Risk Assessment
Template for the Development of a
Airport Wildlife Management Plan
for
XXX Regional Airport
| Address: | ___________________________________________ |
|---|---|
| Phone: | ___________________________________________ |
| Fax: | ___________________________________________ |
This document was prepared by:
Current date (date of this version)
To be reviewed a minimum of every two (2) years
Question or Comments should be directed to:
Sections provided in [square brackets and/or italics]
are guidance notes to be deleted when
this template is used
Distribution List:
(Updates to the Airport Wildlife Management Plan will be circulated to this list.)
| Name and Title | Agency | Copies |
|---|---|---|
1. Introduction
In 2005, Transport Canada introduced the addition of a Wildlife Planning and Management Regulation to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), Part III, Subpart 2 - Airports. The reasons for the need for these new regulations are discussed in the following paragraphs.
- The populations of some wildlife species that are particularly hazardous to aircraft are increasing at a rapid rate.
Goose, Snow Goose, Mallard, gulls, Coyotes, owls and other large raptors, cranes and herons. Many of these species are also urban-tolerant, finding suitable habitat in close proximity to human activity, including airports. - There is an increasing number of aircraft flying today, particularly turbine-powered aircraft that are most susceptible to damaging bird strikes.
Although, like many other industrial sectors, aircraft movements are likely to go through cycles of activity, overall, the number of aircraft movements is increasing worldwide. Dramatic shifts in aircraft movements can occur in airports of all sizes. It has been estimated that globally, the number of aircraft flying hours will double between 1996 and 2016. - Airport operators play a key role in the management of risks associated with wildlife.
Approximately 80% of all bird strikes take place in the landing or takeoff phases of flight. Airport operators, therefore, have a key role to fulfill in reducing exposure to hazards and managing wildlife strike risk. They also have a role to play in increasing general awareness of the wildlife hazard issue and influencing land use policies and practices in the vicinity of airports. - New information and management techniques are now available and all airports that meet the criteria should establish well-conceived, well-managed, wildlife management programs of consistent approach across Canada.
Much has been learned over the past few decades regarding the management of wildlife, the kinds of hazards that exist and the technique of risk assessment. Airports now have the knowledge to prepare a systematic, science-based approach to airport wildlife management.
2. Screening for the Application of the Wildlife Planning and Management Regulation
Not all airports are required to prepare an Airport Wildlife Management Plan. However, the new regulations will apply to any certified site in Canada that meets one of the criteria below.
The following is a list of conditions under which the regulations apply. A checkmark has been applied to the conditions that apply to XXX Airport.
- Receives commercial passenger-carrying aircraft operating under Subpart 4 or 5 of Part VII of the CARs with more than 2,800 movements (a movement is defined as a takeoff or landing) annually.
Commercial passenger-carrying aircraft include aeroplanes (multi-engine and turbo-jet powered) certified under Canadian Aviation Regulations to carry more than ten passengers, e.g., regular commercial flights, commuter operations, sightseeing operations.
- Airport has had an incident where a turbine-powered aircraft collided with wildlife other than a bird and suffered damage, collided with more than one bird or ingested a bird through an engine.
A wildlife strike has occurred when:
- A pilot reports a strike;
- Maintenance personnel report that aircraft damage is due to a wildlife strike;
- Airport personnel report seeing a wildlife strike; and,
- Airport personnel find wildlife remains on airside areas within 200 ft of a runway centre line and no other cause of death is identified.
Multiple strikes are any single bird strike incident involving more than one bird.
- Where the presence of wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards-Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, has been observed in an airport flight pattern or movement area.
The list ranks wildlife from most hazardous to least hazardous by species group and as such, identifies the species that should be of primary concern for the operator. The list provided in Standard 322.302 is as follows:
- deer;
- geese;
- gulls;
- hawks;
- ducks;
- coyotes;
- owls;
- rock doves and pigeons;
- bald and golden eagles;
- sandhill cranes;
- sparrows and snow buntings;
- shorebirds;
- blackbirds and starlings;
- crows and ravens;
- swallows;
- mourning doves;
- herons;
- turkey vultures;
- American kestrels;
- wild turkeys; and
- cormorants.
- Has a waste disposal facility within 15 km of the geometric centre of the airport.
Included as waste disposal facilities are: landfill sites, garbage dumps, waste transfer and sorting facilities, recycling and composting facilities and commercial fish processing plants.
- Is located in a built-up area.
3. Goals and Objectives
The Goal of this Airport Wildlife Management Plan (AWMP) is to promote aviation safety for passengers and flight crews by reducing wildlife hazards and associated risks to aircraft and airport operations caused by wildlife activities on and in the vicinity of the airport.
The purpose of Section A of this report is to establish through a risk assessment procedure, and a screening process, whether the requirements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), Part III, Subpart 2 - Airports, Section 302.304 - Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, apply to this airport.
When a wildlife management plan is required, the results of the risk assessment will be used to guide and inform the plan, and as a tool to measure future changes in the hazard and risk assessments.
The objectives of Section A of the AWMP are to:
- Identify and review existing sources of wildlife information for the area;
- Identify wildlife hazards on and near the airport;
- Identify seasonal patterns related to hazards; and
- Undertake a risk assessment and prioritize wildlife management efforts.
4. Description of Airport Operations
[Insert here a brief description of the airport location (e.g., surrounding land use, geography and elevation, but not detailed biophysical characteristics), information on airport ownership, airport operator, typical traffic profile, runway characteristics, navigation aids, UNICOM information, other facilities, hours of operation and any other pertinent general information.]
Figure 1. Location Map
[Provide here a general location map of the airport, typically at 1:50,000 on a topographic map base or similar.]
4.1 Aircraft Movements and Types
The different patterns of flight operation between local and itinerant traffic may affect exposure to wildlife hazards and should be considered in the risk assessment.
Without an effective AWMP, at any given airport, wildlife strikes are likely to increase as air traffic movements increase. Therefore, the risk assessment process needs to consider the number of aircraft movements currently and, to the extent that forecasts are available, in the future.
Aircraft are not equally susceptible to having a damaging strike occur. For example, relatively slow-moving piston aircraft are not as likely to strike wildlife as are faster moving jet aircraft.
Aircraft also vary greatly in their susceptibility to damage from a wildlife strike. For example, turbofan engines, especially when mounted under-wing with their large, intake areas, are at greater risk due to damage from a bird strike than turboprop and turboshaft engines.
To facilitate the risk assessment process Tables 1 and 2 provide estimates on recent aircraft movements and types at this airport.
[Insert here comments referring to Table 1, characterize the general traffic profile and any higher risk flights such as MEDIVAC, air shows etc.]
Changes in traffic profile, such as an increase in jet powered aircraft, large increases in traffic volume or special events such as air shows, can result in significant shifts in risk and would require a re-assessment of risk.
Table 1. Local Airport Traffic
| Classification | Annual Movements [Indicate year] | Trend in Movements | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piston under 5700 kg | [Indicate number] | [General notation of forecast use] | [E.g., seasonal or weekend differences] |
| Piston over
5700 kg |
|||
| Helicopter | |||
| Turbo prop under 27000 kg | |||
| Turbo Jet | |||
| [others] |
Table 2. Itinerant Aircraft Movements
| Classification | Annual Movements [Indicate year] | Trend in Movements | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piston under 5700 kg | [Indicate number and year] | [General notation of forecast use] | [Seasonal, or weekend data] |
| Piston over 5700 kg | |||
| Helicopter | |||
| Turbo prop under 27000 kg | |||
| Turbo prop over 27000 kg | |||
| Turbo Jet | |||
| Turbo fan | |||
| [others] |
The airport typically receives between [xxx] and [xxx] movements of air traffic per year.
5. Identification of Sources for Existing Information on Wildlife
The hazard and risk assessment in this document is based on existing information sources and/or on wildlife inventories that have been undertaken expressly for the purpose of developing this AWMP. Data from information sources listed here will be used in Section 7 of the Plan, which is a description of wildlife habitat resources.
Table 3. Sources for Wildlife Information - On the Airport
[The examples of reports provided below are to be substituted.]
| Document/Source | Type of Information | Located |
|---|---|---|
| • XXX Municipal Airport: An Assessment of Impacts on Wetland and Aquatic Resources. XYZ Consultants 2002. Report prepared for the airport. | • Flora and fauna of airport; wildlife hazards, review wildlife management actions taken | • Airport office |
| • Wildlife Management database | • Detailed information on White-tailed Deer and Coyote occurrence and location data. Also data on wildlife kills conducted under permits | • Airport office |
Table 4. Sources for Wildlife Information - Outside the Airport
| Document/Source | Type of Information | Located |
|---|---|---|
| • Regional Conservation Authority | • Limited available information | • |
| • Local naturalist club | • Some information on birds of the site, reported in existing documents | • |
| • Audubon Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data | • Several CBCs in area providing information on typical winter birds in area | • On-line at:
http://birds.audubon.org/christmas-bird-count |
Table 5. Sources for Information on Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern
| Document/Source | Type of information | Located |
|---|---|---|
| Provincial Natural Heritage
Information Centre |
Maintains occurrence
data for rare species |
|
| Federal Species at Risk data,
COSEWIC reports |
||
| Local Conservation Authority | ||
| Local Naturalist Club database | ||
| NGOs |
6. Strike Data
The annual reporting of strike data are required by the CARs. These data can be a valuable source of information on existing hazards. As a higher percentage of strikes are recorded and reported, this source of information will increase in value. The following table provides a brief summary of strike data for this airport since 1985. [Source from Transport Canada and airport files.]
Table 6. Strike Data for XXX Airport
| Date | Aircraft | Wildlife Species and Number | Phase of Operation | Effect on flight | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
**Airport strike history reports can be obtained from Transport Canada upon request.
At this airport, the total number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 movements prior to the implantation of this regulation has not been recorded [or insert strike rate]. The number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 movements recorded after implantation of the regulation will be provided in this section of future updates to this AWMP.
7. Description of Wildlife Habitats and Resources
It is important to understand the wildlife communities in as much detail as is practical so that consequences of management actions might be considered prior to implementation.
Using existing sources of information and including any wildlife studies undertaken for the purpose of this AWMP, the following sections will describe the functions (i.e., roosts, feeding habitat, breeding colonies, yarding areas) and attributes (i.e., species) associated with wildlife at three landscape categories. Particular interest is in determining the movement patterns, spatially and through time, of wildlife within the airport itself and across the landscape. In terms of wildlife hazards, habitat extends to buildings and agricultural lands as well as more typical wetlands, forests and meadows. All species known to be an issue at the airport should be described as some may not be direct hazards however they may attract hazards (such as voles providing food for Coyotes and hawks).
The first category is the airport itself, where habitats and the wildlife using them will be described in detail. This will rely on site-specific field work and standard techniques for describing vegetation communities (e.g., Ecological Land Classification) and wildlife communities, their use patterns and seasonal variations that have been observed or that might be expected.
The second category is the nearby lands that are not under direct control of the airport. The physical area included in this category should include an area of sufficient size to provide an adequate picture of wildlife movements through the airspace identified later in this document. This assessment is largely based on existing information and remotely sensed habitat analysis rather than site-specific field work. It will describe the location of moderately hazardous land use practices such as wastewater discharge plants and sewage lagoons, crop production, recreational sites and managed or created wildlife habitats. There is no requirement under the regulation to manage these lands however it is important to be aware of potentially hazardous off airport land uses.
The third category is the determination of the presence of extremely hazardous land use practices that may be many kilometres from the airport. At a minimum, food waste disposal sites, outdoor composting and commercial fish plants will be mapped when they occur within 15 km of the airport reference point. Such features may be mapped at greater distances where wildlife associated with them may become a hazard to aircraft using the airport.
The following sections of the AWMP provide the findings of these three categories.
8. On the Airport
Figure 2 illustrates the primary habitats found on the airport lands.
[Figure 2 should be an aerial photograph or base mapping of the airport at 1:10,000 or better, with primary wildlife habitats and vegetation communities delineated. Habitats could include for example: short grass meadow, long grass meadow, shrub wetland, marsh, ponds, deciduous forest, buildings, etc. Where provincial standards exist for describing vegetation communities, these could be used. Text should indicate which are the most common habitats occurring at the airport.
This would be followed by a table listing species of wildlife, separated into bird, mammal and other groupings. Thirty or more bird species might be found and might include species such as: Canada Goose, Ring-billed Gull, Mew Gull, European Starling or Horned Lark; while possible mammals found might include: Mule Deer, Red Fox, Northern Raccoon or Meadow Vole. Associated with each species listed, will be information on the seasonal occurrence, abundance, and location of use within the airport lands. Text should make mention of the commonest species found as well as addressing regulated species.]
Vegetation
Overall the vegetation communities other than the extensive grassed areas, are...
Figure 2. Coarse Wildlife Habitat Mapping
Breeding Birds
Habitat for Migrant Birds
Winter Wildlife Habitat
Amphibians and Reptiles
Mammals
Table 7 lists the wildlife species known to occur on the airport.
[In this table list all species, not just hazardous ones; some examples are provided below in each category.]
Table 7. Overview of Wildlife Species Known to Occur on the Airport
| Common Name | Scientific Name | Seasonal Occurrence | Locations, Abundance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Birds | |||
| Great Blue Heron | Ardea herodias | Regular March to November | Low numbers, ponds, ditches with amphibians
or fish, flying over airfield |
| Canada Goose | Branta canadensis | March to December | Attempts to breed at ponds, non-breeders sometimes forage airside on turf, fly-overs |
| Ring-billed Gull | Larus delawarensis | February to November | Occasionally forages airside on pavement or short grass, usually small flocks, frequent fly-overs, often present at landfill, associated flightlines poorly known |
| Downy Woodpecker | Picoides pubescens | Year round | Breeds, low numbers in treed areas |
| Barn Swallow | Hirundo rustica | April to September | Occasionally breeds in buildings, regular over airside areas July to September, sometimes in moderate-sized flocks
(e.g., 50). In cooler periods will rest on runway, poor response to pyros |
| Red-winged Blackbird | Agelaius phoeniceus | February to December | Breeds, migrants, prefers longer grass, feeds on insects and grass seeds, flocks, may be numerous, often seen crossing airfield, sometimes
feeding in long or short grass |
| Snow Bunting | Plectrophenax nivalis | December to April | Winter, migrants, feeds airside, runway, flocks, sometimes in larger numbers (100s), prefers seed heads over snow |
| Amphibians and Reptiles | |||
| Northern Leopard Frog | Rana pipiens | April to October | Breeds in ponds, forages airside, sometimes numerous |
| Common Snapping Turtle | Chelydra serpentina | April to October | Occasionally seen crossing runway from ponds, especially in early June when nesting |
| Mammals | |||
| American Beaver | Castor canadensis | March to December | Present and persistent in wetlands and drainage features mostly not airside, numbers variable, may be controlled by Coyotes |
| White-tailed Deer | Odocoileus virginianus | Year round | Frequent outside airfield, now rarely airside |
8.1 Adjacent Lands and Extremely Hazardous Land use Practices
Figure 3 illustrates some of the moderately hazardous land use practices within 8 km of the airport reference points and the extremely hazardous land use practices within 15 km [Or further if thought to be relevant.]
[A topographic map or aerial photograph mosaic should be provided with attractants indicated (e.g., wastewater discharge plants, sewage lagoons, crop production areas, recreational sites, managed and supplemental natural habitats). Land uses falling under the extremely hazardous category type (i.e., food waste disposal sites, outdoor composting areas, commercial fish plants or other areas where potential wildlife foods are exposed) should also be indicated with a separate key on this map. Text should describe and summarize each of the hazardous lands present.]
Of particular note is the landfill located... Agricultural fields can attract birds at certain times (e.g., April for worms and fall during harvesting or ploughing).. several known and regular hotspots are indicated on Figure 3.
9. Summary of Key Wildlife Hazards
The previous steps of the AWMP will have identified most of the wildlife species found in and around the airport environment. Not all of these species are particularly hazardous to airport operations. Some species are more hazardous because they are large; others because they flock, or yet others because they soar at higher altitudes. A few are particularly hazardous because they fit all three of these descriptors (e.g., gulls and geese). Occasionally, an unusual food resource (e.g., an insect hatch) causes birds to concentrate in the airport environment that might not otherwise be considered a hazard (e.g., swallows).
The Wildlife Control Procedures Manual (Transport Canada, 2002) and the resource Sharing the Skies (Transport Canada, 2001b) provides information on the most effective management techniques for hazardous wildlife species in the airport environment.
Figure 3. Locations of Key Hazardous Land Uses
Table 8 provides details of the key wildlife hazards, in no specific order, based on the previous steps in this AWMP.
Table 8. Key Wildlife Hazards at XXX Airport
10. Discussion of Key Hazards
Each of the species (e.g., Turkey Vulture) or groups of similar species (e.g., gulls) appearing in Table 8 are discussed in this section.
This detailed discussion uses habitat information from Section 7 and addresses flight lines, flocking behaviour and use of seasonal food sources or other attractants. Seasonal, temporal (time of day) and spatial patterns of habitat use (where they are and why) will also be discussed.
This section also reviews observed or known behavioural characteristics of the species (e.g., flocking) and identifies the reasons for the presence of these species and their movement patterns or particular behaviour that has led to their designation as Key Hazards at this airport.
This summary will rely on information already presented in this document, other reports if they are available (e.g., gull hazard assessments), and information that is available in the literature for these particular species (e.g., Transport Canada, 2001b; 2002).
Each species or group of species is addressed in the following tabular pattern, which is presented with one species per page.
10.1 Hazard Assessments
The Mass/flocking rank is a scale of 1 to 6 that considers the mass and flocking characteristics of a species. Those with the most mass that also flock are ranked 1 (highest) while the smallest non-flocking are ranked 6 (lowest). See Section 11 (Risk Assessment) for more details.
[Some example sheets are provided, text is to be substituted.]
| Species | On-site Issue | Off-site Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Geese (all) |
Yes |
Yes |
| Gulls (all) | ||
| Hawks (buteos) | ||
| Ducks (all) | ||
| Rock Dove | ||
| Eagles (both) | ||
| Sandhill Crane | ||
| Sparrows (all) | ||
| Shorebirds (all) | ||
| Blackbirds/starlings (all) | ||
| Swallows (all) | ||
| Mourning Dove | ||
| Herons (all) | ||
| Turkey Vulture | ||
| Am. Kestrel | ||
| Wild Turkey | ||
| White-tailed Deer/Ungulates | ||
| Coyote/canids | ||
| [Supplement with any relevant additional species] |
| Canada Goose | |
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank (1-6):
1 |
Species Protection Status:
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
March to early December, generally absent mid-June to late July, but persistent in April. Very few after freeze-up until the following thaw. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
Not known. Generally tends to be more active just before dusk and after dawn. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Uses open crop fields in fall, flooded fields in spring, attempts to nest in ponds on site (usually shot under permit). Will forage on airfield. Frequently on river within high risk zone. Concentration at pond near Xyz Creek may overfly airport. May use racetrack (unknown), frequent on Xyz River near hydroline. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Flocks, slow evasive actions, feeding in high risk zones, flying thorough high risk zones, but most do tend to be lower than 100 m agl. Local roost site(s) and flightlines not known. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
Few counts available, up to three or four pairs have attempted to nest, flocks usually less than 40. |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Feeding on turf and on croplands. Nesting and attraction to nest sites in wetlands. |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
None known. |
|
| Strike Summary:
One strike reported. |
|
| Other Comments:
Breeding birds controlled by killing, hazing works for visitors, but special concerns remain for fly-throughs. |
|
| Gulls (mostly Ring-billed Gull) | |
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank:
3 for Ring-billed Gull, 2 for Herring Gull |
Species Protection Status:
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
February to November, less common from late April to late July, most common in spring and fall. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
Move from roosts to feeding areas daily. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Concentrate at wet fields, hay while being cut, ploughing operations, landfill. Forage on runway for worms (especially during and after wet weather), short and mown grass for invertebrates. May move across high risk zones, may follow river when moving from landfill to City. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Flocking, use of airside areas, flightlines may be across high risk areas. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
No counts available. |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Food sources as listed above, loafing on runway, flightlines to roost and feeding areas (not known). |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
None known. |
|
| Strike Summary:
One significant strike, resulting in substantial engine damage. |
|
| Other Comments:
Need information on flightlines, numbers and movements to and from the local landfill site. |
|
| Blackbirds
(Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle, Brown-headed Cowbird) |
|
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank:
4 |
Species Protection Status:
Provincial Fish and Wildlife Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
February to December. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
All day, no details on daily timing of flocking behaviour in fall. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Over and around runways, grass areas, shrub thickets. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Flocking in fall, low flying, often crossing airfield. Flocks will also perch in trees and circle around any raptors in area. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
No counts available, some flocks can number hundreds of birds. |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Seeds and short turf for feeding. Feeding on long and short grass. Some nesting, mainly in long grass and around ponds. Primary roost locations not known. |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
None known. |
|
| Strike Summary:
No strikes known or reported. |
|
| Other Comments: | |
| Great Blue Heron | |
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank:
2 |
Species Protection Status:
Provincial Fish and Wildlife Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
February to November. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
All day. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Runways. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Low slow flight across airfield, low maneuverability. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
Usually present in low numbers (one to several). |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Feeding on amphibians and fish etc., in ponds and ditches. |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
2002 XYZ consultants report; OMNR. |
|
| Strike Summary:
One strike in 2004. |
|
| Other Comments: | |
| White-tailed Deer | |
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank:
1 |
Species Protection Status:
Provincial Fish and Wildlife Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
Year round, less active mid-winter and rarely on the airside at that time. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
Often active at dawn and particularly dusk. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Move from forested lands to forage airside, mostly within forest patches. Also use wetland ponds for feeding and avoiding biting insects in spring. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Groups encroaching on runway in poor light conditions and at night. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
No counts available. |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Feeding on forbs and wetland plants, movement between forest blocks. |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
OMNR, local hunters. |
|
| Strike Summary:
No strikes known or reported. |
|
| Other Comments:
Hunted annually on property. Generally considered the highest risk species at airports. |
|
| American Beaver | |
|---|---|
| Mass/Flocking Rank:
Not applicable |
Species Protection Status:
Provincial Fish and Wildlife Act |
| Seasonality (time of year):
April to November. |
|
| Temporal (time of day):
Not applicable. |
|
| Spatial (where in the area the hazard exists, hotspots):
Wetland ponds and drainage features. |
|
| Behaviours of Concern (e.g., flocking, loafing on apron, flightlines, feeding in grass, crossing runway):
Create ponded areas which attract hazardous wildlife species. |
|
| Discussion of Numbers (peak counts, low counts, breeding pairs):
No counts available. |
|
| Reasons Why Species is Present in Area (e.g., food source, landfill, roost):
Poor drainage, lots of poplar available. |
|
| Sources of Information for Species in this Area (list reports and other sources):
None known. |
|
| Strike Summary:
Not applicable, but species attracted to ponds have been struck. |
|
| Other Comments:
Regularly trapped. |
|
11. Risk Assessment
In the context of the AWMP, a hazard is a condition (e.g., the presence of gulls) with the potential to cause injury to personnel or damage to equipment or structures. Reducing exposure to hazards is a component of risk management.
Risk is the likelihood of injury or loss occurring, which is a function of exposure to the hazards, as well as the likelihood of a strike occurring and the magnitude or severity of the strike. It follows then, that high risk species are those that are most frequently involved in strikes, as well as those that cause the greatest damage.
Risk assessment is an important part of this plan because it serves to ensure that wildlife management activities are directed at the species that create the highest risk, in a prioritized fashion.
Risk is strongly influenced by the type of aircraft and their operations. The likelihood of a catastrophic wildlife strike accident occurring with a small piston-powered aircraft is much less than with turbine powered aircraft.
Table 9 summarizes airport traffic into three broad risk-categories based on their vulnerability to damaging wildlife strikes. All classes have been retained in the risk assessment matrix in case use patterns should change in the future. In addition, the severity or consequences are much less.
Table 9. Airport Traffic
| Aircraft Classification | Strike SusceptibilityLevel | Approximate Annual Movements | Other Considerations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Turbofan & Turbojet | High | [E.g., some MEDIVAC] | |
| 2 | Helicopter and Turboprop | Moderate | ||
| 3 | Piston under 5700 kg | Low | ||
In addition to the immediate airport environment, the risk assessment must consider the area outside of the airport. For this reason the typical approach and takeoff routes for all runways and both types of air traffic (i.e., local and itinerant) need to be considered. Figure 4 shows the approach and takeoff and the area where 90% of flights at this airport are typically below 500 to 600-ft agl and typical circling patterns where those patterns approach 500-ft agl.
We are primarily concerned with biomass that has the ability to affect safe flight. The following are general characteristics of high risk species or behaviour:
- larger species which tend to cause greater damage due to higher impact forces (e.g., waterfowl, gulls and hawks);
- flocking of birds (e.g., gulls, swallows, Snow Buntings) or herds of animals;
- large, slow-flying birds that are less maneuverable (e.g., herons, hawks);
- species that habitually hunt or forage on or over the airfield, especially inexperienced animals (e.g., meadowlarks, Snow Buntings, Snowy Owls); and
- birds that habitually fly or soar into airspace used by aircraft (e.g., gulls or waterfowl on flightlines, vultures and gulls soaring).
If a hazardous species is particularly numerous (e.g., Rock Dove), then it might be considered a high risk. Conversely, one or two pairs of doves nesting on the airport property might be considered a hazard, but one with a low associated risk.
Figure 5 overlays Figure 4 with likely wildlife pathways of connectivity and presents potential gull flight lines. The figure does provide some insight into the interaction of off-site land use and the presence of hazardous species within high risk zones.
For the species considered to represent an elevated risk at XXX Airport, Table 11 provides several risk assessment tools. These are described in the following paragraphs.
Mass/Flocking Hazard Rank
This ranking system uses flocking characteristics and mass to provide a relative index of risk should an aircraft strike the species. Examples are provided in Table 10.
Figure 4. Elevated Risk Zones
Figure 5. Habitat Connectivity
Table 10. Risk Assessment Using Flocking Characteristics and Mass
| Level of Risk | Characteristics | Example Species |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | Very large (>1.8 kg), flocking | Geese, swans, turkeys |
| Level 2 | Very large (>1.8 kg), solitary
or Large (1-1.8 kg), flocking |
Great Blue Heron
Herring Gull, Mallard, Turkey Vulture |
| Level 3 | Large (1-1.8 kg), solitary
or Medium (300g -1 kg), flocking |
Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture
Teals, Rock Dove |
| Level 4 | Medium (300g -1 kg), solitary
or Small (50 g - 300 g), flocking |
Northern Harrier
European Starling, blackbirds |
| Level 5 | Small (50 g - 300 g), solitary
or Very small (<50g), flocking |
American Kestrel
Snow Bunting, swallows |
| Level 6 | Very small (<50g), solitary | Savannah Sparrow |
Note: Based on Kelly, 2004.
Relative Hazard Score
This is sourced from Dolbeer et al. (2000). In the study, strike data were analyzed and assessed for relative risk associated with 21 different species groups. This analysis examined damage to aircraft, major damage, effects on flight, and from these data determined a composite ranking. It is important to remember that this assessment is entirely based on recorded strikes. That is, all of these species present proven risks to aircraft. They effectively occupy the top portion of a list of potentially hazardous species that occur on airfields in Canada.
Transport Canada Hazard Rank
Transport Canada rank for most hazardous wildlife (1 through 20, with 1 being the highest hazard) is provided, based on Airport Wildlife Management and Planning Standard 322.321. This list ranks wildlife from most hazardous to least hazardous by species group and as such, identifies the species that should be of primary concern for the operator. All listed species are thought to be hazardous and the status of some species may have changed since the ranks were established (e.g., Turkey Vulture is an increasing hazard in many areas of Canada, however it is yet to become a strike risk at most airports).
Two columns are also provided for specific assessments for this airport for relative abundance (H-M-L) and hazardous behaviour (H-M-L) based on the previous sections of this report. The following criteria are used to help assess the risk levels at this airport.
Relative Abundance
- High Frequently present in conflict areas; may be seasonal; multiple daily observations; often numerous;
- Medium Occasionally and regularly present in conflict areas; not present daily, but present weekly; sporadically numerous; and,
- Low Occasionally and infrequently present; usually not numerous.
Hazardous Behaviour
- High Frequently flocking in conflict areas; regular flightlines through conflict zone; unpredictable response to aircraft (e.g., inexperienced birds); frequently active in poor light;
- Medium Sporadic flocking in conflict areas (e.g., when food supplies dictate); sometimes active in poor light; and,
- Low Rarely or never flocking; seldom feeding close to conflict zone; usually active only in daytime.
The final three columns in the risk matrix represent qualitative assessments based on air traffic type and volume at this airport (using the three categories provided in Table 9). The following criteria are used to help determine risk by aircraft type and traffic volume:
- Severe Frequent high risk aircraft movements coinciding with high values for other risk factors (i.e., relative abundance, hazardous behaviour, risk/hazard rankings);
- High Frequent high or moderate risk aircraft movements coinciding with high or moderate values for other risk factors;
- Moderate Occasional or regular moderate risk aircraft movements coinciding with moderate or sometimes high values for other risk factors; and,
- Low All other categories.
The risk assessment matrix does not provide numerical computations and none of these values are absolute. Therefore, the purpose of the table is to draw attention to high risk species for management purposes and to guide management priorities rather than absolutely quantify the risk.
Table 11. Risk Assessment Matrix for XXX Airport
| Species Group | General Risk and Hazard Ranking Tools | For this airport | Risk Assessment by Aircraft Type4 and (volume) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass/
Flocking Rank1 |
Relative Risk Score2 | Transport Canada
Hazard Rank3 |
Relative Abundance | Hazardous Behaviour | 1
(XXX) |
2
(XXX) |
3
(X,XXX) |
|
| White-tailed Deer |
1 |
100 |
1 |
L |
H |
L |
L |
M |
| Turkey Vulture |
2/3 |
63 |
18 |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
| Canada Geese |
1 |
52 |
2 |
M |
M |
L |
M |
M |
| Mallard and teal |
2/3 |
37 |
5 |
L |
M |
L |
M |
L |
| Rock Dove |
3 |
24 |
8 |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
| Ring-billed Gull |
3 |
22 |
3 |
H |
H |
L |
M |
M |
| Great Blue Heron |
2 |
22 |
17 |
|||||
| Coyote |
1 |
20 |
6 |
|||||
| Killdeer |
4 |
12 |
12 |
|||||
| Blackbirds |
4 |
9 |
13 |
|||||
| Starlings |
4 |
9 |
13 |
|||||
| Savannah Sparrow |
6 |
4 |
11 |
|||||
| Snow Bunting |
5 |
N/a |
11 |
|||||
| Swallows |
5 |
2 |
15 |
|||||
| Wild Turkey |
1 |
N/a |
20 |
|||||
Note:
- This mass/flocking score is based on mass and the propensity of a species to flock. The scale is based on 1 being the highest hazard and 6 the lowest hazard
- The Dolbeer Ranking System for relative risk; 100 is the highest, 2 the lowest.
- Transport Canada hazard list;1 is the highest, 20 the lowest, all are considered to be hazardous and the status of some species has changed since the ranks were established.
- This summary risk rank is based on the three aircraft categories listed in Table 9 and considers the type and number of traffic movements. The scale is based on: Severe, High, Moderate and Low.
The final management priorities provided in Table 12 will be consistent with the information provided in the Risk Assessment Matrix. A change in habitat conditions, wildlife attractants or aircraft type using the airport (e.g., an increase in commuter jets) will result in a re-assessment of risk.
Overall, the final management priority rank should make sense in the context of the information provided in the previous sections of this AWMP. The final rank does not consider how manageable the species might be, just what the current assessment of priority is for this airport.
Table 12. Wildlife Management Priorities for XXX Airport
[Examples are provided in the following table, to be replaced with site specific data based on the previous sections of this plan.]
| Management Priority | Species Group |
|---|---|
|
High |
Canada Goose |
|
Ring-billed Gull |
|
|
Moderate |
White-tailed Deer |
|
Blackbirds |
|
|
Low |
Turkey Vulture |
|
Coyote |
|
|
Killdeer |
|
In summary, this assessment has:
- screened out those species not considered to be an elevated risk;
- considered the type and volume of air traffic movements at the airport;
- applied a risk assessment matrix to hazardous species; and
- identified management priorities based on the risk assessment.
However, any wildlife species (even those not considered to be an elevated risk) may still from time to time represent a risk to aircraft safety, or may increase in abundance or change their behaviour and become an immediate concern.
None/some/all of the risk assessments by aircraft type were considered to be severe or high, primarily due to the aircraft types and volumes using the airport and existing management activities.
Of those identified to represent an elevated risk, XXX are considered low priority, XXX moderate priority and XXX high priority.