|
PERFORMERS - Current projects are sponsored by the FAA and are conducted by the Wildlife Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/WS), located in Sandusky, OH or by the University of Illinois (a designated FAA Center of Excellence). In addition, the joint projects are currently being investigated to be conducted with the United States Air Force. Please select from the following:
Vegetation studies at Pacific Northwest airports - Presently,
there is much confusion and few data on how to best manage vegetation structure
and plant species composition at airports to reduce overall bird activity
for gulls, geese, raptors and other wildlife species of concern.
In a joint study with the Washington state office of USDA/WS, six study
sites were established in 1999 for the evaluation of fescue-based plantings
as airside vegetation that may be unattractive to wildlife at airports
surrounding the Puget Sound in Washington (Bremmerton, Olympia, Paine Field,
Port Angeles, Renton, and Seattle-Tacoma). Experimental vegetation
mixtures were established on Paine Field, Renton, and Seattle-Tacoma airports
in October 1999. Plots on the remaining airports were established
in April 2000, and evaluation of vegetation establishment and wildlife
use began in May 2000. In the summer of 2000, USDA personnel continued
monitoring bird, small mammal, and invertebrate use of these plots, along
with vegetation characteristics, to determine the relative attractiveness
of these plots to birds that may pose a strike hazard.
Vegetation studies at NASA Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, OH - Six plots of the fescue mix and a ryegrass-based control mix of vegetation were planted at Plum Brook Station (PBS) in May 2000 and were over seeded in September 2000 to allow detailed studies of foraging responses of Canada geese to the same vegetation mixtures used at the Washington airports. These long-term observations of plant-herbivore interactions are not possible at active airports, where the presence of geese presents a significant bird strike risk. Observations of captive Canada geese on these test plots will begin in July 2001. Vegetation study at JFK International Airport (JFKIA) - Beginning in Spring 2000, USDA/WS operational and research biologists began assisting the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in an adaptive management approach for determining if specific fescue varieties can be used to balance the airport’s needs for a vegetative ground cover that is aesthetically pleasing and controls erosion, yet is not attractive to birds or small mammals. This study is being conducted in conjunction with the vegetation studies at Washington airports and at PBS (see above). A mixture of grass seed containing a reputedly unpalatable variety of fescue will be planted in Fall 2000 in one area of the airport that had recently been graded. If the mixture seems suitable, additional areas will be planted in Spring 2001 and monitoring of bird and rodent use will begin in summer 2001. This cooperative habitat management effort complements a successful gull management program implemented by the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), Wildlife Service of New York City, and PANYNJ at JFKIA in 1991 that continues as part of a cooperative, integrated approach for reducing bird strikes at JFKIA. Pen tests at NASA Plum Brook Station - During summer 1998, initial pen tests were conducted to compare bird use of tall- and short-grass plots using Canada geese, European starlings and brown-headed cowbirds at PBS, Erie County, Ohio. Pen tests were used to provide a controlled environment. Based on the results of these tests, a new system of 6 pens was devised to provide a more realistic test environment. The first round of tests using brown-headed cowbirds and 4 grass heights was completed in the spring of 2000. A second round of tests using European starlings has been planned for the summer of 2000. Unfortunately an insufficient number of birds were captured and this did not allow for complete the tests. These studies will continue in summer 2001 with starlings and blackbirds. Field tests at NASA Plum Brook Station - In summer
1999, eight 1.5-ha plots at PBS were selected for use in a large-scale
field test of bird use of tall (7-12”) and short (3-6”) vegetation.
Pre-experimental (baseline) bird and small mammal surveys on each plot
were conducted in May-June 1999. Bird observations in the short-
and tall-vegetation plots have been conducted since August 1999 on a weekly
basis. During October 1999 and March 2000, the first and second small
mammal surveys (50 traps/plot for 3 nights) were completed. This study
will continue until 2003.
DETECTION AND DISPERSION OF PROBLEM SPECIES Tests of dead-bird effigies to repel vultures--Anecdotal evidence has suggested dead turkey vultures are repellent to other vultures in roosting sites. In this project, tests are conducted using “dead-vulture effigies” to repel birds from roosting sites. Two 21-day tests were initially in May-June and September-October 1999 to test the hypothesis that a dead vulture (freeze-dried specimen) laid horizontally or hanging vertically in a turkey vulture roost (abandoned tower) at PBS would cause birds to avoid the site. These tests indicated that dead-vulture effigies, especially in hanging position, are a promising means of dispersing vultures from roost sites near airports. The hanging vulture test at the tower was repeated in May- August 2000. A “field test” was also conducted at a vulture roost in a residential area near Bowling Green, Ohio in September-October 2000. The results have been very favorable, indicating “dead-bird effigies” can be a useful, inexpensive component of management programs to disperse vultures from areas where they are not wanted. Gull management at JFKIA--At JFKIA, the millennium year was the 10th year of a seasonal (May-August) shotgun shooting experiment as a means of reducing overflights of gulls on the airport. This study also included the census of the nesting colony of gulls in Jamaica Bay (adjacent to JFKIA) in June 2000 by means of aerial photography and the autopsy of shot gulls to determine age and sex composition and reproductive status of the population. The 2000 shooting program was highly successful. Only 2 laughing gulls were struck by aircraft on the airport in 2000, compared to a mean of 157 struck/year in the baseline years, 1988-1990. Strikes by laughing gulls in 1991-2000 were reduced by a mean of 84% compared to 1988-1990. the estimate for the nesting colony in 2000 indicated the population has declined by 64% from 1990 levels to about 2,720 nests. An evaluation of an experimental falconry program on the airport was also made for the years 1996-2000. Little evidence was found that falconry reduced strikes. Evaluation of coyote fur as deer repellent—Over 470 deer-aircraft collisions have been reported for U.S. civil aviation, 1990-1999. Although there is anecdotal evidence that predator fur acts as a deer repellent and might have some utility at airports, a literature review revealed that no quantitative evaluations of fur have been done. During Jan-Feb 2000, ten feeding stations at NASA PBS were established, and after a 1-week baseline period, coyote fur at 5 of the sites was placed. For the next 5 weeks, a 72% reduction in feeding was measured at treated sites compared to 50% increase at control sites. To complete this project, a test was conducted in July-September 2000 to evaluate coyote fur to repel deer from established trails (paths that deer repeatedly follow in their daily movement patterns). Ten deer trails were located at PBS and monitored (with counters using infrared beams) during a 3-week baseline period. Five of the trails then received bags of coyote fur and 5 served as untreated controls. Preliminary analysis indicated deer were not repelled from the trails by coyote fur. These results highlight the fact that techniques that may be repellent in 1 context may fail to repel in other situations. After repeating another feeding tests in December 2000-January 2001, the results of this work will be published. Coyote fur, and perhaps fur of other predators, may be a useful tool as part of an integrated program to repel deer from gate openings and perhaps runways. Evaluation of lasers to repel birds--During July 1999-June 2000, a series of cage experiments was conducted to evaluate lasers as visual repellents and as dispersal tools for use against birds. It was found that a He-Ne, 5-10 mW laser (630 nm wavelength) was ineffective as a visual repellent to cowbirds and starlings in experiments involving laser-treated and untreated perches. However, a 60-mW, 650-nm diode laser, supplied by SEA Technology, Inc., a contractor for the U.S. Air Force (USAF), was highly effective in dispersing and repelling Canada geese from grass plots “defended” by the laser, and in dispersing crows at a night roosting site in Ohio. Applied in a cage test with rock doves, however, the Sea Technology laser was ineffective in dispersing birds from perches. Additional testing was done with the 60-mW, 650-nm laser and a line laser (which produces a plane of light) against various waterbirds (ibises and waterfowl) in Louisiana, and (using only the 650-nm laser) against herons in Oregon. In general, these birds were easily dispersed. How birds respond to these lasers is a function of not only species retinal physiology, but likely setting as well. These results indicate that laser technology for repelling birds on airports is a very promising technology, but more research is required. Development and evaluation of a microwave transmitter system to repel birds—In January 2000, a purchase order was issued to DRA of Washington, DC to test a radar (microwave-emitting) system for dispersing birds. Ultimately, the concept is to install the radar system on aircraft to provide an early warning (audible microwaves) to birds of approaching planes. During the spring 2000, the design of the microwave transmitter was completed. A compromise was made between using an existing avionics system with modifications, the time and cost constraints, and the need to maximize the probability of success. The test transmitter selected was an avionics TACAN ground beacon. The unit was a refurbished AN/TRN-17A. This unit emits 2.5kW (peak) at 2700 pulses/sec. The pulses were 3.5 microsecond-wide pulse pairs separated by 12 microseconds. The carrier frequency was selected from the available channels. Thus, the carrier was about 1 GHz, the PRF was optimal and the power was adequate. The pulse pairs performed as a 7-microsecond pulse (duty cycle is 1.9%). An antenna was also obtained for transmission. During May 2000, field test planning was finalized and implemented. A previous test procedure was used with minor modifications. The test involved attaching the system (transmitter and antenna) to a vehicle that was driven at 65 mph toward caged flocks of cowbirds on a 1-mile stretch of road at NASA PBS during May 2000. Response time of birds to the approaching vehicle (with and without microwaves deployed) was measured in 1/30-sec intervals using a video camera. The response variable was the distance from approaching vehicle that each of the 6 birds in cage reacted. During June-September, test results were analyzed and a draft report partially written. The results indicated the treatment (audible microwave stimulus) improved the initial startle time (when the first bird in flock reacted to approaching vehicle) from a mean of 1.17 sec before the vehicle passed to 1.73 sec, an increase of 48%. Thus, the experiment supported the hypothesis that audible microwaves emitted from a moving vehicle can alter bird behavior. The final report will address the issue of the probability of this altered behavior resulting in aircraft avoidance (see below for complimentary test). Evaluation of raptor relocation at O’Hare International Airport--Populations of many raptor species, such as red-tailed hawks and American kestrels, have increased in North America, and these birds increasingly use airports for feeding and nesting. Aircraft strikes with raptors can cause serious damage to aircraft. Unfortunately, harassment techniques (e.g., pyrotechnics) generally are not effective in dispersing raptors from airports. Furthermore, killing raptors on airports to reduce strikes is generally not a recommended action because of their protected status, beneficial attributes (except when on airports) and popularity with the public. Because of these constraints, programs to live-trap and relocate raptors away from airports are becoming increasingly popular. However, there is little information available to determine 1) the fate of relocated raptors with regard to survival, movements and return to the initial or other airports, 2) the optimum distances and directions to relocate raptors from airports, and 3) if the capture and relocation of raptors actually results in fewer raptors and fewer raptor strikes at airports. This information is needed so that biologists can make informed recommendations regarding the effectiveness of relocation with regard to raptor species, age classes, time of year, removal distance from airport and other factors. O’Hare International Airport (O’Hare) is an ideal location for an evaluation of raptor relocation because of 1) the large area (8,000 acres) with a high raptor population and significant strike threat, 2) the presence of USDA/WS personnel at O’Hare who are experienced in raptor trapping, and 3) the availability of a database on bird strikes at O’Hare since 1992. Additional trapping of raptors may be done at nearby Midway Airport where USDA/WS personnel are also working. During October 1999, we initiated a 2-year study at O’Hare to evaluate the relocation of raptors for reducing strikes. Emphasis will be placed on red-tailed hawks. First, a study protocol (QA-777) was developed. Second, radio transmitters were ordered and banding permits were obtained (the study uses a combination of satellite telemetry, standard telemetry and color-marking to address the objectives). Large numbers of raptors continue to use O’Hare. For example, during the spring migration period in mid-March 2000, over 40 raptors were observed on the airport during a weekly survey. From October 1999-September 2000, 117 red-tailed hawks were captured at and around O’Hare and relocated. Most of these hawks were relocated 40 miles south, west or northwest of O’Hare. The return rate has been over 10%. Red-tailed hawks captured after 1 June, resident adult birds, were fitted with satellite transmitters (12) and conventional transmitters (12). These birds were relocated to Decatur, Illinois, about 160 miles south of O’Hare. Tracking by the ARGOS Satellite System and conventional methods indicated that these birds have dispersed to several locations. As of 30 September 2000, 6 satellite-transmitted birds have returned to the vicinity of O’Hare. Three of the birds are using O’Hare, and the other 3 are within about 1 mile of the airport. Two conventional transmitted birds also have returned, 1 to O’Hare and 1 to within 1 mile of the airport. In addition, 6 red-tailed hawks that were colored banded only, have returned to O’Hare. The number of days taken for transmitted red-tailed hawks to return to O’Hare ranged from 13 to 50. The overall return rate to O’Hare for all transmitted birds is about 33% from a distance of 160 miles. The higher return rate might be because the telemetry birds were resident birds in and around O’Hare. This fact may govern how far resident and migratory red-tailed hawks need to be relocated before the return rate is less than 5%. We will continue to monitor O’Hare airport from a fixed telemetry station on the airport to identify any returning birds. Also, aerial telemetry flights will be conducted to determine the location of birds with VHF transmitters. In 2000, the FAA started to investigate the use of radars to reduce the bird strike risk. Due to the fact that 95 % of civilian bird strikes occur below 3,000 ft AGL and within 6 nautical miles of airports, the FAA has determined that the its needs are at airports, and that a reliable method of detection must be investigated. The most promising technology is offered by weather radars such the Nexrad radar, the Airport Surveillance Radar ASR-9, and the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR). In 2001, the FAA is conducting a review of existing radars and comparing them to the “ideal” bird detection radar. Results from the review will help determine whether it will be best to 1) modify existing weather radar, or 2) support the development of a dedicated bird radar system. UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIRD STRIKE RISK STUDY TO Assess and predict the BIRD STRIKE RISKS TO AIRFRAME This study is being performed by the FAA’s Center of Excellence. There two main parts to the study. Part 1- Consolidate, validate wildlife strike databases and, expand database information to assess the current bird strike risk An important component of this coordination will be obtaining data from airframe manufacturers, airlines, and aircraft maintenance facilities. A major effort will be to obtain access to U.S., international, and military databases and to produce an initial consolidation of existing wildlife strike databases. Another part of this research will be to obtain wildlife strike data from other sources to both validate information in existing databases, and expand database content to comprehensively assess the bird strike risk to airframes. Part 2 : Develop a risk/hazard assessment to support rulemaking activities related to structural failures associated with wildlife strikes. In this research, a set of risk/hazard assessment procedures for airframes will be developed. The COE has been involved in research supporting the FAA Wildlife Hazard Abatement System (WHAS). This research has included the development of a conceptual approach to a risk-based assessment of wildlife hazards at airports. The experience gained in this research suggests that the detailed data required to support the probabilistic analyses of risk assessments is generally lacking. Although it may not be possible to complete a formal risk assessment at this time, sufficient data does exist to assess relative hazard. Support provided by the ongoing COE research on wildlife strike risk, can be used to develop a quantitative hazard assessment that will fully support FAA requirements for rulemaking. A major objective of this research will be the determination of the appropriate model and parameters to support hazard determination in today’s wildlife/aircraft environment (e.g. what are appropriate size/mass values and aircraft operational parameters). The airframe hazard assessment will be based on categories of outcome
(injuries and fatalities to both flight crew and passengers, flight deck
damage, and other aircraft damage) considering flight parameters and wildlife
characteristics. A particular focus in airframe analyses will be
the determination of the hazard associated with strike related degradation
of aircraft systems (e.g. antenna or external sensor damage) as well as
more catastrophic events such as flight deck penetrations or significant
structural damage to the aircraft. Using existing COE research products
such as the wildlife ecology matrix, the airframe analysis will produce
predictions of hazards associated with increasing wildlife populations,
increasing flight operations, and changing aircraft types (e.g. regional
jets that enter high risk airspace more often). The product of the
airframe hazard assessment will be a risk/hazard estimate for the flight
crew, passengers, and aircraft that will support rulemaking requirements.
DEVELOPMENT OF A REAL TIME WILDLIFE ADVISORY SYSTEM The development of an integrated real time wildlife advisory system can be divided into two stages: Stage One – Development of a Hazard-based Bird Strike Advisory
System
A prototype of the system is scheduled for testing a major airport within the next three years.
Stage Two - Development of a Risk-based Bird Strike Advisory System A more elaborate system involved the computation of risk. Under this scheme, the idea is to compute the probability of an aircraft interacting with wildlife. Such probability involves many parameters such as aircraft trajectory, wildlife reaction time, and wildlife behavior. It also implicates the deployment of a real-time wildlife detection system. The various elements of this risk-based system are shown below.
|
