Foods Scraps Composting and Vector Control

Nontraditional waste management facilities, particularly new projects to compost food scraps, are becoming more common because of national and state initiatives to promote recycling and extend landfill capacities. In fact, food waste is the third largest component of generated waste by weight, following yard trimmings and corrugated boxes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that each American disposes of 1.3 pounds of food waste daily or nearly 474 pounds annually. While there is a clear need to recycle food waste, the location of waste management facilities and national initiatives on waste management are increasingly controversial, partly because of potential wildlife related impacts. Responsible development of the industry must include management of facilities to minimize waste material serving as attractants to vectors such as birds and mammals that pose hazards to human health and safety. Communication by Barnes Nursery, Inc. with local, state and federal officials about potential wildlife hazards posed by the development of their food waste composting business created an atmosphere of collaboration. We suggest a similar approach for others considering food waste composting operations. However, for those operations proposed within FAA siting criteria for certificated airports under Part 139 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or other airports receiving FAA funding, a Wildlife Hazard Assessment might be deemed mandatory. Good communication with the public and government agencies charged with the safety of the public will benefit your business

BIRD USE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO DECREASING STRIKES WITH AIRCRAFT

Airports must control the movement of storm water away from runways, taxiways, and aprons to insure the safety of aircraft operations. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recommends that such runoff be held for short periods, by use of detention ponds, so as to reduce use by wildlife (Advisory Circular No: 150/5200-33A; Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports). The purpose of our study was to quantify factors that potentially attract avian wildlife to stormwater management ponds so as to more efficiently direct resources toward management of hazards to aviation posed by these habitats, and provide critical input on the design of future stormwater-management structures. We are currently in the analysis phase relative to avian-use data collected weekly from 30 stormwater-management ponds in Washington near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport between 14 February 2005 and 17 February 2006. We are testing 2 primary hypotheses concerning avian use of these stormwater management ponds: 1) avian guild richness is most directly related to pond isolation (ha of wetland resources within 1 km) and 2) guild richness is influenced most by the combination of the surface area of the pond/wetland complex, relative area of emergent vegetation, and pond isolation. Here, we report our initial findings relative to model development, avian use of our 30 sample ponds, and potential implications for stormwater management at airports. Effective and economic management to reduce wildlife hazards at airport detention ponds is dependent upon first identifying/quantifying and prioritizing the factors attracting wildlife, then directing appropriate resources toward those threats

Quantification of avian hazards to military aircraft and implications for wildlife management

Collisions between birds and military aircraft are common and can have catastrophic effects. Knowledge of relative wildlife hazards to aircraft (the likelihood of aircraft damage when a species is struck) is needed before estimating wildlife strike risk (combined frequency and severity component) at military airfields. Despite annual reviews of wildlife strike trends with civil aviation since the 1990s, little is known about wildlife strike trends for military aircraft. We hypothesized that species relative hazard scores would correlate positively with aircraft type and avian body mass. Only strike records identified to species that occurred within the U.S. (n = 36,979) and involved United States Navy or United States Air Force aircraft were used to calculate relative hazard scores. The most hazardous species to military aircraft was the snow goose (Anser caerulescens), followed by the common loon (Gavia immer), and a tie between Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and black vulture (Coragyps atratus). We found an association between avian body mass and relative hazard score (r2 = 0.76) for all military airframes. In general, relative hazard scores per species were higher for military than civil airframes. An important consideration is that hazard scores can vary depending on aircraft type. We found that avian body mass affected the probability of damage differentially per airframe. In the development of an airfield wildlife management plan, and absent estimates of species strike risk, airport wildlife biologists should prioritize management of species with high relative hazard scores

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 9 Managing Airport Stormwater to Reduce Attraction to Wildlife

An airport is a component of the landscape, contributing to and subject to local- and landscapelevel factors that affect wildlife populations and the hazards that these species pose to aviation (Blackwell et al. 2009, Martin et al. 2011). Water resources at and near an airport, in the form of both surface water and contained runoff, are recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as potential attractants to wildlife that pose hazards to aviation safety (FAA 2007). Surface water, including aboveground stormwater detention/retention facilities (see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006), can represent a substantial proportion of the area within siting criteria for U.S. airports. An analysis of water coverage at 49 certificated airports (FAA 2004) revealed that surface water composed on average 6.0% (standard deviation [SD] = 10.4%, range = 0.04-48.3%; B. F. Blackwell, unpublished data) of the area within the 3-km [lo9-mile] FAA siting criteria (X = 275 ha, SD = 511 ha). A recent analysis of bird-aircraft strike data for avian species involved in at least 50 total strikes reported to the FAA (1990-2008; summarized in FAA 2011) revealed that 13 of the 52 species (25%) have foraging and breeding ecologies primarily associated with water (Blackwell et al. 2013). Moreover, these 13 species were responsible for \u3e 51% of damaging strikes (Dolbeer et al. 2000, DeVault et al. 2011) during this period

Quantification of avian hazards to military aircraft and implications for wildlife management

Collisions between birds and military aircraft are common and can have catastrophic effects. Knowledge of relative wildlife hazards to aircraft (the likelihood of aircraft damage when a species is struck) is needed before estimating wildlife strike risk (combined frequency and severity component) at military airfields. Despite annual reviews of wildlife strike trends with civil aviation since the 1990s, little is known about wildlife strike trends for military aircraft. We hypothesized that species relative hazard scores would correlate positively with aircraft type and avian body mass. Only strike records identified to species that occurred within the U.S. (n = 36,979) and involved United States Navy or United States Air Force aircraft were used to calculate relative hazard scores. The most hazardous species to military aircraft was the snow goose (Anser caerulescens), followed by the common loon (Gavia immer), and a tie between Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and black vulture (Coragyps atratus). We found an association between avian body mass and relative hazard score (r2 = 0.76) for all military airframes. In general, relative hazard scores per species were higher for military than civil airframes. An important consideration is that hazard scores can vary depending on aircraft type. We found that avian body mass affected the probability of damage differentially per airframe. In the development of an airfield wildlife management plan, and absent estimates of species strike risk, airport wildlife biologists should prioritize management of species with high relative hazard scores

Collective Effect of Landfills and Landscape Composition on Bird–Aircraft Collisions

Ninety-three percent of all reported bird strikes occur below 1,067 m, which based on the typical approach and departure angles of aircraft is within 8–13 km of an airport. Concomitantly, the Federal Aviation Administration and the International Civil Aviation Organization recommend that any feature that would attract hazardous wildlife to the approach and departure airspace be restricted. Thus, preventing the establishment of wildlife attractants, such as municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) within 8 km or 13 km extents (U.S. and international recommendations, respectively) of airports, has been recommended to mitigate the risk of bird–aircraft collisions (strikes). However, robust evidence linking wildlife attractants at these spatial scales to an increase in strikes is lacking. We investigated the effect of densities of MSWLFs and construction and demolition (C&D) landfills, landscape diversity, and human population density on the adverse effect (AE; strikes that caused damage or had a negative effect on flight) bird strike rate involving species broadly associated with MSWLFs. We predicted that airports surrounded by a high density of MSWLFs, high human population densities, and high landscape diversity would increase the AE strike rate. We evaluated our predictions via generalized linear mixed models with bird strike data from 2009 through 2017 at 111 Part 139 airports. Only U.S. airports were used because of high wildlife strike reporting rates. Part 139 certificated airports are those that facilitate air carriers with \u3e30 seats for passengers and crew. Our average model included density of MSWLFs and C&D landfills for both the 8- and 13-km extent from the airports. We found no significant contribution by any variable to the AE strike rate variance. Our results indicated that the effects of landfills on AE strike rates are inconclusive. Possible explanations for our findings include the influence of unmeasured landscape features and lack of fine-scale data on bird habitat use at landfill facilities. Future research should investigate bird 3-dimensional space use in addition to bird and habitat survey techniques

Oral Rabies Vaccination of a Northern Ohio Raccoon Population: Relevance of Population Density and Prebait Serology

Ohio’s oral rabies vaccination (ORV) program was established to prevent the westward spread of the raccoon (Procyon lotor) rabies virus (Lyssavirus, Rhabdoviridae) in Ohio, USA. The program, which targets raccoons, distributes vaccine-bait units (VBU) at a target density of 75 units/km2. Few studies have examined the relationship of VBU density and target population density to the prevalence of rabies virus-neutralizing antibodies (RVNA). We conducted experimental VBU distributions in August 2003 and August 2004, 150 km west of the ORV zone where there was no history of raccoon rabies. We measured change in RVNA titers in blood collected from live-trapped raccoons before and after VBU distributions. A closed population mark–recapture estimate of the size of the target population was 91 raccoons/km2, compared to the realized VBU distribution density of 70 units/km2. Surprisingly, 41% of 37 serum samples were RVNA-positive (≥0.05 IU/ml) before VBU distribution in 2003, but all titers were 2 was insufficient to produce a population-wide immunoprotective response against rabies infection in our high-density target population. Presence of RVNA in a presumed naive population before baiting demonstrates that estimating prevalence of RVNA after oral rabies vaccination can be problematic without knowledge of background titers and seasonal changes in prevalence of RVNA before and after baiting

Bird Use of Stormwater-Management Ponds: Decreasing Avian Attractants on Airports

Characteristics of stormwater-management ponds that contribute to avian hazards to aviation at airports have not been quantified. We selected 30 stormwater-management ponds (average 0.1 ha), approximately 50km from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, as surrogates to on-airport facilities. We conducted 46 weeks of avian surveys (between 14 February 2005 and 17 February 2006) and evaluated model fit of 6 a priori models relative to pond use by an avian group via Kullback–Leibler information. Our full model, composed of pond surface area (sa), ratio of area of open water to area of emergent and woody vegetation (ow:ew), perimeter irregularity, and geographic isolation, was among 3 best approximating models for pond use by 9 of 13 groups (within Anatidae, Ardeidae, Charadriidae, Columbidae, Accipitridae, Laridae, and Rallidae) considered. The full model and models lacking sa or ow:ew were indistinguishable in fit for a group composed of avian species considered hazardous to aviation. For models selected, Akaike weights (i.e., relative likelihoods) ranged from 0.869 to 0.994. In contrast, relative likelihood for a mean model (i.e., a model including only an intercept) was \u3c10−4 for all groups. We suggest that designs of stormwater management ponds at airports in the Pacific Northwest should minimize the pond perimeter via circular or linear designs. Also, ponds should be located so as to reduce the number and proximity of other water resources within 1 km. For existing stormwater-management ponds at airports, we suggest reducing the availability of open water via covering or drawdown

Avian Survey Methods for Use on Airports

Management of wildlife, whether to mitigate damage, enhance safety, or effect conservation goals, requires identification of hazards posed by or to members of a particular species population or guild, and prioritization of management goals. We examined the special problem of managing birds to reduce hazards to aviation, particularly those species known to cause structural damage to aircraft when struck, as well as posing problems to airport facilities. Our objectives were to synthesize sampling theory and methods to provide airport biologists with 1) means to design and implement an avian survey on an airport that will maximize accuracy in quantifying avian hazards; 2) an understanding of bias and precision, and their influences on quantification of avian hazards; 3) suggestions on how to quantify avian hazards and use these data to estimate relative risk posed to aviation safety by a particular species or guild by time period and habitat type; and 4) knowledge of how data can be used to prioritize management goals. Our recommendations are intended to compliment U.S. Federal Aviation Administration procedures for Wildlife Hazard Assessments and subsequent management on airports. We stress the need for survey data to be ecologically relevant and accurate, such that management guidelines are defensible. However, we recognize that “real world” issues, such as regulatory, labor, and financial constraints, as well as the dynamics of airport environments, inevitably influence survey methods. Though we do not advocate use of naive count data in estimating relative abundance or habitat use, we recognize that animal observations obtained by airport biologists outside of a standardized sampling protocol are critical for identifying potential hazards to aviation safety. We recommend field testing of our suggestions and development of training materials for airport biologists that distill the information that we will present in light of constraints affecting survey design and conduct