter, Exclude, Repel 2.1 Arm waving (24/min.) 2.2 Avitrol 2.3 Balloons suspended above ponds 2.4 Bioacoustics 2.5 Chemical repellents 2.6 Electronically generated noise (e.g. Av-Alarm) 2.7 Falconry 2.8 Tall grass/short grass 2.9 Netting 2.10 Nixalite (stainless steel needles placed on ledges) 2.11 Plastic or steel wires 2.12 Propane cannons 2.13 Pruning vegetation 2.14 Pyrotechnics 2.15 Radio-controlled small aircraft 2.16 Scarecrows 2.17 Shooting to scare 2.18 Stuffed birds, gull models, raptor decoys Remove 2.19 Drugging 2.20 Nest and egg destruction, oiling eggs 2.21 Poisoning 2.22 Predators (dogs, foxes, coyotes, pigs, etc.) 2.23 Shooting 2.24 Trapping and relocation (e.g. raptors, geese) S NI U NA 5.6 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Table 3. Mammal Control On Or In The Vicinity Of Airports ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS S NI U NA Disperse, Deter, Exclude, Repel 3.1 Cattle guards 3.2 Chemical repellants sprayed on vegetation 3.3 Fencing 3.4 Herding 3.5 Pyrotechnics 3.6 Rodent resistant sheathing on electrical and communication cables Remove 3.7 Controlled hunting (e.g. deer, canines) 3.8 Den destruction (e.g. foxes, coyotes) 3.9 Fumigants/gas cartridges (woodchucks, etc.) 3.10 Kill trapping (e.g. beavers, muskrats) 3.11 Live trapping and relocation or euthanasia (dogs, etc.) 3.12 Rodenticides (mice, ground squirrels, etc.) 3.13 Shooting (woodchucks, badgers, rabbits, hares) 3.14 Tranquilizing and relocation (e.g. deer) Table 4. Airport Habitat And Food Sources Related To Wildlife Hazards ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS 4.1 Agricultural crops (grains, forage, legumes, etc.) 4.2 Animal remains 4.3 Apiaries 4.4 Aquatic vegetation 4.5 Canals, creeks 4.6 Commissaries, aircraft waste 4.7 Culverts (open) 4.8 Drainage ditches 4.9 Earthworms 4.10 Feeding birds and mammals (by people) 4.11 Flat roofs (gull nesting sites) S NI U NA Appendices - 5.7 Table 4. (continued) ASSESSMENT CODE ITEMS 4.12 Fishing from shore (bait, fish) 4.13 Garbage dumps 4.14 Insects 4.15 Landfills containing organic matter 4.16 Landscaping 4.17 Litter 4.18 Low areas (puddles) 4.19 Marshes, swamps 4.20 Mud flats 4.21 Nesting sites (gulls, egrets, raptors, etc.) 4.22 Oxidation ponds (sewage) 4.23 Pastures, grassland (livestock, ungulates, rodents, raptors, etc.) 4.24 Plowing, cultivation, haying, harvesting, etc. (rodents, insects, worms) 4.25 Reptiles, amphibians, fish 4.26 Reservoirs, lakes, natural ponds 4.27 Retention ponds (water, de-icing fluid) 4.28 Rodents, beavers, muskrats, rabbits, hares, raccoons, skunks, badgers, etc. 4.29 Roosting vegetation (starlings, crows, egrets, etc.) 4.30 Sand and gravel quarries, borrow pits 4.31 Seed producing vegetation 4.32 Sewage lagoons 4.33 Sewage outfalls 4.34 Sewage sludge 4.35 Shorelines 4.36 Structures (buildings, hangers, lights, towers, signs, poles, etc.) 4.37 Trees, brush, shrubs, woodlots (cover, browse, etc.) 4.38 Water fountains 4.39 Waterways 4.40 Weeds S NI U NA 5.8 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch Table 5. Off-Airport Land Uses And Food Sources Related To Wildlife Hazards CODE ITEMS 5.1 Agricultural crops (grains, forage, legumes, etc.) 5.2 Apiaries 5.3 Bird-feeding stations 5.4 Canals, creeks 5.5 Coastal commercial fish-processing plants 5.6 Drive-in theatres 5.7 Fishing from shore (bait, fish) 5.8 Flat roofs (gull nesting sites) 5.9 Garbage barges 5.10 Garbage dumps 5.11 Garbage transfer stations 5.12 Landfills containing organic waste 5.13 Livestock feedlots, piggeries 5.14 Lure/decoy sites (roosting, nesting, etc.) 5.15 Marinas 5.16 Marshes, swamps 5.17 Mud flats 5.18 Nesting sites (gulls, egrets, raptors, etc.) 5.19 Orchards, berry farms 5.20 Oxidation ponds (sewage, feedlots, etc.) 5.21 Pastures, grassland (livestock, ungulates, rodents, raptors, etc.) 5.22 Picnic areas 5.23 Ploughing, cultivation, haying, harvesting (rodents, insects, worms) 5.24 Reservoirs, lakes, natural ponds 5.25 Restaurants/cafes (outdoors) 5.26 Retention ponds (water, feedlots, etc.) 5.27 Roosting vegetation (starlings, crows, egrets, etc.) 5.28 Sand and gravel quarries, borrow pits 5.29 Seed producing vegetation 5.30 Sewage lagoons 5.31 Sewage outfalls 5.32 Sewage sludge 5.33 Shorelines 5.34 Trees, brush, shrubs, woodlots (cover, browse, etc.) 5.35 Vineyards 5.36 Waterfowl refuges, wintering areas Appendices - 5.9 EXHIBIT A The following form would be used by an assessor to record visits to airports and comments when necessary: Airport Assessment Summary Form Airport Date Manager Phone Fax Assessors Name and Affiliation Phone Fax Assessors Comments re implementation of applicable Coded Items Code Assessment Comment Symbol (Note: Use extra sheets for comments as needed.) 5.10 - Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Aerodrome Safety Branch LITERATURE CITED Federal Register (U.S.). 1987. Vol. 52. Airport Certification, Revision, and Reorganization. Page 44292. Kull, R.C. 1984. Staff assistance to bases for bird hazards. Pages 301-308 in Proc. Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft Conference and Training Workshop. Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Adm. Rep. No. DOT/FAA/AAS/84-1. 22-25 May. Charleston, S.C. Lucid, V.J. and R.S. Slack. 1980. Handbook on bird management and control. Rep. No. AFESC-TR-80-1 prepared for U.S. Air Force Eng. Ser. Cent., Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. By Terrestrial Environ. Specialist Inc., Phoenix N.Y. 176 pp. Rosseleer, G. 1981. A checklist for birdstrike prevention on airfields. Proc. Bird Strike Committee Europe (BSCE). 15:237-255. 4-8 May. Brussels. Appendix 6 Canadian Aviation Regulation (CARS) Wildlife Management and Planning A change in priorities related to the events of September 11 has delayed the development of the Canadian Aviation Regulation, Wildlife Management and Planning. The appendix containing the regulatory package will be distributed upon completion of the development process.
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project