J-1503050-07 NASSIG WHA.pdf

Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Management Plan

Naval Air Station Sigonella, Sicily, Italy

April 2022- April 2023

Prepared by:

Matthew Stevens

Airport Wildlife Biologist

USDA Wildlife Services, Airport Wildlife Hazards Program

CNREURAFCENT

Wildlife Hazard Assessment NASSIG

2 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………...…………………………...………………………………………….…….. 4

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 4

LIST OF ACRONYMS ………………………………………..…………………………………………………..……………….. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………..……………………………………………………………..……………. 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………… 8

1.1 Overview of wildlife hazards at airports…………………………………………………………………….. 8

1.2 Authority of Wildlife Services………………………………………………..……………………………………. 10

2.0 OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………………………...…………….……………… 10

3.0 AIRPORT/INSTALLATION OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………..………. 10

3.1 Site Description…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

3.2 Airport Operations and Facilities Information……………………………………………………………. 13

3.3 Wildlife Strike History……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

3.4 Wildlife Strike Reporting……………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

3.5 Current Management Practices…………………………………………………………………………………. 17

3.6 Wildlife Attractants…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

3.6.1 Food Sources………..……………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

3.6.2 Water Sources………...…………………………………………………………………….……………… 19

3.6.3 Vegetation………………………………………………………..……………………………………

3.6.4 Artificial Environment/Human Created Attractants………...……………

3.6.5 Off-site Attractants………………………………………………………………………

4.0 LEGAL STATUS OF WILDLIFE…………………………………………………………………………………………….… 24

4.1 The Birds Directive of 1979 (Directive 79/409/EEC), Amended 2009 (2009/147/EC)….. 24

4.2 The Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats/

The Bern Convention (Council Decision 82/72/EEC)………………..…………………………………

4.3 The Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals/ The Bonn Convention (Council Decision 82/461/EEC)………………………………………………..

4.4 The Habitats Directive of 1992 (Directive 92/43/EEC)………………………………………………… 25

4.5 Legislative Decree No. 281/1991……………………………………………………………………………….. 25

4.6 Environmental Final Governing Standards, Italy, 7SEP2012……………………………………….. 25

5.0 METHODS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

5.1 Airfield surveys…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

5.2 Night surveys………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

5.3 Guild classifications…………………………………………………………………………………………………..….. 27

6.0 DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………...….. 28

3 | Page

7.0 WHA SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………..……………….……………………. 28

7.1 Airfield surveys…………………………………………………………………..…………….………………

7.2 Night surveys………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33

7.3 Guild observations………………………………………………………………………………………………..……... 35

7.3.1 Aerialists…………………………………………………………………………………………………..….. 35

7.3.2 Blackbirds……………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 36

7.3.3 Corvids……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 38

7.3.4 Columbids………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 39

7.3.5 Grassland birds………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

7.3.6 Gulls…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………… 43

7.3.7 Mammals………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44

7.3.8 Raptors……………………………..…………………………………………………………………………… 46

7.3.9 Shorebirds……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48

7.3.10 Small Songbirds…..……………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

7.3.11 Wading birds………………………….…………………………………………………………………… 52

8.0 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS…………………….……………………………………………….………………………….……… 54

9.1 General recommendations…………………………………………………………………..…………… 54

9.2 Habitat recommendations……………………………………………………………………..…………. 57

9.3 Wildlife management recommendations……………………………………………..…………… 58

REFERENCES……..………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………….……… 59

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 60

Appendix 1: NASSIG Strike Remains Collection Procedures……………………………………… 60 Appendix 2: NASSIG/NATO Strike Report………………………………………………………………… 62

Appendix 3: Species Observed at NASSIG During the WHA Period…………………………… 64

Appendix 4: Legal Status of Species Observed at NASSIG During the WHA Period……. 66

Appendix 5: NASSIG BASH Management Zones (BMZ) 1-3………………………………………. 67

Appendix 6: Recommended NASSIG Perimeter Fence Replacement Diagram………….. 68

4 | Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Bird/wildlife strikes at NASSIG APR22-APR23…….…………………………………………………... 14

2 Wildlife guilds used in analysis for Wildlife Hazard Assessment………………………….…... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 NASSIG location……………………………………..……………………………………….…………..………... 11

2 NASSIG (NAS 2) Installation Layout.……………………………………………………….……………… 12

3 Bird strike events at NASSIG FY12-APR23.………………………………………………………….….. 15

4 Bird strike events per month at NASSIG during FY12–APR23…..……………………..……… 16

5 Total bird strike events per month at NASSIG during WHA.…………………………………… 17

6 Rock doves foraging for seed and grit in disked field……………………………………………. 19

7 Rivers and drainages of NASSIG……………………

8 NASSIG Temporary Standing Water (fall/winter) (incomplete)..……………………………. 20

9 Edge habitat…………………………………………………………….……………………………………………. 21

10 Debris piles……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….…... 21

11 NASSIG ITAF Mowing plan…………………………………………………………………………….………. 22

12 NASSIG Airfield trees and shrubs.…………………………………………..………………………….….. 22

13 Obsolete airfield structures………………………………………..………………………………………

14 Livestock area adjacent to NASSIG……………………………………………………………………….. 24

15 NASSIG airfield wildlife survey points…………………………………………………………………… 26

16 Observed wildlife recorded on NASSIG during WHA data collection…………………….. 29

17 Average of wildlife recorded on NASSIG during WHA data collection…………………… 29

18 NASSIG WHA airfield surveys – Total wildlife recorded by survey period………………. 30

19 NASSIG WHA airfield surveys – Total wildlife observed per month……………………….. 30

20 NASSIG WHA airfield surveys – Total wildlife observed per guild………………………….. 31

5 | Page

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Figure Page

21 NASSIG WHA airfield surveys – Wildlife totals per guild………………….…………………….. 31

22 Wildlife recorded at NASSIG during WHA surveys – Problematic guilds.………..……… 32

23 Wildlife recorded at NASSIG during WHA surveys – All guilds ……………….…………….… 33

24 NASSIG WHA night surveys excluding European rabbits. ……………………..…….………… 34

25 NASSIG WHA night surveys (European rabbits)………………………………………….……..…… 34

26 Aerialists recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ………………….………….……. 36

27 Blackbirds recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG…………………………………. 37

28 Corvid recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ………………….…………………… 39

29 Columbids recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG…………………………………. 41

30 Grassland birds recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ………………….……… 42

31 Raptors recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG …………………………………….… 47

32 Small Songbirds recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ..………………………. 50

33 Italian sparrow and goldfinch recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ……. 51

34 Wading birds recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG …………………..……….. 53

35 Cattle egrets and little egrets recorded during WHA airfield surveys at NASSIG ……. 53

36 Perch Removal Priority Area …………………………………………………………………..……………… 58

6 | Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AC Advisory Circular AOA Airfield Operations Area AFSAS Air Force Safety Automated System AFSC Air Force Safety Center AMC Air Mobility Command AOPS Air Operations Officer APHIS Animal Plant Health Inspection Service ASO Aviation Safety Officer ATC Air Traffic Control ATIS Automated Terminal Information Systems AVOC Airfield Vehicle Operators Course BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard BMZ BASH Mitigation Zones BWC Bird Watch Condition BWG Bird Working Group CFR Code of Federal Regulation CNREURAFCENT Commander, Navy Region Europe, Africa, Central CONUS Continental United States CNIC Commander Naval Installation Command CMA Controlled Movement Area DOD Department of Defense DRMO Defense Reutilization Marketing Office ERS Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron EU European Union FAA Federal Aviation Administration FGS Final Governing Standards FOD Foreign Object Debris FLIR Forward Looking InfraRed FY Fiscal Year HN Host Nation IAW In Accordance With ITAF Italian Air Force MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NASSIG Naval Air Station Sigonella NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command NOTAM Notice to Airmen NRM Natural Resources Manager NRMP Natural Resource Management Plan OEBGD Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document

7 | Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

OCONUS Outside the Continental U.S.

OPSO Operations Officer PSA Primary Surface Area PW Public Works (Navy Grounds Maintenance/Construction Services) PWO Public Works Officer RHDV2 Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease 2 RMI Risk Management Information RS Reconnaissance Squadron RSL Ready Service Locker RWY Runway SOP Standard Operating Procedure SV Site Visit US United States (of America) USAF United States Air Force USDA United States Department of Agriculture USMC United States Marine Corps USN United States Navy WASH Bird/Wildlife Avoidance Strike Hazard WESS Web Enabled Safety System WHA Wildlife Hazard Assessment WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan WS Wildlife Services

8 | Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS), in cooperation with Naval Air Station Sigonella (NASSIG), developed this Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) to provide a formalized report of systematic data regarding Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard(s) (BASH) to aircraft and human health and safety at NASSIG.

A review and evaluation of bird strike records during the WHA period at NASSIG was completed to assess BASH risks. Strike data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 through 2023 was included. Current management practices in relation to BASH at NASSIG were reviewed and included a characterization of wildlife attracting habitats both on and off base. As an Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) base, NASSIG does not fall under the same laws as a Continental United States (CONUS) airfield. An overview of laws regulating BASH activities is provided in section 4.0.

Standardized point count surveys and driving observations, were used to identify and document hazardous wildlife activity at NASSIG. Sixty-one species of animals (fifty-six species of birds and five species of mammals) were observed at NASSIG during the APR2022–APR2023 WHA period. Blackbirds, columbids, and small songbirds were the top three most abundant bird guilds observed at NASSIG during airfield surveys, respectively. Mammals, European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in particular, were observed in high densities year-round across the entire airfield. Wildlife Hazard Assessment airfield survey data were examined to identify species trends on the airfield at NAS Sigonella and the potential BASH issues that they pose.

USDA-WS has several recommendations to build the structure of and ensure the continued success of the BASH program at NASSIG via the reduction of BASH hazards and attractions on and near the airfield and the collection of needed data to track BASH risk. These include but are not limited to: proper bird strike reporting procedures, addressing drainage and flooding issues, vegetation management, and the removal of unnecessary structures near the airfield.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States Navy (USN) requires naval air bases without USDA-WS biologists to complete WHAs every 10 years as stated in CNIC Instruction 3750.1B. The last WHA performed at NASSIG was completed in September 2017 by Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC)/ Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) BASH Natural Resources Program Manager. Several types of bi-monthly surveys were conducted at NASSIG from 15APR2022 through 15APR2023, providing the material for the WHA. NASSIG was fully staffed by a USDA-WS Wildlife Biologist during this period. All surveys were conducted by USDA-WS biologists. General observations of BASH conditions (outside of standardized survey times) were also collected during this period.

1.1 Overview of wildlife hazards at airports

Bird strikes to aircraft are a serious safety and economic problem. In 2022 it is estimated wildlife strikes caused $385 million dollars of damage and almost 68,000 hours of downtime, although these estimates may be on the high end (Dolbeer et al. 2023). Military aircraft are more vulnerable to bird strikes than commercial aircraft because they are designed more for speed and agility than safety. For example, many fighters have only one engine, increasing the probability of crashing if the engine ingests a bird and shuts down. Commercial jets can still fly with the loss of an engine because they generally have more than one

9 | Page

(Conover 2001). Military aircraft also fly very close to the ground compared to other aircraft; this fly zone is also shared by most birds. Navy and United States Marine Corp (USMC)-wide, in FY21, there were a reported 1,251 bird/wildlife strikes. The total estimated cost of all strikes was $60,843,306 (M. J. Greene, U.S. Navy, personal communication).

The Air Force Safety Center (AFSC) maintains the most accurate records of bird hazards to military aircraft.

In FY21, the AFSC recorded 3,632 total BASH related events within the United States Air Force (USAF) that totaled approximately $18.4 million in damages. There were no Class A mishaps, three Class B mishaps, sixty-six Class C, 139 Class D, 231 Class E, and 3,293 hazards (no cost) (D. P. Sullivan, U.S. Air Force Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team, personal communication).

Military regulations are based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circulars (AC). The FAA defines a wildlife strike to an aircraft in AC 150/5200-32B. The definition is as follows:

A wildlife strike has occurred when:

1. A strike between wildlife and aircraft has been witnessed.

2. Evidence or damage from a strike has been identified on an aircraft.

3. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are found:

(a) Within 250 feet of a runway centerline or within 1,000 feet of a runway end unless another reason for the animal's death is identified or suspected.

(b) On a taxiway or anywhere else on or off the airport that you have reason to believe was the result of a strike with an aircraft. Examples might be:

(i) A bird found in pieces from a prop strike on a taxiway.

(ii) A carcass retrieved within 1 mile of an airport on the final approach or departure path after someone reported the bird falling out of the sky and a report of a probable wildlife strike.

4. The presence of birds or other wildlife on or off the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, or the aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with wildlife) (FAA 2013).

The Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Title 14, Part 139.137 requires certificated airports to conduct a WHA when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport:

1. An air carrier aircraft experiences multiple wildlife strikes.

2. An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife.

3. An air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife.

4. Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event described in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or

(3) of 14 CFR § 139.337 is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft movement area (FAA 2018).

It is required by CNICINST 3750.1B, that a WHA be conducted every 10 years unless continual monitoring has occurred. While items 1, 3, and 4 above have occurred at NASSIG since the last WHA was completed in 2017, this WHA is being completed to satisfy the 10-year requirement by CNIC at certificated airports.

NASSIG is subject to very high bird activity on and around the airfield due to the ample amount of habitat in the area.

10 | Page

1.2 Authority of Wildlife Services

The USDA-APHIS-WS had a working agreement with Commander, Navy Region Europe, Africa, Central (CNREURAFCENT) (APHIS Agreement #: 34-WT-20-7100-0451-IA) for the mitigation of potential and realized wildlife hazards at NASSIG and other Region airfields. This five-year agreement was in effect during the WHA data collection period. This agreement has since been rolled into the national CNIC Agreement (APHIS Agreement #: 34-WT-24-7100-0323-IA). The CNIC agreement states the following:

“The USDA is authorized to protect American agriculture and other resources from damage associated with wildlife. The primary authority for WS is the Act of March 2, 1931, (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987, (101Stat. 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. 426c). Wildlife Services activities are conducted in cooperation with other Federal, State and local agencies; private organizations;

and individuals. Department/agency cooperation between the USDA and DOD also is based on language contained in the Sikes Act (16 USC 670a-670o, 74 Stat. 1052), Department of Defense (DOD) Instructions

4150.07 (DOD Pest Management Program) and 4715.03 (Natural Resources Conservation Program), and the memorandum of understanding (# 12-34-71-0007-MU) between the DOD and the USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services”.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

This WHA shall complete the following objectives:

1. Analysis of the circumstances that prompted the assessment.

2. Identification of the wildlife species observed during the WHA period and their numbers, locations, local movements, and seasonal occurrences.

3. Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife.

4. A description of wildlife hazards to air operations.

5. Recommended actions for reducing wildlife hazards to air operations.

3.0 AIRPORT/INSTALLATION OVERVIEW

3.1 Site Description

NASSIG is a tenant of the Italian Air Force (ITAF), who have military and administrative control of ITAF Base Sigonella. USN operates on the western side of the base, while ITAF and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mainly operate on the eastern side. In this WHA, all references to NASSIG will include both USN and ITAF/NATO. NASSIG is a 2,180-acre naval air station located in the commune of Lentini, Sicily, Italy (Figure 1). The air station has several natural characteristics that make most of the site appealing to birds.

NASSIG is bordered by large agricultural fields and pastures on all sides. The Dittaino River runs along the northern border of the base and the Gornalunga River runs along the southern border. The rivers bordering NASSIG attract a variety of bird species that can pose significant threats to aircraft. There are also large areas of vegetation and grasslands interspersed with ephemeral and permanent water sources (e.g., seasonally flooded wetlands and constant standing water in drainages) that attract multiple species of birds and mammals. NASSIG has two parallel runways running East/West: Runway (RWY) 10R/28L and

11 | Page

RWY 10L/28R. 10L/28R is not currently used as a runway; it is only used for taxiing to/from the active runway. An ongoing NATO construction project is widening 10L/28R and extending the length of both “runways” from just exceeding 8,000 feet to approximately 11,000 feet. This will allow both runways to be utilized. There are both rotary-wing aircraft and fixed-wing aircraft stationed at NASSIG.

Figure 1. NASSIG location.

12 | Page

Figure 2. NASSIG (NAS2) Installation Layout (NASSIG NRMP, 2019)

13 | Page

3.2 Airport Operations and Facilities Information

NASSIG hosts a wide variety of USN, USAF, ITAF, and NATO aircraft. Two C-26D “Metroliners” are stationed at NASSIG to transport important cargo and passengers across Europe. Detachments of P-8As, C-40As, C- 130s and MH-60Ss also support the USN mission at NASSIG. C-2As support USN carrier strike groups operating in the Mediterranean. USAF 7th Reconnaissance Squadron (RS) operates RQ-4 drones. USAF 324th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron (ERS) operated MQ-9s during the period of the WHA but have since been relocated. USAF Air Mobility Command (AMC) operates the Patriot Express/Rotator and passenger terminal along with a cargo terminal. ITAF has P-72s stationed at NASSIG. NATO MQ-4s are also stationed at NASSIG.

This is not a complete list of operational aircraft at NASSIG; there are several other types of aircraft that regularly transit through and/or train at the installation.

During the WHA data collection period (APR22-APR23), there were a total of 14,312 air operations at NASSIG that included arrivals (5,919), departures (5,998), and overflights (2,395) (B. R. Moon, personal communication).

The NASSIG Bird Working Group (BWG) meets quarterly to share pertinent information that can be used in the recommendation of actions and changes to operations in order to reduce hazards on the airfield.

The BWG consists of representatives that are involved in airfield operations and management from the following departments (NASSIGINST 3750.3F):

1) NASSIG Operations Officer (OPSO) (Chair)

2) NASSIG Aviation Safety Officer (ASO)

3) NASSIG Air Traffic Control (ATC) Officer

4) NASSIG Airfield Manager

5) ASOs for all tenant aviation units

6) ITAF ASO

7) NASSIG Public Works Officer (PWO)

8) Environmental Officer/Natural Resources Manager (NRM)

9) USDA-WS Biologist

To support the BWG, USN has an Inter-agency Agreement (34-WT-20-7100-451-IA) with USDA-WS to assist in the mitigation of wildlife strike hazards to aircraft operating on the airfields at NASSIG. The intent of this agreement is to reduce the number of birds that fly, nest, roost, or loaf in areas around the airfield on NASSIG as they can present a strike hazard to aircraft. Additionally, all other vertebrates posing a safety risk are to be considered for management (e.g., mammals, reptiles, fish).

3.3 Wildlife Strike History

Bird strikes at NASSIG, primarily those that caused damage, have been reported since at least 1981. In FY20, CNIC, including NASSIG shifted from use of the Web Enabled Safety Systems (WESS) to the Risk Management Information (RMI) system; data from before this transition were transferred into RMI, but are incomplete and important details may be missing. In order to help find missing data points, the “One-liner” and “Event Narrative” of the applicable report were referenced. For this WHA, the strikes from FY12-APR23 (267 strike events) will be analyzed with the focus on strike events during the WHA period that are listed in Table 1. The data include strikes from RMI (USN & USMC), AFSAS (USAF), and ITAF/NATO.

Bird strike data reports with ITAF/NATO are only available beginning in FY18; previous data is unavailable.

14 | Page

Table 1. Bird/Wildlife Strikes at NASSIG APR22-APR23.

DATE TIME AIRCRAFT DAMAGE/

CLASS SPECIES 1 SPECIES 2

2-Apr-22 30 P-8A N/A Common Whitethroat 13-Apr-22 1000 P-8A N/A Black-headed Gull 18-Apr-22 1120 P-8A N/A Swift species Bank Swallow X2 19-Apr-22 1900 P-8A N/A Swift species Bank Swallow X2 22-Apr-22 30 P-8A N/A Swift species 25-Apr-22 1655 P-8A $913,100/ B White Stork 29-Apr-22 2055 P-8A N/A Swift species Bank Swallow X2 29-Apr-22 UNK P-8A N/A Swift species X2 30-Apr-22 UNK RQ-4 N/A European Starling 2-May-22 UNK RQ-4 N/A Spotted Flycatcher 3-May-22 1700 P-8A N/A Common Swift

13-May-22 1430 P-8A N/A Common House Martin 24-May-22 UNK P-8A N/A "Old World Sparrow" 10-Jun-22 1600 P-8A N/A Common Swift 21-Jun-22 2130 P-8A N/A Savi's Pipistrelle Common Swift X2 22-Jun-22 1230 P-8A N/A Barn Swallow 27-Jun-22 1100 P-8A N/A Barn Swallow 29-Jun-22 1730 P-8A N/A Barn Swallow 3-Jul-22 615 P-8A N/A Savi's Pipistrelle X2 Common Swift X2

12-Jul-22 900 P-8A N/A "Old World Sparrow" X2 19-Jul-22 UNK P-8A N/A Barn Swallow X2 29-Jul-22 2100 C-2A N/A Eurasian Kestrel 30-Jul-22 100 P-8A N/A Eurasian Stone-curlew X2 2-Aug-22 1930 P-8A N/A Savi's Pipistrelle Common Swift X2

17-Aug-22 UNK P-8A N/A European Bee-eater X2 28-Aug-22 1000 P-8A N/A Unknown 29-Aug-22 1530 P-8A N/A Savi's Pipistrelle 2-Sep-22 630 P-8A N/A Spotted Flycatcher 5-Sep-22 615 P-8A N/A Red-backed Shrike 6-Sep-22 400 P-8A N/A "Perching Bird" species 7-Sep-22 730 P-8A N/A Barn Swallow

10-Sep-22 2010 P-8A N/A Willow Warbler Spotted Flycatcher 12-Sep-22 1000 P-8A N/A Barn Swallow 21-Sep-22 815 P-8A $540/ E Common Nightingale 28-Sep-22 900 P-8A N/A Cattle Egret 28-Sep-22 UNK P-8A N/A Cattle Egret 12-Oct-22 1500 P-8A N/A Eurasian Kestrel 16-Oct-22 330 P-8A N/A Eurasian Blackcap 16-Jan-23 1800 P-8A N/A European Golden-Plover

15 | Page

Table 1(cont.) Bird/Wildlife Strikes at NASSIG APR22-APR23 4-Feb-23 520 P-8A N/A European Golden-Plover 8-Feb-23 1100 P-8A N/A Common Buzzard X2

27-Feb-23 1055 P-8A N/A Rock Pigeon 4-Mar-23 1500 P-8A N/A White Wagtail

14-Mar-23 1600 P-8A N/A Western Marsh Harrier 22-Apr-23 1030 P-8A N/A Western Marsh Harrier 30-Apr-23 2330 P-8A N/A Tree Pipit

Between FY12-FY22, there were at least ten damaging bird strikes, causing over $1.2M in damages, reported at NASSIG. Of these ten damaging strikes, seven of them involved P-8As and cost $1.16M total in damages.

Between FY12 and FY20, there were a total of 190 bird strikes at NASSIG. In FY21, the year USDA-WS biologist arrived on station, twenty-one strikes were reported. In FY22, forty-six strikes were reported.

During FY23 through 30APR23, 10 strikes were reported. This increase in reported strikes is likely due to increased strike reporting and sampling training opportunities rather than a doubling of the hazard present.

Figure 3. Bird strike events at NASSIG FY12–APR23.

*2023 data is only reported through 30APR2023

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NASSIG Bird Strikes by Year*

Total P-8 Yearly Strikes

16 | Page

Figure 4. Bird strike events per month at NASSIG during FY12–APR23.

There was an average of 25.4 strike events per year at NASSIG between October 2012 through April 2023 (~10.5 years). On average, one strike event per year caused damage to aircraft. NASSIG experienced sixty-seven strike events during the WHA data collection period (APR22-APR23) (Figure 5). During this time, two strikes were known to have caused at least $913,640 total in aircraft damage. One strike involved a white stork ($913,100/Class B) and the second a common nightingale ($540/Class E). The most frequently struck animals between APR22-APR23 included twenty-eight martins/swallow/swifts, sixteen passerines (e.g.

songbird), six raptors, and five bats (Table 1). Some strikes did involve more than one individual animal being struck. There was a total of 14,312 air operations during this period, including arrivals, departures, and overflights (B.J. Moon, personal communication). With forty-six known strike events during this period, there was an average of 32.14 strike events per 10,000 air operations at NASSIG during the WHA data collection period (APR22-APR23).

*2023 data is only reported through 30APR2023

40 41

33 33

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

NASSIG Bird Strikes by Month*

17 | Page

Figure 5. Total bird strike events per month at NASSIG during WHA.

3.4 Wildlife Strike Reporting

Bird remains are typically found by squadron maintenance personnel through blood smears and feathers (snarge), or actual damage to the aircraft. Generally, remains are placed in a designated freezer in Hangar 630, which USDA-WS checks on a regular basis. All bird strikes are reported by squadron aviation safety officers to the Navy Safety Center through RMI as well as to NASSIG ASO. Appendices 1-2 show the bird strike reporting procedures and forms given to airfield personnel and/or squadron ASOs.

3.5 Current Management Practices

NASSIG and their airfield BASH operations are managed in accordance with the protocols established in several documents, including ITAF AIRPORT COMMAND SIGONELLA POP-SIV-003 BIRD/WILDLIFE AVOIDANCE STRIKE HAZARD (WASH) PLAN, CNICINST 3750.1B NAVY BIRD ANIMAL AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD PROGRAM IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE(2023), NASSIGINST 3750.3F BIRD AND ANIMAL AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD PLAN(2023), CNIC BASH Manual (2018), APHIS Agreement #: 34-WT-24-7100-0323-IA, NASSIG Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) (2019) and USDA Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports Manual (2020). These documents combined form a cohesive plan to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of the airfield at NASSIG.

ITAF WASH Team is largely responsible for BASH remediation on the airfield at NASSIG and for providing the vast majority of wildlife dispersal. USDA-WS provides additional dispersal assistance with the utilization of a vehicle and pyrotechnics. Current efforts by USDA-WS to reduce bird strikes consist entirely of non-lethal harassment as well as habitat management recommendations to NASSIG Operations.

Habitat manipulation offers the most viable and long-term solution for the reduction of wildlife around airfields. However, it is not always practical nor achievable due to constraints with funding, staffing, and

11*

5 5

9*

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

NASSIG Bird Strikes by Month (APR22-APR23)

*Months with damaging strikes

18 | Page environmental impact. All habitat management must be coordinated with Host Nation (HN) and is usually also conducted by HN. Harassment is a short-term tool that helps to establish wildlife-free buffer zones in and around the airfield operating environment to further reduce bird and other wildlife strikes.

Wildlife monitoring on and around the airfield is crucial in aiding bird harassment and the reduction of aircraft strikes. Survey trend data are provided to the ASO during BASH WG meetings as a precautionary measure to warn pilots of potential bird activity as it relates to seasonal changes, the time of day, and specific locations. When possible, and when it does not affect the mission, flight times can be adjusted to when risk of a wildlife strike is the lowest. Wildlife monitoring can help to distinguish high and low risk areas, allowing for the concentration of harassment efforts. It can also be used to consider the need for lethal control.

Bird watch conditions (BWC) place airfield conditions into one of four categories (low, moderate, severe, and prohibitive) (NASSIGINST 3750.3F). ITAF Tower personnel set BWC under advisement of multiple entities on the airfield, including USDA-WS and the ITAF WASH team.

USDA-WS biologists will continue to work with all flying squadrons at NASSIG to ensure they have proper strike collection materials and understanding of the standard operating procedure(s) (SOP) of strike reporting.

3.6 Wildlife Attractants

Wildlife attractants are resources that attract the wildlife that use them for various life-sustaining functions; they can be grouped into the following categories: food, water, vegetation (cover), and artificial environment. Off-site attractants will also be discussed and may include food, water, and/or cover occurring off-base near NASSIG.

At NASSIG, there are many wildlife species that either directly or indirectly pose strike threats to aircraft.

Various bird species pose the greatest risk as they routinely either pass over or use the airfield and its surrounding areas. European rabbits pose an indirect threat by attracting predatory and scavenging birds and mammals to the airfield. Rabbits in Sicily are also prone to become infected with rabbit hemorrhagic disease 2 (RHDV2), which is nearly always fatal. Transmission rates are likely high due to the high density of rabbits on NASSIG and rabbits are often found dead on the airfield, becoming an attractant. Feral dogs (Canis familiaris) also occasionally cross the runways, creating a strike hazard. These feral dogs are also a threat to pedestrians; multiple attacks have been documented.

3.6.1 Food Sources

Within the airfield at NASSIG (Figure 2.), many of the food sources which attract birds are water-based, mainly drainage ditches and temporary standing water during the winter. Many species of bird forage for fish, invertebrates, and vegetation that occur within these water sources. This will be covered more in the Water Sources section below.

Cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis) and little egrets (Egretta garzetta), rock pigeons (Columba livia) and other bird species forage in the mixed grass and forb areas which surround large portions of the runways and taxiways at NASSIG. These areas provide seeds, vegetation, grit, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates that are fed upon by the various bird species depending on their needs. These areas are rarely maintained and are a mixture of short and long vegetation as well as bare ground. Maintenance consists mainly of mowing for hay production or disking vegetation, which creates fields of bare ground.

Grassy areas provide food as well as cover for European rabbits, which in turn, attract predatory species such as common buzzards (Buteo buteo), gray herons (Ardea cinerea), and feral dogs to the airfield. Areas

19 | Page of bare ground provide forage for seed and grit. Grit is used by many species, including rock pigeons, to aid in digestion (Figure 6).

Insect hatches occur on the airfield at NASSIG which attract large numbers of house martins (Delichon urbicum) and common swifts (Apus apus). Other bird species are also attracted to the runways to feed on insects flying in the warm air above the pavement. Rain events can trigger insect hatches or insect feeding events, which may create hazardous conditions. Insects observed includes grasshopper species, mosquitos, and other small flying insects.

Figure 6. Rock doves foraging for seed and grit in disked field.

3.6.2 Water Sources

NASSIG was built between two rivers, the Dittaino and the Gornalunga, with many natural and manmade drainages flowing into one or the other (Figure 7). The drainages on the airfield are overgrown and retain water, which leads to standing water year-round creating additional habitat on the airfield that provide food and shelter. The drainages are home to turtles, fish, and invertebrates. Large (2-3 foot long) carp are regularly observed surface feeding on insects. Additionally, the topography of the airfield contains many depressions which regularly flood with rainwater in the winter, creating standing water. Since the clogged drainages cannot handle the runoff during particularly heavy rain events, over a foot of water floods the airfield, stopping aircraft operations. Flooded areas often attract wading birds, gulls, and shorebirds for loafing, drinking water, and providing them invertebrates on which to feed (Figure 8). The mapped areas of standing water is incomplete and only portrays areas seen from roads during surveys.

20 | Page

Figure 7. Rivers and drainages of NASSIG.

Figure 8. NASSIG Temporary Standing Water (fall/winter) (incomplete).

21 | Page

3.6.3 Vegetation

There are a variety of grass, forb, shrub, and tree species occurring on and near the airfield at NASSIG. Here the focus is on vegetation which provide cover to potentially problematic wildlife on and near the airfield.

ITAF mows the minimum required by ICAO regulations (Figure 11). As mentioned in Food Sources above, grassy areas provide feeding opportunities for a variety of species near the airfield at NASSIG. These grassy areas also provide cover for small bird species. Some of the more common of these include crested larks (Galerida cristata), wood larks (Lullula arborea), Italian sparrow (Passer italiae), rock pigeons and common (European) starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). In addition to the short grasses that cover most of the airfield, there are many patches of medium and long grasses interspersed. This creates “edge” habitat, which is where two habitat types meet (Figure 9). Edge habitat attracts species that use each individual habitat type along with those that are specialized to the edge habitat. A lot of the longer grasses are present due to the difficulty of mowing unlevel ground, which can be naturally occurring or it can result from construction or soil/debris dumping (Figure 10). Areas with unlevel ground would require manual mowing as the mowing tractors cannot be used in these areas.

Shrubs and trees are also present within or near the airfield at NASSIG. They provide cover and roosting/perching opportunities for a variety of bird species. The tree east of Ramp 6 is the most problematic tree due to its usage by raptors and its proximity to the runway. Common buzzards were observed loafing in shrubs and trees on and near the airfield at NASSIG; the common buzzard is considered to be one of the more problematic species due to its potential to cause a damaging strike, due to size and occasional flocking behaviors. Common starlings roost in the trees surrounding the Tower and ITAF Ramp 5. Common magpie (Pica pica) and many small passerines nest in many of the trees on the airfield and just outside the perimeter fence (Figure 12).

Figure 9. Edge habitat (photos by P. Block. 2019 WHA.)

Figure 10. Debris piles (photos by P. Block. 2019 WHA.)

22 | Page

Figure 11. NASSIG ITAF Mowing plan (ITAF WASH Plan, 2018)

Figure 12. NASSIG Airfield trees and shrubs

23 | Page

3.6.4 Artificial Environment/Human Created Attractants

Elements of the artificial environment present at NASSIG, such as asphalt/concrete paved areas, buildings, and artificial structures, are potentially problematic with regard to BASH concerns because they are used by wildlife. When insects are on or just above runway surfaces, they attract large numbers of common swifts.

Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) and house martins have also been observed feeding on insects over the runways as well as ramp 4 and 5. The insects are attracted to the warm air created as the sun warms the pavement. Bird species, such as rock doves and yellow-legged gulls (Larius michahellis), use runways and taxiways for loafing, possibly for warmth. Without proper mitigation actions, these birds increase the BASH risk.

Various artificial structures near the runways at NASSIG provide perching platforms for raptors (primarily common buzzards and common kestrels [Falco tinnunculus]) and songbird species. While many of these structures are necessary for airfield operations, some are no longer in use. Many of the obsolete structures have been recommended for removal in previous WHA and Site Visit (SV) reports. One group of such structures is across the runway 10R/28L from taxiway Delta. These buildings are used by nesting little owls (Athene Noctua) and other species, including rodents. The multiple open windows and doors provide them access to the interiors of the buildings, which are covered in bird feces. (Figure 13).

Other potential BASH related issues resulting from human attractants on-base such as garbage management and feeding of wildlife have been well managed, causing little issue. However, base personnel do occasionally feed the feral dogs, likely causing them to remain on base for a longer period of time and attract others to form packs.

3.6.5 Off-site Attractants

There are several off-base wildlife attractants or potential attractants near NASSIG, which increase the BASH risk within the NASSIG airspace (strikes are considered to have occurred at NASSIG if within 5 miles of the base). These include the Gornalunga River (0.5 miles from airfield), the Dittiano River (1 mile), the Lago di Lentini (5 miles), and the Mediterranean Sea (9.5 miles). Additionally, agricultural fields and livestock pastures surround NASSIG for miles in all directions. One area of particular concern is a livestock feeding area and water feature just outside the perimeter fence to the west. Large flocks of rock doves and common starlings have been observed there and flying across the runway approach corridor to this area during airfield surveys. Offsite surveys were not conducted due to the OCONUS location, language barrier and lack of access.

Figure 13. Obsolete Airfield structures (photos by P.

Block. 2019 WHA.)

24 | Page

Figure 14. Livestock area adjacent to NASSIG (in green).

4.0 LEGAL STATUS OF WILDLIFE

Most wildlife species are protected by European Union (EU) and Italian regulations and laws along with agreements between the USN and government of Italy. Many Italian wildlife laws codify EU Directives into Italian law. These EU Directives will be described below; their purpose is to effectively manage and maintain viable populations of specified species. Personnel responsible for managing wildlife populations at airports are required to understand and maintain compliance with the laws and regulations that relate to their duties. To ensure that personnel maintain compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to the wildlife in question, species should be identified before any mitigation method is used. It is the responsibility of the airport to maintain compliance with all regulations.

4.1 The Birds Directive of 1979 (Directive 79/409/EEC), Amended 2009 (2009/147/EC)

The objective of the Birds Directive is to protect all naturally occurring wild bird species present in the EU and their most important habitats. It aims to control the hunting and killing of wild birds and protect their nests and eggs. It creates protected areas and improves non-protected habitats. The Birds Directive was codified into Italian law by L.157/92 on 11 February 1992.

4.2 The Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats/ The Bern

Convention (Council Decision 82/72/EEC)

The Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, better known as “the Bern Convention,” aims to conserve wild fauna and flora, along with their habitats, promote cooperation between nations, improve education on the need to conserve nature, and include conservation in national planning, development, and environmental policy. The Bern Convention was codified into Italian law by L.503/81.

25 | Page

4.3 The Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals/ Bonn Convention (Council Decision 82/461/EEC)

The Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, better known as “the Bonn Convention,” aims to improve coordination of member states on the conservation of migratory wildlife throughout their migratory ranges.

Appendix I lists EU species threatened with extinction. Appendix II lists species that need or would significantly benefit from international cooperation. The Bonn Convention was codified into Italian law by L.42/83.

4.4 The Habitats Directive of 1992 (Directive 92/43/EEC)

The objective of the Habitats Directive is to maintain biodiversity within the EU through conservation of natural habitats of flora and fauna. It increases the protections created by the Birds Directive. EU States must create a system of strict protections for species listed in Annex II. Species in Annex II are categorized as “endangered,” “vulnerable,” “rare,” or “endemic and requiring particular attention.” The deliberate capture or killing, destruction of nests and eggs, or disturbance or destruction of breeding areas is prohibited for wildlife listed in Annex II. The Habitats Directive was codified into Italian law under Decree No. 357 of 8 September 1997.

4.5 Legislative Decree No. 281/1991

The objective of Decree No. 281/1991 is to set the standards for the treatment of companion and stray animals. Among other things, it prohibits the killing of stray dogs and cats. Exceptions are made if the animal has an incurable disease or is a proven danger, in which case only a veterinarian is permitted to euthanize.

4.6 Environmental Final Governing Standards, Italy, 7SEP2012

“The primary purpose of these Final Governing Standards (FGS) is to provide environmental compliance criteria at United States (U.S.) Department of Defense (DoD) installations in Italy. This document implements DoD Instruction 4715.5, ‘Management of Environmental Compliance at Overseas Installations,’ dated 22 April 1996, and is based upon DoD 4715.05-G, ‘Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document’ (OEBGD), dated 1 May 2007.” Chapter 13 covers natural resources and endangered species. C13.3.1.2 prohibits the capture or killing; disturbance during reproduction, hibernation, or migration; and destruction or collection of eggs or nests of an Italian protected animal. The FGS implements the previously mentioned EU/Italian law in USN operations in Italy. However, the FGS does not provide language that would allow for lethal removal or trapping and relocation of species under a “Derogation” of the Habitats and Birds Directive for aviation safety, like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Depredation Permit utilized at CONUS locations. The language of the FGS would need to be updated before serious conversation can occur as it would require significant cooperation between USN, ITAF, Italy and potentially the EU.

26 | Page

5.0 METHODS

Methods used for data collection for this WHA followed protocols and procedures from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Hazards Management at Airports Manual (2020), which is also based on the United States Geological Survey North American Breeding Bird Surveys protocol. All data was collected by USDA-WS Wildlife Biologist stationed at NASSIG. The data collection period for the WHA occurred from 15APR2022–15APR2023. All data was collected using paper data sheets and then entered into the Survey123 application (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 2023).

5.1 Airfield Surveys

Airfield wildlife point-count surveys were conducted twice a month during the WHA survey period.

Nineteen points were located around the airfield within the base perimeter fence. Points were surveyed in a clockwise order, proceeding around the airfield. Three minutes were spent at each station, during which all wildlife within 200 meters was recorded. Wildlife observed along the route between stations (≤ 200 meters) was also recorded as incidental observations. Rabbits were excluded from the airfield surveys.

Due to their high abundance and their presence during night surveys Two survey days were completed per month, each consisting of three surveys (morning, midday, and evening). The primary purpose of the airfield surveys is to collect empirical data to monitor bird activity in the areas immediately surrounding the runways and taxiways. All wildlife was identified to species or guild (see 5.3 for definition) and counted. Behavior, habitat type, and time of observation were also recorded. See Figure 15 for a map of the airfield wildlife survey point locations. Some point locations were shifted throughout the year due to ongoing construction and the route was adjusted accordingly.

Figure 15. NASSIG airfield wildlife survey points.

27 | Page

5.2 Night Surveys

Monthly night wildlife surveys at NASSIG were conducted on the airfield beginning one hour after sunset.

Night surveys were a point count survey using a Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) scope. The point count survey route was followed and at each point a 360-degree scan was conducted using the FLIR. Every heat signature was identified out to 200 meters. Feral domestic animals were counted in addition to wildlife were included in observations, except for mice and rats. Rabbit observations were included in the night surveys.

5.3 Guild Classifications

To facilitate analysis, species observed during all surveys were grouped into guilds. A guild is a group of organisms that use the same ecological resource in a similar way (Merriam-Webster 2022). The guild ‘mammals’ did not follow the standard guild definition, as all mammals were grouped together. This was done as mammals are generally less prevalent near the NASSIG airfield. See Table 2 for a list of the wildlife guilds used and their definitions.

Table 2. Wildlife guilds used in analysis for Wildlife Hazard Assessment.

Guild Taxonomy Description Aerialists Apodiformes order or

Hirundinidae family Small, insect-eating, acrobatic flying birds such as swallow and swift species.

Blackbirds Turdidae and Sturnidae families

The old-world world blackbirds, including blackbird species and starlings

Corvids Corvidae family Small to medium sized birds such as crows, ravens, jays, magpies, etc. Opportunistic feeders known for their intelligence.

Columbids Columbidae family Pigeon and dove species.

Grassland Birds Motacillidae, Alaudidae, and Laniidae families

Birds normally associated with grasslands.

Larks and wagtails are the commonly identified species at NASSIG.

Gulls Laridae family Associated with water, gulls are opportunistic, eating fish as well as scavenging many other food sources.

Mammals Varies depending on species Any species of mammal.

Raptors Families Accipitridae, Falconidae, Tytonidae, Strigidae

Bird of prey species distinguished by hooked bills and talons, keen vision, and utilizing a carnivorous diet. Small to large in body size based on species. Includes: ospreys, hawks, falcons, owls, eagles, new world vultures.

Shorebirds Charadriidae family Small to medium bodied birds seen on coastal shorelines with long beaks for probing substrates.

28 | Page

Table 2. Wildlife guilds used in analysis for Wildlife Hazard Assessment (continued).

Small Songbirds Order Passeriformes Small to medium bodied birds. Known for various song calls, colors, and diets. Found in almost all environments.

Wading birds Family Ardeidae Wading birds with long legs and pointed bills commonly found in wetland and coastal habitats in shallow, slow moving waters.

Includes herons, egrets, bitterns, etc.

6.0 DATA ANALYSIS

Data analyses of point count observations were conducted using Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft Corporation 2018) to determine wildlife population indices of abundance among the survey time periods and during the 12 consecutive months of this WHA. Seasonal wildlife trends were evaluated for each guild observed at NASSIG. Additionally, ArcGIS Pro (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2021) was used to display the spatial locations of wildlife observed and to provide wildlife incidence mapping on and near the airfield.

Results of these analyses…