Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01.13.2025 PW SS Briefings
KITTITAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA DATE: January 13, 2025 ACTION REQUESTED: Request to Approve a Resolution selecting JRP Integrated Solutions for the Kittitas County CWU Technology Transfer Center feasibility study and authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Washington State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)has selected Kittitas County to receive planning grant funding. This funding is to aid in financing the cost of the Kittitas County CWU Technology Transfer Center Feasibility Study(Project). This Project will research the architecture and construction costs to repurpose an existing vacant industrial building to create hospitality, meeting and office space. As part of the study,the feasibility of a public/private partnership to share costs of construction and improvements will be explored. This planning grant will assist in the groundwork for a technological transfer,training and development hub to support economic and workforce development in the Central Washington Region. Three(3) submittals were received by the closing date of November 22, 2024. Submittals were reviewed by representatives from Public Works, Central Washington University and the Associate Economic Development Organization(ADO). Consensus recommendation is to select JRP Integrated Solutions for consultant services associated with this project. INTERACTION: Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution selecting JRP Integrated Solutions for the Kittitas County CWU Technology Transfer Center feasibility study and authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement. HANDLING: Return One original to Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution LEAD STAFF: Josh Fredrickson, Director BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.2025- AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF JRP INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS FOR THE CWU TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SAID PROJECT WHEREAS: Kittitas County has been awarded a planning grant from the Washington State Community Economic Revitalization Board(CERB)to assist in financing the cost of the Kittitas County CWU Technology Transfer Center Study;and WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works(PW)advertised a Request for Qualifications for the feasibility study to repurpose a vacant industrial building to create hospitality,meeting and office space;and WHEREAS: Submittals were due on November 22,2024; and WHEREAS: Kittitas County Public Works received three(3)submittals from qualified firms who submitted their qualifications for review;and WHEREAS: Submittals were evaluated by a committee including representatives from Kittitas County Public Works,Central Washington University and the Associate Economic Development Organization(ADO);and WHEREAS: The consensus recommendation is to select JRP Integrated Solutions for consultant services associated with this solicitation. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners,after due consideration and in the best interest of the public,does hereby select JRP Integrated Solutions for the CWU Technology Transfer Center Feasibility Study;and NOW,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Public Works Director is authorized to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement for said project. DATED on this 13th day of January 2025,at Ellensburg,Washington. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY,WASHINGTON Laura Osiadacz,Chairman Attest: ❑ Clerk of the Board-Julie Kjorsvik Cory Wright,Vice-Chairman ❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board-Mandy Buchholz Brett Wachsmith,Commissioner KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS—BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: January 13, 2025 TOPIC: Kittitas County Airport Wildlife Hazard Evaluation and Management Plan ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff prepare enabling documentation for adoption of plan LEAD STAFF: Joshua Fredrickson RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare enabling documentation for adoption of the Wildlife Hazard Evaluation Management Plan for Bowers Field. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Wildlife Hazard Evaluation Management Plan (WHMP) has been developed for Bowers Field • Plan development by Kittitas County in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program • WHMP to be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary by airport management • WHMP emphasizes monitoring and abatement of wildlife hazards within the airfield environment • WHMP not previously adopted BACKGROUND: To serve as a guide to help reduce wildlife hazards at Kittitas County Airport, Bowers Field, previous airport staff began the development of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). Staff from the U.S. Department of Agrigulture's (USDA) Wildlife Services (WS) program assisted with the development of the plan. The WHMP follows guidance in CFR Title 14 FAR part 139.337 and guidance in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-38. DISCUSSION: Kittitas County Airport, Bowers Field (ELN) is a general aviation airport owned and operated by Kittitas County. To support operations at ELN, staff developed a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). ELN is not a Part 139 Certificated airport, one meeting the requirements of 14 CFR Part 139 commonly related to air carrier operations. As ELN is not Part 139 certificated airport, it is not held to that standard. In place of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA), required for Part 139 airports, a Wildlife Hazard Evaluation (WHE) was conducted to identify hazardous wildlife and attractants which could possibly impact aviation safety. Staff from the USDA WS helped develop the WHMP including conducting the WHE. The WHMP is developed with the intent of increased safety. At the time of plan development, no wildlife strikes were reported for ELN. The WHMP includes a practical discussion for dealing with key hazard groups identified during the WHE, this included blackbirds, corvids, raptors and waterfowl. This plan also includes information on habitat management to take proactive measures to reduce attractiveness to wildlife. The plan also recommends periodic reviews and updates by airport staff. FISCAL IMPACT: WHMP identifies work items which can be accomplished within the current maintenance and operations budget. Future years' work will require evaluation of annual budget. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Kittitas County airport Wildlife Hazard Evaluation and Management Plan KITTTT.A COUNTY I December 2024 Prepared by: Laurence M Schafer United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Olympia, WA and Bowers Field,Airport Manager Ellensburg, WA Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to CFR Title 14 FAR part 139.337 and guidance in Advisory Circular 150/5200- 38 (Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans,August 2018),Kittitas County Airport(ELN)developed this Wildlife Hazard Management Plan(WHMP) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)Wildlife Services(WS) program. This WHMP will be reviewed by ELN management and be updated as necessary. This WHMP places particular emphasis on monitoring and abatement of wildlife hazards within the airfield environment. Wildlife attractants (e.g., lakes,ponds,transfer stations, etc.)within 2 miles of the airfield are addressed as they potentially attract wildlife in a manner that could jeopardize the safety of air traffic operating into and out of ELN. To the extent practical,ELN will take immediate measures to mitigate wildlife hazards when detected or when airport management has been advised that hazardous conditions exist. This WHMP outlines steps for monitoring, documenting, and reporting wildlife hazards, control actions, and strikes at ELN. Protocols for responding to hazardous wildlife situations are presented, including roles and responsibilities of airport personnel. Habitat on and around the airfield will be managed in a manner that deters hazardous wildlife, and this WHMP outlines priorities for habitat management, including target dates for completion. Most wildlife is afforded some type of protection under state or federal regulations; therefore, special permits are required for their control. This WHMP outlines laws and regulations governing the harassment and take of wildlife. Permit requirements for most species of hazardous wildlife are presented in tabular format. ELN will maintain an adequate supply of resources for controlling and dispersing wildlife (e.g.,pyrotechnics). As outlined in this WHMP,ELN personnel will be trained to properly identify wildlife and apply wildlife deterrent equipment in a safe and efficient manner. ii 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan The master document is contained in ELN's Administration Office. Substantive revisions to this plan will be recorded on the revisions table below. The footer of each page contains a date, which is the date that particular page was created. It was created with section breaks between each chapter, so updates and page replacements would not impact page numbering throughout the document. DATE PAGE(S) REVISION 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................H IBACKGROUND...........................................................................................................1-1 1.0 Scope...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Locational Aspects............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Objectives.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Strike History.................................................................................................... 1-3 2 WILDLIFE HAZARD EVALUATION.............................................................................2-1 2.1 Methods.............................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Hazardous Guilds.......................................................................................2-4 2.1.2 Habitats and Attractants.............................................................................2-9 2.2 WHE Conclusion and Recommendations.......................................................2-10 2.2.1 Blackbirds................................................................................................2-11 2.2.2 Corvids.....................................................................................................2-12 2.2.3 Raptors.....................................................................................................2-12 3 A UTHORITYAND RESPONSIBILITIES.........................................................................3-1 3.1 Airport Manager................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Airport Maintenance Personnel.........................................................................3-1 3.3 USDA Wildlife Services...................................................................................3-2 4 LOCAL,STATE,AND FEDERAL WILDLIFE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS.....................4-1 4.1 Wildlife Categories ...........................................................................................4-1 4.2 Washington Wildlife Regulations.....................................................................4-3 4.3 Federal Wildlife Regulations ............................................................................4-1 4.4 Birds..................................................................................................................4-3 4.4.1 European Starlings,House Sparrows, and Eurasian Collared Dove .........4-3 4.4.2 Feral Birds..................................................................................................4-3 4.4.3 Migratory Birds..........................................................................................4-3 4.4.4 Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Crows, and Magpies..............................................4-4 4.5 Mammals...........................................................................................................4-4 4.5.1 Game Mammals.........................................................................................4-4 4.5.2 Furbearers ..................................................................................................4-4 4.5.3 Non-game Mammals..................................................................................4-5 4.6 Reptiles &Amphibians.....................................................................................4-5 4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................4-5 4.7.1 Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species.............................4-5 4.7.2 Avoiding Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species........................4-6 4.7.3 Habitat Conservation .................................................................................4-7 4.8 FAA Advisory Circulars and CertAlerts...........................................................4-7 4.8.1 Advisory Circulars.....................................................................................4-7 4.8.2 CertAlerts...................................................................................................4-8 S HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE...................................................................5-1 5.1 Habitat Management.........................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Open Water................................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Woodlands .................................................................................................5-1 5.1.3 Grasslands..................................................................................................5-1 iv 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 5.1.4 Pasture/Uplands .........................................................................................5-2 5.1.5 Pavement....................................................................................................5-2 5.2 Cattle Grazing ...................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Fencing..............................................................................................................5-3 5.4 Construction Activities......................................................................................5-3 5.5 Remove or Modify Perching/Nesting Structures..............................................5-3 5.6 Priorities for Habitat Management and Target Dates........................................5-3 6 ]DENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES TO BE PROVIDED BYELN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THisWHMP.....................................................................................................................6-1 7 WILDLIFE CONTROL MEASURES............................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Physical Inspections of the Movement Area and Other Areas Critical to Wildlife HazardManagement....................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Direct Control Measures...................................................................................7-1 7.2.1 Blackbirds (including starlings)and Corvids ............................................7-2 7.2.2 Raptors.......................................................................................................7-2 7.2.3 Songbirds...................................................................................................7-3 7.2.4 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................7-3 7.2.5 Mammals....................................................................................................7-3 7.2.6 Harassment and Deterrent Tools................................................................7-4 7.3 Communication between Wildlife Control Personnel and Local Air Traffic...7-4 7.4 Recording wildlife observations,control measures, and strikes.......................7-4 8 PERIODIC EVAL UATIONAND REVIEW OF THE WHMP..............................................8-1 9 A TRAINING PROGRAM TO PROVIDE AIRPORT PERSONNEL WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS NEEDED TO CARRYOUT THE WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN...................9-1 10 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................10-1 v 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 1 Background Kittitas County Airport(Bowers Field [ELN]) is a public use general aviation(GA) airport. The airfield is in central Washington, at the northern end of the city of Ellensburg, and is managed by the city. The mission is to operate and develop the Airport and Industrial Park in a safe and efficient manner, support professional aviation education programs, enhance the economic benefit to the County,and support local and regional emergency preparedness. In support of this, ELN management decided to develop a wildlife hazard management plan(WHMP)to serve as guide for reducing wildlife hazards at the airfield. A wildlife hazard assessment(WHA) is conducted to gather wildlife hazards information at an airport and that information aides in the development of a WHMP. Because ELN is not a Part 139 Certificated airport and is not held to the same regulations and a WHA is not required. ELN requested assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (USDA WS)in developing the WHMP. USDA WS conducted a wildlife hazard evaluation(WHE)to identify hazardous wildlife and attractants negatively impacting aviation safety. A WHE is a simplified form of a WHA, with fewer site visits and less stringent surveys. The WHE is Chapter 2 of this document and was used in the development of the WHMP. USDA WS is the primary federal agency authorized to assist public and private entities with addressing wildlife hazards and protecting property and safety from wildlife damage. USDA WS has a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Association of State Aviation Officials and the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)recognizing WS' expertise in identifying and mitigating wildlife hazards for aviation safety. USDA WS regularly provides hazardous wildlife management training to airports throughout the country and was integral in the development of the Washington State Department of Transportation's 2009 Aviation Stormwater Design Manual; the first stormwater design manual in the United States to specifically address hazardous wildlife management at/around airports. 1.1 Locational Aspects Bowers Field encompasses 1,240 acres and has one runway. Runway 11-29, is 4,300 feet long and 150 feet wide. It is equipped with transmitter-activated lighting,making it available24 hours a day. There are two fixed-based operators, a fueling facility,and 12 county-owned T-hangars. There were an average of 165 operations per day during 2020. The Central Washington University aviation program is operated out of ELN and is responsible for nearly 90%of the annual operations. Urban sprawl is encroaching upon the airfield from the south and southwest. Agriculture and ranching are the primary land uses in the other three directions. There are numerous 1-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan creeks,ditches, ephemeral and permanent ponds,pastures, and wetlands on and surrounding the airport. The Yakima River and Interstate 90 (with its many flooded borrow pits)are less than 3 miles to the southwest and the interstate serves as a navigational aide to birds. The entire area offers wildlife ample foraging and loafing opportunities and is a stop-over area for migrating raptors,which are routinely observed along the interstate and surrounding area. At the time of writing this document,the airport was conducting an Environmental Assessment(EA)with Century West Engineering to address water management issues and other factors. This EA was not finalized for incorporation into this WHE or WHMP, but Century West Engineering was able to provide valuable information used in this document. Figure 1,provided by Century West Engineering, identifies important areas of permanent and temporary standing water. Water is generally a significant wildlife attractant and these areas were surveyed for hazardous wildlife during the WHE. rxtlaw aeia ao n, _ Drainage 1 �'e Improve - Flood Midgationl�' Berms 1 _ Runway,Taxiway, Storm weber, and Infidd Improvements n r.« SWRCE.ESRL MO.Csr,Y,y VWs!EN—.9 W21 D180893 S—.FWd EA Figure 7 Impact and Mitigation Areas-Bowers Field ESAKittitas County,WA Figure 1. Map showing aquatic environments that could be attractive to hazardous wildlife. 1.2 Objectives The FAA recommends that airports receiving federal funds apply Advisory Circular(AC) 15/5200-33C guidance to comply with federal grant assurance programs. Based on FAA memorandum PGL-05-03 (Updated Grant Assurances), airfield management observations, aviation wildlife damage management professionals, and local pilot input, a 1-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan WHMP was deemed prudent. This WHMP will follow a significant portion of CertAlert 97-09 (Wildlife Hazard Management Plan outline). The objective of this WHMP is to set forth a well-defined set of policies, goals, and standards by which wildlife hazards can be effectively reduced. ELN recognizes that it is not possible to eliminate wildlife strikes,but through the development and implementation of this WHMP,wildlife hazards can be substantially reduced. 1.3 Strike History Wildlife strikes are largely unpredictable events. It is impossible to know exactly when an animal will collide with an operating aircraft. Dolbeer et al. (2021)determined that 75%of the airports incurring wildlife strikes were GA airports,but those reports only accounted for 6%of the strikes. That is, from 1990—2020,roughly 1,500 GA airports reported 13,000 strikes,whereas 522 commercial airports reported 196,000 strikes. Sixty-four percent were GA aircraft and 55%of the events occurred at GA airports. Of the 74 aircraft destroyed following a wildlife strike, 41 (64%)were GA aircraft(Dolbeer et al. 2021). This information suggests that GA airports and aircraft are susceptible to wildlife strikes and that relatively few strikes involving GA aircraft at/near GA airports get reported. Roughly 71%of strikes occurred below 500' above ground level (AGL), which is an area within or immediately adjacent to most airfields. This suggests that actions on and around the airfield can have the greatest benefit in decreasing wildlife hazards. The annual number of strikes reported for Washington State is on an upward trend (National Wildlife Strike Database,unpublished data). The FAA recorded 3,963 wildlife strikes in Washington from 1990 through 2020. There were 17 fatal strike events reported nation-wide. Two occurred in WA(an American white pelican in 2018 and an American green-winged teal in 2019). Smaller passerines and raptors were the most commonly struck birds in Washington. No wildlife strikes were reported for ELN, however USDA WS witnessed near misses during site visits. It is likely that strikes occurred at ELN,but were not reported to the FAA(Linnell et al. 1999). 1-3 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 2 Wildlife Hazard Evaluation For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft,the FAA(AC 150/5200-33C) recommends a separation distance of 10,000 feet between the airport's aircraft operating area and hazardous wildlife attractants. Hazardous wildlife attractants are those features that offer food,water, and/or shelter to hazardous wildlife. These attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated within this separation distance. USDA WS conducted a WHE to use in the development of this WHMP. This evaluation involved 12 formal and 1 informal site visits to ELN from February 2022 through January 2023. The purpose of the site visits was to identify the presence or absence of hazardous wildlife throughout the year and identify the features that attracted them. Although the number of animals, location, and activity were recorded, USDA WS did not attempt to quantify these observations in a manner allowing for rigorous statistical analyses, such as those of a formal FAA-approved WHA. USDA WS gave specific attention to evaluating the effects of cattle grazing on airport property. USDA WS identified the presence of multiple hazardous wildlife guilds and significant hazardous wildlife attractants. Some wildlife guilds posed a risk throughout the year while others posed risks seasonally. 2.1 Methods The airfield was divided into different locations based on habitat type,boundaries, and roads(Figure 2). Twenty-minute incursion surveys were conducted at 2 points along the runway and/or a transect was driven during each site visit. An incursion survey is used to specifically document wildlife crossing the runway. The transect generally took 90 to 120 minutes to complete. When hazardous wildlife were observed, a line was drawn into a GIS (ESRI ArcGIS Pro,Figure 3) database developed by USDA WS in Washington, showing the movement path/location of the animal(s). The date,time,weather, location, species, abundance, activity, and attractant observed were recorded for each entry. Species were grouped into respective guilds, based on taxonomy. Blackbirds—European starlings,red-winged blackbirds, and yellow-headed blackbirds; Corvids—American crows,black-billed magpies, and common ravens; Raptors—American kestrels,bald eagles,northern harriers,red-tailed hawks, rough- legged hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, and turkey vultures; Shorebirds—killdeer; 2-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Songbirds—American robins, horned larks, northern shrike, various sparrows, and western meadowlarks; Upland—gray partridges and California quail; Waders—great blue herons; and Waterfowl—American coot, American green winged-teal,American wigeon, bufflehead, Canada geese, greater white-fronted geese, mallards, pied-billed grebes, and ring-necked ducks. 7 NE Pasture i pasture • �� { i i1-29 MID' i� Transect route 7-25 MID Incursion survey points - - Ramp', Locations Figure 2. Map showing the driving transect and names for each location used during the WHE. & ';i1 1�• - N PasureiR 1,!!�. 11 APR ,\\ 1'- ✓ar r � Locations Guild `` ( NE Pasture t ® Blackbirds Corvlds ;;,Gi W UnDev.J ` wpm Pasture "` , , 11=29 MID rs Shorebirds Songbirds I - T Upland Waders /h Waterfowl `` 7-25 MID Zr ppR t Figure 3. The line colors correspond to different guilds of hazardous wildlife observed during the W H E. Guilds with fewer than 10 observations are not shown. 2-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan The data were used to identify areas of highest concern based on the numbers of animals observed and the number of times a guild was observed. Both variables are important when identifying wildlife hazards. For example, a flock of 100 geese crossing the runway once is a significant hazard that one time. A pair of geese crossing the runway 50 times is a hazard 50 times. Therefore, it is critical that we not only analyze the abundance of a guild, but also how often(i.e., the frequency)the guild was present. Figure 4 shows that the north pasture area r _ attracted the highest abundance ► of hazardous NE Pasture wildlife. Figure 5 shows that the w same area also had Pashse W _ .: the greatest number of records of hazardous _ wildlife. �• 7 APR - - -7-25 h1ID fir. APR Locations —'RaRIP' Figure 4. Hotspot map showing the highest abundance of hazardous wildlife were observed in the north pasture area. Darker is higher. The pond in this area is a significant attractant to waterfowl and blackbirds. APa t.,A tut Pasture Vi U,0- o. Pasture W Pasture 11-29 MID Inner Triangle 7 APR 7-25 MID 25-29 APRs:. Locations - + I Figure 5. Hotspot map showing the highest number of hazardous wildlife records(frequency of occurrence)were observed in the north pasture area. Darker is higher. The pond in this area is a significant attractant to waterfowl and blackbirds. 2-3 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 2.1.1 Hazardous Guilds Hazardous wildlife were present during all site visits (Figure 6). There was a lower frequency of occurrence and fewer hazardous wildlife observed in November and January(surveys were not conducted in December, but we suspect the results would have been similar), most likely due to below freezing temperatures causing open water to ice over. Frozen ponds, creeks, ditches, etc. are not considered an attractive habitat for wildlife. OccurrenceAverage Abundance and Frequency of HazardousObserved Abundance*2.1.,290 blackbirds 46 00 30 400 20 00 • 15 Fe, 200co 10 00 Oct Figure 6. Average monthly abundance and frequency of occurrence(based on the#of site visits)for hazardous wildlife observed during the WBE. These numbers are for comparative purposes only and are not an estimate of the populations. Raptors, waterfowl, corvids, and blackbirds were the most frequently observed hazardous wildlife during the WHE, respectively (Figure 7). Blackbirds,waterfowl, corvids, upland occurrenceAbundance and Frequency of HazardousObserved at Bowers Field 0 blackbirds -. 500 Abundance 400 300 00 00 . Figure 7. Breakdown of the number of hazardous wildlife observed and how often they were observed at ELN during the WHE. 2-4 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan birds, and raptors were the most abundant, respectively. Coyotes, dove, heron, songbirds, shorebirds, and upland birds were observed,but with notably lower frequency of occurrences and abundances. Raptors Raptors are the 2nd most frequently struck guild, 1990—2020 (Dolbeer et al. 2021)and are common in central Washington throughout the year. Regionally,raptor abundance increases after the nesting season and again during fall and spring migrations. Raptors were documented throughout the entire area(Figure 8) and throughout the year, with peaks in August and November. These months correspond to periods when immature birds leave the nest and during fall migration,respectively. The fewest raptor observations occurred in June, January, and February. Most adult females are sitting on nests in June and July, so they are less likely to be observed flying around and hunting. There is often snow on the ground in January and February,which hides their prey(small rodents), forcing raptors to travel offsite to feed. Raptors were most often observed individually and occasionally in pairs. � a4 1 �•NE Pasture Pasture i Pasture 1 V29 MID t Inner , Triangle 7/APR i- s MID 25 29 APR _ p Ra tors Ramp, Nest Locations Figure 8. Raptor observations throughout the airfield. 2-5 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Waterfowl Waterfowl were the 5th most commonly struck guild in the United States, 1990—2020, but involved in 28%of all damaging strikes(Dolbeer et al. 2021). Waterfowl were common throughout most of the year. The fewest waterfowl observations occurred in June. This guild nests in June/July,which is also when they molt their flight feathers,preventing them from flying and being observed during most surveys. Very few waterfowl were observed when ice formed over areas that were normally open water. There was a notable abundance in February, likely due to thawing ponds and ducks from the south starting to migrate back north. Most waterfowl were observed using open water in the north and northeast pasture areas, with pond V(Figure 1)in the north pasture being the most significant attractant identified during the WHE(Figure 9). Waterfowl were seen individually and in flocks of up to 75 birds. ['r w S N Pasture ` NE Pasture ` t — r ` l 4 'rty;% W Pasture i4-29 MID A" Inter i Tri'angk _ r APR 7- MI© 25-29 APR Locations — - Figure 9. Waterfowl were most attracted to areas of open water north of the runway. 2-6 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Corvids Black-billed magpies, crows, and ravens are common throughout central and eastern Washington. They are opportunistic scavengers and predators. Crows and ravens are routinely observed at airports,but they do not show up in the national wildlife strike database as often as their abundance at airports would suggest. Research supports the idea that corvids are intelligent birds,which leads some people to believe that they are "airport savvy"and avoid flying into aircraft. Be that as it may,there are>90 corvid strikes in the National Wildlife Strike Database, accounting for>$3M in damage. Corvid(crows,magpies, and ravens)activity was not restricted to anywhere in particular (Figure 10), and they were common throughout the year. Their population peaked in August,when young birds left the nest. Crows and ravens were seen in groups of 1-3 birds, whereas black-billed magpies were seen in flocks up to 50 birds. � N I 11 APR Pasture _ W Un Pasture W,Pasture 1, $ Inner Triangle i APR 25 29 APR Locations -: Ramp Figure 10. There were no areas of emphasis for corvid activity. 2-7 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Blackbirds Blackbirds are common throughout Washington. European starlings were the 6t'most frequently struck species across the United States, 1990—2020 (Dolbeer et al. 2021). The most significant blackbird observation was a roost of>20,000 birds at pond V (Figure 1)in the north pasture area in August(Figure 11). Some blackbirds were observed in the cattails along other areas of open water and 3 flocks of 20-200 birds each were documented feeding around the cattle in the west undeveloped pasture area. The fewest observations occurred in the winter,probably because of a lack of food on airfield property. 1'1 APR �• I P s NE Pasture W.UnDeW, } F' Pasture W Raure \ 11-29 MID irnie - T�9 7,-25 M1D 25-29 APR Locations _7 - Figure 11. There was a roost containing>20,000 European starlings around the pond located in the north pasture area in August 2022. 2-8 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 2.1.2 Habitats and Attractants Table 1. Available acreage of USDA WS surveyed 8 habitat types (primary surfaces) each primary surface(habitat available at the airfield. Upland/pasture, grassland, types) sim.-eyed at Bowers Field. pavement,woody/tree,water,mixed, shrub, and human-made structures. Upland/pasture, grassland, Primary Surface Acres pavement,woody/tree, and water were the most used, land/Pasture 525 respectively. These areas accounted for roughly 822 Grassland 195 acres (Table 1). Water was one of the least abundant Pavernent 93 resources,yet it was the most attractive habitat at the Woody/tree 5 airfield(Figure 12) and attracted more blackbirds and waterfowl than all other guilds combined. Water 4 Grand Total 822 WildlifeAbundance and Frequency of Occurrence of Hazardous Observed per of . • Bowers Field Frequency15 Occurence Abundance 12 Woodland GrasslandUpland/PasturePavement Figure 12. Water was the most significant attractant of hazardous wildlife identified during the WHE. Most notable was pond V in the north pasture(Figures 9 and 11). Pond V, in the north pasture area(Figure 1),with its vegetation in and along the shoreline, was responsible for attracting more hazardous wildlife than all other areas combined. Ducks were observed loafing, feeding, flying into, and flying out of pond V. Once temperatures dropped low enough to freeze this pond(and other areas of permanent and temporary standing water),waterfowl presence was negligible. When it appeared to be thawing(but still had a thin sheet of ice over it),hundreds of ducks were observed circling over the pond, apparently trying to determine if they could access it. This activity posed a significant strike threat to aircraft in the pattern. 2-9 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Over 20,000 European starlings and other blackbirds were observed flying into,around, out of, and roosting in the cattails and trees/shrubs surrounding the shoreline of pond V in August. Significantly fewer blackbirds were observed using the pond other times of the year. It is common for adult and immature blackbirds and starlings to congregate in large roosts in mid to late summer. These roosts may be used again during winter and spring migration. Water is typically one of the most attractive habitats at airports across the country, but this level of significant use was unexpected. Other than a limited number of European starlings feeding and loafing around the areas where supplemental feed was provided for cattle, in the west undeveloped pasture(noted above), cattle grazing on airport property did not appear to attract hazardous wildlife in a manner that negatively impacted aviation safety. Calving was not permitted on airport property, which likely reduced the presence of large scavengers. 2.2 WHE Conclusion and Recommendations ELN does not have a wildlife observation,control,and strike database,nor are there records of a control program at the airfield. USDA WS recommends that ELN develop a hazardous wildlife control program. USDA WS will provide a useful example database and recommends that ELN use it or develop their own. USDA WS has yet to encounter an airport that does not have some level of hazardous wildlife activity, and ELN is no exception. However,mammals(e.g., coyotes), pigeons/doves, shorebirds (e.g.,killdeer and other plovers),upland birds(e.g.,pheasant and quail),and wading birds(e.g.,herons and egrets),which are typically observed at/around airports throughout Washington,were infrequently observed and few in number. Songbirds were frequently observed but are not a guild that wildlife hazard management programs generally focus control efforts or habitat management towards. Nationally, they are often struck,but rarely cause damage. Songbirds can attract some predators, which would be more hazardous to aviation safety,but that was not observed during the WHE. Directing habitat management towards deterring or excluding this guild could result in increasing the attractiveness for a more hazardous guild. Cattle grazing did not appear to increase wildlife hazards and likely helps manage vegetation and reduce weedy species in areas where grazing occurs. Calving operations are not permitted on airport property and that policy should continue. The following is a practical discussion for dealing with the key hazardous guilds documented during this WHE-blackbirds, corvids,raptors, and waterfowl. 2-10 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 2.2.1 Blackbirds Three flocks of 20-200 starlings were observed using the areas where supplemental cattle feed was provided, but these birds would likely have used other areas of the airfield rather than being attracted to the west undeveloped pasture area. Supplemental feed in the winter has been ongoing for years,but large flocks were not regularly observed using the feed during the WHE. Therefore, USDA WS does not believe that the supplemental feed was a significant attractant or that it resulted in negative impacts to aviation safety. The>20,000 starlings roosting along pond V was the most significant hazard to aviation safety observed during the WHE. Roosts like these often occur in the same locations year after year. This is likely a well-developed roost and not the first year of its existence. Eliminating the roost should result in an effective dispersal of most blackbirds from the airport. However, monitoring will be required to make sure the birds are dispersed,and not just moved to a different area on the airport. There are practical actions that can be taken to eliminate the roost. Recommendations include: 1) Divert drainage water from transiting onto airfield property and creating/maintaining pond V. Drain the pond and remove the cattails and woody vegetation around it. Without water,the vegetation will not persist. Without the vegetation,there will be nothing for the birds to roost in. a. Additionally, draining the pond would deter/exclude all waterfowl from wanting to use it(this will be discussed under waterfowl). 2) Remove the vegetation in/around pond V without mitigating the water. This would eliminate the roost habitat. If the vegetation is allowed to grow back,the roost could be re-established. This means the area would need routine monitoring and labor to remove vegetation every 2 to 3 years. a. This would not deter waterfowl from using the pond. 3) Begin a program to actively harass and lethally remove blackbirds from the area. This would generally require the use of pyrotechnics and firearms for at least 3-5 evenings in a row, beginning as soon as blackbirds start using the roost. After that,evening site visits should be made to ensure no starlings return; every other evening the first week and less often thereafter. Because of the dry conditions in the summer,pyrotechnics should be used cautiously. Firearms with size 7 or smaller non-toxic bird shot would be more effective and less likely to start a fire than pyrotechnics. a. Starlings are an invasive species and no permit is needed to shoot them. 4) As long as pond V exists, it should be monitored several evenings a month and birds hazed from the area whenever observed. 2-11 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 2.2.2 Corvids Corvids were observed flying around the area, loafing in the grass, shrublands, and upland/pasture areas, and simply transiting over the airport. They are opportunistic feeders,eating almost anything. It is extremely difficult to remove enough of every possible food source to make a difference, but the airport should continue to ensure that tenants and neighbors keep their dumpsters closed and garbage secure. Hazing this guild and applying limited lethal reinforcement would have the greatest impact on reducing their presence on the airfield. There are ample offsite areas where this guild could thrive, if given a little encouragement to abandon ELN. 2.2.3 Raptors Reducing their prey base (mice and voles) is the best approach for reducing raptor abundance. Mowing the infield as short as possible helps to limit the abundance of small rodents but does not eliminate it. Small rodents can disperse into the infield from the areas outside the fence. Raptors were observed perched and hunting throughout the airfield and surrounding area. Hazing,trapping and translocation, and limited lethal removal are also useful methods for managing raptor abundance at airports. USDA WS recommends three methods for managing raptors at ELN. 1) Reduce the prey base. Rodenticides are available in granular form that can be mechanically broadcasted over large areas,hand applied into specific areas, and used in bait stations if required. Most airports using these products only need to apply them every 3-5 years. Even if the airport was successful in controlling rodents,raptors would continue attempting to use the area because it looks like areas where they have successfully hunted. If they are unsuccessful in foraging,they will move on in short order,but other raptors would then show up and"test the water"until they are also unsuccessful and the cycle repeats. Even though this would happen,the duration between raptors leaving and new raptors showing up could be several days to several weeks,reducing the frequency of occurrence and abundance of raptors on the airfield. a. Although not routinely observed during the WHE, reducing the rodent population would also likely reduce the attraction for coyotes and herons. 2) Hazing,trapping/translocating,and limited lethal reinforcement are additional methods to employ to deter raptors from airfields. When food is abundant, raptors will find ways to tolerate hazing, or will disperse for a short period and then return after airport staff are gone. When food is limited,hazing is more effective because raptors don't have a good reason to tolerate the harassment. Decades of trapping and translocating raptors from airports across the country has shown that about 80—90%of the birds do not return(Schafer et al. 2002, Schafer and Washburn 2016). Immature birds are naive and easily trapped. Migrating 2-12 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan birds, including adults, are often food stressed, making them more susceptible to being trapped. Adults that breed on and around the airfield are most likely to return. When this occurs and if they present a strike risk, lethal removal is generally required to protect aviation safety. Swedish goshawk traps are excellent tools for trapping immature and migrating raptors. ELN would benefit from employing 3-4 of these across the airfield. Once set,they can be checked a few times a day and allowed to run over night. In lieu of routine trap checks,ELN could purchase trap transmitters that notify users when the trap is triggered, limiting the need for in-person trap checks. 3) Prevent successful nesting. One red-tailed hawk nest was observed to the west of the airfield, in the trees along the creek(see the red icon in the lower left corner of Figure 8). Destroying raptor nests or at least making their eggs non-viable (USDA WS has replaced eggs with infertile chicken eggs) is effective in reducing the number of immature birds learning to fly and forage on airports. Waterfowl Waterfowl are a serious risk to aviation safety at ELN. Most waterfowl were observed using or attempting to use pond V,the same pond that the>20,000 European starlings roosted at. As with blackbirds,there are practical actions that can be taken to minimize the risk from waterfowl. The most important is to eliminate/minimize water on/around airport property. 1) Prevent drainage water from entering into pond V. Without water,there will be few to no waterfowl (some geese would continue to use the general area for loafing and feeding). a. Removing the vegetation around this pond would also significantly reduce the abundance of blackbirds. 2) Divert drainage around the airfield and/or reduce the number of ditches going through airport property. No waterfowl were observed using the infield area. All observations of waterfowl using the airfield were related to water(e.g., ditches, ponds, and areas of temporary standing water)outside the AOA fence. Some individuals may contend that waterfowl were not an issue because they were attracted to the areas outside of the AOA. However,Figure 8 shows that waterfowl crossed the traffic pattern as they travelled to and from these attractants. Less water entering the airfield from the surrounding area would mean less water for waterfowl to be attracted to. Consolidating ditches into 1 or 2 drainages would also limit areas where waterfowl would be present,which would then reduce the amount of time personnel spend patrolling the area for hazardous wildlife. 2-13 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 3) Transition open drainage systems to covered or underground systems. This would eliminate the attraction to all hazardous wildlife. 2-14 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 3 Authority and responsibilities 3.1 Airport Manager The Airport Manager has direct supervision and control over all matters connected with the WHMP. The Airport Manager will serve as the Wildlife Coordinator(WC)and will be responsible for or designate personnel for the following actions: 1. Develop an integrated wildlife damage management program and ensure that personnel are properly trained. Such training includes radio communications, driving on the AOA, and safe use of wildlife damage management tools. 2. Implement and oversee habitat maintenance/modification and control activities. 3. Conduct routine inspections of areas critical to wildlife hazard management and maintain a record of the action. 4. Obtain materials and depredation permits necessary to control hazardous wildlife. 5. Develop, oversee, and maintain the wildlife observation, control, and strike electronic database. 6. Enter known/suspected wildlife strikes into the FAA's National Wildlife Strike Database. 7. Issue Notice to Airmen(NOTAM)when hazardous wildlife cannot be removed or otherwise mitigated. 8. Develop and enforce a"No Feeding Animals"policy for implementation on the airport. 9. Provide public relations support for wildlife control activities as necessary. 10. Coordinate and participate in reviewing and updating the WHMP as needed. 11. Ensure that all ELN personnel,FBO,pilots, and private operators are familiar with the importance of reporting wildlife hazards and strikes and ways to report those events. 12. Monitor proposed off-site projects and land use changes and provide technical assistance to address issues and concerns associated with wildlife hazard management. 13.Review proposed airport facilities design plans to minimize wildlife attraction. 3.2 Airport Maintenance Personnel Airport maintenance personnel will be responsible for the following wildlife hazard management actions: 1. Conduct runway sweeps and physical inspections of areas critical to wildlife hazard management(on days when scheduled staffing are present). 2. Perform habitat management,non-lethal and lethal control, fence repair,and other hazardous wildlife management activities as necessary. 3-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 3. Enter records of runway sweeps/physical inspections,wildlife control actions, strikes, and habitat management into the dedicated, electronic,wildlife observation, control, and strike electronic database. 4. Monitor wildlife activities and report confirmed/reported strikes and significant or abnormal activities to the WC. 5. Enforce the airport's"No Feeding"policy. 6. Participate in reviewing the WHMP. 3.3 USDA Wildlife Services USDA WS may enter into cooperative agreements to assist ELN with wildlife damage management, WHMP review, and/or training assistance. 3-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 4 Local, state, and federal wildlife regulations and permits Federal, state, and local governments administer laws and regulations that protect most wildlife and their habitat. Several laws affect wildlife management at airports and wildlife management personnel should be educated about these regulations to ensure compliance. In general,taking most wildlife is regulated through permit processes, overseen by federal and state agencies. Eagles and threatened and endangered(T&E) species require a permit to harass. A federal annual migratory bird depredation permit is necessary for a successful wildlife control program at ELN. USDA WS provided a completed Form 37 and guidance on how to apply for this permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 4.1 Wildlife Categories CFR Title 50,RCW Chapter 77, and WAC Chapter 232-12 define the categories of wildlife and regulations for them. Some are overseen by the USFWS and others by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For the purposes of this document, feral and free roaming dogs, cats, and other domestic animals are considered"wildlife"because of hazards they pose to aircraft, but are mostly regulated under municipal laws. Table 2 lists species and groups (though not exhaustive) that wildlife control personnel may face throughout the year and whether permits are needed for control of those species. Wildlife control personnel will be trained in species identification so they can determine the relevant laws and necessary permits for those species they intend to manage. 4.2 Federal Wildlife Regulations Several federal regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,the Lacey Act,the Endangered Species Act,Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940,the Clean Water Act,the National Environmental Policy Act,and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act regulate various aspects of ELN's wildlife management activities. Additional regulations that may affect wildlife control activities at ELN are found in the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR),and several federal agencies may be responsible for their implementation. Federal wildlife laws are typically administered by the USFWS and primarily involve migratory birds and T&E species. 4-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Table 2. Pertinent wildlife of special concern in Kittitas County and permits necessary for control, as required by federal and state wildlife agencies as of March 2022). Harassment Lethal Reinforcement 2WDFW Federal 2WDFW Federal 'Federal/State Permit Permit Permit Permit Species T/E Species Required Required Required Required 3MAMMALS Coyotes no no no no Deer no no yes no Feral Cat/Dog no no no no BIRDS 'Blackbirds no no no no 'Crows no no no no Feral pigeon (rock pigeon) no no no no Pheasant, quail, no turkey no yes no Gulls no no no yes Raptors no no no yes Eagles no yes yes yes Falcons no no no yes Hawks no no no yes Ferruginous hawk ST yes no yes yes Northern spotted owl SE/FT yes yes yes yes Songbirds no no no yes Wading Birds no no no yes Sandhill crane SE yes no yes yes Great blue heron no no no yes Waterfowl no no no yes American white pelican ST yes no yes yes Geese no no no yes Ducks no no no yes 'Federal T/E species cannot be harassed/killed without a special permit under the Endangered Species Act. 2RCW 77.36.030 provides for the killing of non-protected/T&E wildlife that pose an immediate threat to human safety at airports. WDFW prohibits the "malicious" harassment of state-listed T/E species. 'WDFW permits are required for"body-gripping"traps. 'CFR 50, Part 21.43 allows for the killing of crows, magpies, select blackbirds, and grackles when they are a health threat. 4-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 4.3 Washington Wildlife Regulations Several Washington government agencies have regulations that affect wildlife control at airports. Pertinent regulations can be found in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 232-12 and the Revised Code of Washington(RCW)Title 77. Kittitas County and municipality regulations may also affect ELN's wildlife management efforts. State wildlife laws involving migratory and resident birds, mammals,reptiles, and amphibians, as well as state T&E species are generally administered by WDFW. State permits are generally required to take most wildlife species. However, WDFW honors USFWS depredation permits for migratory birds and permits for harassing bald eagles at airports. 4.4 Birds 4.4.1 European Starlings House Sparrows and Eurasian Collared Dove European starlings,house sparrows, and Eurasian collared dove are non-game birds that are not migratory. No permit is required to harass or take them. 4.4.2 Feral Birds Feral pigeons(rock pigeons)are typically the only species of concern in this category. State and federal laws do not regulate this guild and no permit is required to harass or take them. Nonetheless,taking these species will only be done by personnel trained to distinguish the differences between domestic and wild birds with similar appearances. 4.4.3 MigratoryBirds A USFWS depredation permit allows control of migratory birds (e.g., gulls, raptors, songbirds,waterfowl, etc.),but not most game birds (e.g.,turkeys and upland birds, which require a permit from WDFW)provided that the species are not listed as federal or state threatened or endangered. Any airport staff implementing lethal removal shall obtain adequate training,beforehand,by USDA Wildlife Services or another FAA qualified airport wildlife biologist. Federal migratory bird depredation permits expire on 31 January each year and a renewal request must be submitted by 31 December each year. A report of lethal take(does not include harassment) for 1 January through 31 December each year must be submitted to USFWS by 31 January of each year,this includes depredation order species. Every permit lists the number of animals allowed to be taken and conditions that must be followed. Personnel conducting lethal removal of migratory birds at ELN will possess a copy of the valid permit and abide by the given conditions of that permit. 4-3 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 4.4.4 Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Crows. and Magpies There is a Depredation Order(50 CFR 21.43)for some species that are present at ELN. A federal permit is not necessary to control red-winged or Brewer's blackbirds,brown- headed cowbirds,American fish and Northwestern crows, and black-billed magpies when concentrated in such numbers and manner that they are a health hazard. When conducting control actions under this Depredation Order,non-lethal methods must have been used prior to employing lethal methods,non-toxic shot must be used(except for air rifles, air pistols, and .22 rimfire firearms), and take must be reported to the USFWS Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office in Portland, OR annually(should be included on the annual migratory bird depredation permit report). 4.5 Mammals 4.5.1 Game Mammals A state permit is required to control deer and elk, unless there is an immediate threat. The Revised Code of Washington(RCW)77.36.030 (Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage), allows for the take of most wildlife under specific situations. (1)Subject to limitations and conditions established by the commission, the owner, the owner's immediate family member, the owner's documented employee, or a tenant of real property may trap, consistent with RCW 77.15.194, or kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240. (2) The commission shall establish the limitations and conditions of this section by rule. The rules must include: (a)Appropriate protection for threatened or endangered species; (b)Instances when verbal or written permission is required to kill wildlife; (c)Species that may be killed under this section; and(d)Requirements for the disposal of wildlife trapped or killed under this section. Deer and rabbits are game mammals and may need to be managed from time to time. Nonlethal harassment and exclusion are the preferred methods for reducing deer hazards at airports. 4.5.2 Fubbearers Beaver,bobcat, and fox are considered furbearers, but coyotes are not. Although not expected to be found inside the AOA fence,these species may be removed by firearm, without a permit,but a permit is necessary to use body-gripping traps. Trapping permits 4-4 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan are available through the WDFW office in Olympia, WA, (360) 902-2926. USDA WS is available to assist with permit applications and trapping. 4.5.3 Non-game Mammals Few non-game mammals that may need to be controlled are present at ELN. Of these, coyotes present the greatest threat to aviation. Mice and voles are secondary/indirect threats because they are a substantial attractant for coyotes,raptors, and other predators. Permits to lethally remove coyotes are only required if body-gripping traps are used. Maintaining the perimeter fence is the best approach to preventing coyotes from entering the airfield. Rodenticides can be applied to remove mice and voles,though many require a certified pesticide applicators license. Zinc phosphide is the most common and effective rodenticide used at airports. When coyotes do breach the fence, WS recommends immediate lethal removal. Chasing coyotes with vehicles is a quick,but unpredictable and temporary fix. Coyotes often run away in unexpected directions and pushing them may result in several runway crossings before finally departing the airfield. Also, once they know how to access the airfield, they often repeat that action on a routine basis. Additionally, other coyotes are likely to follow the scent/track of the initial coyote and show up inside the fence. It is better to immediately remove one coyote than to remove multiple coyotes soon thereafter. 4.6 Reptiles & Amphibians At their current abundance,these species do not present a major attractant to hazardous wildlife. 4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.7.1 Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species There were no federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat observed at ELN during the WHE. The Federal Endangered Species Act(Sec. 2 [16 U.S.C. 1531])and Washington Endangered Species Act(RCW 77.12.020; WAC 232-12-297)protect animal and plant species threatened with extinction. These acts classify species as endangered or threatened. Once listed, a threatened or endangered(T&E) species cannot be taken or harassed without a special permit. Eagles are not federally listed,but they afforded protection under the U.S. Eagle Protection Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940. In Washington, several additional species are given special protection by being listed as state T&E species. Some of these may also be federally listed,while others may not. If a significant hazard exists with a listed species that jeopardizes air safety, WS and either 4-5 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan the USFWS or WDFW, depending on the species involved, should be contacted for assistance(see Table 1 for a listing of federal threatened or endangered species which may be present at ELN). ELN wildlife control personnel will learn to identify pertinent T&E species and understand the regulatory permitting processes required for their effective management. No control activities will be aimed toward T&E species without appropriate authorization. Attracting T&E species to an area they may be accidently killed by aircraft is counter- productive to their well-being. In order to protect aviation safety,T&E species, and species of federal/state concern,ELN will avoid establishing habitat on the airfield that could attract T&E species and species of federal/state concern. This action is congruous with FAA CertAlert 06-07. 4.7.2 Avoiding Impacts to Threatened and Endangeredpecies There were no federally-listed T&E,proposed, or candidate species observed during the WHE. The proposed actions outlined in this WHMP involve application of the most appropriate, effective, and biologically sound wildlife control methods available. This approach is known as Integrated Wildlife Damage Management and includes habitat management and direct control. Collisions between birds and aircraft nearly always result in the death of the bird, in addition to threatening human safety. Consequently,potential T&E species and eagle nesting habitat on and around the airfield will be eliminated to the extent possible,thus discouraging T&E species and eagles from being drawn to the area where they may be struck and killed. Guidelines in this WHMP were developed to ensure wildlife hazard management activities would not have adverse effects on threatened or endangered species, eagles, or designated critical habitat,while protecting the species from being struck and killed. Habitat management provides the greatest long-term remedial measure for reducing wildlife attractions on an airfield. Habitat management measures are discussed in Section 5 of this WHMP and include elimination of standing water and incorporating wildlife considerations in the early planning stages of new construction projects. Proper habitat management can prevent T&E species from being attracted to the airport in the first place. Direct control efforts generally provide a more immediate response to hazardous situations, but the desired effects are often not long-lasting. Some of the wildlife control and dispersal methods that may be employed at ELN include pyrotechnic hazing,Mylar flash tape,vehicular harassment,nest removal, selective trapping, and shooting air rifles, rifles, and shotguns. No direct control will be conducted towards T&E species without first obtaining authorization from the USFWS or WDFW. 4-6 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 4.7.3 Habitat Conservation USFWS and WDFW are responsible for wildlife conservation and recovery plans. These plans require the identification of critical habitat when it is associated with the significant decline of a species. Habitat alterations and developments may be prohibited in areas where critical habitat has been designated or where such changes could result in the inadvertent take of an endangered species. There is no critical habitat listed on or adjacent to ELN and ELN may participate in discussions that may result in the listing of critical habitat on or near the airport. Per CertAlert 06-07, airport operators must decline to adopt habitat management techniques that jeopardize aviation safety. Adopting plans that create habitat attractive to hazardous wildlife (whether a listed species or not)could place the airport in violation of their grant assurances and/or subject them to an FAA enforcement action and possible civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 44706, as implemented by 14 CFR 139.337. ELN is not a Part 139 airport, but recognizes Part 139.337 guidance,ACs, and CertAlerts as national best management practices. ELN is also required to meet FAA grant assurances,which require compliance with many Part 139 level policies. ELN may seek assistance from USDA WS prior to consultation with U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS,or WDFW regarding hazardous wildlife and wildlife habitat issues. 4.8 FAA Advisory Circulars and CertAlerts The FAA provides several Advisory Circulars (AC)and CertAlerts to guide and assist airports when dealing with hazardous wildlife issues. Although ELN is not a Part 139 airport, it recognizes the following guidance as best management practices. 4.8.1 Advisory Circulars AC 150/5200-33C Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports This AC provides guidance on land uses that may attract hazardous wildlife onto or near airports. AC 150/5200-32B Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strike This AC discussed the importance of reporting ALL wildlife strikes, how the Feather Identification Lab at the Smithsonian Institute assists with bird identification, and ways to report wildlife strikes. It also explains the importance of reporting strikes and the value of the National Wildlife Strike Database. 4-7 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan AC 150/5200-34A Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports This AC contains guidance on complying with federal requirements regarding the construction or establishment of landfills near public airports. AC150/5200-38 Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. 4.8.2 CertAlerts 04-09 Relationship Between FAA and USDA WS This CertAlert describes the Memorandum of Agreement between the FAA and USDA WS. The FAA recognizes USDA WS' expertise in dealing with wildlife hazards to aviation. 04-16 Deer Aircraft Hazard This reminds airport operators of the importance of controlling deer on and around airfields. 06-07 Concerns Regarding Habitat Projects for Threatened and Endangered Species Airport operators must decline to adopt habitat management techniques that jeopardize aviation safety. Adopting such techniques could place them in violation of their obligations and subject to an FAA enforcement action and possible civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 44706, as implemented by 14 CFR 139.337. 98-05 Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife Airport operators should ensure that grass species and other varieties of plants attractive to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. 4-8 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 5 Habitat management and land use Habitat management is a critical proactive measure to reduce wildlife hazards by not attracting wildlife to the immediate area. All airfields should be managed so the area is unattractive to most hazardous wildlife. It is impossible to make the area unattractive to all wildlife. As discussed in several areas of this plan,water is the primary attractive habitat. The other habitats are notably less attractive to hazardous wildlife. In general, animal abundance and diversity tends to increase in areas where vegetation abundance and diversity exists. Reducing vegetation diversity and edges is a known BMP for airport habitat management. Per CertAlert 06-07, ELN will maintain the habitat in a manner to best reduce the attraction to key hazardous wildlife. 5.1 Habitat Management 5.1.1 Open Water The WHE identified water as the least abundant, but the most attractive, habitat. Most of the attractive water areas are outside the AOA fence. It is the most significant habitat that attracted wildlife to the airfield in a manner risky to aviation safety. Waterfowl and blackbirds were the primary guilds using open water. The WHE recommended that ELN reduce the amount of open water as much as possible, specifically addressing the pond V in the north pasture area(Figures 1, 4, 9, and 11 in the WHE, Chapter 2 of this WHMP). ELN is undergoing an environmental review,which will aid in identifying which and how water features can be managed. 5.1.2 Woodlands This was the second least abundant habitat, but 2nd most attractive. Raptors and corvids were the primary guilds using woodlands. Controlled burning, herbicides, and physical removal/manipulation (e.g., falling) are widely accepted tools. ELN has an ongoing maintenance plan to reduce the amount and diversity of woodlands and shrubs in and outside the AOA fence. This plan will continue as funding allows. 5.1.3 Grasslands The area within the AOA fence is composed mainly of grass vegetation with shrubs along the ditches. Maintaining grass as sparse and short as possible is the preferred 5-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan management inside the AOA fence. This will provide a minimal amount of forage, nesting, and hiding opportunity for hazardous wildlife,while making it easiest for ELN and aviators to see hazardous wildlife using the infield. This should also result in fewer insects and small mammals present at the airfield,which can reduce the presence of predatory animals that are a direct risk to aviation safety. Controlled burning,herbicides, and physical removal/manipulation(e.g.,mowing) are widely accepted tools. Clover and alfalfa species will be exempted from seed mixtures used at ELN. 5.1.4 Pasture/Uplands This habitat was the most abundant and only found outside the AOA fence. It held the greatest vegetation diversity as well. Numerous ditches,ponds, shrubs, grass areas, paved surfaces, and woodlands were contained within this habitat. It ranked 31d in hazardous wildlife abundance and 4' in frequency per acre. The amount of vegetation diversity and edge habitat compound the attractiveness of this habitat type. Reducing vegetation diversity and edges is a known BMP for airport habitat management. Controlled burning,herbicides, and physical removal/manipulation(e.g.,brush hogging) are widely accepted tools. Cattle grazing is used to help manage vegetation heights and diversity while providing a revenue source for airfield management. The WHE noted that if calving did not occur on airport property, cattle grazing did not appear to serve as a notable wildlife hazard attractant. 5.1.5 Pavement Pavement was the 3rd most abundant habitat at the airfield and the least attractive. It can be important because many species use it for foraging on(e.g.,worms escaping flooded soil are easy targets and insects have nowhere to hide to avoid predators), warming themselves on cold days, and/or soaring in the thermals caused from the pavement heating. Removal is the only known method for addressing pavement that is a significant hazardous wildlife attractant. Pavement is not a significant attractant at ELN. 5.2 Cattle Grazing ELN leases areas outside of the AOA for cattle grazing. Calving activities are not permitted and dead cows must be immediately removed to avoid attracting hazardous scavengers(e.g., bald eagles, crows,magpies,ravens, and vultures). The WHE 5-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan concluded that this practice did not appear to be a significant hazardous wildlife attractant and it likely helps manage the vegetation. ELN may continue this practice until it deems it undesirable. 5.3 Fencing An appropriate wildlife fence (one that includes a buried apron) is the best approach to exclude coyotes and deer from airfields. Even still, coyotes and other small mammals can breach most wildlife fences. Vehicle and pedestrian gates and culverts/creeks going under the fence are typical weak areas. In some cases, coyotes have learned to climb 8- foot fences with 3-strand barbed-wire outriggers. The existing fence at ELN is not a true wildlife fence, but it is robust enough to exclude deer and elk. It does not have a buried apron and there are gaps under several of the gates that coyotes can fit through. Only 1 coyote was observed during the WHE(outside the AOA fence), but some coyote sign was observed inside the AOA. There is not an immediate need to alter the AOA fence. If coyote activity inside the AOA increases to an unacceptable level,ELN will identify and correct the breaches. 5.4 Construction Activities Construction and landscaping activities on and near the airport could impact the presence of hazardous wildlife at the airfield. Pertinent development/construction projects on and within the 10,000-foot FAA separation criteria will be reviewed in attempt to prevent the creation of hazardous wildlife attractants that could negatively impact aviation safety at ELN. ELN may consult with USDA WS or another FAA-approved airport wildlife biologist to ensure that vegetation unattractive to hazardous wildlife are used for on-site and off-site projects. 5.5 Remove or Modify Perching/Nesting Structures Birds use many structures on an airport for perching, but most often perch on the ground. ELN may remove unnecessary structures (e.g., old buildings and signage) if hazardous birds are routinely using them as perches. Active nesting by hazardous birds will be discouraged by harassment and/or removal/modification of nest sites. 5.6 Priorities for Habitat Management and Target Dates 5-3 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Table 3 identifies the habitat management priorities for ELN. This table reflects data gathered during, and recommendations in,the WHE. Habitat management is not exclusive to managing vegetation. It can include modifying the physical presence of human-made attractants. This table will be updated as tasks are completed or new tasks are identified(generally following periodic reviews of the WHMP). Table 3. List of habitat mana ementpriorities and target com letion dates. Action Priority Target Date Completion Date Eliminate pond V in the north pasture area(Requires High 2027 environmental approval) Remove vegetation around Summer shoreline of pond V in the north High 2025 pasture area Maintain infield grass as short High Ongoing ands arse as possible Minimize vegetation diversity through controlled burning, High Ongoing herbicides, and physical removal/manipulation Reduce the amount of water entering the airfield from offsite Moderate 2026 and reduce the number of ditches on airport property 5-4 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 6 Identification of resources to be provided by ELN for implementation of this WHMP PERSONNEL Airport Manager ELN Maintenance Personnel EQUIPMENT TO KEEP ON HAND AT AIRPORT OR INANAIRPORT VEHICLE Airport vehicle with fire extinguisher and radio for air traffic communication 15mm Pyrotechnic launcher and 6mm starter caps (not a single or double shot model) 15mm Pyrotechnics (screamers and bangers) 12 gauge shotgun and non-toxic shot Eye and hearing protection Binoculars Birdstrike collection kits - birdstrike report forms (FAA 5200-7) - latex gloves - alcohol wipe - gallon or quart zip-type bags Bird identification book Wildlife observation, control, and strike log forms 6-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 7 Wildlife control measures Wildlife"population management" is a general term discussed in managing wildlife hazards at airports. However, an airport's objective is not to manage wildlife populations (that is the role of state and federal wildlife managers such as WDFW and USFWS), rather it is to reduce risks that wildlife pose to aviation safety. ELN personnel will respond with appropriate means when they become aware of hazardous wildlife on the airfield and may notify local air traffic of those hazards. 7.1 Physical Inspections of the Movement Area and Other Areas Critical to Wildlife Hazard Management ELN will conduct inspections of the AOA for hazardous wildlife and attractants in conjunction with other daily on-airfield duties. Most often,these inspections will occur in the morning hours. These may not occur on weekends,holidays,or periods when weather may make vehicle travel unsafe. Hazardous wildlife observed, control actions, and wildlife strikes will be recorded in the wildlife observation, control, and strike log and then submitted to the Wildlife Coordinator for addition into the electronic wildlife observation, control, and strike database. ELN will clearly document when no hazardous wildlife are observed (by entering the date,time, and a zero in the#column)during these airfield inspections. Although recording a"zero"may seem a waste, it highlights that ELN is taking active wildlife hazard mitigation steps on a regular basis and serves to help determine the effectiveness of their actions. These"zero"records will be entered into the electronic wildlife observation, control, and strike database. 7.2 Direct Control Measures ELN will give priority to dispersing or removing hazardous wildlife from the runway and taxiways when they are observed. Birds attract other birds (e.g.,the reason why waterfowl hunters use decoys), so allowing even a few birds to persist on the airfield will decoy other birds and can increase the difficulty of dispersal. This strict approach prevents birds from habituating to the airfield,establishes a proper attitude for all personnel, and helps prioritize hazardous wildlife events as they occur. ELN will obtain and maintain a USFWS migratory bird depredation permit,which lists USDA WS as a subpermittee. ELN will not kill any wildlife without 100%positive species identification. ELN personnel and subpermittees will follow all conditions listed on the depredation permit. 7-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan No federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species are known to use ELN, so birds can be harassed and general terms (e.g., gull, hawk, duck) can be used to identify those birds. However,personnel will attempt to determine the specific species of bird whenever possible (wildlife dispersal, carcass reporting, strike reporting, etc.). All control actions will be recorded on the airport wildlife observation, control, and strike log and then submitted to the Wildlife Coordinator for addition into the electronic wildlife observation, control, and strike database. 7.2.1 Blackbirds (includingstarlings)tgs) and Corvids These guilds are generally attracted to large open fields, grain fields, stands of dense trees (thermal protection), roosting areas (i.e., the cattails around pond V in the north pasture), and unsecured garbage. Taller vegetation can offer feeding and hiding opportunities for these birds. ELN will work towards eliminating the pond V in the north pasture or at least minimizing the amount of water/vegetation in/around it. Loose garbage around an airfield is a significant FOD issue. In addition, it can attract these species. ELN will be diligent to ensure that trash can lids are secure and persistent garbage problems are corrected. ELN may harass these birds with vehicles, lights, sirens, and pyrotechnics and apply lethal reinforcement when necessary. 7.2.2 Raptors Eight raptor species were observed during the WHE. They were the most frequently observed guild during the WHE, but 5th most abundant(these are often solitary or paired up rather than in large flocks). Mice and voles are the usual attractant for most raptors. Keeping the vegetation as short and sparse as possible is the best proactive method to reducing the abundance of prey. Treating with insecticides and rodenticides is also effective in controlling prey numbers. ELN will monitor for notable increases in prey abundance. There will always be raptors attracted to ELN. Harassment using vehicles, lights, sirens, and pyrotechnics will be used as warranted. Trapping/translocation and lethal removal may be employed if unusually persistent and hazardous raptors use the airfield (after obtaining the proper migratory bird depredation permit). 7-2 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 7.2.3 Songbirds Songbirds were consistently seen during the WHE. This guild forages on seeds, fruits, and small insects/worms, often associated with all habitats. Short, sparse grass areas offer limited attraction, as there tends to be fewer seeds, fruits, and insects present. Habitat management is the critical method for managing these guilds. Harassment and lethal reinforcement rarely offer a benefit. Members of this guild are frequently struck, but infrequently cause damage. This guild is not a substantial risk to aviation safety. 7.2.4 Waterfowl Waterfowl were the 2n1 most frequently observed and 2nd most abundant guild during the WHE. The singular most attractive habitat for them was pond V,which also attracted >20,000 starlings in August 2022. As discussed above, ELN shall endeavor to remove or minimize this pond(Pond V),pending final environmental review. Most members of this guild are hunted several months a year and learn to avoid dangerous areas. Therefore,pyrotechnics, shotgun fire, and lethal reinforcement are effective methods for deterring this guild from the area. 7.2.5 Mammals No coyotes or deer were observed inside the AOA fence during the WHE, but both were observed on airport property. Deer are unlikely to access the airfield,but coyotes can. ELN will monitor coyote and deer presence and harass them from the airport upon detection. Coyotes,though not often seen, are the primary mammal of concern. Maintaining the AOA fence should protect the airfield from most coyote hazards. If coyotes persist, ELN may contact USDA WS or others to aid in lethal removal. If mammal hazards significantly increase, ELN may seek to add a buried apron to their fence. An effective and efficient way to remove coyotes is by shooting at night. Foothold traps are also very effective and require minimal staff time to set and monitor. These devices can be highly selective and work the entire time they are set. State law requires that airports obtain a body-gripping trap permit from WDFW and that traps must be checked at least every 24 hours. If trapping is needed, ELN will follow all state laws. Only safe, effective, humane,practical, and legal methods will be used. No mammals will be shot without 100%positive species identification. 7-3 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 7.2.6 Harassment and Deterrent Tools The following is a list of methods ELN may use for harassing and/or deterring hazardous wildlife from the airfield. Other methods may be employed as developed or if conditions warrant. Effigies Exclusion Lethal reinforcement Pyrotechnics Shooting harassment Sirens/distress calls Vegetation management Vehicle harassment 7.3 Communication between Wildlife Control Personnel and Local Air Traffic ELN does not have an air traffic control tower. Vehicles used while conducting wildlife control actions shall have a rotating overhead beacon and an operational two-way radio for monitoring and coordinating with local aircraft. All personnel assigned to vehicles will be trained in proper radio communication and familiar with aeronautical operations. ELN may communicate with fixed-base operators and pilots regarding any wildlife strikes or observations of hazardous wildlife activity at the airfield. Hazardous wildlife observations and wildlife strikes reported by pilots and fixed-base operators will be recorded in the electronic wildlife observation, control, and strike database. A notice will be posted in the FBO lounge,requesting that ELN management be notified of wildlife hazards and strikes. If ELN is not successful in immediately dispersing hazardous wildlife from the AOA, or if major wildlife hazards (such as geese on or near the active runway) are observed during aircraft operations,ELN will communicate this information to local traffic. Direct communication or NOTAMs will be used when appropriate. 7.4 Recording wildlife observations, control measures, and strikes As discussed throughout this section, ELN will document hazardous wildlife observations made during routine airfield inspections and may record hazardous wildlife observations made in conjunction with other on-airfield duties. Any control measures employed and possible wildlife strikes will be recorded (refer to AC 150/5200-32B or go to http://wildlife.faa.gov/for wildlife strike reporting procedures). Any dead wildlife found within 250 feet of centerline and 1,000 feet from runway ends will be reported as a wildlife strike, unless some alternative, obvious, cause of death is confirmed. Paper datasheets (Airport Inspection Log) for recording observations/control actions will be 7-4 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan kept in the wildlife control vehicle. These records will then be entered into electronic wildlife observation, control, and strike database, managed by the Wildlife Coordinator or designee (USDA WS may assist with database management). This electronic database will allow for simple and prompt review throughout the year, and especially for periodic review of the WHMP. USDA WS can provide a standardized Microsoft Excel database and training for entering these data. When ELN discovers a birdstrike and cannot identify it themselves, they may contact USDA WS or submit strike remains to the Smithsonian Institute's Feather Identification Laboratory (per AC 150/5200-32B). Wildlife strikes can be reported via www.wildlife.faa.gov AC 150/5200-32B identifies the following procedures for collecting and submitting birdstrike (and bat)remains. Collect and submit remains from known/suspected bird strikes or strike remains that involved an unknown animal from each impact location as soon as possible and send to the Feather Lab (Smithsonian). If remains cannot be sent as soon as possible, refrigerate or freeze them in a sealed plastic bag until mailed. (1) Complete the Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report online (www.wildlife.faa.go and print a copy to send with the remains. (2)Mail the report with feather material(see address below). (3) Provide your contact information if you wish to be informed of the species identification. Collect as much material as possible in a clean plastic/ Ziplock®bag. (Please, do not send whole birds.) (a) Pluck/pick a variety of many feathers representing color or patterns from the wings, tail, and body. (b) Do not cut off feathers. This removes the downy region needed to aid in identification. (c)Include any feathers with distinct colors or patterns. (d) Include any downy `fluff'. (e) Include beaks,feet, and talons if possible. 69 Where only a small amount of snarge material is available, such as scrapings from an engine or smears on wings or windshields, send all of it. (i)Dry material—Scrape or wipe off into a clean re-sealable bag or wipe the area with pre packaged alcohol wipe or spray with alcohol to loosen material then wipe with clean cloth/gauze. Include the alcohol wipe or piece of cloth in the bag. (Do not use water, bleach, or other cleansers —they destroy or degrade DNA.) (ii)Fresh material— Wipe the area with alcohol wipe and/or clean cloth/gauze or apply fresh tissue/blood to an optional Whatman FTA®DNA collecting card. (1) Do not use any sticky substance such as tape or post-it notes to attach feathers. (2) Collect remains from each impact location and place them in separate, labeled 7-5 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan bags. Indicate the location on aircraft from which each sample came (i.e., windshield, radome, etc.) on the bag. Please send whole feathers (tip and base) whenever possible as diagnostic characteristics are often found in the downy barbules at the feather base. Wings, as well as breast and tail feathers, should be sent whenever possible. Beaks,feet, bones, and talons are also useful diagnostic materials. Even blood smears can provide material for DNA analysis. Do not send entire bird carcasses through the mail. However,photographs of the carcasses can be very useful supplemental documentation. If sending fresh blood/tissue samples frequently for DNA identification, consider getting Whatman FTA®DNA cards. The material is sampled with a sterile applicator and placed onto the surface of the card that 'fixes"the DNA in the sample. For more information about ordering these items, contact the Feather Lab. Otherwise, if you only occasionally send blood/tissue samples, consider using a paper towel soaked with alcohol or an alcohol wipe to collect this type of material. Ethanol is the preferred type of alcohol. For Material Sent via Express Mail Service: Feather Identification Lab Smithsonian Institution NHB, E600, MRC 116 1Oth & Constitution Ave NW Washington DC 20560-0116 (This can be identified as "safety investigation material".) For Material Sent via US Postal Service: Feather Identification Lab Smithsonian Institution PO Box 37012 NHB, E600, MRC 116 Washington DC 20013-7012 7-6 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 8 Periodic evaluation and review of the WHMP Bowers Field management may invite representatives from the following agencies to participate to review the WHMP. Airport Manager Maintenance Personnel FAA WSDOT-Aviation Fixed-based Operator(s) Pilots USDA Wildlife Services City of Ellensburg Community Development Department During this meeting,participants shall review the wildlife observation, control, and strike data. ELN will discuss the effectiveness of wildlife dispersal and control efforts and any need for changes to permits or direct/technical assistance with USDA WS or another FAA-approved airport wildlife biologist. Participants will be reminded of the need for and proper procedures for collecting and reporting wildlife strike information(either on the web at http://wildlife.faa.gov/or using the FAA Form 5200-7). ELN may update this WHMP whenever they deem it warranted. The date in the footer of each page will reflect the most recent change to any page in the document. 8-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 9 A training program to provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the wildlife hazard management plan Personnel conducting wildlife control at ELN will receive wildlife hazard management training from a FAA-approved airport wildlife biologist at least once every 3 years. This training will reflect guidance provided by AC 150/5200-36A(or most current version) and will help ELN develop and retain familiarity with bird identification and wildlife control methods. In addition, ELN may continue to work with USDA WS, which will also keep personnel apprised of the latest trends and advances in wildlife damage management. ELN may participate in trainings at other airports around the state. FBOs will be invited to participate as well. 9-1 31 December 2024 Bowers Field Wildlife Hazard Management Plan 10 References Dolbeer, R.A., S.E. Wright, J. Weller, and M.J. Begier. 2021. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990-2020. Federal Aviation Administration,National Wildlife Strike Database. Serial Report No. 27. Washington DC. 141 pages. Linnell,M.A.,M.R. Conover, and T.J. Ohashi. 1999. Biases in bird strike statistics based on pilot reports. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:997-1003. Schafer,L.M.,J. L. Cummings,J. A. Yunger,and K. E. Gustad. 2002. Evaluation of raptor translocation at O'Hare International Airport, Chicago,Illinois. Final Report DTFA03-99-X-90001. FAA Williams J. Hughes Technical Center,Federal Aviation Administration,U.S. Dept of Transportation. Atlantic City,NJ. 21 pages. Schafer,L.M. and B. Washburn. 2016. Managing raptor-aircraft collisions on a grand scale: summary of a Wildlife Services raptor relocation program. Proc. 27t' Vertebrate Pest Conference(R. M. Timm and R.A. Baldwins,Eds.)Published at Univ. of Calif.,Davis,Pp. 248-252 10-1 31 December 2024