Avian use of solid waste transfer stations

Transfer stations are an important component of modern solid waste management systems. Solid waste management facilities (e.g., landfills) are very attractive to and used by many birds, resulting in a variety of health and safety problems, including disease transmission to humans and increased risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration recommends municipal solid waste management facilities (e.g., landfills, transfer stations) not be sited within 8 km of an airport. Little information is available regarding the attractiveness of transfer stations to birds or the factors that might influence avian use, particularly on a national scale. The objectives of my study were to: (1) quantify avian use of transfer stations, (2) determine if building design features influence their attractiveness to birds, and (3) determine if other factors (e.g., season, geographic location, operational procedures) influence bird use. Twenty-nine waste transfer facilities and 4 control sites, located in 7 states (representative of various U.S. geographical regions) were studied. Avian abundance and activity was quantified at each facility and control site twice per week for one year. Nuisance bird species commonly observed using transfer stations (e.g., feeding on refuse) included gulls, European starlings, and crows. Patterns of wildlife use at transfer stations varied by season, geographic location, transfer station building design, and on-site management characteristics. Overall, this study demonstrates that wildlife use of transfer stations, particularly by nuisance birds, can be substantial

Hawks and Owls

Human-Wildlife Conflicts: Hawks and owls can negatively impact a variety of human interests, including important natural resources, livestock and game bird production, human health and safety, and companion animals. Conflicts between raptors and people generally are localized and often site-specific. However, the economic and social impacts to the individuals involved can be severe. Despite the problems they may cause, hawks and owls provide important benefits and environmental services. Raptors are popular with birdwatchers and much of the general public. They also hunt and kill large numbers of rodents, reducing crop damage and other problems. Damage Identification Management Methods Economics Species Overview: Given the number of different hawks and owls in North America, the potential for human-raptor conflict is signifi-cant. The northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, and great horned owl account for the majority of conflicts between humans and hawks and owls. This publication focuses on these three species, but most of the general biology, na-ture of conflicts, and damage management methods will apply to other hawks and owls. Legal Status: All hawks and owls in the United States are federally pro-tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, 703−711). Hawks and owls typically are protected under state wildlife laws or local ordinances, as well. These laws strictly prohibit the capture, killing, or possession of hawks or owls (or their parts) without a special permi

Hawks and Owls

Human-Wildlife Conflicts: Hawks and owls can negatively impact a variety of human interests, including important natural resources, livestock and game bird production, human health and safety, and companion animals. Conflicts between raptors and people generally are localized and often site-specific. However, the economic and social impacts to the individuals involved can be severe. Despite the problems they may cause, hawks and owls provide important benefits and environmental services. Raptors are popular with birdwatchers and much of the general public. They also hunt and kill large numbers of rodents, reducing crop damage and other problems. Damage Identification Management Methods Economics Species Overview: Given the number of different hawks and owls in North America, the potential for human-raptor conflict is signifi-cant. The northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, and great horned owl account for the majority of conflicts between humans and hawks and owls. This publication focuses on these three species, but most of the general biology, na-ture of conflicts, and damage management methods will apply to other hawks and owls. Legal Status: All hawks and owls in the United States are federally pro-tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, 703−711). Hawks and owls typically are protected under state wildlife laws or local ordinances, as well. These laws strictly prohibit the capture, killing, or possession of hawks or owls (or their parts) without a special permi

Avian use of solid waste transfer stations

Transfer stations are an important component of modern solid waste management systems. Solid waste management facilities (e.g., landfills) are very attractive to and used by many birds, resulting in a variety of health and safety problems, including disease transmission to humans and increased risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration recommends municipal solid waste management facilities (e.g., landfills, transfer stations) not be sited within 8 km of an airport. Little information is available regarding the attractiveness of transfer stations to birds or the factors that might influence avian use, particularly on a national scale. The objectives of my study were to: (1) quantify avian use of transfer stations, (2) determine if building design features influence their attractiveness to birds, and (3) determine if other factors (e.g., season, geographic location, operational procedures) influence bird use. Twenty-nine waste transfer facilities and 4 control sites, located in 7 states (representative of various U.S. geographical regions) were studied. Avian abundance and activity was quantified at each facility and control site twice per week for one year. Nuisance bird species commonly observed using transfer stations (e.g., feeding on refuse) included gulls, European starlings, and crows. Patterns of wildlife use at transfer stations varied by season, geographic location, transfer station building design, and on-site management characteristics. Overall, this study demonstrates that wildlife use of transfer stations, particularly by nuisance birds, can be substantial

Is Razor-wire an Effective Deterrent for Birds Perching on Security Fences at Airports?

Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose a serious risk to aircraft and cost civil aviation in the United States an estimated $957 million annually. Blackbirds and doves in particular have caused some of the most devastating aircraft accidents related to wildlife strikes in the United States and Europe. Birds perching on security fences and other structures are a problem at airports and other locations where birds are not desired. Reduction of available perching sites should make airports less attractive to these species and thus reduce the risk of damaging wildlife strikes. We conducted a series of experiments to determine if 3 species of birds hazardous to aviation [i.e., mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus atar)] were deterred from perching sites at the top of a 3-stranded security fence by the application of Razor–ribbon™ Helical razor-wire. We determined bird use (for perching) of 3-stranded barbed wire security fences, with and without the addition of razor-wire using 6 birds each in 2 3.6- x 8.5- x 2.4-m flight cages. Treatment perches consisted of the top portion of a 3-stranded barbed wire security fence (2.5-m in length) with 2.5-m of razor-wire attached. Control perches consisted of an identical portion of security fence without the razor-wire. During the experimental period, mourning doves were observed on razor-wire protected fences twice as often, brown-headed cowbirds were observed similar amounts of time, and common grackles were observed 4 times as often as they were on unprotected fences. We found no evidence that razor-wire provided any deterrence to birds that perch on security fences

Talking Trash in the Big Apple: Mitigating Bird Strikes Near the North Shore Marine Transfer Station

Anthropogenic activities that concentrate wildlife near airports increases the risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. Placing waste management facilities, natural areas, golf courses, and other landscape features near airports have the potential to attract wildlife hazardous to aviation. We conducted a 3-year study (March 2013–February 2016) to determine if the implementation of a Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program (WHMP) would influence the bird use of a waste transfer station located near LaGuardia Airport, New York City, New York, USA. We conducted wildlife surveys during 3 phases: (1) no mitigation program and no waste transfer station, (2) active mitigation and no waste transfer station, and (3) active mitigation and operating waste transfer station. Overall, bird abundance decreased when the WHMP was implemented, thereby reducing the risk of wildlife strikes with aircraft operating in association with LaGuardia Airport. The active mitigation program reduced the presence of birds associated with the waste transfer station as well as many species using the adjacent marine environment

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 8 Identification and Management of Wildlife Food Resources at Airports

Wildlife use airport habitats for a variety of reasons, including breeding, raising young, resting, taking refuge from predators, and locating sources of water. But the chief motivation for most individuals to encroach on airports is food. Depending on the specific habitat types present and habitat management strategies employed, airports can harbor large numbers of small mammals, insects, earthworms, and palatable vegetation that attract many species hazardous to aircraft. Often the best way to reduce populations of hazardous wildlife at airports is to determine which sources of food are being used, and then remove or modify those foods to make them less attractive (Washburn et al. 2011). Fortunately, the science of wildlife ecology and management has a long and productive history of research on wildlife food habits and foraging strategies, and the applied nature of most food habit studies conducted in airport environments facilitates straightforward specialization of investigational techniques. In this chapter we (1) discuss in more detail food resources as a primary motivation for wildlife use of airport properties, (2) consider some established principles of wildlife food habits and foraging strategies that affect airport wildlife management, (3) review techniques used to investigate wildlife food habits and identify those most useful for airports, (4) discuss methods for eliminating or modifying some preferred foods at airports, and (5) briefly consider future research needs

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 10 Managing Turfgrass to Reduce Wildlife Hazards at Airports

Multiple factors-including safety regulations, economic considerations, location, and attractiveness to wildlife recognized as hazardous to aviation- influence the choice of land cover at airports. The principal land covet at airports within North America has historically been turfgrass, usually coolseason perennial grass species native to Europe. However, recent research has determined that, from a wildlife perspective, not all turf grasses are alike. Some grasses are more palatable to herbivorous hazardous wildlife (e.g., Canada geese [Branta canadensis]) than others, and thus are more likely to increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions when planted near critical airport operating areas. How turfgrasses are managed (e.g., by mowing or herbicide use) can also influence the degree of use by wildlife. In this chapter we (1) review the role of vegetation in the airport environment, (2) review traditional and current methods of vegetation management on airfields, (3) discuss selection criteria for plant materials in reseeding efforts, and (4) provide recommendations for future research

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 10 Managing Turfgrass to Reduce Wildlife Hazards at Airports

Multiple factors-including safety regulations, economic considerations, location, and attractiveness to wildlife recognized as hazardous to aviation- influence the choice of land cover at airports. The principal land covet at airports within North America has historically been turfgrass, usually coolseason perennial grass species native to Europe. However, recent research has determined that, from a wildlife perspective, not all turf grasses are alike. Some grasses are more palatable to herbivorous hazardous wildlife (e.g., Canada geese [Branta canadensis]) than others, and thus are more likely to increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions when planted near critical airport operating areas. How turfgrasses are managed (e.g., by mowing or herbicide use) can also influence the degree of use by wildlife. In this chapter we (1) review the role of vegetation in the airport environment, (2) review traditional and current methods of vegetation management on airfields, (3) discuss selection criteria for plant materials in reseeding efforts, and (4) provide recommendations for future research

Historical and Current Population Trends of Herring Gulls (\u3ci\u3eLarus argentatus\u3c/i\u3e) and Great Black-backed Gulls (\u3ci\u3eLarus marinus\u3c/i\u3e) in the New York Bight, USA

During the 20th century, gull populations in North America experienced considerable changes in abundance and geographic ranges. The objective of this study was to describe population trends of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) and Great Black-backed Gulls (L. marinus) in the New York Bight, USA, over a 40-year period (1974-2013). A variety of data sources using different survey methods provided estimates of the number of breeding pairs for both species. In the Long Island portion of the New York Bight, overall Herring and Great Black-backed gull nesting populations appear to have fluctuated considerably in size during this time period, and the largest numbers of breeding individuals of these two species occurred in the 1980s. In coastal New Jersey, the Herring Gull nesting population has remained relatively constant, whereas the Great Black-backed Gull nesting population has increased. Individual nesting colonies are dynamic and can vary in size considerably during even short time periods. Several factors, including sea-level changes and the availability of anthropogenic food sources (i.e., at landfills and fisheries by-catch), likely have strongly influenced individual colonies and the overall Herring and Great Blackbacked gull breeding populations in the New York Bight