Atch_4_AFPam_91-212.pdf

NOTICE: This publication is available digitally on the AFDPO WWW site at:

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil.

BY ORDER OF THE

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 91-212

1 FEBRUARY 2004

Safety

BIRD/WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD

(BASH) MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

OPR: HQ AFSC/SEFW (Mr. Eugene LeBoeuf) Certified by: HQ USAF/SEF (Col Atzhorn) Supersedes AFPAM 91-212, 1 April 1997. Pages: 39

Distribution: F

This pamphlet provides guidance for implementing an effective bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard reduc-tion program. This pamphlet provides additional information on BASH as specified in AFI 91-202, The US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program and AFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports. This pam-phlet applies to all Air Force personnel, Air National Guard and US Air Force Reserve units, and mem-bers (excluding Aero Clubs) who plan, support, or are engaged in flying operations. This pamphlet implements the requirements of AFPD 91-2, SafetyPrograms. Records Disposition. Ensure that all records created by this AFPAM are maintained and disposed of IAW AFMAN 37-139, "Records Disposi-tion Schedule".

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS

This document is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed.

This revision updates the term BASH to include all wildlife hazards to aviation safety and now defines BASH as Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard. The following new paragraphs were added: 1.4.4., 1.4.5., 2.2.2.4., 2.2.4.4., 2.2.4.5., 2.3.9., 2.4., 2.5.2. 2.5.4.1., 2.5.4.5., 2.5.4.5.2., 2.5.4.5.3., 2.5.4.6., 2.6.4., Attachment 6, and Attachment 7. Major revisions were made to the following paragraphs: 1.3.2., 2.2., 2.2.1., 2.2.3., 2.2.3.1., 2.2.4.2., 2.2.4.3., 2.2.6., 2.3.1.1., 2.3.1.5., 2.5.4., 2.5.4.4., 2.5.4.4.2., 2.5.4.4.3., 3.11., 3.14., and Attachment 2, Attachment 3, Attachment 4 and Attachment 5. Paragraph 2.4.3.10.

was deleted.

Chapter 1—BASH REDUCTION PROGRAM 4

1.1. General Background:

1.2. Basics for a Program:

1.3. Developing a Program:

1.4. Documenting Bird Hazards:

Attachment 4

FA5606-19-Q-1001

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil

2 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

Chapter 2—AIRFIELD HAZARD CONTROL METHODS 7

2.1. Introduction to Airfield Wildlife Control

2.2. Active Controls

Figure 2.1. COTS Coordination Process

2.3. Passive Controls

2.4. Hangars

2.5. Flight Operation Considerations:

2.6. Technical Assistance

Chapter 3—AIRFIELD WILDLIFE HAZARDS 20

3.1. Overview of Airfield Wildlife Hazards

3.2. Loons, Grebes, Pelicans, Cormorants, Mergansers

3.3. Pelagic Birds (Albatross, Petrels, Shearwaters, Auks, etc.)

3.4. Long-Legged Waders (Herons, Egrets, Ibises, Storks)

3.5. Cattle Egrets

3.6. Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, Swans)

3.7. Raptors (Hawks, Falcons, Kites, Eagles, Vultures)

3.8. Grouse, Quail, and Pheasants

3.9. Cranes

3.10. Sandpipers and Shorebirds

3.11. Gulls

3.12. Terns

3.13. Pigeons and Doves

3.14. Owls

3.15. Goatsuckers (Nighthawks, Whip-poor-wills, etc.)

3.16. Woodpeckers

3.17. Flycatchers

3.18. Horned Larks

3.19. Swallows and Pratincoles

3.20. Crows and Ravens

3.21. Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds, and Starlings

3.22. Meadowlarks

3.23. House Sparrows

Attachment 4

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 3

3.24. Warblers

3.25. Fringillids (Sparrows, Finches, Grosbeaks, and Buntings)

3.26. Other Wildlife

3.27. Form Adopted

Attachment 1—GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 26

Attachment 2—BASH SELF-INSPECTION CHECKLIST 29

Attachment 3—LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT BASH CONSIDERATIONS 32

Attachment 4—US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL WILDLIFE SERVICES

AND US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OFFICES 33

Attachment 5—AUTHORIZED BASH EQUIPMENT LIST 34

Attachment 6—BASH VIDEO LIST 41

Attachment 7—BASH DEPLOYMENT KIT 42

4 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

Chapter 1

BASH REDUCTION PROGRAM

1.1. General Background:

1.1.1. Aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife annually cause millions of dollars in aircraft damage and may result in loss of aircraft and aircrews. However, procedures to reduce these losses are available. Reduction of strike hazards may be divided into four categories: Awareness, Control, Avoidance and Aircraft design. Wildlife strike hazards to aircrew and aircraft may be significantly reduced using a combination of the methods listed above. This may result in substantial savings of Air Force resources.

1.1.2. The Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team was formed to coordinate efforts in all areas. The BASH Team assists Air Force organizations worldwide to reduce the risk of bird strikes and collisions with other animals, such as deer. The BASH Team is located at Headquarters Air Force Safety Center (HQ AFSC/SEFW; 9700 G Avenue SE, Suite 266; Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5670).

More information about the BASH Team and related topics can be found at the following website:

http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/afsc/bash/home.html

1.2. Basics for a Program:

1.2.1. Local conditions that enhance the potential for wildlife/aircraft strikes vary at each installation.

Birds may flock to airfields or cause hazards en route; hazards may be seasonal or year round. Wild-life activity varies as local conditions change from crop selection, land use choices such as a landfill operation, or creation of a wildlife refuge. Base-level personnel must remain vigilant of such attracta-nts and be aware of proper wildlife control techniques. Installations experiencing these problems should first contact their respective MAJCOM for assistance. The base may also contact the jurisdic-tional agency for proper coordination to assure compliance with state or federal regulations. Where appropriate, AFSC/SEFW may provide additional assistance to resolve or reduce these potential haz-ards. The contacts mentioned above may suggest proven methods for wildlife dispersal, avoidance procedures, or recommend land management techniques that discourage wildlife activity from the air-field.

1.2.2. Required time and effort necessary to maintain a safe airdrome will depend upon the severity of the wildlife strike hazard and how well base personnel are prepared to reduce these hazards. The key to a successful BASH reduction program is participation by well-trained individuals assigned spe-cific tasks. Wildlife strikes can never be eliminated; but, an aggressive, well-planned program devel-oped on the basis of wildlife habits, the environment, and the base mission may limit the potential for these strikes to occur. The following are guidelines for BASH reduction programs.

1.3. Developing a Program:

1.3.1. Bird/Wildlife Hazard Reduction Plans. A well written, workable BASH plan is the key to reducing strike hazards and ensures continuity of knowledge with personnel turnover. If needed, a sample BASH plan may be obtained from MAJCOM Flight Safety offices. Plans should be tailored to meet the specific hazards encountered locally. Integrate all habitat modification procedures making sure natural resource plans are compatible with base BASH program plans. As a minimum this plan should: inform new personnel of local hazards; identify local conditions on the airfield attractive to

Attachment 4 http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/afsc/bash/home.html

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 5

wildlife and cite measures to reduce these attractions (e.g., long grass, insect reduction, water drain-age); outline bird dispersal procedures and OPR; and specify base bird watch condition codes (see Attachment 1), location where daily code will be displayed, implementation procedures, authoriza-tion for declaring codes and flight operations under specified bird watch condition codes.

1.3.2. Bird Hazard Working Group (BHWG). The BHWG normally consists of representatives from flight safety, airfield management, base operations, air traffic control, civil engineering, aircraft main-tenance, public affairs, and base legal. The base Natural Resource Manager and base Wildlife Biolo-gist should also attend. Other representatives such as the golf course manager, munitions or civilian operations personnel may be included based on BHWG issues. The group's purpose is to assist the safety office in drafting and implementing the Bird/Wildlife Hazard Reduction Plan. Meetings are held IAW AFI 91-202, The Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, but may be called more frequently or as conditions dictate. BHWG meeting topics should include but are not limited to: USAF reported wildlife mishaps and incidents; USAF BASH Team information updates; locally observed/reported wildlife activity, to include LL ranges/routes, airfield inspections/surveys, recovered wildlife remains, wildlife strikes; local wildlife habitat management/modifications, to include dispersal/depredation activity, environmental/land management activity, land uses (landfills, agriculture crop seasons);

BASH-related budgeting issues; annual bird migrations; local BASH plan procedures and responsibil-ities, to include observed effectiveness/deficiencies; BASH awareness training/education, to include BWC code definitions and communications; flying schedule and wildlife activity conflicts; BASH self-inspection checklist; status of bird dispersal supplies; and/or a review of FliP documents for wild-life advisories (Phase I / II designations).

1.3.3. Base Self-Inspection Checklist. A BASH self-inspection checklist is a useful tool in identifying deficiencies in BASH reduction plans. A sample checklist is provided as Attachment 2.

1.4. Documenting Bird Hazards:

1.4.1. Evaluating an airfield for wildlife hazards involves the identification of local wildlife activity periods, species causing hazards, locations of favorable habitat, and documenting this information into daily activity surveys. When information is compiled over several seasons or years, to include night and day surveys, development of a more effective wildlife hazard reduction program is possible.

The wildlife surveys should include: date and time; weather conditions; wildlife species of concern;

favorable habitat locations on the airfield; wildlife movement corridors (soaring to and from roosts, feeding, etc.); wildlife activities (loafing, feeding, drinking, etc.); potential attractions; wildlife responses to mowing; and/or land uses adjacent to base property (planting/plowing etc.).

1.4.2. Documenting the local wildlife problem, technical assistance received, and the successes of solutions tried are essential parts of any wildlife hazard reduction program. Complete documentation is necessary to acquaint new personnel with the problem and may be required in any civil litigation regarding the resolution of a wildlife hazard. Documenting the use of non-lethal techniques may also be necessary to obtain permits to take lethal action, if needed, to resolve an extreme hazard.

1.4.3. Photograph and summarize all hazardous situations wildlife create on base. For example, pic-tures of gulls loafing on the airfield accompanied by observations showing the birds using a nearby sanitary landfill can provide a strong case against future expansion of the landfill. Good documenta-tion gives credence to the problem and shows solutions are being considered.

6 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

1.4.4. Report all wildlife strikes, both damaging and non-damaging, on the Air Force Safety Auto-mated System (AFSAS) IAW AFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports. The unit owning the mishap aircraft’s flying hours must file the report. Additionally, any wildlife remains found on the runway and believed to have been involved in a strike must be documented via AFSAS. AFSAS can be accessed online through the Air Force Safety Center’s homepage. This automated system will walk the reporting individual through the necessary steps to file a report.

1.4.5. Proper species identification of wildlife is an integral part of a BASH program. Feather remains from every bird strike, if available, must be sent to the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History for identification IAW AFI 91-204.

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 7

Chapter 2

AIRFIELD HAZARD CONTROL METHODS

2.1. Introduction to Airfield Wildlife Control. Active and passive techniques can successfully reduce threats from hazardous wildlife populations. These techniques vary in cost and effectiveness depending on the situation. Active control involves causing wildlife to disperse from an airfield to give short-term relief from an immediate safety hazard. Passive techniques are more long-term in nature. They involve managing the airdrome to eliminate or reduce those conditions birds and other wildlife find attractive.

2.2. Active Controls. Birds and other hazardous wildlife on runways, taxiways, or infields create a potential safety hazard and should be dispersed before flying operations can safely continue. Birds move quickly and unpredictably. Even when left in a "safe" portion of the airfield, they can move and create an immediate hazard. They may also act as decoys attracting additional birds. No single method of dispersal works for all problems. Using a combination of different dispersal tools, also known as integrated pest management, provides the best line of defense for immediate hazards. Pyrotechnics, bioacoustics, depre-dation, and other methods have been effective in dispersing wildlife from airfields. When used together, or in an alternating manner, these techniques remain more effective over a longer period. A depredation permit is not required for non-lethal harassment of migratory birds on the airfield IAW 50 CFR 21.41 Migratory Bird Depredation Permits. Authorized BASH equipment is listed in Attachment 5.

NOTE: The key to active wildlife dispersal is perseverance. When birds or other wildlife are strongly attracted to an airfield, several teams may be required to provide continual harassment. Usually, a single trip around the airfield will not remove all the birds.

2.2.1. Pyrotechnics. Pyrotechnics are noise-producing devices, which are effective in bird dispersal.

Scare cartridges, a commercially available pyrotechnic, fired from a 12-gauge shotgun or an NJ-8 Very Pistol [with a locally manufactured steel sleeve insert (technical order (TO) 11W2-9-2-31)], are authorized. The 12-ga scare cartridge is an explosive charge fired 50 to 100 meters. At this distance, it detonates producing a loud noise. Two types of 15mm scare cartridges are also authorized, bangers and screamers. The bangers do not have the range of the 12-ga cartridges but it and the screamer are fired from a 15mm launcher, which is not considered a weapon. The 15mm banger provides a loud report, whereas the screamer makes a shrill whistle. Both are effective and inexpensive bird dispersal tools at moderate distances. Pyrotechnics can be used to flush and direct flocks of birds in a desired direction. For example, if a flock of gulls is feeding near an active runway, a scare cartridge exploded between the birds and the runway will usually cause the birds to fly away from the source of the noise and not pass over the runway. Close coordination with the control tower is essential so birds are not directed into the path of arriving or departing aircraft. Always advise base security forces before pyro-technics are used. The base agency storing and using pyrotechnics must follow guidelines outlined in AFI 21-201, Management and Maintenance of Non-Nuclear Munitions and AFMAN 91-201, Explo-sives Safety Standards. Since harassment constitutes a "taking" for purposes of the Endangered Spe-cies Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be consulted prior to the use of pyrotechnics if their use will affect any such Federal threatened/endangered species.

2.2.1.1. Authorized BASH munitions fall into two categories, centrally managed and commer-cial-off-the- shelf (COTS). Centrally managed items are ordered through the base supply system.

COTS items can be purchased using the IMPAC card. AFI 64-117, Air Force Government-wide Purchase Card Program authorizes the purchase of BASH munitions with the IMPAC card (para-

8 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

graph 2.4.7.). “To purchase COTS explosives and munitions, requesting unit will coordinate a package, using an AF Form 1768, Staff Summary Sheet, through the installation Munitions Accountable Supply Officer, Environmental, Safety, EOD, Transportation, and Legal agencies for Group and Installation Commander approval” IAW AFI 21-201, paragraph 32.3.1. AFI 21-201, Figure 32.1 depicts the coordination process as:

Figure 2.1. COTS Coordination Process.

2.2.2. Bioacoustics. This dispersal technique uses broadcasts of recorded bird distress calls. Depend-ing on the species, the calls may create differing responses; some will come to the calls while others may depart the area. For this reason, the sound source must be properly placed so the birds fly away from the runway. As with pyrotechnics, if the use of bioacoustics will have an impact upon a federally listed threatened or endangered species, the USFWS must be consulted prior to use.

2.2.2.1. Broadcast distress calls may be used with a vehicle equipped with a sound system produc-ing 30 to 50 watts of distortion-free sound in 90 to 100 decibel (db) with a frequency response between 12,000 and 14,000 Hertz (Hz). A speaker is mounted on the vehicle. The operator identi-

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 9

fies the birds to be dispersed and selects the appropriate distress call tape. The vehicle is driven as close as possible to the birds. Depending on physical factors such as terrain, trees, and structures on the airfield, the distance from the problem birds will vary. Employ bioacoustics 100 to 200 meters as the maximum distance from birds to achieve the desired results. The distress call is then played for 15 to 20 seconds. If the birds have not moved within 20 seconds, play the call again. If they have not moved by the third attempt, other methods are required.

2.2.2.1.1. There are four important points to remember when using bioacoustics. 1) Try to identify the bird species you wish to disperse and use that species’ distress call. However, a variety of calls may be tried to determine the most effective selection for a particular pest.

Some bird species do not respond to distress calls. 2) Make sure the vehicle is stopped when the distress calls are played. Birds need to identify the source of the disturbance before they can react. 3) Do not allow the distress calls to play indefinitely because birds can become accustomed (habituate) to them. 4) The effectiveness of distress calls is dramatically increased when combined with other frightening techniques, especially pyrotechnics.

2.2.2.2. Distress calls have limited use in many situations. Not all birds are affected by bioacous-tics. Birds often react to the calls by flying toward the source, circling it, and gradually moving away. This takes time and may create a momentary hazard. Combining bioacoustics with pyro-technics can best disperse these birds. The distress call is played to get the birds in the air, then, pyrotechnics are used to disperse them. Hazards to flying operations can be alleviated by using these techniques before flying begins or during breaks in flight activities.

2.2.2.3. Gulls, starlings, blackbirds, and crows can be effectively dispersed with distress tapes.

Occasionally, recorded distress calls of different bird species will frighten a variety of birds; how-ever, species-specific distress calls are the most effective.

2.2.2.4. Tapes or digital recordings of distress calls are difficult to find and therefore bioacoustics may be of limited usefulness. Distress calls are now being incorporated into multi-functional bird scare systems

2.2.3. Depredation. Bioacoustics and pyrotechnics provide good wildlife control in most situations.

Yet, some species may grow accustomed to these techniques, and a few individuals may have to be taken via lethal means to reinforce the idea that a significant danger exists. A federal depredation per-mit, available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is required before killing any pro-tected birds. The application for the depredation permit is a USFWS Form 3-200-13, Federal Fish and Wildlife License/Permit Application Form, and must be accompanied by the information requested by the USFWS information sheet 50 CFR 21.41. A copy of the permit must be carried whenever exercis-ing its authority. Birds may only be killed in conjunction with a continuing non-lethal control pro-gram. Unless otherwise directed, carcasses, nests, and eggs shall be completely destroyed or incinerated. No federally listed threatened or endangered species, Bald or Golden Eagles, or their nests and/or eggs are authorized. European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), and Rock Doves/domestic pigeons (Columba livia) are not federally protected in the United States and require no federal depredation permit. When granted, the permit will specify the species, the numbers of birds that can be taken, and the technique to be used.

NOTE: Anyone participating in the base depredation program should attend and receive certification through a hunter's safety or gun handling safety course. Contact the base rod and gun club or MWR for

10 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

information on base organized hunter safety programs, or contact the local game agency and their admin-istrator for hunter safety courses in the area.

2.2.3.1. Airport Permits. The USFWS is adding an additional clause on depredation permits for airports in some regions. This clause would allow airports to kill, capture, or relocate up to ten

(10) migratory bird species on an emergency basis. An emergency is defined as an immediate dan-ger to public safety and/or an immediate hazard to aircraft. Any emergency activity must be reported to the depredation permit issuing office within 24 hours. This emergency clause is only approved in certain regions, so contact the depredation permit issuing office before taking any actions.

NOTE: Some states may require additional permits for the take of State protected species. These may be coordinated with the USFWS as well. Coordinate with the base environmental flight and legal offices when obtaining permits.

2.2.4. Other Wildlife Control Methods. Other active control methods listed on the next page may be effective.

2.2.4.1. Propane Gas Cannons. These devices should be operated, especially at dawn and dusk, as birds come in to feed or roost. Cannons must be relocated frequently to avoid habituation prob-lems. Continuously operating cannons quickly leads to habituation, rendering the cannons ineffec-tive. These devices may be effective on gulls, blackbirds, waterfowl, pheasants, and other game birds when used in conjunction with other harassment techniques or depredation.

2.2.4.2. Falconry. A falconry program is not limited to the use of falcons only but can incorpo-rate several species of birds of prey. Falcons trained for airfield bird dispersal may be effective when used in combination with other frightening techniques. Deploying birds of prey usually dis-perses birds immediately from the airfield and these birds are likely to remain away from the air-field for longer periods. Birds of prey inherently scare other birds so there is little habituation of the “prey” to the threat. In adding this tool to your harassment arsenal, you also get the benefit of the bird handlers’ knowledge of birds and their behavior. However, there are limitations to fal-conry. A falconry program can be very expensive, labor intensive, and there is some potential for bird strikes with the falconry birds. Falcons can be flown only during daylight hours in good weather, and they cannot be flown when molting or after feeding. In order to adequately cover all flying operations at an airfield, multiple handlers and birds will have to be employed, hence the high expense. Also, most birds of prey typically used in falconry programs are ineffective in dis-persing large waterfowl, particularly geese, and other birds of prey from an airfield.

2.2.4.3. Dogs. The use of Border Collies or other breeds of dogs to disperse geese has been effec-tive under certain circumstances. A dog demands full-time attention, especially Border Collies, making it more advantageous to contract the services of a dog and its handler rather than purchas-ing a dog. While a dog may be very effective at dispersing geese from an airfield it may prove ineffective at removing geese from bodies of water or other species of birds from the airfield, especially gulls.

2.2.4.4. Radio Controlled Crafts. Use of radio controlled aircraft, dune buggies, or boats to dis-perse birds have shown significant results. The airplane can guide the birds in a flight path away from the airfield and offers continued harassment while the birds are in flight. Radio controlled boats can harass birds on large ponds where pyrotechnics cannot reach out and touch the birds.

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 11

Cars can effectively disperse birds from grassy areas; particularly office buildings or housing where the use of pyrotechnics or gas cannons is not desirable.

2.2.4.5. All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV). Use of all terrain vehicles in the airfield environment has proven useful in dispersing birds and other wildlife from the aircraft operating area. Many air-fields have areas, which are difficult to navigate, even with 4x4 vehicles. The ATV can operate in any area to get the birds in the air and supplementing with pyrotechnics once airborne can further disperse them. However, before operating an ATV, personnel must complete an ATV rider safety course IAW with AFI 91-207 which requires that ATV training will be acquired by a certified Spe-cialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) before operating an ATV.

2.2.5. Ineffective Methods of Control :

2.2.5.1. Stuffed owls and rubber snakes have been advertised to rid hangars and buildings of birds. They are usually a waste of money and effort.

2.2.5.2. Rotating lights have brought conflicting results; but are generally considered ineffective.

Birds quickly habituate to these devices, and the problem remains unsolved.

2.2.5.3. Eyespots on aircraft components are being studied in the United States and other coun-tries. Early results suggest the addition of eyespots does not significantly reduce the BASH poten-tial.

2.2.5.4. Ultra-sonic devices have thus far proven unsuccessful in deterring wildlife from colliding with aircraft. Very few bird species can hear ultra-sonic sound. Of the bird species most often struck on airfields, most cannot detect the presence of ultra-sonic sound, therefore rendering these devices useless for dispersing birds on an airfield.

2.2.6. Personnel and Equipment. Each installation with a BASH program should designate and train personnel in wildlife dispersal regardless of the severity of the hazard present on the airfield. In many instances, the presence of hazardous wildlife is a transient condition and may only require active dispersal for short periods throughout the year. Dispersal equipment should be located in the same area as the personnel tasked with wildlife control so it is readily available when hazards arise. If a 15 mm launcher is used, no storage problems should arise. If a Very Pistol with a 12 gauge sleeve is used, the pistol will most likely have to be stored in the armory or in a licensed storage area. AFI 91-201 provides guidance on licensing requirements. Installations subject to deployment should include bird dispersal equipment for such contingencies (see Attachment 7). Each installation should designate individuals responsible for wildlife dispersal during deployments and properly train these personnel. Additionally, installations should document the training of the aforementioned personnel.

2.3. Passive Controls. The most permanent methods of discouraging birds from using airfields involve removing attractive habitat features. Methods to reduce bird attractants include:

2.3.1. Grass Management. As a minimum, address the following factors:

2.3.1.1. Grass Height. Maintain airfield vegetation IAW AFI 91-202. Coordinate mowing with periods of low flight activity. While maintaining the grass height at 7-14 inches, make sure faster growing weeds are cut before they go to seed to discourage seed eating birds from using the air-field. Primary focus should be on the grass height and weed seed heads. Grass between 7-14 inches discourages flocking species from foraging on the airfield because reduced visibility dis-rupts inter-flock communication and flock integrity by reducing the ability to detect predators.

12 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

Grass exceeding 14 inches (36 cm) will attract some bird species and rodents, which in turn attract raptors. Airfields with a variety of grass species should be mowed when the average grass height, not including seed heads, exceeds tolerances. Most grass seeds found on the airfield are less desir-able as food than available weed seeds. Although Bahiagrass and some other turf grasses produce prominent seed stalks, the height of these seed heads should not be the sole reason for mowing. As turf grass will eventually go to seed, mowing to eliminate seeding will increase mowing cycles.

Eliminating weeds and cultivating a uniform monoculture of grasses can be more effective in dis-couraging seed-eating birds from feeding on the airfield than mowing grass seed stalks. Begin mowing adjacent to runways and finish in the infield or outer most grass areas. This causes insects and other animals to move away from aircraft takeoff and landing areas. Also, avoid mowing grass shorter next to the runway than in other areas, as much as possible.

2.3.1.2. Herbicides and Growth Retardants. Keep broad-leafed weeds to a minimum on the airfield. Apply herbicides as practical to control weeds and comply with AFI 32-1053, Pest Man-agement Program. Broad-leafed weeds attract a variety of birds, may produce seeds or berries, and may limit grass growth. Growth retardants should be tested on small test plots before use on areas in general.

2.3.1.3. Planting Bare Areas. Reduce bare areas as birds frequently use them to pick up grit and as resting sites on the airfield. Birds need grit, or very small rocks, to crush seeds, allowing diges-tion of the seeds. Eliminating bare areas on the airfield denies access to grit and forces birds seek sources elsewhere. Plant grass adapted to the area, add fertilizer and lime as necessary, and irrigate only until new grass is established.

2.3.1.4. Fertilizing. Fertilize as needed to stimulate grasses and promote a uniform cover. Rate and frequency of application may vary from that of other semi-improved grass areas and should be based on soil test results.

2.3.1.5. Native Vegetation. In geographic locations where conditions do not support turf growth, such as in desert environments, it may be advisable to allow native vegetation to remain in a natu-ral state (above or below the prescribed height of 7 – 14 inches) as disturbance may provide exotic conditions attractive to some forms of wildlife. The natural state must not supply attractive habitat for wildlife or obstruct views of the airfield from the tower. Another consideration for airfields in low-moisture environments is to consider de-vegetation as an option.

2.3.2. Managing Reforested Areas : Site commercial forest areas so as not to contribute to the installation BASH problem. The types of trees planted for forest production are often different than those in the surrounding community and may serve as bird roosting sites. For example, the dense can-opy of a planted pine forest in a hardwood region may provide ideal roosting sites. Thinning the roost-ing area can usually discourage the roosting behavior (removing certain trees to produce an open stand canopy). If necessary, remove all trees from the site and grass and maintain the area with other airfield turf areas. Should a stand of trees contain birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or any other species protected by the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS should be contacted to determine whether an incidental-taking permit is required prior to any tree removal. Federal law clearly indicates that the destruction of wildlife habitat can be tantamount to a taking of protected species and, in some instances, may not be allowed.

2.3.3. Landscaping. Shrubs, ornamental trees, shelterbelts, hedgerows, and noise suppression barri-ers are important plantings on a base. However, the airfield and clear zones are not proper places for

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 13

landscape plantings. These types of vegetation can influence wildlife populations and their move-ments around the base. Trees often intermingle as they mature, forming a continuous canopy. This close, dense foliage attracts birds and is ideal for providing shelter, food, and nesting. Proper planning can reduce these potential attractants. When planting shrubs, select those species that do not produce fruit, especially during the winter. Ripe berries attract birds for short periods each year. Blackbird and starling roosts are particularly hazardous because of the large number of birds (often numbering in the millions) that may be present in a single roost. Birds can usually be stimulated to move by pruning and thinning trees and shrubs to open the canopy. In some situations, it may be necessary to remove all the plants. Trees and shrubs should not be allowed to grow in the infield areas.

2.3.4. Removal of Edge Effects. The greatest numbers of species are found where vegetation types change from forests to brush, or brush to grass (edge effects). To reduce wildlife problems, keep edge effects to a minimum, or as far from the active runway as possible. If an airfield has clumps of brush and shrubs around the grass, more diverse habitat is available. Remove brush and weeds to maintain the airfield in the most uniform condition possible. This eliminates the cover many birds and rodents require. Single trees or snags on an airfield may provide perches for hawks, owls, or other bird spe-cies. Biodiversity practices should not be implemented on airfields.

2.3.5. Controlling Drainage. Fresh water is one of the most important airfield wildlife attractants, especially in arid regions and near the seacoast. Standing water creates a source of drinking water and a breeding place for insects, amphibians and other food sources for birds. Mark areas of the airfield with chronic standing water after heavy rains. Coordinate with CE or EM to fill, level, and re-seed these areas with grass to match the rest of the airfield. Since federal and state laws strictly control wet-lands, coordination with CE or EM is a must before making any modifications to airfield drainage.

However, non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land are not generally considered to be “waters of the United States” (51 FR 41206, Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers) and therefore are not considered wetlands. Make airfield drainage ditches as deep as pos-sible to limit the surface area of the water and still allow proper drainage according to civil engineer-ing requirements. Wading birds, such as herons, egrets, and shorebirds, are less likely to use deep drainage ditches. Grade the banks of the drainage ditches to allow mowing up to the edge of the ditch.

Keep drainpipes, culverts, and screens clear of debris so drainage is not impeded.

2.3.6. Locating Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Waterfowl and shorebirds are often attracted to wastewater holding ponds. Birds use the water for resting and sometimes as a food source. Wastewa-ter lagoons are most attractive in arid climates. Ponds designed with steep sides, little surface area, and no vegetation reduces the attraction to birds. Locate ponds as far from the runway and associated traffic patterns as possible and place them so birds moving from off-base areas to the ponds do not cross the runways.

2.3.7. Managing Sanitary Landfills :

2.3.7.1. On-Base Landfills. Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are the most significant attractant to hazardous bird species. Operate disposal sites according to FAA guidelines and state and federal laws. Relocate landfills that do not meet FAA guidelines criteria. If landfill relocation is not feasible, make the site as unattractive to birds as possible. Consider the following methods:

Maintain a small working face to minimize exposed wastes; incinerate waste; operate the landfill as a pit or trench to limit access to birds; dump waste at night or during non-flying periods; cover waste material immediately; discourage gulls and other birds with overhead wire barriers; relocate

14 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

putrescible wastes to a more remote landfill; and use bioacoustics and pyrotechnics to frighten birds away.

2.3.7.2. Off-Base Landfills. The Air Force cannot control land use off-base; however, before landfills can be opened, the operator must obtain a state permit. A hearing is held about the poten-tial environmental impact. Air Force concerns about potential bird hazards should be expertly pre-sented at these hearings. Flight safety, environmental planning, public affairs, and the staff judge advocate should work jointly to present Air Force interests. HQ AFSC/SEFW will assist by pro-viding consultation and expert testimony as needed.

2.3.8. Managing Agricultural Outleases. Many bases have agricultural programs on their airfields to reduce maintenance costs. These programs range from crop and hay outleases to grazing and refor-estation. The types of crops grown and the agricultural methods used have important effects on local bird populations.

2.3.8.1. Grain crops within 1,000 feet of the runways are not recommended because harvest meth-ods expose a ready food supply. Hay, cotton, and flax are the least attractive crops. Airfield crops should not be radically different from crops found in the surrounding community. Anything that makes the airfield unique can attract birds and other wildlife. Cultivation may attract birds by exposing large numbers of insects and earthworms.

2.3.8.2. Harvesting and planting schedules can also affect the numbers of birds the airfield attracts. For example, if an airfield hay crop is harvested before or after other hay crops in the region, large numbers of invertebrates may be exposed on the airfield that are not exposed in other fields. This might provide a more intense bird attractant than would usually exist.

2.3.8.3. Agricultural activities should also consider the local flying schedule. Planting, cultivat-ing, harvesting, or burning may temporarily increase airfield bird attractants, therefore should be done on weekends or other periods of reduced flying. Both airfield management and civil engi-neering personnel (AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management) should closely monitor agricultural practices used in base agricultural outleases.

2.3.8.4. Grazing animals can be a serious hazard. Ensure the use of strict animal control and proper fencing.

2.3.9. Fencing. Proper fencing can reduce airfield incursions by wildlife other than birds. An 8-foot chain-link fence topped with outward-facing outriggers and 3 strands of barbed wire will normally be enough to deter most encroachments by deer, coyotes, and other such large animals. The bottom of the fence must be properly secured at or underneath the ground to prevent animals from digging or push-ing under the fence. Another option is an electric fence. Though cheaper than a chain-link fence, an electric fence requires more maintenance and management over the long-term. Ensure that all fences are properly closed when not in use and they do not violate the airfield clear zones and frangibility rules.

2.4. Hangars. Hangars provide a good environment for birds to nest and roost. Without much threat from predators and a relatively quiet habitat at night, certain species of birds will take up residency in hangars.

In addition to health risks resulting from bird scat and bird mites, the close proximity of hangars to the air-field environment requires attention be given to any birds making a hangar their home. Hangars are easily accessible to birds since the doors are usually left open for long periods, particularly in the evenings when birds are roosting. Denying birds access to the hangar by keeping the doors closed is the best prevention

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 15

method but is not practical so either exclusion devices or full-time bird control are necessary inside the hangar.

2.4.1. Netting. Though expensive, provides an excellent long-term defense against birds returning to hangars. Netting will prevent birds from roosting inside the hangar while allowing the doors to be open during hangar operations.

2.4.2. Air Rifles. Use of air rifles to disperse birds in hangars has proven successful in removing birds. When dealing with a roosting flock of pigeons, starlings or House Sparrows, an air rifle is prob-ably the least expensive control technique. These species are common nuisances in hangars and are not afforded any Federal legal status because they are non-native or “introduced species.” But this does not mean there are no state or local restrictions. Before shooting any bird, it is wise to check for any applicable state or local laws that may prohibit shooting them. At all times, be certain of the target species.

2.4.3. Brush Weatherseals. Using brush weatherseals on the edge of the doors or around windows will remove gaps and seal any open spaces, thereby restricting entry points to birds.

2.4.4. Strip Curtains. Strip curtains, or vertical blinds, allows the hangar doors to remain open for ventilation while limiting access to birds.

2.4.5. PVC Pipes. Lining the hangar rafters with PVC pipes have proven successful in keeping birds out of hangers. By reducing the amount of surface available for nesting or roosting, the birds are annoyed enough to look for other structures upon which they can build.

2.4.6. Falconry. Some birds of prey, Harris Hawks for example, can be very effective at ridding han-gars of roosting birds. Consider the feasibility of including hangars in existing airfield bird control fal-conry contracts or establishing a falconry contract for hangars (reference Section 2.2.4.2.).

2.5. Flight Operation Considerations:

2.5.1. When environmental modifications and active control measures do not satisfactorily reduce wildlife hazards on the airfield, flying operations may have to be altered to reduce the risk of bird strikes. As defined in AFI 91-202, Bird Watch Condition (BWC) Codes (see Attachment 1) may be a valuable tool for supervisors to make operational changes. These operational changes are dictated by the severity of the problem, the performance capability of the aircraft, and training or readiness requirements. Bird hazards, like any other safety hazards, must be assessed with respect to operational requirements. During contingency operations or advanced stages of readiness, bird hazards may have minimal safety priority. During training to maintain operational readiness; however, certain changes can be made to improve safety, reduce costly repairs, and protect aircrews.

2.5.2. Flying one hour before and after dawn and dusk should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

The highest levels of bird activity normally occur during these hours as birds leave and return to their roosts. Avoiding flight operations during these periods can significantly reduce the chance of a bird strike.

2.5.3. Knowledge of unit operational and training requirements, combined with an understanding of local flying restrictions, is necessary to properly evaluate possible modifications to local procedures.

2.5.4. The key to reducing bird strikes by changing flight operations is to avoid known locations, con-centrations or movements of birds. The following recommendations can help reduce bird hazards by modifying operational procedures.

16 AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004

2.5.4.1. Takeoff and Departure. Aircraft making formation departures increase the risk of dam-aging bird strikes when birds are feeding or loafing on or near the runway. Formation and sin-gle-ship interval takeoffs often result in birds being scared up by the lead aircraft, causing the wingman to hit the birds.

2.5.4.1.1. When the lead aircraft scares up large flocks of birds, the wingman should delay departure until the birds are clear of the runway. Pilots of lead aircraft must be alert to warn the wingman of bird hazards during takeoff. This is especially important as the wingman’s atten-tion is focused on the lead aircraft.

2.5.4.1.2. When flocks of migratory birds are a problem, formation takeoffs and single-ship interval takeoffs with minimum spacing involving rejoins, increase the risk of serious bird strikes. All rejoins require greater attention by pilots to the lead aircraft’s position. The increased speed required catching the lead aircraft after takeoff increases the risk of damaging bird strikes. When birds are known to be flying in the area, departures under visual meteoro-logical conditions (VMC) may be modified to reduce the risks. Departures should be made in trail, with the rejoin beginning after the aircraft passes 2,000 to 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL). If aircraft are to enter a low-level route immediately or stay at an intermediate altitude for a prolonged period, tactical formation provides enough aircraft clearance to allow wing-men to stay clear of birds.

2.5.4.2. Enroute Bird Strikes. Aircrews experiencing enroute bird strikes should abort the mis-sion when practicable. While some engine ingestions or a windscreen strike may be readily appar-ent from the flight deck, the damage from many engine, fuselage, wing, tail, or radome strikes cannot be adequately assessed. Continuing a mission may cause greater structural damage and lead to a serious in-flight emergency later.

2.5.4.3. Low-Level Operations. When flying low-level routes or operating in special use air-space, higher aircraft speeds and greater exposure within bird flight environments lead to many damaging bird strikes. During these flights, aircrews are involved in cockpit duties, allowing little time to monitor bird activity. "Heads-up" flying should be stressed as much as possible during these critical operations. Attachment 3, "Low-Level Flight Considerations," provides general guidance for bird avoidance during low-level flight operations.

2.5.4.4. Low-Level Bird Avoidance Model (BAM). The BAM is a predictive model using Geo-graphic Information System (GIS) technology as a key tool for analysis and correlation of bird habitat, migration, and breeding characteristics, combined with key environmental, and man-made geospatial data. The value for each cell (or pixel) of the model is equivalent to the sum of the mean bird mass (in ounces), for all bird species present during a particular daily time period, for one of 26 two-week periods in a year. The bird species data set was derived from discrete geographic information for observations of 60 key BASH bird species, over a 30-year period. The species data was acquired from several key datasets, including the Audubon Societies' Christmas Bird Count (CBC), the US Biologic Survey's Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), bird refuge arrival and departure data for the conterminous US, and many additional data specific to a particular bird species.

2.5.4.4.1. The risk levels describe three predicted risk classes - Low, Moderate, and Severe, which are based upon the bird mass in ounces per square kilometer. In other words, the risk levels represent the amount of birds (bird mass) in a kilometer squared spatial area. The "Mod-

AFPAM91-212 1 FEBRUARY 2004 17

erate Zone" indicates a risk ratio that is 57-708 times the risk of the "Low Zone", while the "Severe Zone" indicates a risk ratio that is 2,503-38,647 times the risk of the "Low Zone".

2.5.4.4.2. The model uses the best available data for historical modeling of bird migratory pat-terns to provide the user with an effective decision making tool. Because birds are dynamic creatures whose migratory behavior is initiated by weather events in any given year, the model cannot be said to predict the exact movement of bird species through space and time beyond the biweekly timeframe. Spatial zones indicating a severe risk according to the model should not be ignored and should be avoided. It is not suggested that pilots fly within the "Severe Zone" unless it is absolutely mission essential.

2.5.4.4.3. The BAM is internet accessible at http://usahas.com/bam/. A link to the BAM is on the AFSC BASH website.

2.5.4.5. AVIAN HAZARD ADVISORY SYSTEM (AHAS). Like the Bird Avoidance Model (BAM), AHAS provides information on bird activity through the flight route. The distinction between the two is that on the planned flight route or MOA, BAM uses historical data to provide a depiction of what one might expect, whereas AHAS uses the BAM as a foundation and NEXRAD weather radar to provide a near real-time description of bird activity.

2.5.4.5.1. AHAS functions on the principle of assessing bird strike risk. Bird strike risk is the likelihood of a catastrophic event. This is a function of the mass of a bird: the larger the bird, the higher the risk of a catastrophic event. AHAS provides pilots and commanders with a stan-dardized measurement of bird strike risk. This risk is rated as Low, Moderate, and Severe. The risk management decisions that are made for each category of bird strike risk depend on the type of aircraft you are flying. T-38s are much more vulnerable to serious damage from small birds than C-130s, for example. In a moderate condition, therefore, you would not expect to impose as significant risk management measures on C-130s as would be placed on T-38s. For this reason, AHAS does not make recommendations on the restrictions that should be imposed for any category of bird strike risk. These decisions should be made at the local level based on the airframe, the nature of the mission and the mission priority.

2.5.4.5.2. AHAS continuously monitors the current bird strike risk using the network of NEXRAD weather radars to look for bird…