Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) have increased nationally over the past 22 years; denoted in the National Wildlife Strike Database that has been maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 1990. Increasing wildlife populations and air traffic coupled with quieter, faster aircraft create a significant risk to aviation safety; the cost to the civil aviation industry is an esti-mated $718 million dollars annually. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services provides technical and direct as-sistance to over 785 airports and airbases around the United States, including Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport (ORD). At ORD, raptors are the most commonly struck bird guild accounting for 25% of all damaging strikes in 2011. An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at ORD to reduce the presence of wildlife on the airfield, consequently lowering the risk of wildlife strikes. Professional airport wildlife biologists at ORD concentrate much of their efforts on raptor damage man-agement due to the high strike risk these birds pose to aircraft on the airfield itself. A variety of tech-niques are currently used to manage raptor populations at ORD

Beckerman, Scott F.

Guerrant, Travis L.

Pullins, Craig K.

Washburn, Brian E.

English

Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) have increased nationally over the past 22 years; denoted in the National Wildlife Strike Database that has been maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 1990. Increasing wildlife populations and air traffic coupled with quieter, faster aircraft create a significant risk to aviation safety; the cost to the civil aviation industry is an estimated $718 million dollars annually. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services provides technical and direct assistance to over 785 airports and airbases around the United States, including Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport (ORD). At ORD, raptors are the most commonly struck bird guild accounting for 25% of all damaging strikes in 2011. An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at ORD to reduce the presence of wildlife on the airfield, consequently lowering the risk of wildlife strikes. Professional airport wildlife biologists at ORD concentrate much of their efforts on raptor damage management due to the high strike risk these birds pose to aircraft on the airfield itself. A variety of techniques are currently used to manage raptor populations at ORD

DigitalCommons@USU

63  Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport   Travis L. Guerrant and Craig K. Pullins USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois  Scott F. Beckerman USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, Springfield, Illinois  Brian E. Washburn USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio   ABSTRACT:   Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) have increased nationally over the past 22 years; denoted in the National Wildlife Strike Database that has been maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 1990.  Increasing wildlife populations and air traffic coupled with quieter, faster aircraft create a significant risk to aviation safety; the cost to the civil aviation industry is an esti-mated $718 million dollars annually.  USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services provides technical and direct as-sistance to over 785 airports and airbases around the United States, including Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport (ORD).  At ORD, raptors are the most commonly struck bird guild accounting for 25% of all damaging strikes in 2011.  An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at ORD to reduce the presence of wildlife on the airfield, consequently lowering the risk of wildlife strikes.  Professional airport wildlife biologists at ORD concentrate much of their efforts on raptor damage man-agement due to the high strike risk these birds pose to aircraft on the airfield itself.  A variety of tech-niques are currently used to manage raptor populations at ORD.     Key Words:  airport, bird strikes, relocation, raptors, wildlife-aircraft collisions    ______________________________________________________________________________  INTRODUCTION  Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose a serious human health and safety risk to civil aviation.  Aside from safety risks, wildlife strikes cost the aviation industry an estimated $718 million annually during 1990−2011 (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  During this period, a total of 119,917 wildlife strikes affecting civil avia-tion were reported to the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration (FAA) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  In 1990, the FAA started collecting data concern-ing wildlife strikes at civil airports throughout the United States in the FAA’s National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  Airline pilots and maintenance personnel, the air traffic control tower, airfield operations, USDA/APHIS/ Wildlife Services personnel, and others typically file the information with the NWSD.  Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport (ORD), located near Rosemont, IL, has been reporting strikes to this database since its incep-tion in 1990.    In 1992, ORD partnered with the USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services (WS) program to reduce the frequency and severity of wildlife strikes at the airport.  A wildlife hazard assess-ment (WHA) was conducted by WS following a triggering wildlife strike event (see FAA 2007).  Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. (J. B. Armstrong, G. R. Gallagher, Eds). 2013. Pp. 63-68. 64  Following the completion of the WHA, a full-time WS airport biologist was employed to im-plement the wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP) mandated by the FAA.  Since that time, ORD has increased the funding to staff 3 wildlife biologists and 2 biological science tech-nicians at the airport to implement the WHMP.   In late 2005, the O’Hare Modernization Project (OMP) began at ORD.  Since that time, significant habitat changes have occurred on the airfield.  Prior to 2005, the airport habitats that were most attractive to wildlife hazardous to aviation consisted of numerous, large detention basins that held water year round and several wetland areas just outside the air operations area (AOA) of ORD.  As part of the expansion pro-ject, additional land was purchased around the airport, including many of the wetland areas.  As the project moved forward, these wetlands were mitigated and “banked” in areas away from ORD, reducing the amount of wetland habitats within the airport environment.  Also, many of the detention basins on the airfield were re-designed to be less attractive to wildlife, particu-larly waterfowl.  In recent years, many of the areas awaiting construction in the AOA were seeded in turf grasses and maintained per stand-ard airport protocol (e.g., regularly mowed), thus changing the general characteristics of wildlife habitats within the airport environment.  Our objective is to review past and current wildlife strike information, wildlife habitat management actions, raptor management efforts, and explore future management options to reduce wildlife strikes at ORD.  ANALYSIS OF WILDLIFE STRIKES AT ORD  Wildlife strike reporting to the FAA data-base is a voluntary system where reports are generally made by airport operations staff, pi-lots, or airline maintenance crews (Dolbeer and Wright 2009).  Reports to the database are ex-tremely important to airport wildlife managers in that it allows for the “fine tuning” of the wildlife management strategies on the airport.  When managers can observe what species are being struck with regularity and identify the             species that are causing damaging strikes to air-craft, management efforts can be focused on those species of wildlife that are posing the most risk to safe aircraft operations.    An analysis of the wildlife strike data from ORD over the past 11 years (2000−2012) shows there has been an increase in the number of wildlife strikes reported annually during this time period (Figure 1).    Figure 1. Total number of reported wildlife strikes, where the species involved was identified and where the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2012.  This increase is most likely attributed to an in-creased awareness of the importance of report-ing strikes to the database by the airport, airline, and other personnel at the airport.  Airport wild-life biologists and wildlife specialists working at ORD have conducted outreach efforts to various entities at the airport to attempt to ensure that all wildlife strikes are reported, and to reduce the proportion of ‘unknown species’ strikes that are reported to the FAA.  During 2007−2012, the number of unknown strikes has been steadily decreasing, indicating to managers that the out-reach efforts have been effective (Figure 1). By comparing wildlife strike data across time periods (e.g., previous years to more recent data), managers are able to identify shifts in the guilds and specific wildlife species that are caus-ing damage to aircraft (Figure 2), and in turn causing increased safety concerns (Pitlik and Washburn 2012).    65    Figure 2. Total number of damaging wildlife strikes, where the species involved was identified and where the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2012.  The raptor guild (i.e., compilation of all hawk, owl, and vulture species) caused the most dam-aging wildlife strikes during 2007−2012, where-as waterfowl remain a concern and represent the second most struck and identified wildlife group (Figure 3).  Thus, an integrated wildlife damage management plan is clearly needed and airport wildlife managers at ORD should focus their efforts on the management of raptors.  Figure 3. Proportion of reported wildlife strikes with damage to aircraft, by wildlife guild, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and during 2007−2012.  WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS Airfield Habitat Management  Much of the wildlife management efforts at ORD are focused on the airfield habitats.  Dur-ing the ongoing OMP, WS airport biologists provide guidance on planting/landscaping pro-posals, detention basin design, and various other aspects of the expansion that could become at-tractants to wildlife hazardous to aviation.  Habi-tats on the airport have changed drastically since the OMP began, including the redesign of most storm water detention basins on the airfield and the acquisition of additional acreage that has since been converted to open grasslands that are awaiting further conversion and incorporation into airport operations area.  These habitat alter-nations have made areas of ORD much more attractive to a different suite of hazardous wild-life in comparison to the pre-OMP era.  Wildlife strike data from each period indicates that, as a whole, ORD has become much more attractive to raptors but slightly less attractive to waterfowl species (Figure 3).  Consequently, the integrated wildlife damage management program was mod-ified and airport biologists are now focusing much of their attention on managing raptors in an effort to make the airport as safe as possible for air traffic.  Other techniques currently in use at the air-port include planting of tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) varieties that are infected with an endophyte which has proven to be unattrac-tive to some species of wildlife (Washburn et al. 2007, Washburn and Seamans 2012), mowing regimens to maintain airfield vegetation (i.e., grasslands) at a short height to reduce the num-ber of small mammals present on the airport (Washburn and Seamans 2004, Washburn and Seamans 2007), removal of frequently used perching sites (e.g., trees, old structures/fences), and non-lethal hazing and harassment tools (e.g., pyrotechnics).  Unfortunately, the non-lethal harassment techniques are not very effective at deterring raptors from the airport.    Raptor Management  Red-tailed hawk numbers in the midwest-ern USA have been increasing over time, as in-dicated by the trend data provided by the Breed-ing Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2012).  66  During 1966−2011, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) populations increased annually by 1.9% in the USA and by 3.6% in Illinois (Sauer et al. 2012).  Increases in raptor abundance have also occurred at ORD; numbers of red-tailed hawks and all raptors (8 species combined) re-moved from the airport has increased over time (Figure 4).     Figure 4. Total number of (A) raptors (8 species combined), (B) red-tailed hawks, and (C) American kestrels (Falco sparverius) lethally removed or live-captured and relocated from the Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2007−2012.   Removing raptors from the airport environment is an essential part of the management of this guild, but other management techniques are also important.  Among the species of raptors that are observed at ORD, red-tailed hawks have become the major focus of our efforts, as they have caused the most damaging wildlife strikes at the airport during 2007−2012 (Table 1).    Current methods used at ORD to reduce the risk of raptor-aircraft collisions are generally                   focused on a live-trapping and relocation pro-gram.  Raptors that are using the airport envi-ronment, more specifically the airfield itself, are captured using a variety of live-capture traps, including: Swedish goshawk traps, pole traps, dho-gaza traps, and bal-chatri traps (Bub 1978, Bloom et al. 2007).  These methods are used throughout the year to live-capture and remove raptors from the airport environment.  All cap-tured birds are banded with a standard U.S. Geo-logical Survey metal band and relocated away from the airport at a distance of 80 km or more.  If the birds are captured a second time at the air-port, they are relocated again.  If they return a third time and are recaptured, they are humanely euthanized as these birds are exhibiting a high affinity for the ORD airfield.  In addition, direct lethal control is used when individual raptors are identified as posing an immediate and direct threat to air traffic safety.    Raptor management on the airport has his-torically been a reactive measure to remove the-se species from the airport when they are ob-served.  These methods have worked well, but due to a large influx of raptors and increasing efforts to remove those birds from the airport environment in recent years (Figure 5), wildlife management efforts need to consider additional techniques to increase effectiveness of the wild-life damage management program at ORD and consequently reduce the frequency and impacts associated with raptor-aircraft collisions at the airport.      Figure 5. Number of raptors removed per staff-hour of effort at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2007−2012.     67  Table 1. Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements (range of damaging strikes per year), by wildlife species/group at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and 2007−2012.   Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements  (range of damaging strikes per year) Wildlife species 2000−2006  2007−2012 Red-tailed hawk ----- -----  0.152 (0 − 3) Canada goose 0.076 (0 − 2)  0.057 (0 − 1) Mallard 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.057 (0 − 2) Double-crested cormorant 0.045 (0 − 2)  ----- ----- Peregrine falcon ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) Hawks (species unknown) ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) Ring-billed gull 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Rock pigeon 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Mourning dove 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Gulls (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Geese (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Other wildlifea 0.015 (0 − 1) (or) 0.019 (0 − 1) Unknown 0.455 (1 − 6)  0.417 (1 − 7)       TOTAL 0.819 (5 − 11)  1.010 (7 − 13)   FUTURE MANAGEMENT  Future management of this species group includes investigation of installing perch deter-rents on FAA structures around the airport to reduce foraging opportunities.  Installation of these devices will require close coordination with the FAA and airport managers.  Wildlife managers at ORD are also considering a study to investigate if alternative habitat management practices (e.g., taller grass management) on the airport can be effective at reducing the foraging success of raptors at the site, in turn reducing the overall number on and around the airport.  Pesti-cide applications (e.g., zinc phosphide for small mammals; insecticides for grasshoppers) are also being considered in the runway safety areas in an effort to reduce the prey base for raptor spe-cies (Washburn et al. 2011, Witmer 2011).  The-se treatments are expensive and will require close coordination with the FAA and ORD man-agers.    LITERATURE CITED BUB, H. 1978. Bird trapping and bird banding: a handbook for trapping methods all over the world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. BLOOM, P. H., W. S. CLARK, and J. W. KIDD. 2007. Capture techniques. Pages 193−220 in D. M.  Bird and K. L. Bildstein, (eds.).  Raptor research and management     techniques, Hancock  Publishers Ltd., Blaine, WA.  DOLBEER, R. A., and S. E. WRIGHT. 2009. Safe-ty management systems: how useful will the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database be? Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3:167−178. DOLBEER, R. A., S. E. WRIGHT, J. WELLER, and M. J. BEGIER. 2012. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft  in the United States 1990-2011.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report Number 18, Washington, DC.  81pp.  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 2007. Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation  Administration, Office of Safety and Standards, Washington, DC. PITLIK, T. J., and B. E. WASHBURN. 2012. Using bird strike information to direct effective management actions within airport envi-ronments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest  Conference 25:225-229. SAUER, J. R., J. E. HINES, J. E. FALLON, K. L. PARDIECK, D. J. ZIOLKOWSKI, Jr., and W. A. LINK. 2012. The North American Breed-ing Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 − 2011. Version 12.13.2011. USGS Patux-ent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,   MD. 68  WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2004.  Management of vegetation to reduce  wildlife  hazards  at airports. Proceedings  FAA Worldwide Airport Technology  Transfer Conference.  Atlantic  City, NJ. WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2007.  Wildlife responses to vegetation height  management  in  cool-season grassland.  Rangeland Ecology and Management  60:319–323. WASHBURN, B. E., S. C. BARRAS, and T. W.  SEAMANS. 2007. Foraging preferences of  captive  Canada  geese related to  turfgrass mixtures. Human-Wildlife   Conflicts 1:188−197. WASHBURN, B. E., G. E. BERNHARDT, and L. A. KUTSCHBACH-BROHL. 2011. Using dietary analyses to  reduce the risk of wildlife-aircraft collisions. Human-Wildlife Interac-tions 5:204−209. WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2012. Foraging preferences of Canada geese: im-plications  for reducing human-goose conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:600−607. WITMER, G. W. 2011. Rodent population man-agement at Kansas City International Air-port.  Human- Wildlife Interactions 5:269−275.  

Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnWildlife Damage Management Conferences --Proceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for2013Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes atChicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional AirportTravis L. GuerrantUSDA-APHIS-Wildlife ServicesCraig K. PullinsUSDA-APHIS-Wildlife ServicesScott F. BeckermanUSDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, Sc.Beckerman@aphis.usda.govBrian E. WashburnUnited States Department of Agriculture, brian.e.washburn@aphis.usda.govFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfprocThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University ofNebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Guerrant, Travis L.; Pullins, Craig K.; Beckerman, Scott F.; and Washburn, Brian E., "Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes atChicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport" (2013). Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings. 159.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/15963  Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport   Travis L. Guerrant and Craig K. Pullins USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois  Scott F. Beckerman USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, Springfield, Illinois  Brian E. Washburn USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio   ABSTRACT:   Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) have increased nationally over the past 22 years; denoted in the National Wildlife Strike Database that has been maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since 1990.  Increasing wildlife populations and air traffic coupled with quieter, faster aircraft create a significant risk to aviation safety; the cost to the civil aviation industry is an esti-mated $718 million dollars annually.  USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services provides technical and direct as-sistance to over 785 airports and airbases around the United States, including Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport (ORD).  At ORD, raptors are the most commonly struck bird guild accounting for 25% of all damaging strikes in 2011.  An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at ORD to reduce the presence of wildlife on the airfield, consequently lowering the risk of wildlife strikes.  Professional airport wildlife biologists at ORD concentrate much of their efforts on raptor damage man-agement due to the high strike risk these birds pose to aircraft on the airfield itself.  A variety of tech-niques are currently used to manage raptor populations at ORD.     Key Words:  airport, bird strikes, relocation, raptors, wildlife-aircraft collisions    ______________________________________________________________________________  INTRODUCTION  Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) pose a serious human health and safety risk to civil aviation.  Aside from safety risks, wildlife strikes cost the aviation industry an estimated $718 million annually during 1990−2011 (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  During this period, a total of 119,917 wildlife strikes affecting civil avia-tion were reported to the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration (FAA) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  In 1990, the FAA started collecting data concern-ing wildlife strikes at civil airports throughout the United States in the FAA’s National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  Airline pilots and maintenance personnel, the air traffic control tower, airfield operations, USDA/APHIS/ Wildlife Services personnel, and others typically file the information with the NWSD.  Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport (ORD), located near Rosemont, IL, has been reporting strikes to this database since its incep-tion in 1990.    In 1992, ORD partnered with the USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services (WS) program to reduce the frequency and severity of wildlife strikes at the airport.  A wildlife hazard assess-ment (WHA) was conducted by WS following a triggering wildlife strike event (see FAA 2007).  Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. (J. B. Armstrong, G. R. Gallagher, Eds). 2013. Pp. 63-68. 64  Following the completion of the WHA, a full-time WS airport biologist was employed to im-plement the wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP) mandated by the FAA.  Since that time, ORD has increased the funding to staff 3 wildlife biologists and 2 biological science tech-nicians at the airport to implement the WHMP.   In late 2005, the O’Hare Modernization Project (OMP) began at ORD.  Since that time, significant habitat changes have occurred on the airfield.  Prior to 2005, the airport habitats that were most attractive to wildlife hazardous to aviation consisted of numerous, large detention basins that held water year round and several wetland areas just outside the air operations area (AOA) of ORD.  As part of the expansion pro-ject, additional land was purchased around the airport, including many of the wetland areas.  As the project moved forward, these wetlands were mitigated and “banked” in areas away from ORD, reducing the amount of wetland habitats within the airport environment.  Also, many of the detention basins on the airfield were re-designed to be less attractive to wildlife, particu-larly waterfowl.  In recent years, many of the areas awaiting construction in the AOA were seeded in turf grasses and maintained per stand-ard airport protocol (e.g., regularly mowed), thus changing the general characteristics of wildlife habitats within the airport environment.  Our objective is to review past and current wildlife strike information, wildlife habitat management actions, raptor management efforts, and explore future management options to reduce wildlife strikes at ORD.  ANALYSIS OF WILDLIFE STRIKES AT ORD  Wildlife strike reporting to the FAA data-base is a voluntary system where reports are generally made by airport operations staff, pi-lots, or airline maintenance crews (Dolbeer and Wright 2009).  Reports to the database are ex-tremely important to airport wildlife managers in that it allows for the “fine tuning” of the wildlife management strategies on the airport.  When managers can observe what species are being struck with regularity and identify the             species that are causing damaging strikes to air-craft, management efforts can be focused on those species of wildlife that are posing the most risk to safe aircraft operations.    An analysis of the wildlife strike data from ORD over the past 11 years (2000−2012) shows there has been an increase in the number of wildlife strikes reported annually during this time period (Figure 1).    Figure 1. Total number of reported wildlife strikes, where the species involved was identified and where the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2012.  This increase is most likely attributed to an in-creased awareness of the importance of report-ing strikes to the database by the airport, airline, and other personnel at the airport.  Airport wild-life biologists and wildlife specialists working at ORD have conducted outreach efforts to various entities at the airport to attempt to ensure that all wildlife strikes are reported, and to reduce the proportion of ‘unknown species’ strikes that are reported to the FAA.  During 2007−2012, the number of unknown strikes has been steadily decreasing, indicating to managers that the out-reach efforts have been effective (Figure 1). By comparing wildlife strike data across time periods (e.g., previous years to more recent data), managers are able to identify shifts in the guilds and specific wildlife species that are caus-ing damage to aircraft (Figure 2), and in turn causing increased safety concerns (Pitlik and Washburn 2012).    65    Figure 2. Total number of damaging wildlife strikes, where the species involved was identified and where the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2012.  The raptor guild (i.e., compilation of all hawk, owl, and vulture species) caused the most dam-aging wildlife strikes during 2007−2012, where-as waterfowl remain a concern and represent the second most struck and identified wildlife group (Figure 3).  Thus, an integrated wildlife damage management plan is clearly needed and airport wildlife managers at ORD should focus their efforts on the management of raptors.  Figure 3. Proportion of reported wildlife strikes with damage to aircraft, by wildlife guild, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and during 2007−2012.  WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS Airfield Habitat Management  Much of the wildlife management efforts at ORD are focused on the airfield habitats.  Dur-ing the ongoing OMP, WS airport biologists provide guidance on planting/landscaping pro-posals, detention basin design, and various other aspects of the expansion that could become at-tractants to wildlife hazardous to aviation.  Habi-tats on the airport have changed drastically since the OMP began, including the redesign of most storm water detention basins on the airfield and the acquisition of additional acreage that has since been converted to open grasslands that are awaiting further conversion and incorporation into airport operations area.  These habitat alter-nations have made areas of ORD much more attractive to a different suite of hazardous wild-life in comparison to the pre-OMP era.  Wildlife strike data from each period indicates that, as a whole, ORD has become much more attractive to raptors but slightly less attractive to waterfowl species (Figure 3).  Consequently, the integrated wildlife damage management program was mod-ified and airport biologists are now focusing much of their attention on managing raptors in an effort to make the airport as safe as possible for air traffic.  Other techniques currently in use at the air-port include planting of tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) varieties that are infected with an endophyte which has proven to be unattrac-tive to some species of wildlife (Washburn et al. 2007, Washburn and Seamans 2012), mowing regimens to maintain airfield vegetation (i.e., grasslands) at a short height to reduce the num-ber of small mammals present on the airport (Washburn and Seamans 2004, Washburn and Seamans 2007), removal of frequently used perching sites (e.g., trees, old structures/fences), and non-lethal hazing and harassment tools (e.g., pyrotechnics).  Unfortunately, the non-lethal harassment techniques are not very effective at deterring raptors from the airport.    Raptor Management  Red-tailed hawk numbers in the midwest-ern USA have been increasing over time, as in-dicated by the trend data provided by the Breed-ing Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2012).  66  During 1966−2011, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) populations increased annually by 1.9% in the USA and by 3.6% in Illinois (Sauer et al. 2012).  Increases in raptor abundance have also occurred at ORD; numbers of red-tailed hawks and all raptors (8 species combined) re-moved from the airport has increased over time (Figure 4).     Figure 4. Total number of (A) raptors (8 species combined), (B) red-tailed hawks, and (C) American kestrels (Falco sparverius) lethally removed or live-captured and relocated from the Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2007−2012.   Removing raptors from the airport environment is an essential part of the management of this guild, but other management techniques are also important.  Among the species of raptors that are observed at ORD, red-tailed hawks have become the major focus of our efforts, as they have caused the most damaging wildlife strikes at the airport during 2007−2012 (Table 1).    Current methods used at ORD to reduce the risk of raptor-aircraft collisions are generally                   focused on a live-trapping and relocation pro-gram.  Raptors that are using the airport envi-ronment, more specifically the airfield itself, are captured using a variety of live-capture traps, including: Swedish goshawk traps, pole traps, dho-gaza traps, and bal-chatri traps (Bub 1978, Bloom et al. 2007).  These methods are used throughout the year to live-capture and remove raptors from the airport environment.  All cap-tured birds are banded with a standard U.S. Geo-logical Survey metal band and relocated away from the airport at a distance of 80 km or more.  If the birds are captured a second time at the air-port, they are relocated again.  If they return a third time and are recaptured, they are humanely euthanized as these birds are exhibiting a high affinity for the ORD airfield.  In addition, direct lethal control is used when individual raptors are identified as posing an immediate and direct threat to air traffic safety.    Raptor management on the airport has his-torically been a reactive measure to remove the-se species from the airport when they are ob-served.  These methods have worked well, but due to a large influx of raptors and increasing efforts to remove those birds from the airport environment in recent years (Figure 5), wildlife management efforts need to consider additional techniques to increase effectiveness of the wild-life damage management program at ORD and consequently reduce the frequency and impacts associated with raptor-aircraft collisions at the airport.      Figure 5. Number of raptors removed per staff-hour of effort at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2007−2012.     67  Table 1. Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements (range of damaging strikes per year), by wildlife species/group at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and 2007−2012.   Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements  (range of damaging strikes per year) Wildlife species 2000−2006  2007−2012 Red-tailed hawk ----- -----  0.152 (0 − 3) Canada goose 0.076 (0 − 2)  0.057 (0 − 1) Mallard 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.057 (0 − 2) Double-crested cormorant 0.045 (0 − 2)  ----- ----- Peregrine falcon ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) Hawks (species unknown) ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) Ring-billed gull 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Rock pigeon 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Mourning dove 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Gulls (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Geese (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) Other wildlifea 0.015 (0 − 1) (or) 0.019 (0 − 1) Unknown 0.455 (1 − 6)  0.417 (1 − 7)       TOTAL 0.819 (5 − 11)  1.010 (7 − 13)   FUTURE MANAGEMENT  Future management of this species group includes investigation of installing perch deter-rents on FAA structures around the airport to reduce foraging opportunities.  Installation of these devices will require close coordination with the FAA and airport managers.  Wildlife managers at ORD are also considering a study to investigate if alternative habitat management practices (e.g., taller grass management) on the airport can be effective at reducing the foraging success of raptors at the site, in turn reducing the overall number on and around the airport.  Pesti-cide applications (e.g., zinc phosphide for small mammals; insecticides for grasshoppers) are also being considered in the runway safety areas in an effort to reduce the prey base for raptor spe-cies (Washburn et al. 2011, Witmer 2011).  The-se treatments are expensive and will require close coordination with the FAA and ORD man-agers.    LITERATURE CITED BUB, H. 1978. Bird trapping and bird banding: a handbook for trapping methods all over the world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. BLOOM, P. H., W. S. CLARK, and J. W. KIDD. 2007. Capture techniques. Pages 193−220 in D. M.  Bird and K. L. Bildstein, (eds.).  Raptor research and management     techniques, Hancock  Publishers Ltd., Blaine, WA.  DOLBEER, R. A., and S. E. WRIGHT. 2009. Safe-ty management systems: how useful will the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database be? Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3:167−178. DOLBEER, R. A., S. E. WRIGHT, J. WELLER, and M. J. BEGIER. 2012. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft  in the United States 1990-2011.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Serial Report Number 18, Washington, DC.  81pp.  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 2007. Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation  Administration, Office of Safety and Standards, Washington, DC. PITLIK, T. J., and B. E. WASHBURN. 2012. Using bird strike information to direct effective management actions within airport envi-ronments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest  Conference 25:225-229. SAUER, J. R., J. E. HINES, J. E. FALLON, K. L. PARDIECK, D. J. ZIOLKOWSKI, Jr., and W. A. LINK. 2012. The North American Breed-ing Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 − 2011. Version 12.13.2011. USGS Patux-ent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,   MD. 68  WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2004.  Management of vegetation to reduce  wildlife  hazards  at airports. Proceedings  FAA Worldwide Airport Technology  Transfer Conference.  Atlantic  City, NJ. WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2007.  Wildlife responses to vegetation height  management  in  cool-season grassland.  Rangeland Ecology and Management  60:319–323. WASHBURN, B. E., S. C. BARRAS, and T. W.  SEAMANS. 2007. Foraging preferences of  captive  Canada  geese related to  turfgrass mixtures. Human-Wildlife   Conflicts 1:188−197. WASHBURN, B. E., G. E. BERNHARDT, and L. A. KUTSCHBACH-BROHL. 2011. Using dietary analyses to  reduce the risk of wildlife-aircraft collisions. Human-Wildlife Interac-tions 5:204−209. WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2012. Foraging preferences of Canada geese: im-plications  for reducing human-goose conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:600−607. WITMER, G. W. 2011. Rodent population man-agement at Kansas City International Air-port.  Human- Wildlife Interactions 5:269−275.  

Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Wildlife Damage Management Conferences --
Proceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for
2013
Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at
Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport
Travis L. Guerrant
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
Craig K. Pullins
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
Scott F. Beckerman
USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, Sc.Beckerman@aphis.usda.gov
Brian E. Washburn
United States Department of Agriculture, brian.e.washburn@aphis.usda.gov
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Guerrant, Travis L.; Pullins, Craig K.; Beckerman, Scott F.; and Washburn, Brian E., "Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at
Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport" (2013). Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings. 159.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/159
63 
 
Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-
tional Airport 
 
 
Travis L. Guerrant and Craig K. Pullins 
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois 
 
Scott F. Beckerman 
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, Springfield, Illinois 
 
Brian E. Washburn 
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio 
 
 
ABSTRACT:   Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) have increased nationally over the past 22 
years; denoted in the National Wildlife Strike Database that has been maintained by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) since 1990.  Increasing wildlife populations and air traffic coupled with quieter, 
faster aircraft create a significant risk to aviation safety; the cost to the civil aviation industry is an esti-
mated $718 million dollars annually.  USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services provides technical and direct as-
sistance to over 785 airports and airbases around the United States, including Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-
tional Airport (ORD).  At ORD, raptors are the most commonly struck bird guild accounting for 25% of 
all damaging strikes in 2011.  An integrated wildlife damage management program is implemented at 
ORD to reduce the presence of wildlife on the airfield, consequently lowering the risk of wildlife strikes.  
Professional airport wildlife biologists at ORD concentrate much of their efforts on raptor damage man-
agement due to the high strike risk these birds pose to aircraft on the airfield itself.  A variety of tech-
niques are currently used to manage raptor populations at ORD.   
 
 
Key Words:  airport, bird strikes, relocation, raptors, wildlife-aircraft collisions 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 Wildlife-aircraft collisions (wildlife strikes) 
pose a serious human health and safety risk to 
civil aviation.  Aside from safety risks, wildlife 
strikes cost the aviation industry an estimated 
$718 million annually during 1990−2011 
(Dolbeer et al. 2012).  During this period, a total 
of 119,917 wildlife strikes affecting civil avia-
tion were reported to the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration (FAA) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  In 
1990, the FAA started collecting data concern-
ing wildlife strikes at civil airports throughout 
the United States in the FAA’s National Wildlife 
Strike Database (NWSD) (Dolbeer et al. 2012).  
Airline pilots and maintenance personnel, the air 
traffic control tower, airfield operations, 
USDA/APHIS/ Wildlife Services personnel, and 
others typically file the information with the 
NWSD.  Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport 
(ORD), located near Rosemont, IL, has been 
reporting strikes to this database since its incep-
tion in 1990.  
  In 1992, ORD partnered with the 
USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services (WS) program 
to reduce the frequency and severity of wildlife 
strikes at the airport.  A wildlife hazard assess-
ment (WHA) was conducted by WS following a 
triggering wildlife strike event (see FAA 2007).  
Proceedings of the 15
th
 Wildlife Damage Management Conference. 
(J. B. Armstrong, G. R. Gallagher, Eds). 2013. Pp. 63-68. 
64 
 
Following the completion of the WHA, a full-
time WS airport biologist was employed to im-
plement the wildlife hazard management plan 
(WHMP) mandated by the FAA.  Since that 
time, ORD has increased the funding to staff 3 
wildlife biologists and 2 biological science tech-
nicians at the airport to implement the WHMP.  
 In late 2005, the O’Hare Modernization 
Project (OMP) began at ORD.  Since that time, 
significant habitat changes have occurred on the 
airfield.  Prior to 2005, the airport habitats that 
were most attractive to wildlife hazardous to 
aviation consisted of numerous, large detention 
basins that held water year round and several 
wetland areas just outside the air operations area 
(AOA) of ORD.  As part of the expansion pro-
ject, additional land was purchased around the 
airport, including many of the wetland areas.  As 
the project moved forward, these wetlands were 
mitigated and “banked” in areas away from 
ORD, reducing the amount of wetland habitats 
within the airport environment.  Also, many of 
the detention basins on the airfield were re-
designed to be less attractive to wildlife, particu-
larly waterfowl.  In recent years, many of the 
areas awaiting construction in the AOA were 
seeded in turf grasses and maintained per stand-
ard airport protocol (e.g., regularly mowed), thus 
changing the general characteristics of wildlife 
habitats within the airport environment.  Our 
objective is to review past and current wildlife 
strike information, wildlife habitat management 
actions, raptor management efforts, and explore 
future management options to reduce wildlife 
strikes at ORD. 
 
ANALYSIS OF WILDLIFE STRIKES AT 
ORD 
 Wildlife strike reporting to the FAA data-
base is a voluntary system where reports are 
generally made by airport operations staff, pi-
lots, or airline maintenance crews (Dolbeer and 
Wright 2009).  Reports to the database are ex-
tremely important to airport wildlife managers in 
that it allows for the “fine tuning” of the wildlife 
management strategies on the airport.  When 
managers can observe what species are being 
struck with regularity and identify the   
          
species that are causing damaging strikes to air-
craft, management efforts can be focused on 
those species of wildlife that are posing the most 
risk to safe aircraft operations.  
  An analysis of the wildlife strike data from 
ORD over the past 11 years (2000−2012) shows 
there has been an increase in the number of 
wildlife strikes reported annually during this 
time period (Figure 1).  
  
Figure 1. Total number of reported wildlife strikes, 
where the species involved was identified and where 
the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), 
at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 
2000−2012. 
 
This increase is most likely attributed to an in-
creased awareness of the importance of report-
ing strikes to the database by the airport, airline, 
and other personnel at the airport.  Airport wild-
life biologists and wildlife specialists working at 
ORD have conducted outreach efforts to various 
entities at the airport to attempt to ensure that all 
wildlife strikes are reported, and to reduce the 
proportion of ‘unknown species’ strikes that are 
reported to the FAA.  During 2007−2012, the 
number of unknown strikes has been steadily 
decreasing, indicating to managers that the out-
reach efforts have been effective (Figure 1). 
By comparing wildlife strike data across 
time periods (e.g., previous years to more recent 
data), managers are able to identify shifts in the 
guilds and specific wildlife species that are caus-
ing damage to aircraft (Figure 2), and in turn 
causing increased safety concerns (Pitlik and 
Washburn 2012).   
 
65 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Total number of damaging wildlife strikes, 
where the species involved was identified and where 
the wildlife involved was not identified (unknown), 
at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 
2000−2012. 
 
The raptor guild (i.e., compilation of all hawk, 
owl, and vulture species) caused the most dam-
aging wildlife strikes during 2007−2012, where-
as waterfowl remain a concern and represent the 
second most struck and identified wildlife group 
(Figure 3).  Thus, an integrated wildlife damage 
management plan is clearly needed and airport 
wildlife managers at ORD should focus their 
efforts on the management of raptors. 
 
Figure 3. Proportion of reported wildlife strikes with 
damage to aircraft, by wildlife guild, at Chicago’s 
O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and 
during 2007−2012. 
 
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS 
Airfield Habitat Management 
 Much of the wildlife management efforts at 
ORD are focused on the airfield habitats.  Dur-
ing the ongoing OMP, WS airport biologists 
provide guidance on planting/landscaping pro-
posals, detention basin design, and various other 
aspects of the expansion that could become at-
tractants to wildlife hazardous to aviation.  Habi-
tats on the airport have changed drastically since 
the OMP began, including the redesign of most 
storm water detention basins on the airfield and 
the acquisition of additional acreage that has 
since been converted to open grasslands that are 
awaiting further conversion and incorporation 
into airport operations area.  These habitat alter-
nations have made areas of ORD much more 
attractive to a different suite of hazardous wild-
life in comparison to the pre-OMP era.  Wildlife 
strike data from each period indicates that, as a 
whole, ORD has become much more attractive 
to raptors but slightly less attractive to waterfowl 
species (Figure 3).  Consequently, the integrated 
wildlife damage management program was mod-
ified and airport biologists are now focusing 
much of their attention on managing raptors in 
an effort to make the airport as safe as possible 
for air traffic. 
 Other techniques currently in use at the air-
port include planting of tall fescue (Lolium 
arundinaceum) varieties that are infected with 
an endophyte which has proven to be unattrac-
tive to some species of wildlife (Washburn et al. 
2007, Washburn and Seamans 2012), mowing 
regimens to maintain airfield vegetation (i.e., 
grasslands) at a short height to reduce the num-
ber of small mammals present on the airport 
(Washburn and Seamans 2004, Washburn and 
Seamans 2007), removal of frequently used 
perching sites (e.g., trees, old structures/fences), 
and non-lethal hazing and harassment tools (e.g., 
pyrotechnics).  Unfortunately, the non-lethal 
harassment techniques are not very effective at 
deterring raptors from the airport.   
 
Raptor Management 
 Red-tailed hawk numbers in the midwest-
ern USA have been increasing over time, as in-
dicated by the trend data provided by the Breed-
ing Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2012).  
66 
 
During 1966−2011, red-tailed hawk (Buteo 
jamaicensis) populations increased annually by 
1.9% in the USA and by 3.6% in Illinois (Sauer 
et al. 2012).  Increases in raptor abundance have 
also occurred at ORD; numbers of red-tailed 
hawks and all raptors (8 species combined) re-
moved from the airport has increased over time 
(Figure 4).  
 
 
 
Figure 4. Total number of (A) raptors (8 species 
combined), (B) red-tailed hawks, and (C) American 
kestrels (Falco sparverius) lethally removed or live-
captured and relocated from the Chicago’s O’Hare 
International Airport during 2007−2012. 
 
 Removing raptors from the airport environment 
is an essential part of the management of this 
guild, but other management techniques are also 
important.  Among the species of raptors that are 
observed at ORD, red-tailed hawks have become 
the major focus of our efforts, as they have 
caused the most damaging wildlife strikes at the 
airport during 2007−2012 (Table 1).   
 Current methods used at ORD to reduce the 
risk of raptor-aircraft collisions are generally 
         
         
focused on a live-trapping and relocation pro-
gram.  Raptors that are using the airport envi-
ronment, more specifically the airfield itself, are 
captured using a variety of live-capture traps, 
including: Swedish goshawk traps, pole traps, 
dho-gaza traps, and bal-chatri traps (Bub 1978, 
Bloom et al. 2007).  These methods are used 
throughout the year to live-capture and remove 
raptors from the airport environment.  All cap-
tured birds are banded with a standard U.S. Geo-
logical Survey metal band and relocated away 
from the airport at a distance of 80 km or more.  
If the birds are captured a second time at the air-
port, they are relocated again.  If they return a 
third time and are recaptured, they are humanely 
euthanized as these birds are exhibiting a high 
affinity for the ORD airfield.  In addition, direct 
lethal control is used when individual raptors are 
identified as posing an immediate and direct 
threat to air traffic safety.   
 Raptor management on the airport has his-
torically been a reactive measure to remove the-
se species from the airport when they are ob-
served.  These methods have worked well, but 
due to a large influx of raptors and increasing 
efforts to remove those birds from the airport 
environment in recent years (Figure 5), wildlife 
management efforts need to consider additional 
techniques to increase effectiveness of the wild-
life damage management program at ORD and 
consequently reduce the frequency and impacts 
associated with raptor-aircraft collisions at the 
airport.   
 
 
 
Figure 5. Number of raptors removed per staff-hour 
of effort at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport 
during 2007−2012. 
 
 
 
 
67 
 
Table 1. Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements (range of damaging strikes 
per year), by wildlife species/group at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport during 2000−2006 and 2007−2012. 
 
 Average number of damaging wildlife strikes per 100,000 aircraft movements  
(range of damaging strikes per year) 
Wildlife species 2000−2006  2007−2012 
Red-tailed hawk ----- -----  0.152 (0 − 3) 
Canada goose 0.076 (0 − 2)  0.057 (0 − 1) 
Mallard 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.057 (0 − 2) 
Double-crested cormorant 0.045 (0 − 2)  ----- ----- 
Peregrine falcon ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) 
Hawks (species unknown) ----- -----  0.038 (0 − 1) 
Ring-billed gull 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) 
Rock pigeon 0.030 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) 
Mourning dove 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) 
Gulls (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) 
Geese (species unknown) 0.015 (0 − 1)  0.019 (0 − 1) 
Other wildlifea 0.015 (0 − 1) (or) 0.019 (0 − 1) 
Unknown 0.455 (1 − 6)  0.417 (1 − 7) 
      
TOTAL 0.819 (5 − 11)  1.010 (7 − 13) 
 
 
FUTURE MANAGEMENT 
 Future management of this species group 
includes investigation of installing perch deter-
rents on FAA structures around the airport to 
reduce foraging opportunities.  Installation of 
these devices will require close coordination 
with the FAA and airport managers.  Wildlife 
managers at ORD are also considering a study to 
investigate if alternative habitat management 
practices (e.g., taller grass management) on the 
airport can be effective at reducing the foraging 
success of raptors at the site, in turn reducing the 
overall number on and around the airport.  Pesti-
cide applications (e.g., zinc phosphide for small 
mammals; insecticides for grasshoppers) are also 
being considered in the runway safety areas in 
an effort to reduce the prey base for raptor spe-
cies (Washburn et al. 2011, Witmer 2011).  The-
se treatments are expensive and will require 
close coordination with the FAA and ORD man-
agers.   
 
LITERATURE CITED 
BUB, H. 1978. Bird trapping and bird banding: a 
handbook for trapping methods all over the 
world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 
NY. 
BLOOM, P. H., W. S. CLARK, and J. W. KIDD. 
2007. Capture techniques. Pages 193−220 
in D. M.  Bird and K. L. Bildstein, (eds.).  
Raptor research and management  
  
 techniques, Hancock  Publishers Ltd., 
Blaine, WA.  
DOLBEER, R. A., and S. E. WRIGHT. 2009. Safe-
ty management systems: how useful will 
the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database 
be? Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3:167−178. 
DOLBEER, R. A., S. E. WRIGHT, J. WELLER, and 
M. J. BEGIER. 2012. Wildlife strikes to civil 
aircraft  in the United States 1990-2011.  
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Serial Report 
Number 18, Washington, DC.  81pp.  
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 2007. 
Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near 
airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation  Administration, Office of Safety 
and Standards, Washington, DC. 
PITLIK, T. J., and B. E. WASHBURN. 2012. Using 
bird strike information to direct effective 
management actions within airport envi-
ronments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate 
Pest  Conference 25:225-229. 
SAUER, J. R., J. E. HINES, J. E. FALLON, K. L. 
PARDIECK, D. J. ZIOLKOWSKI, Jr., and W. 
A. LINK. 2012. The North American Breed-
ing Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 
− 2011. Version 12.13.2011. USGS Patux-
ent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 
  MD. 
68 
 
WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2004. 
 Management of vegetation to reduce 
 wildlife  hazards  at airports. Proceedings 
 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology 
 Transfer Conference.  Atlantic  City, NJ. 
WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2007. 
 Wildlife responses to vegetation height 
 management  in  cool-season grassland. 
 Rangeland Ecology and Management 
 60:319–323. 
WASHBURN, B. E., S. C. BARRAS, and T. W. 
 SEAMANS. 2007. Foraging preferences of 
 captive  Canada  geese related to 
 turfgrass mixtures. Human-Wildlife  
 Conflicts 1:188−197. 
WASHBURN, B. E., G. E. BERNHARDT, and L. A. 
KUTSCHBACH-BROHL. 2011. Using dietary 
analyses to  reduce the risk of wildlife-
aircraft collisions. Human-Wildlife Interac-
tions 5:204−209. 
WASHBURN, B. E., and T. W. SEAMANS. 2012. 
Foraging preferences of Canada geese: im-
plications  for reducing human-goose 
conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 
76:600−607. 
WITMER, G. W. 2011. Rodent population man-
agement at Kansas City International Air-
port.  Human- Wildlife Interactions 
5:269−275. 
 


https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&amp;context=wdmconference

Managing Raptors to Reduce Wildlife Strikes at Chicago’s O’Hare Interna-tional Airport

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries