Wildlife Management TTD WHMP

Troutdale Airport
Wildlife Hazard
Management Plan
January 2016
Submitted by:
Nick Atwell
FAA Qualified Airport Biologist
Per AC 150/5200-36A
Contributing Aviation Wildlife Technicians:

John Hilterbrand, Casey Kaffka, Alex Lauber, and Erick Shore
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
Plan Approval
The Troutdale General Aviation Airport developed this Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
under the direction of Nick Atwell, a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist as stipulated in FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-36A. The following Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for
Troutdale General Aviation airport has been reviewed and approved by the Airport
Manager and the Federal Aviation Administration. This plan will become effective on the
signature date.
IIS(10
General Aviation Manager Date
(Printed Name)
111
iv
Airport Certification Manual Reference
The Port of Portland has completed a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and a Wildlife
Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) for Troutdale Airport (TTD) that conforms with 14 CFR
Part 139.337. While TTD is not a Part 139 certified airport, the Port decided to address the
wildlife hazard issues at TTD using the same Part 139 compliant model developed at PDX.
The TTD WHMP will be reviewed on an annual basis to determine the effectiveness of the
program. Coincident with the principals of adaptive management, appropriate changes will
be made as the need arises.
v
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Purpose and Application ...............................................................................................................1
1.1.1. National Perspective....................................................................................................................1
1.1.2. Local Perspective ..........................................................................................................................2
1.1.3. WHMP Objectives and Principles ...........................................................................................3
1.2. Wildlife Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................................3
1.2.1. Wildlife Strikes...............................................................................................................................4
1.2.2. Wildlife Species of Concern ......................................................................................................5
1.3. WHMP Administration (review and revision) .....................................................................6
2 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ...............................................................................9
2.1. FAA Requirements ...........................................................................................................................9
2.1.1. Airport Grant Assurances ..........................................................................................................9
2.1.2. AC 150/5200-33B ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Other Applicable Federal Regulations ........................................................................................ 11
2.2.1. National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................... 11
2.2.2. Clean Water Act, Section 404 ................................................................................................ 11
2.2.3. Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1543, Endangered Species Act of 1973)
11
2.2.4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...................................................................................................... 12
2.2.5. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ............................................................................... 12
2.2.6. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act................................................... 13
2.2.7. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management........................................................ 13
2.3. State Of Oregon Regulations............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1. Oregon Removal Fill Law........................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2. Oregon Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................... 14
2.3.3. Oregon Administrative Rules 635-43-0000 to 0045 [Scientific Taking Permit]
14
2.3.4. Oregon Administrative Rules 635-043-051 to 0115 [Take or Harass Wildlife
Permit] ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.5. Oregon Administrative Rules 837-12-305 to 370 [Agricultural Fireworks
Permit] ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.6. Oregon Revised Statute, ORS 836.623 .............................................................................. 15
vii
2.3.7. State Planning Regulations .................................................................................................... 16
2.4. Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.4.1. City of Troutdale Overlay Zones: Vegetation Corridor and Slope District
(VECO) ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.4.2. City of Troutdale: Airport Landing Field ......................................................................... 17
2.4.3. City of Troutdale, Chapter 9.48.020 Discharge of Weapons .................................... 17
2.5. Permits ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.6. Port of Portland Goals, Policies and Procedures..................................................................... 19
2.6.1. Port Mission Statement: .......................................................................................................... 19
2.7. Discussion of Port Policies ............................................................................................................... 21
3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................ 23
3.1. Program Organization ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the Airports Operations Manager ...................................... 24
3.3. Roles and Responsibilities of other Port Staff.......................................................................... 24
3.3.1. General Aviation Manager...................................................................................................... 24
3.3.2. Aviation Wildlife Manager ..................................................................................................... 25
3.3.3. General Aviation Operations Supervisor ......................................................................... 26
3.3.4. PDX Wildlife Technicians (or outside contract resources) ...................................... 27
3.3.5. TTD General Aviation Maintenance Staff ......................................................................... 28
4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 29
4.1. Risk Evaluation Process .................................................................................................................... 29
4.2. Zone Concept ......................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1. Primary Zone ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.2. Secondary Zone .......................................................................................................................... 31
4.3. Management Area Strategies .......................................................................................................... 36
4.4. General Operational Strategies ...................................................................................................... 40
4.5. Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 41
4.5.1. Project Screening for Proposed Development ............................................................... 41
4.5.2. Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 42
5 RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND PROTOCOLS ...................................................................... 43
5.1. Wildlife Control Procedures .......................................................................................................... 43
5.1.1. Personnel & Communications ............................................................................................. 44
5.1.2. Vehicles ......................................................................................................................................... 44
5.1.3. Wildlife Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 44
5.1.4. Data Collection Procedure .................................................................................................... 44
viii
5.1.5. Hazing and Harassment ......................................................................................................... 46
5.1.6. Raptor Trapping and Translocation ................................................................................. 52
5.1.7. Avian Nest Intervention ......................................................................................................... 53
5.1.8. Lethal Action ............................................................................................................................... 53
5.2. Habitat Modification ......................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.1. Port-Owned Property.............................................................................................................. 57
5.2.2. Non-Port Owned Property .................................................................................................... 57
5.2.3. Water Management ................................................................................................................. 59
5.2.4. Vegetation Management ......................................................................................................... 61
5.2.5 Structure Management ............................................................................................................. 68
5.2.6. Wildlife Food Source Management ................................................................................... 72
5.3. Research and Development ........................................................................................................... 74
5.4. WHMP Information and Education............................................................................................. 75
5.4.1. Internal Port Communication ............................................................................................... 75
5.4.2. External Audiences .......................................................................................................................... 76
6 AIRPORT STAFF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................ 79
7 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................................................... 83
Risk Evaluation Process ..................................................................................................................... 87
ix
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Wildlife Risk Evaluation Model
APPENDIX B FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants

On or Near Airports
APPENDIX C Port of Portland Wildlife Control Permits.
APPENDIX D TTD Wildlife Attractants Table
APPENDIX E Management Areas Tracking Table
APPENDIX F List of Plants Approved for Landscaping at TTD
APPENDIX G TTD Plant Variance Form
APPENDIX H PDX Wildlife Deterrent Fencing
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Troutdale Airport Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................7
Figure 2. Troutdale Airport Facilities Map.....................................................................................................8
Figure 3. Representation of key decision-making factors considered by the Chief Operating
Officer ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4. Port's General Aviation & Wildlife Management Program Organization. ................... 23
Figure 5. Risk Evaluation Matrix……………………..………………………………………………………………31
Figure 6. Wildlife Habitats within 5,000’ of TTD. ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 7. Primary Zone around TTD. ............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 8. Secondary Zone around TTD. ........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 9. Location of Wildlife Management Areas around TTD. ........................................................ 39
Figure 10. Overlapping crown structures that allow birds to move safely from tree to tree
without exposure to predators or weather. ............................................................................................... 65
Figure 11. Conceptual landscaping design for the Secondary Zone. ................................................ 65
Figure 12. Example of a tree species that is attractive to birds due to horizontal branching
structure. ................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 13. Example of an ideal tree type for landscaping because of the minimal
opportunities for perching/nesting due to vertical branching structure. ..................................... 66
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Current (2015) list of wildlife species of concern and monitor species at TTD............6
Table 2. Potential Federal, State, and Local permits required for wildlife hazard
management practices at TTD. ........................................................................................................................ 18
Table 3. Aviation Grass Seed Specification.................................................................................................. 67
Table 4. Wildlife control measures & techniques evaluated and dismissed at PDX. ................. 75
Table 5. Wildlife Hazard Management program training requirements. ....................................... 79
xiii
xiv
ACRONYMS
AC – FAA Advisory Circular
ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM – Airport Certification Manual
AGL – Above Ground Level
AIRMAN – Airport Information Report Manager
ATC – Air Traffic Control
ATIS – Automatic Terminal Information Service
AOA – Air Operations Area
BATS – Business Analysis and Term Sheet Procedures
CATEX – Categorical Exclusion
CFR – Code of Federal Regulation
CWA – Clean Water Act
DEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
EA – Environmental Assessment
EMS – Environmental management system
EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EIS – Environmental Impact Statement
FAA – Federal Aviation Administration
FAR – Federal Aviation Regulations
FWCA – Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FIFRA – Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FOD – Foreign Object or Debris
GA – General Aviation
TTD – Troutdale Airport
LCDC – Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
xv
NAVAID – Navigational Aid
NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act
NOAA – National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP – National Register of Historic Places
NRI – Natural Resource Inventory
OAR – Oregon Administrative Rules
ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODSL – Oregon Department of State Lands
ORS – Oregon Revised Statues
PDX – Portland International Airport
Port – Port of Portland
RPZ – Runway Protection Zone
RVR – Runway Visual Range
RWY – Runway
SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer
TSA – Transportation Security Administration
USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers
USDI – U.S. Department of the Interior
USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WHA – Wildlife Hazard Assessment _
WHMP – Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
xvi
ANNUAL REVIEW & REPORTING
An internal review of the Troutdale Airport WHMP will be conducted annually, and the plan
revised as necessary. The Port’s General Aviation Manager and the PDX Aviation Wildlife
Manager will conduct the review jointly. The Management Areas Tracking Table in
Appendix E will be updated annually, serving as the basis for annual review and reporting.
The intent is to develop accountability and program continuity over time, and provide
information in a timely manner that will contribute to a productive and mutually beneficial
dialog in support of the annual inspection process.
Revision of the WHMP will occur when either the program or the hazards and issues at the
airport change significantly or every 5 years. The intent is to maintain the WHMP as an
interactive program level plan that will continually adapt as necessary to effectively meet
the requirements of wildlife hazard management at TTD. The TTD WHMP provides both
strategic program guidance and the operational component that provides the basis for
annual work planning, budget development, and accomplishment reporting.
xvii
ANNUAL REVIEW LOG
General Aviation Manager Date Aviation Wildlife Manager Date
xviii
TABLE OF REVISIONS
Revision Date Page # Description of Revision
xix
xx
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TROUTDALE AIRPORT
WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that General Aviation airports
develop a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and if necessary implement a Wildlife Hazard
Management Plan (WHMP) at airports with aircraft that experience multiple wildlife
strikes, damaging collisions with wildlife, engine ingestion of wildlife, or wildlife of a size or
in numbers capable of causing such events. Aviation safety is paramount in the Port of
Portland’s airport management objectives for TTD. Although there have only been two
damaging wildlife strikes with private aircraft documented at TTD, development
surrounding the airport has accelerated resulting in the conversion of open space to a built
environment. The loss of surrounding open space may increase the presence of hazardous
wildlife on the airfield. Consequently, the Port elected to prepare a WHMP for TTD that
meets industry standards, including the delineation of responsibilities, policies, procedures
and regulations necessary to reduce identified wildlife hazards on or around TTD. This is a
voluntarily action that is not currently required by the FAA for General Aviation airports.
This WHMP starts with an overview of wildlife hazards as they pertain to airports on a
national level. The focus then shifts to a brief history of the TTD airport describing its
unique features and attributes along with a description of the surrounding area. Following
the local airport overview, the objectives and principles of this WHMP are outlined.
Discussed under this section are the main objectives of the Port, in regard to the WHMP, as
well as the parties responsible for implementation.
Following the Port objectives is a synopsis of the already completed WHA for TTD. This
includes details on the Port’s risk evaluation process as well as how it will be used to guide
management decisions as they pertain to the Port’s wildlife hazard management program.
Subsequent to the risk evaluation process is an overview of wildlife strikes including
national trends as well as specific numbers for wildlife strikes at TTD. Wildlife species of
concern are then discussed as they relate to TTD. This includes both a list of wildlife species
the Port has determined to be most hazardous to aircraft operations as well as those
categorized to pose a lower risk to aircraft at TTD. The section concludes with
administrative items related to the WHMP such as review and revision guidelines.
PURPOSE & APPLICATION
The overall objective of the WHMP is to develop an integrated and adaptive program to
effectively manage risk at TTD by reducing the probability of occurrence of wildlife/aircraft
collisions. While terrestrial wildlife are a concern at TTD, the security fencing that
surrounds the airfield perimeter lessens the incursion of larger terrestrial wildlife (e.g.,
black-tailed deer) onto the airfield. Bird strikes are statistically a much higher risk for
E1
aircraft using TTD, especially during the critical phases of departure and landing operations.
Consequently, the risk evaluation process of the WHMP primarily focuses on avian wildlife.
It is recognized that the risk of a bird strike at TTD can never be completely eliminated due
to its location at the confluence of the Sandy and Columbia Rivers, an ecologically rich and
diverse area. However, the underlying premise of the WHMP is that it is possible to manage
the risk to an acceptable level, and it is the intent of the WHMP to provide the necessary
direction to do so, in a scientifically sound manner.
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE (AIRPORT DESCRIPTION)
The Troutdale Airport is owned and operated by the Port of Portland and encompasses at
total of 287 acres It is located on the east side of the Portland Metropolitan region in the city
of Troutdale, south and southwest from the confluence of the Columbia and Sandy Rivers.
Geographically, the airport is located within Township 1 North, Range 3 East, and includes
parts of Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, Willamette Meridian. The airport is bordered on the
north by the Columbia River and the Columbia River levee, to the east by the Sandy River, to
the south by Frontage Road and Interstate 84, and to the west by Fairview Lake.
The Troutdale airport is primarily a flight training and recreational airport with some
business class capabilities. Due to its location, TTD is also popular with businesses that
provide scenic tours of the Columbia River Gorge. The airport includes maintenance and
repair facilities as well as a Fixed Based Operator (FBO) and includes mowed grasslands
and service roads. Aircraft utilizing TTD have two taxiways available to them (A and B) and
one runway designated 07/25. The perimeter of the airfield is enclosed by a security fence
with electronic and manual gates regulating access.
A large variety of wildlife live in the vicinity of TTD, and many more birds pass through the
area during their seasonal migrations along the Pacific Flyway. Many of these species pose a
potential hazard to the safe operation of aircraft whenever they enter the
approach/departure path of TTD. As urban infrastructure increases in the surrounding
area, the airport and adjacent open green spaces become more attractive to resident and
migratory wildlife that seek out remaining expanses of relatively undeveloped open space.
WHMP ADMINISTRATION
The TTD WHMP will be reviewed at least annually, and an annual status report and
confirmation of this review will be filed with the Port’s General Aviation Manager and the
PDX Aviation Wildlife Manager. The TTD WHMP will be revised as necessary, when either
the program or the hazards and issues at the airport change significantly, or every 5 years.
APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
Chapter 2 identifies the other major federal, state and local mandates that define the legal
context of compliance within which the WHMP must operate. Along with the external
mandates, the WHMP must demonstrate how it fits within and supports the stated missions
of the Port and the Aviation Division, and how Port and Aviation policies guide it. While the
priority of the wildlife hazard management program at TTD is aviation safety, the Port will
achieve this goal through responsible environmental stewardship. This reflects both the
overarching mission of the Port and also the values of the regional community.
E2
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Chapter 3 identifies and describes the roles and responsibilities of the various staff and
departments at the Port that are involved in and responsible for implementation of the
WHMP. The Port’s General Aviation Manager is ultimately responsible for the
implementation of the wildlife hazard management program at TTD. The Port’s Aviation
Wildlife Manager is the technical area expert that supports the GA Manager in this effort. In
order to fully implement a wildlife hazard management program that incorporates a
dedicated dawn-to-dusk hazing and harassment component (short-term operational
strategies), a research and development component, long-term management strategies, and
a proactive public information and education program, additional staffing and resources
would need to be identified.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Chapter 4 contains the strategies used to implement the WHMP at TTD. Included is an
overview of the risk evaluation model developed by the Port to assess wildlife hazards and
prioritize actions based on the relative levels of risk they pose. An overview of the zones
and management areas that have been designated at TTD are discussed. These zones are
based on the FAA separation criteria and allow for management prioritization of wildlife
hazards at TTD.
Along with the details of management areas, the chapter also describes the four
components used by the Port to implement specific strategies and includes the results of the
Port’s Environmental Management System (EMS). The EMS has been used to monitor and
evaluate habitat attractants near TTD. The chapter concludes with an overview of the
evaluation and monitoring methodology used by the Port to support an adaptive
management strategy.
The formal risk evaluation approach developed by the Port is based on the body of work of
Dr. J. R. Allan, adapted to the site-specific issues and FAA recommendations at TTD. This
risk-based approach is the primary assessment methodology for wildlife hazard
management in the future. All management scenarios presented in this document are to be
validated by the risk evaluation process, as it is refined in each update. It is expected that
this iterative process will evolve over time as new information and real world application
provide direction. The risk evaluation model is included as Appendix A.
Implementation of the WHMP is based upon management strategies developed to address

the wildlife hazards unique to each of the 6 management areas identified at TTD. These
strategies are organized according to four management components or “pillars” that
support the Wildlife Hazard Management program: (1) short-term operational strategies,
(2) research and development projects, (3) long-term management strategies, and (4)
information and educational programs.
E3
RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND PROTOCOLS
The risk management techniques and protocols outlined in Chapter 5 define the full range
of operational tactics and management strategies designed to enhance public safety by
reducing the incidence of wildlife-aircraft collisions at TTD. Together these represent the
toolbox of acceptable techniques available to the Airport staff, and run the full range of
actions from day-to-day operational tactics to long-term habitat modification strategies.
Because the WHMP serves as the foundation for program development, operational
protocols that are responsive to legal, jurisdictional and safety constraints are included.
Wildlife control procedures are direct actions taken to discourage, disperse and remove
wildlife species of concern from the airfield and vicinity. Their implementation includes the
day-to-day operational efforts of the Airport staff to provide an approach and departure
airspace that is as free of potential wildlife hazards as practicable. Wildlife control actions
are generally reactive to the situation of the moment and are responsive to any perceived
threats that wildlife species of concern may pose to aircraft safety. While the management
objective is to accomplish this with non-lethal means whenever possible, protocols are
established defining the decision-making process and implementation requirements for
direct lethal control should the need arise.
Habitat modification and other long term management strategies attempt to address the
reasons why certain species of wildlife are attracted to the airfield environment, bringing
them into conflict with aircraft operations. These include the physical manipulation or
complete removal of features or characteristics (both natural and constructed) that are
attractive to wildlife species of concern and are spatially located such that they draw these
species into or across the critical flight paths. The design and installation of structures
intended to exclude wildlife species of concern from the airfield or from specific features on
the airfield are included in this section.
Given that wildlife hazard management is not an exact science, and that species of wildlife
respond differently to changing circumstances including sustained management actions, it
is critical that an ongoing research and development program be integrated with the
principles of adaptive management to provide the flexibility necessary to maintain an
effective program over time. The results of ongoing testing and monitoring are applied
directly to the development of operational tactics and management strategies.
Wildlife issues and management strategies at TTD are of interest to many people, both
internal to the Port and in the public arena. The need for an ongoing public information and
education component is recognized as essential to the success of the Wildlife Hazard
Management program at TTD. In addition to public information and education, there is a
need to continue to share and foster the exchange of technical information with other Port
functional areas, as well as the larger regional and national aviation and wildlife
communities.
E4
AIRPORT STAFF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Training is essential to provide Airport staff with the knowledge and skills needed to carry
out the WHMP. Chapter 6 presents training requirements that Airport staff must meet
before they can work independently on the airfield at TTD. The training curriculum was
developed by the Ports Wildlife Hazard Management Program and meets all requirements
found in FAA AC 150/5200-36A and is implemented with on the support of other Port
Departments and cooperating agencies (e.g., FAA Air Traffic Control Tower). As new
training needs are identified it is expected that this chapter will expand to meet those
needs.
LITERATURE CITED
Chapter 7 presents the literature citations referenced in the text of the WHMP.
APPENDICES
The Appendices contain pertinent supporting documentation to the WHMP.
E5
E6
Troutdale Airport 2016 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose and Application
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes the potential hazards that certain
species of wildlife may pose, under certain circumstances, to aircraft operations at airports
regulated by the FAA. The FAA recommends General Aviation airports develop and
implement a Wildlife Hazard Management Assessment when aircraft experience multiple
wildlife strikes, damaging collisions with wildlife, engine ingestion of wildlife, or when
wildlife of a size or in numbers capable of causing such events are present. Since the Port of
Portland’s (Port) Troutdale Airport (TTD) does not service scheduled air carrier aircraft, it
is not obligated to develop and maintain a WHMP under current federal statute.
Nonetheless, aviation safety is paramount in the Port’s airport management objectives for
TTD. Given that there have been two damaging wildlife strike events with private aircraft
documented at TTD and development surrounding the airport has accelerated, the Port
elected to prepare a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and WHMP for TTD that meets FAA
standards. Included in this WHMP is the delineation of responsibilities, policies, procedures
and regulations necessary to reduce identified wildlife hazards on and around TTD. The
2014 WHA for TTD was submitted and approved by the FAA in October 2014.
1.1.1. National Perspective

Nationwide, wildlife can present a variety of problems that affect operations at airports.
Between 1990 and 2014, 156,114 wildlife strikes involving civil aircraft were reported to
the FAA (Dolbeer, Wright, Weller, Anderson & Begier 2015). Wildlife strikes have also
caused catastrophic accidents that involved the loss of human lives (Dolbeer et al. 2015).
Although the potential for this type of accident is low, the concern is, nonetheless, very real.
Globally wildlife strikes killed more than 258 people and destroyed over 245 aircraft
since 1988 (Dolbeer et al. 2015).
Wildlife strikes have other impacts at airports and on the traveling public. Nine percent of
aircraft-bird strikes and thirty one percent of aircraft-mammal strikes reported from 1990
to 2014 resulted in damage to aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2015). The FAA reports that at a
minimum, wildlife-aircraft strikes cost the USA civil aviation industry 981,200 hours of
aircraft down time, and $ 708 million in monetary losses every year (Dolbeer et al. 2015).
1
1.1.2. Local Perspective

Aviation activity began at what is now TTD in 1920, when aircraft operated from a grass
field known as Sun Dial Ranch. The Airport became strategically important to the U.S.
Government in the 1930s when a navigation beacon was installed and it was designated as
an emergency airfield on the Portland to Pasco route. The Port of Portland took ownership
of the Airport in 1942 and the property now encompasses 287 acres, including both airside
and landside property. It is located on the east side of the Portland Metropolitan region in
the city of Troutdale, south and southwest from the confluence of the Columbia and Sandy
Rivers. Geographically, the airport is located within Township 1 North, Range 3 East, and
includes parts of Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The airport
is bordered on the north by the Columbia River and the Columbia River levee, to the east by
the Sandy River, to the south by Frontage Road and Interstate 84, and to the west by
Fairview Lake.
The Airport is currently owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and is classified as a
General Aviation (GA) airport in the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The
Airport accommodates aircraft models that range from single-engine propeller aircraft to
multiengine turboprops, business jets and helicopters. Types of operators include itinerant
general aviation, business aviation, aeromedical and flight training operations. There is no
scheduled passenger commercial service at TTD; however charter and air taxi operators
utilize the Airport.
TTD is primarily a flight training and recreational airport, although business class
capabilities are taking on increasing emphasis. It is home to flight schools, maintenance and
repair facilities as well as a FBO. The airport is also popular with aircraft performing scenic
aerial tours of the Columbia River Gorge. With 107,838 operations annually (in 2013) and
home to 151 based aircraft (2014), TTD is a unique and popular airport within the region.
Inside the perimeter fence, the airfield includes one runway (07/25) and two taxiways
(taxiway A and B), flat managed (mowed) grasslands, roadways, and buildings associated
with airport operations (Figure 2). A security fence with a minimum height of 7-feet
surrounds the entire airfield. The one runway, designated 7/25, is 5,399 feet long and 150
feet wide. The two parallel taxiways are 35 to 50-feet wide and run the full length of the
runway. Connector taxiways link the runway to services and aircraft parking and storage.
Land uses surrounding TTD include agriculture, light industrial, commercial, residential and
undeveloped open space, among others. Changes land use from open space to a built
environment could contribute to an increase in wildlife use of the remaining relatively
undeveloped areas, including the TTD airfield and vicinity. These cumulative events justify
the development and implementation of a WHMP for TTD that reduces identified wildlife
hazards on and around the airport.
A large variety of wildlife live in the vicinity of TTD, and many birds pass through the area
during their seasonal migrations along the Pacific Flyway. As urban density increases in the
surrounding area, the airport and adjacent open spaces become attractive to resident and
migratory wildlife that seek out remaining expanses of relatively undeveloped open space.
Port monitoring data from January 1st 2004 to December 31, 2014 indicate that 67 different
species of birds and 7 mammal species were observed in the vicinity of the airport. Many of
2
these species pose a potential hazard to the safe operation of aircraft whenever they enter
the approach/departure path.
1.1.3. WHMP Objectives and Principles

The ultimate objective of the WHMP is to provide a safer airfield environment for aircraft at,
and in the vicinity of, TTD by reducing aviation wildlife hazards. To accomplish this
objective, the implementation of the WHMP is intended to reduce the probability that a
wildlife/aircraft collision will occur.
Basic principles used by the Port in the implementation of the WHMP include:
 Frequent inspections of airport facilities are necessary to identify potential hazards

and to ensure that sufficient wildlife control measures are in place.
 Any response to a wildlife threat is handled using the most appropriate and effective
options available, and will be supported by the risk evaluation process developed by
the Port.
 Lethal means are recognized as an important additional option when the threat to
public safety is imminent and other methods have failed to address the issue.
 Regular reviews of proposed land use changes and proposed development in
surrounding areas are vital in ensuring that adjacent land uses are compatible with
airport operations.
The Port’s General Aviation (GA) Manager is responsible for the implementation of this
program. The PDX Aviation Wildlife Manager is the Port’s technical area expert and
supports the GA Manager in the development of this WHMP and future editions based on
the principles of adaptive management, as well as accomplishing the implementation of
specific management strategies at TTD. This team integrates the professional and technical
resources of the Aviation Wildlife Management Program into the General Aviation
management objectives at TTD to address specific wildlife hazard issues. Additionally, the
services and cooperation of city, state and/or federal agencies, as well as other Port
departments and airport tenants, are essential to ensure the program’s effectiveness.
1.2. Wildlife Hazard Assessment

The Port has developed and is implementing a risk evaluation process as a means to
improve the Port’s wildlife hazard management capabilities. The risk evaluation model is
used to inform management decisions and focus management priorities. While terrestrial
wildlife are a concern at TTD, the security fencing that surrounds the airfield perimeter
lessens the incursion of larger terrestrial wildlife (e.g., black-tailed deer) onto the airfield.
Bird strikes are statistically a much higher risk for aircraft using TTD, especially during the
critical phases of departure and landing operations. Consequently, the risk evaluation
process of the WHMP primarily focuses on avian wildlife. The guidelines and
recommendations presented in this WHMP will be subject to an iterative re-analysis
whenever the risk evaluation process is refined or modified.
3
As part of this risk evaluation process, a Wildlife Hazard Assessment that meets the FAA’s
recommended standards was completed in October 2014. Information collected during the
Wildlife Hazard Assessment includes: an analysis of the events that prompted the
assessment; the identification of observed wildlife species, their movements, numbers and
locations; identification and location of wildlife attractants on and near the airport; a
description of wildlife hazards to aircraft operations; and recommended actions for
reducing wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The findings of the wildlife hazard
assessment are incorporated into this WHMP.
1.2.1. Wildlife Strikes

Wildlife strike records at various airports have shown that birds and mammals can pose a
threat to public aviation safety either by being present on the airfield during aircraft
landings and departures or directly in the flight path of aircraft (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005).
Strikes occur when: wildlife physically collide with aircraft; birds or other wildlife remains
are found within 200 feet of centerline of a runway, unless another reason for the animal’s
death is identified; or the animal’s presence on the airport had a significant negative effect
on a flight (e.g., aborted takeoff or landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left
pavement area to avoid collision with animal). Wildlife strikes threaten human life, can
cause costly damages and delays to airport operations, and are almost always fatal to the
animal.
In 2014, the FAA reported a record 13,668 wildlife strikes to civil aircraft. This increase in
wildlife strikes is attributed to an increase in large bird populations, quieter modern aircraft
and growth in the number of air traffic movements. Nationally, approximately 71% of all
bird-aircraft strikes occur below 500 feet above ground level (AGL), and 82% occur below
1,500 feet AGL. In addition, 71% of all damaging strikes occur below 1,500 feet AGL
(Dolbeer et al. 2015).
At airports, this low altitude generally corresponds with aircraft that are in either the
departure or landing phase of flight. The FAA requires the maintenance of a clear, safe
airspace for aircraft landings and departures. The runway protection zone (RPZ), a profile
of the approach and transition area located at the end of each runway, represents the area
in which aircraft are most vulnerable to wildlife strike hazards. Risk to aircraft is greatest
during takeoff when aircraft are likely to be at their maximum payload and thrust, and have
limited maneuverability.
Over the past 11 years (2004 through 2014) 10 bird strikes (involving at least 11 birds)
have been reported at TTD. No mammal strikes have been documented during this period.
Of the 10 strikes, two resulted in damage to the aircraft being struck. In 5 of the strikes, the
species involved was either unidentified or only identified to genus.
The low number of reported strikes at TTD as well as the high number of unidentified birds
involved is due to a current lack of consistent and accurate reporting. In general, bird strike
reporting at general aviation airports is estimated to be at less than 5 percent (Dolbeer,
Wright, Weller & Begier 2009). The combination of these factors indicates that strikes at TTD
are likely underreported. While TTD has only incurred two damaging strikes within the past
4
11 years, the two most recent strikes in 2014 involved medium-sized Rock Pigeon’s
(Columa livia) ,which are among the most hazardous species of concern at TTD.
1.2.2. Wildlife Species of Concern

A number of factors determine the frequency at which a particular species of wildlife may
be struck by aircraft (Allan 2000). Included among these are:
 Population abundance on and around the airfield (may vary diurnally and
seasonally);
 Habitat use patterns on and around the airfield (what are their local habitat
preferences for feeding, breeding and resting?);
 Distribution of suitable habitat patches and movement patterns in relation to
the airfield;
 Airport facilities and operations that may act as attractants (e.g., structures,
landscaping, infield mowing) or deterrents (e.g., hazing, habitat
modifications);
 Behavioral patterns that may bring them into the approach/departure path of
aircraft (e.g., birds that soar, flocking, seasonal migrations);
 Ability to detect and/or avoid aircraft (e.g., juveniles vs. adults, resident wildlife
vs. transient wildlife); and
 Frequency of air traffic and air traffic patterns at the airport.
Whether wildlife at risk of being struck by aircraft pose a hazard to aircraft depends upon
the size and number of individuals involved. For example, it is well established that bird
strikes involving larger birds or flocks of smaller birds are more likely to result in damage
to aircraft than single small birds (Allan 2000). The current certification standards for
turbine engine (60 inch and 100 inch size) testing are as follows: an engine must be able to
withstand the ingestion of 16 small birds (3 oz. each); 8 medium birds (1.5 lbs each); or 1
large bird (4 lbs) (Eschenfelder 2000). Turbine engines are not required to be able to
withstand the ingestion of a bird larger than 4 pounds (Eschenfelder 2000). Eschenfelder
(2000) concluded that these engine ingestion standards may be inadequate because they do
not reflect the sizes and numbers of birds encountered in actual bird strike incidents. While
aircraft at TTD are primarily piston-powered, an estimated increase in aircraft movements
coupled with recent large bird population growth is likely to increase the risk of wildlife
strikes for all aircraft (Dolbeer et al. 2015).
For the purposes of this WHMP, the Wildlife Species of Concern identified in Table 1
constitute those wildlife species deemed most hazardous to aircraft operations at TTD,
while Monitor Wildlife represent those species determined to pose a lower risk to aircraft
operations.
5
Table 1. Current (2015) list of wildlife species of concern and monitor species at TTD.
Wildlife Species of Concern Monitor Wildlife
Canada goose (3.5-9.8 lbs.) Mallard (2.4 lbs.) American Crow (1 lb.)
Doves & Pigeons (4.2-9 oz.) Northern Pintail (1.8 lbs.) Coyote (20-50 lbs.)
Great Blue Heron (5.3 lbs.) Osprey (3.5 lbs.)
Gull spp. (1.1-2.5 lbs.) Red-tailed hawk (2.4 lbs.) Bald Eagle (9.5 lbs.)
a Average body mass (Sibley 2000; Burt and Grossenheider 1980)
1.3. WHMP Administration (review and revision)

The 2009 PDX WHMP serves as the foundation for the ongoing development of the Wildlife
Hazard Management program at TTD. As such it not only incorporates strategic guidance
and establishes baseline documentation for the program, but also demonstrates compliance
with the operational recommendations of the FAA.
The WHMP is to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary, when either the
program changes or management issues arise, or every 5 years, whichever comes first. This
review/revision protocol will ensure that the WHMP stays current and responsive to
changing conditions, and incorporates the principles of adaptive management.
6
FIGURE 1. TROUTDALE AIRPORT VICINITY MAP
7
FIGURE 2. TROUTDALE AIRPORT FACILITIES MAP
8
2 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS

AND POLICIES
Federal, state and local governments administer a variety of laws and regulations that
protect wildlife and their habitats. Wildlife control activities at airports are influenced by
many of these regulations. The Port complies with these laws and regulations as a part of
standard operational practices.
Most wildlife management agencies issue permits to allow the harassment and/or take of
certain wildlife species when required by extenuating circumstances. These special permits
are especially relevant and necessary for implementation of a successful airport Wildlife
Hazard Management Program. Many of the regulatory requirements are interrelated, and
the Port will continue to work collaboratively with the regulatory agencies in evaluating its
WHMP implementation and ongoing compliance strategies.
This chapter provides a review of the following:
 Key provisions of relevant federal, state and local regulations;

 A general strategy for regulatory compliance;
 Permits the Port should obtain and routinely renew to implement the WHMP; and
 Internal Port policies that guide the development of wildlife hazard management
strategies at TTD.
2.1. FAA Requirements

2.1.1. Airport Grant Assurances
FAA Airport Grant Assurances are contractual obligations incorporated into the provisions
of FAA grants in support of airport improvement projects. These obligations are incurred
upon acceptance of FAA funds by the “sponsor” [or Airport], and require the sponsor to
“comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, guidelines
and requirements” [reference Section C (1): General Federal Requirements]. Specific
reference to the FAA Advisory Circulars is made in Section C (34) [Policies, Standards and
Specifications], requiring the sponsor to “carry out the project in accordance with the
…current FAA Advisory Circulars…”. These provisions, in effect, give the guidance provided
in the Advisory Circulars the weight of law, and contractually obligate the Port to comply.
Additional provisions of the Assurances deal specifically with hazard removal and
mitigation [Section C (20)], and compatible land uses [Section C (21)], directing the sponsor
to “take appropriate action” to ensure a safe airspace and to restrict incompatible land uses
adjacent to the airport, insofar as possible.
9
To a large extent, these requirements form the basis for the Wildlife Hazard Management
Program at TTD, which is designed to be responsive to both the statement and the intent of
the guidance.
2.1.2. AC 150/5200-33B
AC 150/5200-33B provides FAA guidance to airport operators on the recommended
locations of certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife relative to
the location of the airport. It also provides guidance on airport development projects,
including construction, expansion, and renovations which affect aircraft movements near
hazardous wildlife attractants.
AC 150/5200-33B defines wildlife attractants as “any human-made structure, land use

practice, or human-made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain
hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace of the airport’s AOA. These
attractants can include architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater
treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, and wetlands”.
For an airport serving piston-powered aircraft such as TTD, AC 150/5200-33B recommends

that “hazardous wildlife attractants” be separated from the airport’s air operations area
(AOA) by a distance of 5,000 feet. This AC also recommends that the approach, departure
and circling airspace be separated from hazardous wildlife attractants by 5 statute miles if
the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or
departure airspace.
AC 150/5200-33B discusses land-use practices having the potential to attract hazardous

wildlife and provides guidance on whether these land use practices are compatible or
incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located within the specified separation
distances from the airport. The guidance also provides recommendations on alternatives for
incompatible land uses, and suggestions on managing or correcting these uses to discourage
the attraction of hazardous wildlife to airport facilities.
In accordance with the Grant Assurances, the Port adheres to the guidance in AC 150/5200-
33B to ensure that the proposed wildlife management practices, including habitat
modification and mitigation activities, are consistent with the recommendations the AC
provides. Refer to Appendix B for the complete text of AC 150/5200-33B.
10
2.2. Other Applicable Federal Regulations
2.2.1. National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that federal agencies study and
disclose the environmental effects of their proposed actions and a reasonable range of
alternatives in the appropriate level of assessment. There are three levels of assessment
under NEPA, in ascending order: Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), Environmental Assessment
(EA), and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Specifically, NEPA is triggered when an
action requires a permit, entitlement, or funding from a federal agency, when an action is
jointly undertaken with a federal agency, or when an action is proposed on federal land.
Typically, federal agencies adopt guidance specific to actions that they undertake requiring
NEPA compliance. The FAA Airport District Office will be contacted prior to implementing
projects with a federal nexus to discuss potential NEPA requirements.
2.2.2. Clean Water Act, Section 404

Activities that result in a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, generally
require a permit from USACE.
Several waters of the United States, including on-site wetlands, have been identified on and
around the TTD airfield. If activities designed to manage wildlife hazards would result in the
discharge of dredged or fill material into a jurisdictional water of the U.S., the Port would
apply for a permit from USACE before completing such activities. In Oregon, this is
accomplished via a joint permit process with the USACE and the Oregon Department of
State Lands (ODSL) (See Section 2.3.1). Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will
generally be mitigated off-site outside of the 5,000 ft. separation criteria as established in
FAA AC 150/5200-33B, unless specifically designed to mitigate the hazardous wildlife
attractant potential and authorized by the FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.
2.2.3. Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1543, Endangered

Species Act of 1973)
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended requires all federal agencies, in
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of species listed as endangered or threatened, or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of the critical habitat of these species. Section 7 provides that if a
federal action "may affect" a listed species, the federal agency must consult with the USFWS
or NMFS to determine whether the action is "likely to adversely affect the species," in which
case the agency must formally consult on the action in order to obtain a Biological Opinion
issued by the USFWS or NMFS that authorizes the take. Section 9 defines "Take" to include
harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, wounding, killing or capturing, or attempting such
11
activity. The requirements of Section 10 will apply to projects/activities without a federal

nexus that could result in a “take” under the ESA.
No threatened or endangered species are known to occur at TTD; however, federally

protected salmon, steelhead and other aquatic species occur in the Sandy River and in
Salmon Creek Slough, which receive stormwater discharge from TTD and drains into the
Columbia River. Several federally threatened, endangered and proposed for listing species
were addressed for the Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park (TRIP) Phase II and III project,
which is located north of TTD and contains similar habitats.
There is no documentation of any state/federally listed species or critical habitat presence

at the Troutdale Airport. In support of the TTD WHMP, periodic wildlife patrols are
conducted on the airfield and on Port property adjacent to the airfield. No state or federally
listed species have been documented on or around the Airport. If proposed wildlife
management activities could possibly affect a listed species, the lead federal agency
involved with the proposed action (e.g., FAA, USACE) will consult with USFWS and/or NOAA
Fisheries as appropriate.
2.2.4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take of any migratory bird, and any
part, nest or eggs of any such bird. Take under the MBTA is defined as the action of or
attempt to “pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill”. The MBTA is administered by the
USFWS. Migratory birds also listed under the ESA are managed by the agency staff handling
compliance with Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA; management of all other migratory birds is
overseen by the Migratory Bird Division of the USFWS.
Numerous migratory birds use habitats on and around TTD. Since wildlife management
activities could affect any of these birds, the Port has consulted with and obtained an
Airport Depredation permit from the USFWS, which includes hazing and lethal actions. This
annual permit is maintained on file at the PDX Wildlife office (See Section 2.5).
2.2.5. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, provides for the protection of bald
and golden eagles by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking,
possession and commerce of such birds. The act allows take, possession and transportation
of bald and golden eagles for scientific, educational, and Native American religious
purposes, or in circumstances when a take may be necessary to ensure the protection of
wildlife, agriculture, or other interests particular to a specific locality. A permit from the
USFWS (Eagle Depredation Permit) is required to use non-lethal scare devises, scare tactics
or frightening devises to move or disperse bald eagles endangering human safety due the
high risk they pose to aircraft operations. This five year permit is maintained on file at the
PDX Wildlife office (See Section 2.5).
12
2.2.6. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives the EPA authority
over distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. Manufacturers must provide a label for and
register a pesticide with the EPA before they can manufacture pesticides for commercial
use, and facilities that use pesticides on their premises must comply with the requirements
outlined by the EPA on each pesticide container label. In addition, restricted use pesticides
must be applied by or under the direct supervision of an applicator certified by the EPA.
When wildlife hazard management practices at TTD require application of pesticide, the
Port will ensure that pesticides are applied in accordance with both the EPA, and
manufacturer’s instructions.
2.2.7. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

This executive order is a flood hazard policy for federal agencies. Executive Order 11988
requires that all federal agencies take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, to restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplain, and to minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare. The Order defines, floodplains as “the
lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone
areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year”, i.e., the area that would be inundated by a
100-year flood.
TTD is located entirely within the Sandy Drainage Improvements Company (SDIC), a
managed flood control district operated by the Multnomah County Drainage District
(MCDD). Levees along the Sandy and Columbia Rivers separate the historic floodplains from
their respective rivers. Floodplains associated with the Columbia River, Sandy River, Arata
Creek and Salmon Creek lie on and adjacent to TTD. If proposed wildlife management
practices would involve a federal action that could impact floodplains (e. g., stream piping),
the Port will take appropriate actions to minimize impacts to the floodplain.
2.3. State Of Oregon Regulations
2.3.1. Oregon Removal Fill Law

Similar to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-
900) regulates activities that would result in the removal or fill of material into waters of
the state. Waters of the state include natural waterways, intermittent streams, constantly
flowing streams, lakes and wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the
USACE. The ODSL administers the Removal-Fill program.
If proposed wildlife management activities at TTD could result in a discharge or removal of

material into or from a water of the state (e.g., wetlands, streams), the Port will consult with
ODSL staff and apply for a Removal-Fill permit, as appropriate. In Oregon, this is
accomplished via a joint permit process between USACE and ODSL. Mitigation for impacts to
13
jurisdictional wetlands will be mitigated off-site outside of the 5,000 ft. separation criteria
as established in FAA AC 150/5200-33B, unless specifically designed to mitigate the
hazardous wildlife attractant potential and authorized by the FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife
Biologist.
2.3.2. Oregon Endangered Species Act

Similar to the federal ESA, Oregon’s ESA offers protection to species listed as threatened or
endangered under the Oregon ESA (ORS 496.002 through 496.192). However, the Oregon
ESA is much more limited in scope and applies only to state agencies taking actions on
state-owned or leased lands. Oregon’s ESA is administered by ODFW.
No state listed species are known to occur on or adjacent to TTD, but listed bird species may
occur incidentally during normal movements between migratory ranges. If the Port receives
state funding, the Port may be required to consult with ODFW. However, in practice,
compliance with the Oregon ESA is typically achieved during consultations with the federal
agencies pursuant to the federal ESA.
2.3.3. Oregon Administrative Rules 635-43-0000 to 0045 [Scientific

Taking Permit]
Under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 635-43-0000 to 0045, a Scientific Taking Permit
is required to capture or handle the following wildlife in Oregon:
 Endangered species (OAR 635-100-125: green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle,
short-tailed albatross, brown pelican, , , , California least tern, gray wolf, gray whale,
sei whale, sperm whale, blue whale, humpback whale, black right whale, fin whale,
and Washington Ground Squirrel);
 Threatened species (OAR 635-100-125: loggerhead sea turtle, Pacific Ridley sea
turtle, , western snowy plover, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, kit fox,
wolverine, and sea otter);
 Game birds (ORS 496.007 - members of the following avian families: Anatidae
(swans, geese, brant, river ducks, sea ducks), Columbidae (mourning doves and
band-tailed pigeons), Tetranidae (grouse, ptarmigan prairie chickens), Phasianidae
(pheasants, quail, partridge), Meleagrididae (wild turkey), Scolopacidae (snipe,
woodcocks), Gruidae (cranes) and Rallidae (rails, gallinules, coots);
 Fur-bearing mammals (ORS 496.004(8): beaver, bobcat, fisher, marten, mink,

muskrat, otter, raccoon, red fox, and gray fox);
 Game mammals (ORS 496.004(9): antelope, black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose,
mountain goat, mountain sheep, and silver gray squirrel; and gray wolf as a special
status mammal.
14
 Other wildlife protected under OAR 635-44-130 (includes a number of rare native
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals as well as all non-game birds except European
starling, house (English) sparrow, and rock pigeon).
Since wildlife hazard management practices at TTD may require that some of the above
species be collected, trapped and released, or salvaged for scientific purposes, the Port
holds a Scientific Taking Permit from ODFW. This permit is on file at the PDX Wildlife office
(see Section 2.5).
2.3.4. Oregon Administrative Rules 635-043-051 to 0115 [Take or

Harass Wildlife Permit]
Under OAR 635-0430951 to 0115, a property owner must obtain a Wildlife Harassing
Permit from ODFW before harassing any wildlife on their property. Harassment is defined
as any act that frightens or chases, but does not kill, wildlife. Harassment can be employed
for scientific purposes pursuant to an ODFW program; to offer protection against a threat to
human safety; to offer protection of land or property from damage; for wildlife management
purposes pursuant to ODFW programs; or for rehabilitation of sick, injured, or orphaned
wildlife. A Wildlife Harassing Permit is not required of those persons possessing a valid
federal migratory bird permit authorizing harassment of migratory bird species.
The current federal migratory bird permit that the Port maintains on an annual basis meets
the ODFW state requirements under OAR 635-043-051 to 0115 (see Section 2.5).
2.3.5. Oregon Administrative Rules 837-12-305 to 370

[Agricultural Fireworks Permit]
Under OAR 837-12-305 to 370, a landowner must obtain an Agricultural Fireworks Permit
to scare away or repel birds or animals that injure crops or agricultural products. Permits
are issued in two-year blocks by the Office of State Fire Marshal.
Under the provisions of this administrative rule, the airfield at TTD is considered equivalent
to other agricultural areas in the state of Oregon. Because wildlife hazard management
practices at TTD require the use of pyrotechnics, the Port holds an Agricultural Fireworks
Permit from the State Fire Marshal (see Section 2.5).
2.3.6. Oregon Revised Statute, ORS 836.623

ORS 836.623 recognizes the importance of compatible land use planning at the local
government level in the interest of public aviation safety. The statute specifically addresses
potential bird attractants and bird strike hazards on and around airports, and recognizes
federal regulation of public aviation safety. “The following requirements and conditions
shall apply to safety risks associated with potential bird strike hazards resulting from new
water impoundments proposed in close proximity to an airport… No new water
impoundments of one-quarter acre or larger shall be allowed within an approach corridor
and within 5,000 feet from the end of a runway; or on land owned by the airport or airport
sponsor where the land is necessary for airport operations” (ORS 836.623).
15
2.3.7. State Planning Regulations

The purpose of the State of Oregon’s Airport Planning Division 13 is to implement ORS
836.600 through 836.630 and Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation). The policy of
the State of Oregon is to encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of
Oregon's airports. These rules are intended to promote a convenient and economic system
of airports in the state and for land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and
nearby land uses. This division also ensures the vitality and continued operation of
Oregon's system of airports is linked to the vitality of the local economy where the airports
are located. This division recognizes the interdependence between transportation systems
and the communities on which they depend (OAR 660-013 Airport Planning).
The Oregon Department of Aviation has developed a guidebook to aid in compatible land
use planning. It contains the means and requirements for local governments and those
interested in Oregon aviation to comply with airport land use compatibility. The guidebook
provides the tools to assist local governments, planners, airport administrators, and citizens
wishing to update the aviation transportation element of their comprehensive plan (Airport
Land Use Compatibility Guidebook, 2003).
2.4. Local Regulations
2.4.1. City of Troutdale Overlay Zones: Vegetation Corridor and

Slope District (VECO)
The City of Troutdale Zoning Code (Section 4.300) provides protection for significant
natural resources to comply with provisions of Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan and Statewide Planning Goals 6 (Air, Water, and Land
Resources Quality), Statewide Planning Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and
Hazards) and to substantially comply with the provisions of Title 13 of the Metro Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan to protect regionally significant fish and wildlife
habitat in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources).
The Troutdale Development Code (TDC) Zoning District VECO Overlay’s purpose is to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by restricting or prohibiting uses,
activities, or development which is damage-prone or damage-inducing to land or water
quality. This overlay zone requires uses vulnerable to landslides, including public facilities
which serve such uses, to be protected at the time of initial construction and maintain land
and water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and by restricting or
prohibiting development, excavation, and vegetation removal on vegetation corridors and
slopes associated with primary and secondary protected water features, and on slopes of
25% or greater not directly associated with a protected water feature. Primary water
features include: Title 3 wetlands; rivers, streams (creeks or brooks) and drainages
downstream from the point at which 100 acres or more are drained to that water feature
(regardless of whether it carries year-round flow); streams carrying year-round flow;
springs which feed streams and wetlands and have perennial (year-round) flow; and
natural lakes. Secondary water features include intermittent streams and seeps
16
downstream of the point at which 50 acres are drained and upstream of the point at which
100 acres are drained to that water feature. Slope districts consists of slopes of 25% or
greater that have a horizontal distance of 50 feet or greater in any area of the City.
Activities, including vegetation removal, may be regulated in these areas. Depending on the
VECO feature, buffer width can range from 15 to 200 feet.
Permitted use within VECO (TDC 4.312A(1)) includes any development that must
implement a FAA compliant WHMP on property owned by the Port of Portland or within
10,000 feet of an Aircraft Operating Area, as defined by the FAA, and removal of trees that
interfere with the landing or takeoff flight path of aircraft at the Troutdale Airport or
otherwise interferes with the safe operation of the airport as determined by the Port of
Portland. The removal of trees that interfere with the operation of the Troutdale Airport is
only subject to implementation of either an on-site or off-site mitigation plan in accordance
with the standards of TDC 4.315A(3)(c).
2.4.2. City of Troutdale: Airport Landing Field

Section 4.100 of the City of Troutdale Development Code Zoning District Overlay establishes
certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the airport imaginary surfaces as
they apply to TTD. This overlay district is intended to prevent the establishment of air
space obstructions in airport approaches and surrounding areas through height restrictions
and other land use controls as deemed essential to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
the people of the City of Troutdale and Multnomah County. Troutdale Development Code
allows commercial and industrial uses, when authorized in the primary zoning district but
specifically prohibits the creation of bird strike hazards or endangerment or interference
with the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport (4.113
(C) (4), (5)).
2.4.3. City of Troutdale, Chapter 9.48.020 Discharge of Weapons

A. No person other than an authorized peace officer shall fire or discharge a gun or other
weapon, including spring or air-actuated pellet guns, airguns or BB guns, or weapon which
propels a projectile by use of gunpowder or other explosive, jet or rocket propulsion within
the city.
B. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the firing or discharging
of a weapon by any person:
1. In the lawful defense of the person or of another person; or
2. Upon real property constituting the Troutdale Airport and adjacent Troutdale
Reynolds Industrial Park, for the purpose of taking or dispersing wildlife which pose
a risk to aircraft safety, in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Federal
Aviation Administration authorizations.
17
2.5. Permits
The Port shall apply for, obtain and/or renew all necessary federal and state permits
required to control wildlife on, and in the vicinity of, the airfield. Table 2 provides a
summary of the potential federal, state, and local permits that the Port may be required to
obtain prior to implementing wildlife hazard management practices at TTD. Copies of the
current permits issued to the Port for wildlife control can be found in Appendix C.
TABLE 2. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT TTD.
Applicable Law Issuing Agency Trigger Type of Permit
Federal (permits currently obtained by the Port are indicated in blue)
Section 404, Clean USACE Discharge of dredged or fill material into a water CWA Section 404
Water Act (CWA) of the US. Permit
Migratory Bird Treaty USFWS Take (pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill) Migratory Bird
Act of a migratory bird. Includes depredation and use Depredation
of lethal force. Permit
State (permits currently obtained by the Port are indicated in blue)
Removal-Fill Law DSL Removal or fill of materials into waters of the Removal-Fill
state. Permit
OAR 635-43-0000 ODFW Capture or handling of fur bearing mammals; Scientific Taking
threatened or endangered species; game birds or Permit - Salvage
mammals; or wildlife protected under OAR 635-
44-130.
OAR 635-043-051 ODFW Harassment of wildlife. Wildlife Harassing

Permit
OAR 837-12-305 Office of State Storage and use of fireworks to scare or repel Agricultural
Fire Marshall birds or animals from the airfield. Fireworks Permit
Local
TDC 4.313 (A) City of Any action listed in subsection 4.312 (A) not Administrative
Troutdale requiring building, plumbing, electrical, or right- Review
of-way permit.
In implementing the WHMP, the Port will continue to consult with the applicable regulatory
and resource agency personnel as appropriate. Since many of the proposed wildlife hazard
management activities represent a continuation of current practices, it is anticipated that
current permits, approvals and authorizations will be renewed. Prior to initiating any new
activities, the Port will secure any required permits or approvals.
18
2.6. Port of Portland Goals, Policies and

Procedures
The 2015 TTD WHMP must demonstrate how it fits within and supports the stated missions
of the Port of Portland, the Aviation Division, and the General Aviation program. The WHMP
is an operational safety plan nested within the Aviation Safety and Security goal, which
directly supports the Aviation and Port Mission Statements.
A summary of key mission statements, goals, and Port policies is provided below.
2.6.1. Port Mission Statement:

“The mission of the Port of Portland is to provide competitive cargo and passenger access to
regional, national, and international markets while enhancing the region's quality of life.”
Aviation Mission Statement:

“To operate, maintain, and promote an airport system that satisfies the air transportation
needs of our customers by providing competitive cargo and passenger access to regional,
national and international markets.”
Aviation Safety and Security Goal:

“Ensure Aviation meets or exceeds all federal and state mandates to provide a safe and
secure environment for airport users, employees, and tenants.”
Wildlife Hazard Management Program Goal:

“To control wildlife hazards to aircraft operations through non-lethal means when possible
by focusing on intensive hazing and harassment, and long-term habitat modifications.”
Decision making for routine, every day wildlife hazard management issues resides at the
General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife Manager levels; however, the ultimate
decision authority for Aviation is the Chief of Operations. Wildlife hazard issues and
management recommendations are but one of many factors that influence the business
decisions that the Chief of Operations must make to ensure accomplishment of the Aviation
Mission (see Figure 3).
19
Port Policies Legal Issues

PORT MISSION
Aviation Policies Business Needs
EMS Procedures Customer Needs
Work Instructions Community Values
Wildlife Hazard Fiscal Considerations

Management
AVIATION MISSION
FIGURE 3. REPRESENTATION OF KEY DECISION-MAKING FACTORS CONSIDERED

BY THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Port of Portland Environmental Management System (EMS)

This plan was developed and is compliant with ISO 14001 guidelines. The adaptive
management aspect of this plan incorporates the primary components of a successful
environmental management system (EMS). This includes planning, implementation,
checking and review of actions to ensure they meet the objectives of the environmental
policy.
The Port developed an integrated Environmental Management System (EMS) in 2000. The
EMS was developed to enable the Port to effectively manage the full range of complex
environmental issues, both regulatory and non-regulatory, in support of the Port’s
operational mission. The Port’s EMS outlines specific Port policies and procedures that
guide and inform internal Port decision-making in the implementation of the Port mission.
Port of Portland Environmental Policy (6.1.11)

“The Port of Portland will achieve its mission through responsible environmental
stewardship and the implementation of proactive environmental programs. The Port will
integrate environmental considerations into all aspects of its strategic planning and
business decision-making.”
Port of Portland Environmental Natural Resources Policy (7.4.11)

“The Port will identify its impacts and will first attempt to avoid, and then seek ways to
minimize impacts when they cannot be avoided. When impacts to natural resources occur,
appropriate mitigation methods will be implemented to enhance, restore, maintain, or
replicate ecosystem functions and values, and ensure regulatory compliance.”
20
2.7. Discussion of Port Policies

The WHMP must operate within the parameters set by the mission statements, goals, and
policies listed above. This requires that the Port address environmental stewardship
concerns and aviation safety needs concurrently. The WHMP works within the framework
of these objectives through careful planning, risk evaluation, and analysis of available
wildlife control options. While the priority of this program is aviation safety, the Port’s
commitment to environmental stewardship will continue to ensure that impacts to natural
resources are avoided or minimized to the extent practicable.
21
22
3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION, ROLES

AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Program Organization, Roles and Responsibilities chapter provides an overview of the
Port’s larger Wildlife Hazard Management Program, as well as a discussion of the roles and
responsibilities of the various staff and departments at the Port that are involved in and
responsible for implementation of the WHMP.
3.1. Program Organization

The functions of developing habitat management strategies on airport properties, and
managing the surrounding properties that border the airfield lie within the General Aviation
Manager position. Therefore, responsibility for implementing, reviewing, and updating the
Wildlife Hazard Management Program was put under this position. Additional staffing and
resources (either Port Aviation Wildlife Technicians or outside contract resources) would
be needed in order to fully implement a WHMP that incorporates an active trapping, hazing
and harassment program (short-term operational strategies), a research and development
component, long-term management strategies, and a proactive public information and
education program. A program organization chart that identifies Port staff responsible for
implementing the Troutdale WHMP is presented in Figure 4.
FIGURE 4. PORT'S GENERAL AVIATION & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ORGANIZATION.
23
3.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the Airports

Operations Manager
The relevant responsibilities of the Manager of Airport Operations are as follows:
 Provide the decision-making authority for major program decisions, controversial

issues or conflict resolution in support of the Aviation Mission.
 Coordinate major WHMP decisions with the Chief of Operations.
3.3. Roles and Responsibilities of other Port Staff

The following text provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of Port staff
involved in TTD wildlife related issues. Additional detail regarding roles and responsibilities
will be documented within the Port’s EMS fish and wildlife management procedure and
associated work instructions.
3.3.1. General Aviation Manager

The relevant responsibilities of the General Aviation Manager are as follows:
Program Management:
 Provide direction to the GA Operations Supervisor regarding the WHMP

implementation policies and guidelines.
 Ensure that aviation wildlife hazard concerns are incorporated into project planning
early in the process.
 Provide both strategic guidance and operational direction to the program.
 Review and approve the annual budget for the Aviation Wildlife Management
Program.
 Coordinate technical issues with PDX Wildlife staff.
 Participate with local, state, and federal agencies on land use decisions that could
attract wildlife species of concern to properties around the airport.
 If mitigation is required for an expansion or development project, coordinate with

the Aviation Wildlife Manager for appropriate location of mitigation site.
Communication:
 Actively engage the regulatory agencies, Port staff, and the public in dialog to foster
the management objectives of the program.
24
 Advise the GA Operation Supervisor about agency interaction, relationships with

environmental groups, and internal/external exposure.
 Work with the Aviation Wildlife Manager and GA Operation Supervisor to develop
public information and education campaigns on specific issues of public interest or
controversy.
3.3.2. Aviation Wildlife Manager

Program Operations and Maintenance:
 Supervise the PDX Wildlife Program staff.
 Provide technical Quality Assurance for WHMP projects.
 Provide advice on planning and completing applied research activities.
 Facilitate inter-departmental technical communications regarding project issues

and technical trends affecting the WHMP.
 Serve as the technical area expert for all Port owned aviation facilities (Portland,
Hillsboro, and Troutdale Airports) on wildlife hazard management issues and
regulatory requirements.
 Provide technical review of reports and other written documents.
 Facilitate the response to immediate wildlife concerns on the airfield if needed and
available.
 Plan and administer the Aviation Wildlife Management Program budget.
 Obtain the permits needed for wildlife control activities, and write the end of the
year reports to renew permits. Coordinate with agency staff regarding permit
activities.
 Oversee raptor trapping and translocation program. Connect these activities with
other wildlife management activities ongoing at PDX, HIO and TTD.
 Coordinate with the GA Operations staff (through the designated liaison) to

communicate WHMP activities as they affect movement areas, NAVAIDS, or have
other airfield impacts.
 Communicate airfield operational issues to TTD staff and tenants.
 Analyze wildlife data, seasonally and annually, for identification of significant trends
or new hazards.
 Review construction and maintenance projects to determine if there will be an

impact to the TTD WHMP. Screen design features and landscaping plans for wildlife
attractants and recommend modifications.
25
Communication:
 Provide briefings to the Natural Resource Manager on TTD WHMP events, projects,
and programs.
 Act as a technical referral to other Port departments on wildlife related issues at

TTD.
 Conduct media briefings as requested.
 Participate in educational, outreach, or program awareness activities both within

the Port, TTD, and in the larger community.
Agency Interaction:
 When a strike occurs, gather the information needed and submit the strike report to
the FAA National Strike Database.
 Serve as the primary Wildlife Hazard Management Program liaison with the FAA.
 Update the TTD WHMP as needed.
 Act as the Port liaison with wildlife agencies for wildlife incidents that occur outside
of the perimeter fence.
 Facilitate the Wildlife Advisory Committee to get input from outside agencies and
interest groups on the Wildlife Hazard Management Program.
Scheduling and Training:
 Train PDX Wildlife staff to respond to wildlife issues as outlined in AC 150/5200-36.
3.3.3. General Aviation Operations Supervisor

Program Operations and Maintenance:
 Conduct physical inspections and implement wildlife control measures on the

airfield as needed. Record all data in the AIRMAN database (see section 5.1.3).
 Respond to immediate wildlife concerns on the airfield when PDX Wildlife

Technicians are unavailable.
 Work with the Aviation Wildlife Manager to identify hazards, trends, or new
attractants that need to be addressed.
 Provide input to wildlife control activities and projects.
 Review construction and maintenance projects to determine if there will be an

impact to the TTD WHMP.
 When a strike occurs, gather and submit the information to PDX Wildlife staff.
26
 Gather information about wildlife activity and respond to wildlife situations on the
airfield when PDX Wildlife staff are not on duty.
Data Management:
 Maintain accurate data of wildlife activity, both on the airfield and in adjacent Port-
owned properties. Providing quality assurance of the data in AIRMAN.
3.3.4. PDX Wildlife Technicians (or outside contract resources)

Program Operations:
 Conduct physical inspections and patrols of the airfield, conduct wildlife control
measures, and keep an accurate log of these activities in the AIRMAN database.
 Respond to calls from the tower in order to alleviate any wildlife hazards.
 During the spring, conduct inspections of the airfield and adjacent properties for
nesting species of concern.
 Inspect the airfield during the winter season for areas of temporary standing water.
Annually, provide a map to engineering of problem areas that need drainage
correction.
 Handle and transport wildlife removed from the airfield to the appropriate
rehabilitation, translocation, or disposal sites.
 Trapping of diurnal raptors and maintenance of traps and trapping equipment.
 Report significant wildlife activity to the Aviation Wildlife Manager and GA

Operations Supervisor (when appropriate) if it impacts a movement area or is an
immediate threat to aircraft operations.
 Maintain wildlife control equipment.
 Screen design features and landscaping plans for wildlife attractants and
recommend modifications that are consistent with this plan.
 Coordinate needed wildlife control projects such as installation of anti-perching

material, testing of new equipment, etc.
 When a strike occurs, gather and submit the information to the FAA National Strike
Database.
 Communicate new or increasing wildlife hazards to the Aviation Wildlife Manager.

Also report the effectiveness of current wildlife control activities.
27
Data Management:
 Maintain accurate data of wildlife activity, both on the airfield and in adjacent Port-
owned properties. Providing quality assurance of the data in AIRMAN.
3.3.5. TTD General Aviation Maintenance Staff

Program Operations:
 Report significant wildlife activity to General Aviation Management if it impacts a

movement area or is an immediate threat to aircraft operations.
 Communicate new or increasing wildlife hazards to General Aviation Management.

Also report the effectiveness of current wildlife control activities.
 Coordinate with Wildlife staff to minimize the attractiveness of airfield mowing to

wildlife species of concern.
 Maintain airfield drainage to avoid pooling of water and minimize areas of

temporary standing water.
 Maintain current pesticide applicator’s certification in compliance with EPA

standards.
28
4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Several management strategies will be used to effectively implement the WHMP. The
management strategies are based on four program components or “pillars” that tie together
to address both the short and long term wildlife and habitat management needs at TTD. All
management actions identified in this chapter are subject to reassessment and validation
through the risk evaluation process and adaptive management.
4.1. Risk Evaluation Process

The Port has identified a need to document the systematic approach that is used to assess
wildlife hazards at Port-owned airports and prioritize actions based on the relative levels of
risk they create. To accomplish this task, the Port has developed a pro-active, adaptive
process to identify wildlife hazards, assess risks and prioritize management actions that are
responsive to the relevant species and their use of both natural and man-made features on
and around the airport. The potential risk is determined by considering the potential for a
particular species to cause physical damage to an aircraft and the probability of occurrence
that the species would be involved in a collision at TTD. Since the species composition at
TTD is expected to be comparable to PDX based on the proximity and habitat similarity of
the two airports, the probability data obtained at PDX is being used in this risk evaluation
due to the limited strike reporting history at TTD. The Port can use this information to
identify and examine potentially undesirable interrelated/interdependent effects of its
actions prior to implementation of proposed management strategies.
This formal risk evaluation approach utilized by the Port builds on the body of work of Dr. J.
R. Allan, adapting it to the site-specific issues at TTD. This process is designed to evolve
over time as new information and real world application provide direction.
The potential severity of impact and probability of occurrence is rated as high, medium, or
low for each of the relevant species at the airport and placed in a risk evaluation matrix
(Figure 5). The Port will utilize the findings of the risk evaluation model to prioritize and
assess the effectiveness of different aviation wildlife hazard management strategies.
Included in this assessment will be an examination of potential impacts of proposed
management actions, so that the Port can identify and examine potentially undesirable
effects of its actions prior to implementation.
29
FIGURE 5: RISK EVALUATION MATRIX
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
Very High High Moderate Low Very Low
Osprey Northern Pintail [Bald Eagle]
Gull spp. Canada Goose [Black-tailed Deer]
Very High
SEVERITY OF IMPACT
Mallard Green-winged teal

Great Blue Heron
High Red-tailed Hawk Dove, Pigeon Great-horned Owl
Peregrine Falcon
Moderate American Crow
*Coyote
European Starling
American Coot Swift Barn Owl
Low Short-eared Owl
Killdeer Northern Harrier
Warbler
Very Low Swallow spp. American Kestrel Varied Thrush
[Bracketed species] indicate species that have not been struck at PDX or TTD, but are present in the area, and have a high enough severity
potential to warrant inclusion in the model.
*Coyote--- This species has not been struck by aircraft at TTD but is frequently observed on the movement surface, thus warranting inclusion in
the model.
Source: Allan, J.R. “Birdstrike Assessment Model.” Central Science Laboratory, United Kingdom, 2003.
FAA National Wildlife Strike Database. “Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990 2002.” Washington DC, June 2004
30
4.2. Zone Concept

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B provides guidance on the siting of certain land uses
that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports
(Appendix B). At airports serving piston-powered aircraft such as TTD, the FAA
recommends a separation distance of 5,000 feet be maintained between the AOA and new
land uses deemed incompatible with safe airport operations (e.g., municipal solid waste
landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, wetland mitigation projects). Existing land uses
within this zone (e.g., warehouses, distribution centers, and storm water detention
facilities) may be compatible with airport operations if there is no apparent attraction to
hazardous wildlife, or if wildlife hazard management efforts effectively eliminate or contain
the hazard. It should be noted that the identification of hazardous wildlife and hazards is an
ongoing process at TTD. To aid in this process, the Port has surveyed and mapped all
known habitats on Port owned aviation property (Figure 6).
For management prioritization the Port has divided the FAA’s 5,000-foot area around the
AOA at TTD into 2 zones: the Primary Zone, and the Secondary Zone. This tiered approach
to wildlife hazard management is based on the premise that the potential risk posed by a
hazard increases with proximity to aircraft operations. A brief description of these 2 zones
follows. Refer to Figures 7 & 8 for a map of these zones.
4.2.1. Primary Zone

The Primary Zone (Figure 7) is defined as the area within the airfield perimeter fence, a
300-foot buffer around the perimeter fence, and the runway protection zones (RPZs)
located at the end of each runway. The RPZ, which is established by the FAA in AC
150/5300-13, represents the area in which aircraft are most vulnerable to wildlife strike
hazards. The airfield perimeter fence establishes a secure perimeter to the immediate
airfield for safety and security reasons, including the exclusion of most large terrestrial
wildlife. Land management decisions within the Primary Zone are subject to the single
dedicated land use of operating an airport and the associated public aviation safety
concerns. The Port’s overarching WHMP objective for the Primary Zone is to eliminate or
reduce to the extent practicable all attractants for wildlife species of concern that occur
there, and to not allow any new attractants to be located within this zone. The WHMP risk
evaluation analysis further defines the need for and the priority of management actions
taken in this zone. Lands within the Primary Zone are monitored regularly for hazardous
wildlife and wildlife control procedures are implemented as necessary to alleviate potential
wildlife hazards.
4.2.2. Secondary Zone

The Secondary Zone (Figure 8) encompasses all remaining lands within the 5,000- foot
separation criteria area established in FAA Advisory Circular 150-5200-33B that are not
included in the Primary Zone. Land uses within the Secondary Zone must be compatible
with safe aircraft operations and should not create new attractants for wildlife species of
concern that result in unacceptable risks. Lands in the Secondary Zone are not monitored
31
on a daily basis, and include private property not directly under the management control of
the Port. Strategies on Port owned property in the Secondary Zone are by necessity less
prescriptive than in the Primary Zone. Early participation in Port land use and management
planning is required to enable integration of aviation concerns. Strategies on non-Port
owned properties within 5,000 feet of the airport are even more indirect, and require a
proactive and ongoing dialog with both private landowners and local/regional planners.
32
FIGURE 6. WILDLIFE HABITATS WITHIN 5,000’ OF TTD.
33
FIGURE 7. PRIMARY ZONE AROUND TTD.
34
FIGURE 8. SECONDARY ZONE AROUND TTD.
35
4.3. Management Area Strategies

In order to document and organize all of the management concerns, constraints, and
actions, TTD was divided into logical areas based on land-use, wildlife management and
habitat type. As a result, 6 large areas of land (management areas) were delineated (Figure
9). Management areas outside the airfield fence (areas B2, D, E) are managed under the
Undeveloped Properties management program which implements the risk management
strategies developed in the WHMP:
A – TRIP Mitigation Area
B – TRIP Development & Natural areas
C – Levee between the airport & Sandy River
D – Troutdale Airport
E – Other Port-owned Properties outside the Airfield Perimeter Fence
This approach categorizes wildlife hazards and explains the operational strategies for each
area in a comprehensive spatial context for all Port-administered properties in the Primary
and Secondary Zones. It also facilitates the development of management scenarios. The
effort utilizes the best information currently available, based on wildlife observations and
strike data at TTD. These management areas are subject to ongoing assessment and
revision.
The TTD Wildlife Attractants Table (Appendix D) also identifies the principal wildlife
habitats present in each management area, expected utilization by wildlife species of
concern, other management constraints and issues associate with the management areas,
and management actions taken to date in these areas.
Within each management area, the risk management techniques and protocols discussed in
Chapter 5 have been integrated into specific management strategies that address the
wildlife hazards unique to each management area. These management strategies are
organized according to four management components or “pillars” that support the Wildlife
Hazard Management program: (1) short-term operational strategies, (2) research and
development projects, (3) long-term management strategies, and (4) information and
educational programs. These program components are interconnected by lateral paths
representing information and technology transfer. A brief description of these 4 program
components or pillars follows.
The first pillar, short-term operational strategies, addresses the need of the moment. This
includes the reactive hazing program intended to clear the airspace of wildlife hazards that
pose an immediate threat to safe aircraft operations. In addition, short-term habitat
manipulations on a relatively small scale are included in this operational category, such as
mowing schedules, tree topping and pruning, netting projects, perching deterrents, and
rodenticide applications.
36
The Port set a wildlife management program goal to achieve this first pillar, when possible,
in a non-lethal manner by utilizing the full range of technologies available. However,
implicit in this statement is the recognition that it may not always be possible to avoid lethal
control. The WHMP identifies the risk based decision-making process preceding the
implementation of lethal action in section 5.1.8. A basic premise of the lethal action strategy
is that it will target an individual animal and its problematic behavior, rather than a
population. The only current exceptions to this rule are the European starling control
program, and the prey base control strategies for small mammals. The European starling is
an introduced pest that presents a significant hazard to aviation (due primarily to its
flocking behavior and abundance), but also represents an ecological risk as they threaten
native species diversity. Small mammals are found in abundance in the artificially created
and maintained short grass environment of the airfield. They are a primary food source and
attractant for red-tailed hawks and other predatory species. An effective prey base control
strategy is essential in order to reduce the attractiveness of the airfield to red-tailed hawks
and other predatory species.
The second pillar consists of ongoing applied research and development projects to expand
the range of aviation wildlife hazard management strategies, test new hypotheses, and
evaluate new technologies. Due to the adaptive nature of wildlife species of concern, an
effective Wildlife Hazard Management Program requires a high level of flexibility and a
commitment to the principles of adaptive management. The information gained from
ongoing research and development projects provide a scientific base for decisions on how
to best implement both short -term operational strategies and the long-term management
strategies.
The third program pillar is the development of long-term management strategies, including
habitat modifications and permanent site conversion. These strategies are based on the
premise that both the physical presence of wildlife species of concern on the airfield and the
length of time that they are present, can be diminished by reducing the attractiveness of the
habitat on and around the airport. However, in highly modified environments like airports,
single-focused habitat alterations to discourage one species of concern can often create
enhanced conditions for another. Therefore, effective long-term habitat modifications must
be designed to consider what effect the changes will have across the whole ecological
system. Long-term management strategies may range from physically excluding the target
species permanently from the area (where possible) to habitat modifications such as tree or
wetland removal. Long-term management strategies also include compatible land use
planning during project design and City of Troutdale Land Use Review process for permit
applications.
The fourth pillar of the program is the information and education component, which
recognizes that wildlife issues are of widespread interest to both internal and external
groups and individuals. The success of the program is predicated on active cooperation with
a large number of stakeholders as well as an ongoing program to inform and elevate
awareness of wildlife issues at TTD. Outreach opportunities also provide input that helps to
incorporate TTD issues into the larger regional context.
37
Appendix E contains the Management Areas Tracking Table which provides a summary of
management strategies proposed for TTD. The information in Appendix E is based on the
ongoing and completed management actions well as potential management actions that
may be pursued in the future. The management strategies are organized by management
area, and categorized into one or more of the four pillars described above. In addition,
identified management strategies are also tied to their location within either the Primary or
Secondary Zone at TTD. As described this chapter, the management of wildlife species of
concern and wildlife attractants is driven, in part, by their location in these two areas, which
together define the 5,000-foot separation criteria area at TTD. This tiered approach to
wildlife hazard management is based on the assumption that the potential risk posed by a
hazard increases with its proximity to aircraft operations. A more complete discussion of
the Primary and Secondary Zones, and which management strategies apply to each, are
described in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. As mentioned previously, all management strategies
identified in Appendix E, as well as the need for the zone approach, are reassessed and
validated on an ongoing basis.
38
FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS AROUND TTD.
39
4.4. General Operational Strategies

All of the components described in the previous sections interact on a daily basis to resolve
both immediate and long-term wildlife hazard issues at TTD. When a wildlife hazard is
identified, the first action is active hazing (except for species that cannot be effectively
hazed, such as deer). The least aggressive tools are tried first, such as auditory and
pyrotechnic harassment, to see if the wildlife hazard can be dispersed from the critical area.
If the situation is not resolved by the use of these methods, airport staff will contact the
Aviation Wildlife Manager for guidance on more aggressive options such as physical
harassment devices (e.g., paintball markers). If these measures are ineffective in mitigating
a real and present hazard to aviation safety, the Aviation Wildlife Manager will make the
determination as to whether direct lethal action is required.
GA airport staff and the Aviation Wildlife Manager will also consider whether an activity is
occurring that may be attracting wildlife hazards to an area, such as mowing, watering,
construction, or farming. Although these activities cannot always be stopped, they can often
be modified or completed at a time of day when the species of wildlife in question is less
active. Many times an awareness of the situation and responding with temporarily
increased hazing efforts is enough to resolve the issue.
If these measures are ineffective, the next step is to consider the option of deterring or
excluding wildlife from the area in question. This can be achieved through the installation of
a variety of products such as netting, bird spikes or fencing. If none of the above options are
effective or feasible, habitat modification will be considered to make the area less attractive
to wildlife species of concern. GA Airport staff and the Aviation Wildlife Manager will
determine what specific habitat is creating the attractant and then develop a range of
possible actions to modify or eliminate that habitat. Caution must be exercised to ensure
that the proposed habitat modification to deter one wildlife hazard does not inadvertently
attract another. Consideration must also be taken for permits that may be required for some
types of habitat modification, such as wetland modification or fill.
If habitat modification is not feasible, GA Airport staff and the Aviation Wildlife Manager
will consider whether the wildlife species in question can be trapped for translocation or
euthanasia. Coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies is required in these
cases. The “research and development” pillar and the “information and education” pillar
(Section 4.3) also come into play at this stage. Airport staff and the Aviation Wildlife
Manager will contact other airports to see how they may have resolved a similar situation.
Often, the FAA has experience advising airports about wildlife situations and can provide
contacts that have experience with the problem species. Researchers, such as the USDA
National Wildlife Research Center or universities, may be contacted for ideas. Vendors of
wildlife control equipment can be a good source for new equipment that might be used in
specific situations. Even other industries that deal with wildlife control can provide ideas
about methods or equipment that can mitigate a specific situation.
When a feasible idea is generated it will be implemented on a trial basis, be monitored,

and evaluated to determine if it is an effective solution. As new methods or materials are
40
found to be effective, they will be integrated into the daily operation of the Port’s Wildlife
Hazard Management program.
If all non-lethal methods have been considered and are not effective or feasible, a lethal
action may be considered. An evaluation will be conducted on how the lethal control would
be implemented, who would implement it, and what the determination would be to start
and stop the lethal control. More detail on lethal control is presented in Section 5.1.8.
As the above discussion demonstrates, the integration of the four pillars works to achieve a
successful resolution to any wildlife hazard problem. Information gained from applying
each of the four aspects to a specific wildlife hazard situation is transferred to the other
components. The principles of adaptive management are used to try various options until
an acceptable one is found. The result is the generation of experience and data on the range
of effectiveness of the options available in dealing with a specific wildlife situation, using the
best science and technology available.
4.5. Project Evaluation

For consistency and to prevent potential conflicts of use and/or safety issues, the following
decision making processes have been developed for activities within 5,000 feet of TTD.
They outline the general decision making process for each of the following situations:
requesting general technical assistance, coordinating activities and implementing actions on
Port lands that may affect one or more Port operating areas, and implementing habitat
modifications on Aviation lands. All of the processes were developed as part of the Port’s
ongoing management program and were designed to ensure all parties are aware of
potential conflicts in use.
4.5.1. Project Screening for Proposed Development

Activities and/or projects on Port lands within the 5,000-foot separation criteria of the TTD
runways have the potential to adversely affect safe airport operations. Consequently, a
decision making process was developed to assist in coordinating efforts for projects within
the 5,000-foot area. For Port projects, the project managers should refer early conceptual
project design to the Aviation Wildlife Manager to identify and avoid actions that may have
the potential to adversely affect safe airport operations in accordance with FAA guidelines.
This may include, but is not limited to:
 Building location and design;

 Landscape design;
 Stormwater Management;
 Mitigation projects and general enhancement of natural areas;
 Tenant or leasehold improvements.
In addition, the Port’s BATS procedure was developed to provide early conceptual screening
for a wide range of potential impacts of proposed tenant projects. The wildlife program
utilizes the BATS process to screen project proposals for potential wildlife hazard attractant
features and recommendations are made as appropriate to the planning team.
41
Once the Aviation Wildlife Manager is made aware of a project, the initial step is to
determine whether the project may pose a hazard. If it is determined that the project would
not pose a potential hazard, the project would move forward. If a potential hazard were
identified, the project would undergo the risk evaluation to determine if the risk due to the
project is acceptable or if project modifications could be incorporated to lower the risk to an
acceptable level.
Port owned Mitigation sites within 5,000 feet are managed by the Port’s Natural Resources
program. Natural Resource staff works with the wildlife program to ensure that the
management of the mitigation sites is compatible with the WHMP. For projects that are not
on Port land within 5,000 feet, wildlife staff work cooperatively with local planning and
zoning staff to screen projects for potential wildlife hazards, primarily stormwater
management and landscaping.
4.5.2. Monitoring and Evaluation

The Port developed an integrated Environmental Management System (EMS) in 2000,
compliant with ISO 14001 guidelines and based on the principles of adaptive management.
The TTD Wildlife Hazard Management program is designed within this context, integrating
scientific methodology with the built in adaptive management feedback loop of Plan; Do;
Check; and Act. Adaptive Management has been defined as “a system of management
practices based on clearly defined outcomes, monitoring to determine if management
actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best
ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes.” (Department of the Interior
Manual, May 27, 2004 Environmental Quality Programs).
The application of these principles at the operational and program levels provides the
flexibility necessary to respond to changes in environmental conditions, adjust to
unanticipated impacts, and modify management strategies to improve effectiveness. Given
that the Port’s Wildlife program is dealing with living organisms which are adaptive by
nature, and the complexity of ecological inter-relationships involved, this flexibility is
essential to the success of the program. The program has been developed to constantly
monitor success and re-assess strategies informally on an ongoing basis, and to formally
assess overall program effectiveness on an annual basis.
Examples include wildlife surveys, recording hazing results, wildlife trapping and
relocation; also, the monitoring of wildlife strikes, standing water, wetland development,
avian nests, wildlife food sources, wildlife distribution, and habitat use in general, is
ongoing.
42
5 RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

AND PROTOCOLS
The risk management techniques and protocols chapter outlines the measures employed to
ensure public safety at TTD by reducing the incidence of wildlife-aircraft collisions. These
measures are grouped according to 4 general categories:
1. Wildlife control procedures to discourage, disperse and remove wildlife species of

concern from the airfield vicinity;
2. Research and development projects to gather data and field test new equipment and
techniques, and to gain a better understanding of wildlife dynamics as they relate to
TTD;
3. Habitat modification practices to reduce the attractiveness of lands on and around
the airport to wildlife species of concern; and
4. Information and education program that communicates to a variety groups the

hazards wildlife create for safe aircraft operations.
Through adaptive management and the risk evaluation process, current wildlife control
measures will periodically be reassessed by PDX Wildlife and TTD Airport staff for efficacy
and correct prioritization. It is expected that these measures will change and be refined
over time as more effective applications and new techniques are identified.
5.1. Wildlife Control Procedures

Wildlife control procedures are utilized to immediately discourage, disperse and remove
wildlife species of concern from the TTD airfield and surrounding properties. Their
implementation encompasses the day-to-day, on-the-ground efforts routinely employed by
Airport staff to ensure that the approach and departure airspace is as free of potential
wildlife hazards for immediate aircraft operations as is practicable. Wildlife control
operations are generally reactive to the situation of the moment, responding to any
perceived threat to aircraft safety posed by wildlife species of concern.
Wildlife hazards that develop on or around the airfield are assessed by Airport staff to
determine the most appropriate control option. A primary key to successful wildlife hazard
management is persistence and innovation on the part of the individuals implementing the
management strategies. Airport staff selects the appropriate control techniques according
to biological, sociologic, economic and political factors. Most common control techniques
retain their effectiveness if they are used infrequently, and in conjunction with other
methods. The control method(s) chosen will depend largely on the situation at hand and the
species involved.
43
A variety of wildlife control equipment and resources are currently used to disperse wildlife
attempting to utilize TTD for food, shelter or resting. The type of equipment used in any
given situation will vary depending on the nature of the wildlife threat and the associated
risk. The ultimate goal of all wildlife control equipment is to achieve the most efficient
means of wildlife dispersal.
5.1.1. Personnel & Communications

Airport staff is responsible for conducting physical inspections of airfield movement areas
and other areas critical to wildlife hazard management as part of their airfield duties.
During periods of high wildlife activity, more than one Airport staff person may be assigned
to the airfield. Airport staff will contact the Aviation Wildlife Manager whenever additional
support or direction is needed to address wildlife-aviation hazard issues at TTD.
5.1.2. Vehicles
In order to effectively reach all areas of the airfield, Airport staff vehicles are all wheel drive
capable with the ability to communicate, via radios, with other airport assets including the
Air Traffic Control Tower. In addition, each vehicle is equipped with a variety of hazing tools
including but not necessarily limited to air horns, sirens, pyrotechnic devices, handheld
lasers, and spotlights.
5.1.3. Wildlife Surveys

During runway checks, wildlife data are collected by Airport staff trained in wildlife data
collection for entry into the Airport Information Report Manager (AIRMAN) database.
AIRMAN is software designed by Winfield Solutions for use in airport wildlife management.
AIRMAN provides a database where wildlife data is compiled and organized for easy
management queries. Queries can be displayed spatially on an aerial photograph to show
any and all attributes collected by Airport staff. Once the data is entered into AIRMAN, its
logical organization allows trend analysis that can be performed instantly. Annual and
monthly reports are generated for review, enabling well-informed management decisions.
5.1.4. Data Collection Procedure

Data collection procedures and sampling assumptions are periodically reviewed with all
designated observers to ensure uniformity of observations and data collection. For each
wildlife observation, the following information is recorded in the AIRMAN program:
Date/time of occurrence. The time of day is recorded when the wildlife species is initially
observed.
Weather. Airport staff records the current weather conditions by tuning the 800 MHz radio
frequency to Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) at 135.625. Temperature,
precipitation, cloud cover, wind speed and wind direction are recorded. If at any time
during each shift the weather changes significantly the weather data is updated to the
current weather conditions.
44
Grid location. The location where the species was first observed is recorded using a grid
system that is overlaid onto an aerial photograph. When wildlife is observed moving
through multiple grids, the first grid location is always recorded. A set of these aerial
photographs remains in the observer’s truck for easy access while recording wildlife
observations.
Species observed. Airport staff record the species observed using the assigned four letter
codes. The codes are listed in AIRMAN under the “Species” pull down menu. More specific
information is collected on raptors to identify individuals that are then classified as resident
or nonresidents. Plumage variation and band numbers are the primary characteristics used
to determine individual birds of the same species. Any species that is not positively
identified will be recorded as “unidentified”. If a species is observed multiple times
throughout the day in the same location and is exhibiting the same behavior, it is to be
recorded as one observation. If a species is observed multiple times throughout the day in
various locations, exhibiting different behavior, or if dispersal techniques are conducted, it
is then recorded as an additional observation.
Number observed. The number of individuals is recorded for each species observed.
When a particular species is exhibiting flocking behavior the total number of individuals in
the flock is estimated. Airport staff are trained to estimate flocking numbers before entering
data into the AIRMAN database.
Behavior. The behavior is intended to capture the conduct of the species when associated
with the attractant (below). The initial behavior of the observed species is recorded. If there
is a notable change in the species behavior during the observation, additional information is
recorded in the “notes” section for the intervention.
Attractant. Assumptions are made by Airport staff regarding what the observed species is
attracted to. These assumptions are based on the behavior of each individual species (e.g.
feeding, breeding, resting/loafing, territorial, etc.). Airport staff undergoes wildlife
behavioral training for species commonly observed at TTD before collecting data for the
AIRMAN database. If the observer is unable to determine the attractant, it is recorded as
“unknown”. A list of attractants and their codes are available in both a hard copy and
electronic format.
Dispersant. When hazing or dispersing wildlife from the airfield, the equipment or method
used is recorded. If multiple dispersants are used, there is an option in the database to
record the primary/secondary dispersants with primary being the most aggressive and
secondary being supportive. The AIRMAN database contains a list of dispersants and their
codes.
Result. Airport staff will record the outcome of their hazing attempt. If no dispersal action
is taken it is then recorded as observed.
Strike. If a species is involved in an aircraft strike, additional information will be collected

and sent to the Aviation Wildlife Manager and Wildlife Technicians for the preparation and
submittal of a strike report to the FAA’s wildlife strike database. In the incidence of an
aircraft strike, Airport staff document the following:
45
 Species, number and size category of the species struck

 Name of the airline (when applicable), type of aircraft, and registration number
 Flight number (when applicable)
 Phase of flight
 Runway used
 Part(s) of aircraft struck
 Damage or no damage
 Effect on flight
 Any other pertinent information
5.1.5. Hazing and Harassment

Hazing and harassment are the primary methods used to disperse wildlife species of
concern from the airfield to allow for safe aircraft operations. This is responsive to the
immediate safety needs of each arriving and departing aircraft. Techniques that may be
used to haze birds include pyrotechnic devices (e.g., shell launching pistols, 12-gauge
shotguns), remote controlled propane cannons, and other auditory frightening devices (e.g.,
vehicle air horns and sirens), visual deterrents (e.g., green laser), trained dogs and paintball
markers. Before implementing any hazing techniques Airport staff will assess the location of
wildlife relative to imminent aircraft operations and will determine the appropriate method
and timing for hazing. Reactions to hazing are noted and wildlife is monitored to ensure that
it does not relocate to another area of the AOA and continue to pose a hazard to aircraft. The
results of each dispersal action taken are entered into the AIRMAN database for future
retrieval and evaluation.
The techniques and protocols followed for hazing and harassment are expected to change
over time as new information; including direction provided by the risk evaluation process
and through adaptive management, is integrated into the WHMP. Current Port methodology
appropriate for use at TTD is as follows.
Pyrotechnic Devices
TTD currently utilizes three types of pyrotechnic devices to control wildlife on the airfield,
shell launching pistols, 12-gauge shotguns, and propane cannons.
- Shell Launching Pistols

This lightweight and convenient device fires a 15 mm cartridge (a Bird Banger or Screamer
Siren) approximately 40 to 70 yards while making a whistling noise or loud bang. The pistol
gives the operator in the field the flexibility of localized wildlife control in a simple and
timely manner. Before discharge, the user will evaluate the location of the wildlife to be
hazed and determine if there is a potential for foreign object or debris (FOD) from the
screamer shell casing to enter the movement areas. Bird Bangers do not generate FOD.
Under no circumstances will FOD be allowed to land on the movement areas. These pistols
and shells will be carried in all wildlife vehicles.
- 12-Gauge Shotguns
The shotguns discussed here are used exclusively to fire cracker shells. Cracker shells are
12-gauge shotgun shells that launch an explosive cartridge approximately 75 - 100 yards,
before it explodes with a loud report. Cracker shells also do not generate FOD.
46
Remote Controlled Propane Cannons

Remote-controlled propane-powered sound cannons are a potential hazing option
appropriate for areas that frequently attract large concentrations of wildlife, or in places
that are difficult to access by vehicle. These cannons fire only when the units are
electronically signaled to operate by a handheld or through electronic means in the wildlife
vehicles. The ability to remotely fire individual cannons on command, as opposed to
cannons that fire on a timer system, increases the sound cannon systems effectiveness by
limiting wildlife habituation to a predictable noise.
Other Auditory Frightening Devices

Many times, wildlife can be dispersed from an area by using horns and sirens installed on
wildlife vehicles. By positioning the vehicle between the movement area and the wildlife of
concern, wildlife will often move away from the vehicle and therefore, away from the
movement area. This is an effective way to disperse wildlife while in a moving vehicle,
without having to use a pyrotechnic device. Using horns and sirens are also appropriate in
situations where FOD from pyrotechnics is a concern or where pyrotechnic noise may be a
hazard for personnel working in the area.
Visual Deterrents
- Green laser
The laser is primarily used to disperse birds that do not react to other hazing methods or
when there is a need to disperse outside of the range of pyrotechnics and cannons. Birds
perceive the laser as a solid threatening object and tend to disperse when the laser beam is
detected. The laser is a handheld unit which is activated from the Wildlife vehicle. Wildlife
staff follows approved FAA protocols when utilizing the laser inside the AOA and off airport
properties. When Wildlife staff identify the need to use the laser they will take precautions
similar to those taken when implementing pyrotechnic dispersals. The laser must be
pointed at the ground and/or other non-reflective surfaces such as dry pavement to
terminate the beam. The laser is most effective in low light conditions.
- Silt Fencing- Visual Barriers

Silt fencing is used on undeveloped properties outside the PDX airfield fence, primarily as a
goose deterrent. The fencing acts as a visual barrier that introduces the uncertainty of
potential predators by obstructing the view. Being unable to see potential predators gives
geese an unsettling feeling which has proven to be extremely effective in deterring geese in
large open areas. This method will also be used at TTD as needed.
47
Paintball Markers
The paintball marker is explicitly used for the hazing and marking wildlife on Port of
Portland aviation property. Only PDX Wildlife staff with specific training is allowed to use it,
and it will only be used for the purpose of hazing and marking wildlife. A protocol for the
use of paintball markers to deter wildlife on aviation property is as follows.
1. Only temporary water soluble paint balls (both colored and clear) are used at TTD
for the purpose of marking or hazing wildlife, and are therefore not subject to the
permit requirements of the USDI Bird Banding Laboratory. Permanent paint balls
are utilized for the marking of mammals for the purpose of documenting individual
behavior.
2. Before a paintball is discharged, the user will evaluate the location to determine if
there is a potential for FOD from the paintball casing, or a risk of paint marking a
runway, taxiway sign or pavement area. No FOD from paintballs will be allowed to
land on movement areas. No paintballs with colored paint will be shot toward
movement area markings or signage; only clear paint balls will be used under these
circumstances.
3. The user of the paintball marker will consider the distance and species of bird
before firing. An appropriate distance and psi will be used to minimize the potential
of injuries to birds. The user will attempt to hit the bird in the keel or high on the
shoulder. Every attempt will be made to avoid hitting birds in delicate areas. All
birds tagged with the marker will be observed as they fly away to assure that they
have not been harmed. Any bird that appears to be injured will be captured for
treatment at the Audubon Society’s Wildlife Care Center.
4. No paintballs will be fired toward or over public roadways or toward people on or

off the airfield.
5. The paintball marker will be used to discourage wildlife from using the airfield only
after other dispersal techniques (vehicle, siren, horn, cannons, pyrotechnics) have
proven ineffective. Appropriate situations include:
a. Marking a coyote that has been on the airfield to see if it returns. The coyote
should be marked, if possible, during the process of herding it off the airfield.
b. Marking and hazing great blue herons and red-tailed hawks that have grown
accustomed to pyrotechnics and will not leave the area.
c. Marking and hazing flocks of geese that use quiescent ponds or other
adjacent airfield properties to determine if they are residents or migrants.
d. Paintballs are used as a negative reinforcement when birds have

habitualized to pyrotechnics. Paintballs are often used in conjunction with
pyrotechnics to instill the fear of pyrotechnics.
48
Hazing Procedures- Birds

All bird species of concern observed on or near a runway, taxiway, or ramp will be hazed
away from the AOA. Before conducting hazing activities, the Airport staff will consider:
1. The most effective method and tools for hazing the targeted wildlife species.
2. How to move the bird away from the AOA. If possible, staff will position the vehicle
between the wildlife hazard and the runway or taxiway to push it from a high risk
area to a low risk area.
3. Consideration will be taken to avoid shooting pyrotechnics toward aircraft, people,

buildings, vehicles, etc. Cannons should only be fired when they are within visual
range of the operator to ensure that no one is in the immediate vicinity.
4. The airfield environmental conditions. In wet conditions, some areas are not
accessible with a vehicle. Alternately, using pyrotechnics in dry conditions can
create a fire hazard.
5. The aircraft in the area and the direction of air traffic. Unless a bird/animal is on the
runway and needs to be moved prior to a departure or landing, the dispersal will
wait until there is a sufficient gap in aircraft movement. Airport staff will monitor
the tower radio and keep a visual on air traffic to avoid moving wildlife species of
concern into the path of landing or departing aircraft.
6. The potential of the dispersal method to generate FOD. Non-FOD generating

techniques are the preferred hazing method of use in the AOA.
Airport staff must determine the safest, most effective way to implement pyrotechnic
control of wildlife species of concern. Reactions of birds to pyrotechnics vary by species,
time of year, and numbers present. Generally, the best technique to disperse birds is to get
positioned upwind between the bird(s) and the active runway(s) (birds normally take off
into the wind, turn, and then fly off with the wind when being harassed). Airport staff
should aim away from the runway if FOD is a concern and shoot the pyrotechnic about 45
degrees away from the target, on the opposite side of the desired escape route. Airport staff
should get as close to the bird as possible in order to expedite their departure.
In some situations, birds may circle and move to another part of the airfield or attempt to
return to the same location. In such cases, it is advantageous to have two personnel using
control measures to prevent birds from relocating or returning. If only one person is
available, use of propane cannons in conjunction with the cracker shells can effectively
prevent birds from returning or relocating to another site on the airfield.
Any pyrotechnic FOD should be removed from a runway or taxiway as soon as possible.
49
Hazing procedures- Mammals

No standard protocol is followed to disperse or remove mammals from the AOA at TTD
because of the varying response to hazing demonstrated by different species of mammals.
Instead, species-specific procedures are followed that have proven effective over time.
Domestic animals that are accidentally released on the airfield will not be classified as
wildlife. Every attempt will be made to capture domestic animals and return them to their
owners. Based on the risk evaluation process and adaptive management, Port protocols for
addressing these issues may evolve to better reflect new information. The Port’s current
operating procedures are as follows:
- Coyotes
When dispersing coyotes from the airfield, the acceptable procedure is to guide the coyote
out of an opened perimeter gate or other perimeter access point (e.g., culvert under the
perimeter fence) with vehicles. This may require enlisting assistance from other Airport
staff. Our experience is that aggression towards a coyote makes them more difficult to
control. Anticipating the direction they are likely to go, and providing them an avenue of
escape proves to be an effective technique. Airport staff will coordinate with the Air Traffic
Control tower if the coyote is on the runway, or if access to a movement area is needed to
disperse the coyote away from aircraft activity. In the event that Airport staff are unable to
disperse a coyote and it continues to be a hazard in the AOA, the Aviation Wildlife Manager
will be contacted to discuss further management options.
- Deer
Deer rarely find their way past the security fence and onto the airfield at TTD, and do not
need to be dispersed if they are outside of the airfield security fence. If there is a need to
remove deer from within the security fence, Airport staff may gently coax them to a place
where they can exit the airfield or they will be lethally removed following the Port’s Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife permit.
- Mole/Gopher Trapping
Moles and gophers can damage airport facilities by damaging underground electric cables
that power runway lights and by undercutting aircraft movement surfaces by burrowing
under them. These consequences represent indirect hazards to the safe operation of aircraft
at TTD. These species will be removed by direct control measures (e.g., trapping, poison
applications) whenever they become problematic on the airfield.
50
Protocol for Airfield Access and Communications

The following protocol outlines the procedures to be followed by Airport staff when
accessing the TTD airfield and maintaining communications during wildlife management
operations. The procedures are intended to satisfy the requirements set forth by the FAA
for access onto movement areas by Airport staff.
Communication procedures:
Any access to the movement areas for the purpose of wildlife management will be
coordinated with the Air Traffic Control tower.
Accessing a movement area:
1. If access to a movement, safety, or critical area is necessary to facilitate wildlife

management activities, the Airport staff making the request shall contact the Air
Traffic Control tower to coordinate access to a specific area.
2. Upon completion of the wildlife management operation, Airport staff will exit the
movement, safety or critical area by the most direct and safe route. ATC should be
notified when clear.
3. No uncoordinated access to runways or runway safety areas is allowed. If there

is a specific wildlife issue that involves a runway or runway safety area, Airport staff
shall contact the Air Traffic Control tower to advise them of the situation and
request access to the area if necessary. Operational options include:
a. Escorted access onto the runway or into the safety area.
b. Unescorted access onto the runway or into the safety area.
c. A runway closure for access.
4. Vehicles will not be allowed to park on any movement area or in the safety area
unless the area is closed or a request is made and permission granted by Air Traffic
Control to park temporarily in a specified location.
Specific guidelines:
Airport staff may access movement, safety or critical areas in the course of wildlife
management operations provided the following requirements are met:
1. Airport staff must have received specific training to implement this procedure.
2. Access to movement, safety or critical areas shall be coordinated with the Air Traffic
Control tower.
3. Airport staff and all associated equipment must be able to clear any area
immediately when instructed by the Air Traffic Control tower.
51
5.1.6. Raptor Trapping and Translocation

Raptor activity at TTD is assessed during regular wildlife patrols. Information on species,
age, sex, location, identifying marks, and behavior is recorded. If raptors are judged to pose
a continued hazard to aircraft, the trapping, banding and relocation of problem individuals
is a management option allowed under permits issued by the ODFW and the U.S
Department of the Interior. American kestrels and red-tailed hawks are the primary raptors
observed at TTD, although northern harriers, turkey vultures and Cooper’s hawks are
occasionally observed. The decision to trap and relocate a problem raptor would be made
by the Aviation Wildlife Manager following the protocol established for TTD. Raptor
translocation is considered an ongoing management practice because of the attractiveness
of the area to hawks. Trapping primarily occurs during the spring and fall migratory periods
when an influx of non-resident migratory and transient raptors pass through the area. A
brief summary of the raptor translocation protocol follows.
 Windshield surveys (surveys conducted from a vehicle) are conducted

throughout the year to assess raptor activity. Additional visits are made
during critical or high use periods. Information on species, age, sex, location,
identifying marks, and behavior is recorded.
 Opportunistic trapping is completed as needed during the windshield
surveys. American kestrels may also be targeted for trapping. Cooper’s
hawks and other raptors are usually caught incidentally.
 Raptors are captured with bal-chatri and goshawk traps baited with
domestic mice, gerbils, house sparrows, starlings, or pigeons. Starlings and
pigeons fitted with noosed jackets are also used.
 Captured raptors are removed from the trap and placed in a carrier for
transport to an off-site holding area. Birds are measured, weighed and fitted
with a uniquely numbered silver federal band on their right leg. Most red-
tail hawks also receive an orange plastic leg band with a black alpha-number
or number-alpha code (PDX project band) on their left leg and wing tags.
Wing tags are made from thin orange vinyl fabric with a black alpha-numeric
code that matches the orange leg band. Additionally, many red-tailed hawks
are also marked with blue dye on their breast. The dye enables observers to
spot birds that return even if the leg bands are not visible. Red-tailed hawks
are usually held overnight in mid-sized airline-type dog kennels and offered
food then transported and released within 72 hours. Other species (Cooper’s
hawk and American kestrel) are targeted for release within 24 hour of
capture.
 Red-tailed hawk release sites are based upon presence of suitable habitat
(open areas for hunting and adjacent forest with large trees for shelter and
roosting); distance from PDX & TTD (average of 40 miles); and distance
from other airports (more than 5 miles). Other factors influencing release
site selection included presence/absence of territorial birds, proximity to
busy roadways, human disturbance, prior success of the site, and number of
red-tails recently released at the site. Cooper’s hawks and American kestrels
are released in areas with suitable habitat at least 5 miles from any other
airport.
52
 Red-tailed hawks captured from January through May are primarily released
at sites north of Columbia County, under the assumption that many of the
birds are moving northward. Beginning in June and continuing through
October, the primary release sites for red-tails are west of the Coast Range in
Tillamook County, and in Wasco County near Tygh Valley. Other areas are
used during periods of high activity to better disperse the released birds.
5.1.7. Avian Nest Intervention

Avian nest intervention techniques that may be employed at TTD include red-tailed hawk
nest manipulation and waterfowl egg/nest removal.
Red-tailed Hawk Nest Manipulation

Red-tailed hawk nest manipulation is intended to disrupt eggs from hatching so that
offspring don’t fledge near the airfield and become imprinted to the area. The Port annually
applies to the ODFW for authorization to conduct red-tailed hawk nest manipulation at
Port-owned airports. These written requests allow the Port to manipulate specified nests
located near the airfield. Each year, nests and methods of manipulation are specified in the
ODFW permit. Nest manipulation methods may include removal, egg addling, and
replacement of fertile eggs with infertile eggs, or trapping and relocation of chicks.
A need for red-tailed hawk nest manipulation has not arisen at TTD. Should a resident red-
tail hawk be identified as nesting on lands adjacent to the airfield, the nest location,
chronology and nesting success may be monitored to determine if a potential aviation risk
exists. Any decision to approve nest manipulation would be handled by the Aviation
Wildlife Manager.
Waterfowl Nest Removal

Nests of waterfowl (primarily ducks and geese) located on and around the airfield are
subjected to removal. The Port is permitted through the federal depredation permit issued
by the USFWS to remove or destroy nests of species that pose a threat to safe aircraft
operations. The results of nest removal are summarized and reported annually to the
USFWS.
5.1.8. Lethal Action

GENERAL POLICY
The policy of the Port is to use lethal control only as a last resort after all other reasonable
non-lethal options have been exhausted, and when there is an ongoing threat to public
safety. If the need arises, the Port is committed to using lethal control in a reasoned,
humane, controlled, limited, and efficient manner by trained staff.
Lethal action on birds is allowed under a MBTA airport depredation permit issued by the
USFWS, and will always be accomplished in accordance with permit guidelines. In any case
where firearms are used to dispatch an animal on the airfield, the lethal action is not
authorized until approved by the General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife
53
Manager. Lethal action using firearms will be conducted solely by PDX Wildlife staff. For
security reasons and in the interests of ensuring that staff is readily identifiable as Port
employees, high visibility vests clearly marked “PDX Wildlife” will be required for any staff
implementing a lethal action against wildlife.
There are three situations that may warrant lethal action against wildlife at TTD. They are:
1. To humanely dispatch an animal that is obviously injured beyond hope of

rehabilitation.
2. To address an immediate or ongoing threat to aircraft safety in an emergency

situation.
3. As a population control measure to address an ongoing concern for aircraft safety.
Each of these situations has a different decision maker, method, and documentation
required. Each will be outlined below.
To Dispatch an Injured Animal

Airport staff may encounter situations in which an injured, sick, or wounded animal is found
at TTD. PDX Wildlife staff can provide an initial assessment of the animal’s condition and
decide on one of several options depending on the severity of the injuries:
1. House and monitor the animal on site.
2. Transport the animal to the Audubon Society of Portland’s Wildlife Care Center.
3. Humanely euthanize the animal.
Decision Maker: PDX Wildlife staff.

Specifically trained staff will make the decision to implement direct lethal action to end an
animal’s suffering if the situation does not warrant transportation to a rehabilitation facility.
This will not normally require the use of firearms.
Method: In this case, euthanasia will be done in the most humane manner possible. In
some situations, it may be appropriate for the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife or
USDA Wildlife Services to be called in to assist.
Documentation: Any action taken will be entered into the AIRMAN database.
To Address an Ongoing Threat to Aircraft Safety

Hazing and harassment techniques are always the first strategy to attempt to move an
animal away from the AOA. If non-lethal strategies have been tried and repeated, have
proven ineffective, and the wildlife hazard poses an ongoing threat to airfield safety, it may
become necessary to remove the animal using lethal means.
Decision Maker: General Aviation Manager & Aviation Wildlife Manager.

The decision to immediately dispatch an individual animal that poses an ongoing threat to
aircraft or to personnel lies with the General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife
Manager. An example of an ongoing threat to public safety would be an animal that has
54
entered the security perimeter of the airfield, and is unresponsive to repeated attempts to
haze it from the airfield. If the animal maneuvers itself into a position that poses an ongoing
danger to air traffic, then lethal force would be an appropriate action. In these types of
cases, lethal force would be focused only on the problem individual rather than as a means
of population control.
Method: The method of lethal removal will be determined by the species encountered.
Wildlife staff may use Port firearms that they have received training on for use in lethal
control. In most situations, a 12-gauge shotgun will be used in accordance with permit
conditions. Only PDX Wildlife staff that have completed firearms training and are proficient
in its use will be authorized to use lethal control with this equipment. In some situations, it
may be appropriate for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or USDA Wildlife
Services to be called in to assist. Personnel responding to this situation will always consider
the safety of staff involved, and protection of airfield resources such as signs, buildings, and
equipment.
Documentation: After the ongoing threat has been resolved, the PDX Wildlife staff
member will record the action in AIRMAN.
As a Population Control Measure

Special circumstances do exist where lethal action may be employed to reduce the
population of a wildlife species on or around TTD. Population control measures usually
involve prey species (e.g., small mammals, insects) that provide a food source for larger
wildlife species which pose a hazard to aircraft. These measures can also involve non-native
wildlife species which pose a hazard to aircraft because of their flocking behavior and/or
large numbers (e.g., European starling, rock pigeons).
Decision Maker: General Aviation Manager & Aviation Wildlife Manager. The decision to
begin a new lethal control program against a species of wildlife will be determined by the
General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife Manager.
Method: In situations where lethal control is used as a population control measure, the
method will be determined by the species involved. Every effort will be made to use a
method that is humane, does not place undue stress on the animal, does not endanger non-
target wildlife, and does not create any other environmental concerns.
Documentation: Documentation will be made by the Aviation Natural Resource Manager

or designee. The written finding will document that the following threshold criteria have
been met and no other reasonable means are available:
1. The presence or behavior of the target wildlife species has posed a significant
ongoing concern for aviation safety.
2. All methods of hazing or harassment have been tried and repeated with ineffective
or limited results.
3. All reasonable means of habitat and/or behavior modification have been exhausted.
4. Trapping and relocation is not a viable alternative.
55
5. Potential adverse environmental effects or consequences have been identified and

can be reasonably managed.
6. Permits are in place for the species in question.
7. Notification requirements have been identified and implemented, including contact

with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
All findings shall be in writing and evaluated on at least an annual basis. An emphasis shall
be placed on the identification and implementation of actions that can be taken to avoid the
need to use lethal actions in the future.
European Starling Trapping Protocol
Materials
Box traps with a funnel opening sized to that of a starling will be used to minimize the
capture of non-target species. Traps will be baited with corn chips. Other equipment needed
for the trapping effort includes a CO2 canister, garbage bags and an evacuation tube. While
the traps are active, birds will be provided with food, water, and shelter from the weather.
The Port will make every attempt to provide humane conditions for birds in traps.
Euthanasia Protocol
1. Before euthanasia of starlings is performed, all non-target birds will be removed

from the traps and released.
2. When removing starlings from the traps, a garbage bag will be placed on the end of
the evacuation tube and starlings will be hazed into the garbage bag through the
evacuation tube. Some starlings may be left in the traps to lure other birds in.
3. When all of the birds are in the garbage bag at the bottom of the evacuation tube, the
extra air will be removed from the bag which will then be filled with CO2 sufficient
enough to ensure a quick expiration.
4. After each trap is serviced, the number of starlings euthanized will be recorded in
the AIRMAN database.
5.2. Habitat Modification

The long-range goal for TTD is to minimize the risk to aviation safety posed by wildlife
species of concern on and around the airfield. With regard to wildlife habitat, this will be
accomplished by: 1) modifying habitats and/or land uses on Port owned lands that are
shown to be attractive to wildlife species of concern, and 2) discouraging land use practices
on non-Port-owned lands adjacent to the airport that attract wildlife species of concern (in
accordance with FAA AC #150/5200-33B). Habitat modification is the most effective long-
term remedial measure for reducing wildlife hazards on or near the airfield. Habitat
modification includes the physical removal, exclusion, or manipulation of features or
characteristics (both natural and constructed) that are attractive to wildlife species of
concern. The objective is to make the airfield less attractive to wildlife species of concern at
56
TTD, thereby reducing the probability of a wildlife strike. Habitat modifications will be
carefully planned and closely monitored to ensure that they are effective in reducing
wildlife hazards and do not create new wildlife problems.
Knowledge gained from the Port’s risk evaluation process and through adaptive
management will be used to inform future decisions regarding habitat modification at TTD.
Any recommended changes to habitat management at TTD will be incorporated into future
updates of the WHMP.
5.2.1. Port-Owned Property

The Primary Zone is owned entirely by the Port of Portland. Since it encompasses the AOA
and associated RPZs, it is a dedicated land use for aircraft movement. Because this zone is in
the immediate vicinity of aircraft movement, the potential risk to aviation is higher if
wildlife species of concern are present in the area. Therefore, all wildlife hazards identified
within the primary zone will have priority over other projects that may fall in the secondary
zone.
The Port owns much of the Secondary Zone that borders TTD. These areas may be managed
by Port staff or by various leaseholders as authorized by the Port. If a wildlife attractant
determined to pose an unacceptable risk is identified on Port-owned lands in the Secondary
Zone, the General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife Manager will meet to discuss
modifications to habitats and/or land uses, or to consider wildlife control efforts. The
General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife Manager will also consult whenever
modifications or new land uses are proposed for Port-owned lands adjacent to TTD to
ensure that new attractants for wildlife species of concern are not created.
If a wildlife hazard identified in either the Primary or Secondary Zone involves lands under
lease, the lessee will be included in discussions to resolve the wildlife hazard.
5.2.2. Non-Port Owned Property

To maximize the effectiveness of the WHMP, the Port must understand how wildlife habitat
on non-Port owned properties in the Secondary Zone can influence the local distribution,
movement and habitat use patterns of wildlife species of concern. The attractiveness of
these non-Port owned properties to wildlife species of concern can influence whether and
how often these species will use the airfield or cross the airfield to access other habitats.
Wildlife management practices that are implemented on these properties also have the
potential to move wildlife onto the airfield, or to increase the frequency of birds flying
across aircraft flight paths.
Within this context, the Port will discourage land use practices that are known attractants of
wildlife species of concern on non-Port lands in the Secondary Zone, consistent with FAA AC
150/5200-33B. The risk evaluation process will be used to assess whether the level of risk
expected from actions in the Secondary Zone would be acceptable. The General Aviation
Manager, Aviation Wildlife Manager and other Port staff will participate with local, state and
federal agencies on land-use decisions that could possibly increase the attractiveness of the
properties surrounding the airport to wildlife species of concern. Proposed land use
57
projects that will likely increase populations of species of concern, or their activity within
aircraft flight zones, will be discouraged. The FAA Regional Airport Division provides
technical guidance to airport operators, and local/state governments, in addressing land
use compatibility issues. Guidance on incompatible land uses near airports can be found in
FAA AC 150/5200-33B (Appendix B).
The paragraphs below describe some of the Port’s strategies for managing potential wildlife
hazards on non-Port owned properties in the Secondary Zone. More detail can also be found
in Section 5.4, WHMP Information and Education. Knowledge gained from the Port’s risk
evaluation process and through adaptive management will be used to inform future
decisions regarding land uses in the Secondary Zone.
Private Lands: There are adjacent properties owned by private landowners that are used
for commercial and industrial activities. Should significant wildlife issues be identified on
these lands, the Port would approach the landowner and explain the association between
the wildlife issue on their land and the WHMP. If needed, the Port would use the guidance in
the Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B and ask for support from the FAA to encourage the
landowner to modify any land use or practice found to pose an unacceptable risk to safe
aircraft operations. The Port’s Community Affairs Department would assist in these
outreach efforts.
Proposed New Land Uses: The Port uses the guidance in FAA AC 150/5200-33B, and its
technical experience, to determine whether a proposed land use may result in a wildlife
hazard that is incompatible with safe aircraft operations. If a new land use were proposed
that is not recommended by the FAA, the Port would evaluate this land use using the
accepted forums.
The Port of Portland will work with the City of Troutdale on proposed land use changes that
may be in conflict with safe aircraft operations, such as landscaping requirements, the
location of wetland mitigation sites or stormwater management sites in the Secondary
Zone. The Port’s Planning & Development, and Aviation Planning departments are often
involved in land use decisions, and coordinate with the City of Troutdale, Aviation Wildlife
Manager to ensure that no new wildlife attractants with unacceptable risk are planned for
adjacent properties.
The movement of wildlife species of concern between adjacent lands and aircraft flight
paths, and how wildlife use specific areas is a complex issue. There may be times that it is
beneficial to have an area that draws wildlife species of concern away from the airfield. This
must be balanced with the potential hazard of having an area near TTD that is attractive to
wildlife species of concern. The decisions about habitat modifications or land uses must be
made using the best science, expertise, and risk model data available to ensure that no new
attractants that pose an unacceptable risk to aircraft operations are located near the
perimeter of the TTD airfield.
58
5.2.3. Water Management

Because of the attractiveness of water features including natural wetlands, man-made
wetlands, stormwater facilities, and other standing water to wildlife species of concern, the
Port will examine the need for removing or modifying those water features located on Port
property in the manner described below. Any actions taken would be designed to encourage
wildlife species of concern to disperse to other habitats farther away from the airport
where their presence would pose a lower risk to aircraft operations.
Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S.

The Port will apply for permits to modify or fill existing jurisdictional wetlands and other
waters of the U.S. that lie within the Primary Zone and present an unacceptable risk to safe
aircraft operations. The Port will investigate options for converting and maintaining these
areas either in an upland condition or a non-hazardous wetland condition, if such an
opportunity exists. In accordance with FAA AC 150/5200-33B, mitigation for the removal of
these wetlands and other waters of the U.S. should occur on lands outside of the Secondary
Zone. The Port will take appropriate actions to prevent new jurisdictional wetlands or other
waters of the U.S. from developing in the Primary Zone (see following section).
Jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that lie on Port lands within the
Secondary Zone will be monitored as potential attractants for wildlife species of concern. If
use of these sites by wildlife species of concern is documented, and this use contributes to
an increased presence of wildlife species of concern in the Primary Zone, a risk evaluation
will be conducted to determine the level of risk and inform future decisions regarding
appropriate actions to eliminate or minimize the hazard, when warranted. Actions may
range from seeking a permit to fill the wetland or waters of the U.S. to modifying the
wetland to make it less attractive to wildlife species of concern (e.g., vegetation
modification, installation of netting). The Port will take appropriate actions to prevent new
jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. from developing on Port-owned lands
within the Secondary Zone, unless the risk evaluation indicates the level of risk incurred
would be acceptable.
Standing Water and Poor Drainage

Areas in the Primary Zone with standing water, when determined not to be jurisdictional
wetlands or waters of the U.S., will be filled and/or graded to allow water to consistently
drain into ditches and storm water detention facilities. Ditches should be appropriately
sloped so that water does not pool and will drain from the airfield in an expedient manner.
TTD contains a creek located within the Primary Zone at the west end of the airfield. This
tributary, Arata creek, is highly urbanized and has been modified to provide storm water
conveyance and flood storage for the Sandy Drainage Improvement Company (SDIC).
Non-jurisdictional areas of standing water and poor drainage on Port-owned lands in the
Secondary Zone will be monitored as potential attractants for wildlife hazards. If use of
these sites by wildlife hazards is documented, and this use contributes to an increased
presence of wildlife hazards in the Primary Zone, a risk evaluation will be conducted to
determine the level of risk and inform future decisions regarding appropriate actions to
59
eliminate or minimize the drainage problem (e.g., grading, improved drainage facilities),
when warranted.
The following protocol has been developed to manage non-jurisdictional “wet areas” on
Port-owned lands at TTD so they do not develop into jurisdictional wetlands at a future
date.
1. Airport staff and the PDX Wildlife staff are responsible for inspecting TTD
properties and identifying and tracking areas that have the potential of forming
jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If Airport staff and the Aviation Wildlife Manager identify an area that has the
potential to become a jurisdictional wetland, and through verification the area has
not become a jurisdictional wetland, an action request to resolve the drainage
problem will be submitted.
3. If TTD does not have the resources to eliminate the wet area (i.e., the drainage
problem cannot be resolved through surface grading), the General Aviation Manager
will evaluate the area of concern in consultation with the Aviation Wildlife Manager
to determine if involvement by the Planning and Development Department is
warranted.
4. The General Aviation Manager will take necessary actions through the engineering
process or hiring a contractor to resolve the drainage problem. The General Aviation
Manager will determine the funding source.
5. The Aviation Natural Resource program will communicate any potential projects to
the Airfield Planning Group who will attempt to combine mitigation measures with
already scheduled airfield projects.
Storm Water Detention Ponds

No existing storm water detention ponds are located in the Primary Zone, or on Port-owned
land in the Secondary Zone. Should any new storm water detention ponds to be located in
the Primary Zone, or on Port-owned land in the Secondary Zone, they will be designed in
accordance with the Port of Portland’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan, ORS 836.623,
and AC 150/5200-33B, Section 2-3.b.
Oregon Revised Statute, ORS 836.623: “The following requirements and conditions shall
apply to safety risks associated with potential bird strike hazards resulting from new water
impoundments proposed in close proximity to an airport. No new water impoundments of
one-quarter acre or larger shall be allowed within an approach corridor and within 5,000
feet from the end of a runway; or on land owned by the airport or airport sponsor where
the land is necessary for airport operations.”
Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B, Section 2-3.b: “Storm water detention ponds should
be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48–hour detention
period after the design storm and remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the
control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA recommends the use of steep-sided, rip-rap lined,
60
narrow, linearly shaped water detention basins. When it is not possible to place these ponds
away from an airport’s AOA, airport operators should use physical barriers, such as bird
balls, wire grids, pillows, or netting, to prevent access of hazardous wildlife to open water
and minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions. When physical barriers are used, airport
operators must evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue.
All vegetation in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for wildlife that are
a risk to aviation should be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the
FAA encourages the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French
drains or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife.”
If, despite these guidelines, any new stormwater detention structure attracts wildlife
species of concern, a risk evaluation will be performed to determine if additional
modifications are necessary.
Other Constructed Water Features

Any other existing, man-made open water features that lie in the Primary Zone, or on Port-
owned land in the Secondary Zone, will be monitored as potential attractants for wildlife
species of concern. If use of these sites by wildlife species of concern is documented, and
this use contributes to an increased presence of those species in the Primary Zone, a risk
evaluation will be conducted to determine the level of risk and inform future decisions
regarding appropriate actions to eliminate or minimize the hazard, when warranted.
Any new water features proposed for the Primary Zone, or on Port-owned land in the
Secondary Zone, will be assessed for their potential to attract wildlife species of concern.
Either appropriate design criteria will be incorporated to minimize the hazard, or the water
feature will be eliminated unless it can be demonstrated that the water feature would not
present an unacceptable risk to the safe operation of aircraft.
Runways, Taxiways, and Aprons

Airport staff will be responsible for identifying those areas of the runways, taxiways and
aprons where pools of water consistently form after periods of rain. Areas where water
regularly pools on pavement surfaces will be identified for corrective action.
5.2.4. Vegetation Management

Landscaping
Landscaping at TTD can affect tourism, business, and the overall feeling of the Troutdale
vicinity to visitors. With this in mind, landscaping needs to be aesthetically pleasing.
However, it must also coincide with the airport’s greater responsibility for aviation safety.
The goals of TTD landscape management are to reduce the attractiveness of airport
landscaping to wildlife species of concern and to eliminate the vertical intrusion of
vegetation into aircraft operating airspace while retaining an aesthetically pleasing
landscape. The plant species found within the TTD Landscaping Standards apply only to
management of vegetation in the built environment. Composition of plant species within
the context of natural site conversions and stormwater infrastructure is not addressed
within these standards.
61
Because landscaping at an airport has the potential to create wildlife attractant issues the
FAA has issued Advisory Circulars that address a variety of landscaping concerns. An FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) is guidance that should be adhered to by all airports that receive
federal funding.
FAA AC 150/5200-33B provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to
attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. Section 2-8 of this AC states:
“There may be circumstances where two (or more) different land uses that would
not, by themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants….are in such an
alignment with the airport as to create a wildlife corridor directly through the
airport and/or surrounding airspace….therefore, airport operators and the wildlife
damage management biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and
community….”
Additionally, the 2005 Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports Manual, written
jointly by the FAA and USDA specifically states:
“Do not use trees and other landscaping plants for the street side of airports that
produce fruits or seeds attractive to birds. Avoid plants that produce fruits and
seeds desired by birds. Also avoid the creation of areas of dense cover for roosting,
especially by European starlings and blackbirds. Thinning the canopy of trees, or
selectively removing trees to increase their spacing, can help eliminate bird roosts
that form in trees on airports.”
In support of this guidance the Port has developed a set of landscaping design standards for
use within the Primary and Secondary Zones (Figures 7 & 8) that address plant species and
planting standards for spacing of trees and shrubs within the built environment at TTD. A
list of trees, shrubs, and groundcover for vegetation is comprised of species screened by
Port’s Wildlife staff for general wildlife attractant features such as fruit, berries, height,
density, branching structure, crown shape, planting density and arrangement, and location
relative to the Primary Zone and significant habitat features (see Appendix F, List of
Approved TTD Plants). This landscaping list is a refinement of the list developed for the
2009 PDX WHMP. The list is subject to revision whenever new candidate plants are
submitted for variance granted they meet the screening criteria and are accepted by all
members of the Port’s landscaping review team. The process for receiving a variance to the
TTD Approved Plant List entails completing the TTD Plant List Variance Request Form (see
Appendix G). Specific instructions for receiving a variance to the TTD Approved Plant List
are included on the form. Variances to the TTD Approved Plant List will only be granted in
instances where it can be proven that circumstances prohibit use of species found on the
TTD Approved Plant List
The TTD landscaping standards within each zone are described below. For the purpose of
these guidelines please reference the following definitions of trees and shrubs taken from
the Utah State University Agricultural Extension Office. A plant will be defined as a tree
based on having the characteristics of being a woody plant having one erect perennial stem
(trunk) at least 3 inches in diameter at a height of 4 ½ feet above the ground, a definitely
formed crown of foliage, and a mature height of at least 13 feet. A plant will be considered a
shrub if it is a woody plant with several perennial stems that may be erect or may lay close
to the ground, usually having a mature height less than 13 feet and stems no more than
around 3 inches in diameter.
62
Primary Zone
All landscape management within the Primary Zone will be driven by the operational and
safety needs of the Airport. TTD landscaping standards for the Primary Zone are proposed
as follows:
Existing Landscaping
 Existing trees, shrubs, and other landscaping will be assessed. Any landscaping that
is documented to pose a significant wildlife hazard to safe aircraft operations will be
immediately removed.
New Landscaping
1. Each new landscaping project within the Primary Zone will be reviewed by the
Aviation Wildlife Manager and other assigned Port staff before landscaping designs
are finalized.
2. Landscaped areas within the Primary Zone, including tenant landscaping, will only
include shrubs and groundcover. No new trees will be allowed. Species of vegetation
must be represented on the Port’s Primary Zone Plant Species list (see Appendix F),
or be demonstrated to meet the wildlife attractant screening criteria prior to
planting. Design of the landscaping must also comply with the standards outlined in
this document.
3. Trees that penetrate 14 CFR Part 77 Transitional Surfaces, and are demonstrated as
contributing to hazardous wildlife conditions, will be removed rather than topped.
Topping of trees creates an attractive platform for raptor nests, exacerbating bird
strike potential.
4. No shrubs will be allowed within ten (10) feet of the airfield perimeter fence. This
requirement addresses security concerns as well as vertical structure and wildlife
hazards.
5. Landscaping will be a combination of evergreen and deciduous species of shrubs,

with no greater than 50 percent of evergreen species. No unbroken rows or clumps
of evergreen shrubs will be allowed due to the shelter and insulation that is
provided by contiguous crown cover.
Secondary Zone
Landscaping in the Secondary Zone should not create habitats attractive for wildlife species
of concern. Therefore, the goal of landscaping in this zone is to provide a visually pleasing
landscape that does not constitute an unacceptable wildlife risk to aircraft operations. All
landscape management within the Secondary Zone will consider the operational and safety
needs of the Airport. Landscaping Standards for Port-owned lands in the Secondary Zone
around TTD are proposed as follows:
Existing Landscaping
Existing trees, shrubs, and other landscaping will be assessed. If any landscaping is
documented to pose a significant wildlife hazard to safe aircraft operations,
63
a proposal for vegetation modification will be presented to the appropriate

Port department manager to address the issue.
New Landscaping
1. Because of the potential for landscaping to support wildlife species of concern that
could pose an unacceptable risk to aircraft operations, aviation wildlife concerns
need to be incorporated into landscape project planning.
2. Species of vegetation must be represented on the TTD Secondary and/or Primary
Zone Plant Species list, or be demonstrated to meet the wildlife attractant screening
criteria and be accepted through the variance process prior to planting. Design and
installation of landscaping should comply with the spacing and arrangement
guidelines outlined below.
3. Tree species should be selected and planted so that, at maturity, overlapping crown
structures, that are attractive to European starlings or other wildlife species of
concern, will be minimized (Figure 10). In an effort to ensure that there are no areas
within the landscaped environment with contiguous canopy cover the Port has
developed tree spacing guidelines. These guidelines were developed by looking at
the documented maximum spread at maturity of each species on the TTD Approved
Plant List. In order to maintain a minimum of 15ft spacing between mature crowns
the tree species on the TTD list were grouped into three categories. The first group
includes columnar species with a maximum spread at maturity between 10 and 15ft.
To maintain 15ft spacing between the crowns of these species the trees are required
to be planted at a distance of 25ft on center. The next group includes species with a
maximum spread at maturity between 20 and 30ft. To maintain 15ft spacing
between the crowns of the species in this group, these trees are required to be
planted at a distance of 40ft on center. The last group includes a few of the largest
tree species on the TTD list. The maximum spread at maturity for these trees is
between 40 and 75ft. To maintain 15ft spacing between the crowns of these species
during their foreseeable life in a landscaped environment, these trees are required
to be planted at a distance of 60ft on center. If a contractor wishes to intermix
species from the 25 and 40ft categories they may do so at a distance of 35ft on
center. Species from the 25 and 60ft categories may be planted at a distance of 45ft
on center and species from the 40 and 60ft categories may be planted at a distance
of 50ft on center. These situations will be clearly indicated in landscape design
plans.
64
FIGURE 10. OVERLAPPING CROWN STRUCTURES THAT ALLOW BIRDS TO MOVE SAFELY
FROM TREE TO TREE WITHOUT EXPOSURE TO PREDATORS OR WEATHER.
4. Trees approved for planting should have varied canopy types and varied heights,
both at time of planting and at maturity. This will discourage homogeneity, which
attracts starlings (a wildlife species of concern) due to its increased thermal cover
and protection from predation. No uniform, even, or continuous canopies will be
allowed. In addition, trees will be planted in a manner such that there are no more
than 20% evergreen trees per project.
5. Selection of shrubs should be a mix of deciduous and coniferous species with no
more than 50% evergreen species planted to avoid continuous blocks of evergreen
cover. Selection will be based on species that do not exceed a height of 13 feet at
maturity. Shrubs will be planted 10 feet away from all trees (Figure 11).
FIGURE 11. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING DESIGN FOR THE SECONDARY ZONE.
65
6. Tree species selected should tend toward columnar shapes, which have a vertical
branching structure that minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for birds
(Figures 12 and 13).
FIGURE 12. EXAMPLE OF A TREE SPECIES FIGURE 13. EXAMPLE OF AN IDEAL TREE
THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO BIRDS DUE TO TYPE FOR LANDSCAPING BECAUSE OF THE
HORIZONTAL BRANCHING STRUCTURE . MINIMAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PERCHING/NESTING DUE TO VERTICAL
BRANCHING STRUCTURE.
7. Sterile (non-fruiting) varieties of trees will be maintained and utilized.
8. If, despite following the above guidelines, any landscaped area is documented to be
a safety, security or wildlife hazard attractant, it will be managed using appropriate
techniques such as pruning, thinning, or selective removal. No planting of new trees
will be permitted in areas with documented hazards. Trees removed as documented
hazards may be replaced with approved shrub species at densities meeting the TTD
Landscaping Standards.
Grass Management
Grass is the primary ground cover currently used in undeveloped infield areas inside the
Primary Zone. This ground cover is generally preferable to paving because it visually
defines the AOA for approaching aircraft, is more economical to maintain over time, and it
provides a pervious surface for stormwater management. Unfortunately, this maintained
short-grass cover also provides suitable habitat for small mammals that are a primary food
source for raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawk). If the Port’s risk evaluation efforts indicate that
grass cover represents an unacceptable risk to safe aircraft operations by providing habitat
to wildlife species of concern, other alternate ground cover mixes will be considered.
Unnecessary and unwanted weeds and brush (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) are removed
from all areas within the Primary Zone. Noxious vegetation found on the Secondary Zone
may be sprayed with an herbicide type agent, and/or physically removed.
66
Grass Type
The type of grass currently planted and maintained in the Primary Zone, and over much of
the Port-owned land in the Secondary Zone, is a low-maintenance endophyte enhanced tall
fescue seed mix. This grass mix grows very well under the normal climatic conditions of the
region. Any future changes to this seed mix shall be reviewed for its palatability to wildlife
species of concern and/or their prey before being used.
Seed mix shall be a three-way blend of endophyte enhanced dwarf turf type tall fescue
meeting the following criteria:
TABLE 3. AVIATION GRASS SEED SPECIFICATION.
Min Seed Minimum Endophyte

Seed Percent PLS
Purity Germination Enhanced
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Seed type 1 33 98 min 90 min 80 min
Inert Matter 1
PLS (pure live seed) is the amount of living, viable seed in a larger total amount of seed. The
amount of seed to be applied is obtained by using the purity and germination percentages
from the label on the actual bag of seed to be used on the project. To calculate the amount
of seed to be applied:
a. Obtain the PLS factor by multiplying the seed label germination percentage
with the seed label purity percentage;
b. Divide the specified PLS rate by the PLS factor;
c. Round off the result as approved.
Seeding shall be performed during the period between September 1 and October 15, unless
otherwise approved or directed by the Port. After October 15th an additional 30% of Annual
Rye by weight, may be used as an erosion control BMP. Perennial Rye grass is not approved
for use at TTD.
Grass Height
Much research has been conducted on the optimum grass height to deter birds that pose a
hazard to aircraft. Since different bird species prefer different grass heights, there appears
to be no single grass height that is effective at deterring all wildlife species. Most studies
show that a compromise of 7 to 12 inches works best at deterring both small and large bird
species. The Aviation Wildlife Manager will continue to follow the most recent grass height
studies to determine the best grass height to deter wildlife species of concern at TTD.
Mowing
During the growing season (April – October), grass mowing is conducted regularly in the
Primary Zone during daylight hours to maintain grass at the heights recommended to deter
67
wildlife species of concern. However, mowing itself can serve as an attractant for several
species of birds considered to be wildlife species of concern (e.g., Red-tailed hawk,
American Crow, gulls) because food sources such as insects, seeds and small mammals
become more readily available during and immediately after cutting. If mowing contributes
to an increase in activity and abundance of wildlife species of concern, hazing and
harassment efforts will be increased to disperse wildlife and eliminate or minimize the
hazard.
Grass mowing on Port-owned lands within the Secondary Zone occurs once per year during
mid-summer. Whenever mowing contributes to an increase in activity and abundance of
wildlife species of concern in the Primary Zone, hazing and harassment efforts will be
increased to eliminate or minimize the hazard.
Mowing can also interact with bird life history patterns to temporarily increase use of the
airfield by birds of concern. Many factors influence how airfield mowing affects wildlife
activity on and around the airfield. If the initiation of spring mowing coincides with the peak
of spring migration in a given year, numbers of bird species of concern foraging on the
airfield can spike dramatically. The thatch that remains after mowing also influences small
mammal populations, major prey for red-tailed hawks, in ways not yet clearly understood.
The Aviation Wildlife Manager will continue to investigate the dynamic relationship
between use of the airfield by wildlife species of concern and grass mowing. Flexibility will
be introduced into the mowing program so that the timing of, location of and types of
equipment used in mowing can be adjusted to develop mowing prescriptions that reduce
the attractiveness of the airfield to wildlife species of concern.
Drainage Channel and Stream Side Vegetation

Cattails, willows and other vegetation growing along the edges of drainage channels, or in
other wet areas on the airfield, may provide high quality habitat for some wildlife species of
concern. Unless otherwise indicated in the Port’s risk evaluation process, any vegetation
that grows alongside these ditches within the Primary Zone will be maintained at the lowest
possible height, so that nesting, hiding and foraging habitat is not provided for these species
(e.g., mallard, northern pintail). Ditches should be inspected annually for debris and soil
buildups that may impede drainage efficiency. Regular maintenance to restore the original
structure and function of stormwater ditches on the airfield has the added benefit of
retarding/preventing the development of jurisdictional wetland criteria in stormwater
infrastructure.
5.2.5 Structure Management

Human-made structures can provide cover, nest sites and perches for wildlife species of
concern and their prey. A wide variety of structures exist at TTD that may receive use by
wildlife, including airfield buildings, aircraft hangars, terminals, light poles, fences and
navigational aids, among numerous others. If wildlife exclusion is considered during the
initial design phase for a structure, future costly control measures and design retrofits can
often be avoided. To this end, structures should not provide potential nesting, perching or
roosting sites for avian species of concern and should not allow access to mammals such as
coyotes and rodents.
68
Management to reduce the attractiveness to wildlife of structures at TTD is a collaborative

effort between Port Engineering, the Aviation Wildlife Manager, General Aviation Manager
and TTD Maintenance. It includes a review of all proposed new construction during the
initial project design phase, and the monitoring of existing structures for use by wildlife
species of concern. Whenever a structure design issue is identified that may attract wildlife
species of concern, the responsible Port department will be contacted to develop a
corrective action. The goal is to resolve potential design conflicts before structures are
constructed.
Existing Structures
All existing structures located in the Primary Zone will be periodically monitored as
potential attractants to wildlife species of concern. If use of structures by wildlife species of
concern is documented, and this use is determined to represent a potential hazard to
aircraft, a risk evaluation will be conducted to inform future decisions regarding
appropriate actions to eliminate or minimize the hazard. Actions may range from the
installation of features that deter wildlife from using existing structures (e.g., netting,
fencing, spikes) to design modifications that make structures less attractive to wildlife
species of concern.
Existing structures that lie on Port-owned land in the Secondary Zone will be monitored as
potential attractants to wildlife species of concern. If use of these sites by wildlife species of
concern is documented, and this use contributes to an increased presence of wildlife species
of concern in the Primary Zone, a risk evaluation will be conducted to inform future
decisions regarding appropriate actions to eliminate or minimize the hazard.
New Structures
Any new structures proposed for the Primary Zone, or on Port-owned land in the Secondary
Zone, will be assessed for their potential to attract wildlife species of concern during the
initial design phase for the project. Architectural plans will be reviewed, and appropriate
design modifications will be incorporated into the structure to eliminate or minimize the
potential attractiveness to wildlife.
Airport Improvement Projects and Airfield Buildings

The Aviation Wildlife Manager will participate in the initial phase of all airport
improvement projects to evaluate whether proposed structures could result in increased
wildlife hazards. Such projects include (but are not limited to); architectural changes,
terminal expansions, building improvements and construction, and landscape and other
land use changes. Every effort will be made to minimize or eliminate designs and land use
practices that may be attractive to wildlife species of concern, consistent with the Ports risk
analysis.
Some buildings on the airfield were unintentionally designed with features attractive to
wildlife species of concern. As these buildings are identified, and the source of the
architectural attractiveness is identified, steps shall be implemented to modify the building
to decrease or eliminate the attractive features.
69
Sliwinski (1995) and Transport Canada Environment and Support Services (1994) identify
common design features attractive to certain species of wildlife that should be avoided.
These include:
1. Large gravel roofs that can attract gull nesting colonies.
2. Overhanging roof ledges, external roof support structures and architectural details
that provide nesting and roosting sites for birds. Sloping the ledges around a
building to an angle greater than 45 degrees can limit the attractiveness for nesting
and roosting.
3. Large buildings such as airport hangars that provide many places for wildlife to nest
or roost. Often hangars have many holes and openings that birds may use to gain
entrance. Blocking or covering all holes and vents is effective in restricting access by
birds. Blocking or covering all drains can also prevent rodents from becoming a
problem inside a building.
4. Excessive numbers of antennae, towers or overhead wires that provide perch sites
for birds.
Abandoned Structures
Structures within the Primary Zone not pertinent to airport operations, and no longer in
use, should be removed if they pose an unacceptable risk. This includes abandoned sheds,
barns, machinery and poles. These unused structures may be attractive to small mammals
and birds, which in turn may attract wildlife species of concern (e.g., red-tailed hawks).
Abandoned structures in the Secondary Zone will be surveyed to determine whether they
are being used by wildlife species of concern, and whether this use poses an unacceptable
risk.
Airfield Structures
Airfield structures such as runway and taxiway signs, light poles, navigation aids and radar
reflectors are often used as hunting and loafing perches for raptors and other birds. If it is
determined that these structures are serving as attractants to wildlife species of concern,
retrofitting these structures with bird exclusion devices will be evaluated.
Physical Exclusion Devices

Many types of devices and materials are available to physically exclude certain wildlife
species from particular areas. Examples currently in use at PDX, TTD and other Port-owned
airports include animal deterrent fencing, bird netting and anti-perch devices. A brief
description of these devices follows.
- Animal Deterrent Fencing

TTD maintains a permanent, chain link perimeter fence with a height of at least 7 feet
around the airfield. The fence serves the dual purpose of providing a security barrier for the
airport and of excluding large mammals (e.g., black-tailed deer) from the airfield. However,
the perimeter fence contains numerous breach points that allow coyotes and other
medium-sized mammals to access the airfield (e.g., gaps under the fence, problem gates,
70
culverts). If the existing perimeter fence is determined to be allowing access of hazardous

wildlife to the airfield that pose an unacceptable risk to safe aircraft operations, an animal
deterrent fence design similar to that at PDX should be considered for installation (see
Appendix H).
The Port has designed an animal deterrent fence to aid in preventing problem mammals
from accessing the PDX airport. The permanent, 8-foot high chain link fence includes a 4-
foot apron of chain link fence buried at a 45° angle at its base. This apron, which is tied into
the vertical fence, is a very effective device for excluding a variety of medium-sized animals
that attempt to access the airfield by digging under the perimeter fence (e.g., coyote). Design
drawings and specifications for the animal deterrent fencing are presented in Appendix H.
The PDX animal deterrent fencing design has been shared with many other airports that
have problems with mammals accessing the airfield. The FAA has endorsed the design and
is considering it for inclusion in an Advisory Circular.
To be effective, the animal deterrent fencing must be coupled with gates and culverts that
also prevent access by large and medium-sized animals. Existing problem gates can usually
be retrofitted to accomplish this goal. Retrofitting typically involves reducing gaps around a
closed gate to less than 4 inches to limit the opportunity for wildlife to squeeze under or
between the gates. This is usually accomplished by lowering the existing gate to reduce the
space between the bottom of the gate and the surface of the ground, raising the ground
surface by adding asphalt (e.g., speed bump) when lowering the gate is impractical, and/or
attaching metal flashing to the bottom and edges of gates.
- Culvert Exclusion
In order to prevent medium-sized animals such as coyotes and raccoons from accessing the
airfield by way of culverts, metal grates should be placed at the terminal ends of each
culvert that passes under the perimeter fence. The ideal gap size in the grates is 1.5 inches.
This will allow water to flow through the culvert while excluding animals. If cost is a
limiting factor, the priority should be to grate the culvert opening on the inside of the
perimeter fence.
- Bird netting
Small gauge netting is an ideal material for permanent exclusion of birds from buildings and
overhangs that are attractive for nesting and roosting. Although this method of control can
be expensive, the target bird species is permanently excluded from the area. This type of
installation has proven to be very effective in preventing birds from nesting in the eaves of
many buildings located around PDX. Small gauge netting may be appropriate at TTD if
nesting and roosting by birds becomes problematic.
There are currently no storm water detention or retention ponds on the TTD airfield that
could serve as attractants to wildlife species of concern. Should such open water features be
required in the future, they should be covered with small gauge netting structures to
effectively exclude birds. Netting should be designed to go all the way to the ground to
prevent some birds from walking under the net to access the water.
71
- Anti-perch Devices
Airfield signs, posts, navigation aids and other structures provide attractive perch posts for
birds in close proximity to runways and taxiways. Anti-perching devices mounted on these
structures can be an effective way of deterring use of these perch posts by birds. If it is
determined that these structures at TTD are serving as attractants to wildlife species of
concern, retrofitting these structures with anti-perching devices will be evaluated.
5.2.6. Wildlife Food Source Management

Small mammals, earthworms, insects and other invertebrates are a highly attractive food
source for many wildlife species of concern identified at TTD. In addition, trash, handouts
and scattered refuse also provide a food source for some wildlife species of concern (e.g.,
gulls). Therefore, a program to manage the availability of these food sources is essential in
reducing the relative attractiveness of TTD to wildlife species of concern.
Wildlife food source management at TTD is primarily an action targeted at the Primary
Zone due to its proximity to the airfield. Whenever wildlife food sources in the Primary
Zone are documented to attract wildlife species of concern, a risk evaluation will be
conducted to inform future decisions regarding appropriate actions to eliminate or
minimize the hazard. Options could range from increased hazing or trapping of wildlife
species of concern until the availability of the food source naturally declines, to the physical
removal of the attractive food source, or to the implementation of proactive control
measures to reduce the abundance or attractiveness of the food source.
At times, wildlife food sources located in the Secondary Zone may contribute to the
increased presence of wildlife species of concern in the Primary Zone. For example,
attractive food sources in the Secondary Zone may result in regular flyovers of the airfield
by bird species of concern as they move between food sources and other important
components of their home range (e.g., roosts, nest sites, other feeding areas). Whenever
these circumstances are documented, the risk evaluation process will be employed to
evaluate the level of risk posed to safe aircraft operations and guide management decisions.
Such a process must, by necessity, include the influence of adjacent non-Port owned
properties in the evaluation. If warranted, actions similar to those proposed for the Primary
Zone could be taken to reduce or eliminate food source hazards on Port-owned lands in the
Secondary Zone.
Insects
Insects are an important food source for many species of wildlife. Whenever insect
abundance is unusually high because of climatic conditions, reproductive cycles or other
events, wildlife species may congregate to exploit this food resource. For example, American
kestrels have been observed to target the grasshopper hatch at PDX during late summer. If
insects are determined to be an unacceptable attractant of wildlife species of concern at
TTD, then an appropriate action should be taken to reduce population abundance. The State
Agricultural Department or Extension Agent can help select appropriate control methods
for insects, consistent with the Port’s risk analysis, should this action be deemed necessary.
72
Earthworms
Earthworms are very attractive to bird species of concern at TTD when heavy rains bring
large numbers of them to the surface. For example, gulls have been documented to feed
opportunistically on earthworms at TTD during wet spring weather. If earthworms at TTD
are determined to be an unacceptable attractant of wildlife species of concern, then an
appropriate pesticide could be applied to reduce population abundance. Again, the State
Agricultural Department or Extension Agent can help select an appropriate pesticide for
control, consistent with the Port’s risk analysis.
Small Mammals
Small mammals appear to be primary attractants of red-tailed hawks and other predatory
wildlife species at TTD. The primary means for population control of small mammals is the
removal or modification of the habitat that supports their populations and by the
application of commercially available rodenticides on an annual basis. These control
measures are focused within the TTD Primary Zone as a means of controlling the hunting
behavior of predators that feed upon this source of food.
The Port annually controls rodent populations within the fenced perimeter of TTD using the
rodenticide zinc phosphide. The rodenticide is broadcast as grain bait laced with 2% zinc
phosphide at a rate of 6 pounds per acre, usually in late summer. Zinc phosphide is highly
toxic to birds and mammals, reacting with moisture and acid in the gastrointestinal tract of
poisoned animals to produce deadly phosphine gas (Johnson and Fagerstone 1994). Death
usually results from asphyxia. Both primary and secondary poisoning of non-target species
may occur through either the consumption of treated baits or from consumption of
poisoned animals (Johnson and Fagerstone 1994). Since zinc phosphide does not
accumulate in a significant manner in the tissue of poisoned animals, secondary toxicity
results from any remaining undigested bait in the gastrointestinal tract of individual prey.
Following the distribution of laced bait, Airport staff should intensify monitoring and
wildlife hazing efforts for a time period sufficient for the chemical degradation of zinc
phosphide (about 1 month). This effort would minimize the potential poisoning risk to non-
target species, such as raptors, from the rodent control.
Small mammals can be difficult to trap, and there are no easy or long-term solutions for
population control. Usually, an integrated control strategy using multiple methods works
best (trapping, poisoning, habitat modification, exclusion). If current rodent control
methods prove ineffective at TTD, refer to the recommendations provided by USDA/APHIS
Wildlife Services (Witmer 2003) for rodent population control at PDX for application to
TTD.
Trash and Debris

Trash and debris around the terminal and nearby businesses are often responsible for
attracting wildlife such as European starlings and gulls that scavenge on debris. Trash
collection at TTD is conducted weekly so as not to allow the refuse containers to overflow
and become an attractant. Whenever a specific area in the Primary Zone or Port-owned
lands in the Secondary Zone is identified as overly attractive to wildlife species of concern,
additional monitoring of the site by Airport staff will be conducted to determine the source
73
of the attractiveness and the risk posed. If the attractant is linked to trash and debris,
corrective measures to reduce the refuse will be instituted. These could include increasing
the frequency of trash collection, adding additional or modified trash receptacles, and/or
signage to educate the public on the importance of proper trash disposal in these areas.
Food Handouts
Members of the public and airport employees are discouraged from feeding wildlife at TTD.
If a situation develops where animals are given handouts of food, the problem will be
discussed with the person(s) involved so that it can be discontinued. If warranted,
educational materials will be prepared and distributed to individuals or groups informing
them of the prohibition of and the potential hazards associated with feeding wildlife at the
airport. Where necessary, signs will be posted to educate the public on the association
between feeding animals and creating wildlife hazards at the airport, and asking that
individuals refrain from feeding any wildlife near the airport.
Pesticides
Only those pesticides registered through the EPA and the DEQ are considered for usage at
TTD. These registered pesticides are available through private pesticide companies, the
State Agriculture Office or USDA Animal Damage Control. Pesticides are used for a variety of
reasons such as weed, insect, earthworm and rodent control. Pesticides kept on hand are
limited by shelf life and are ordered on an as-needed basis. Insect and rodent control in and
around airport buildings may be contracted to outside companies with licensed applicators.
All legal requirements for pesticide storage, handling and application will be followed.
5.3. Research and Development

The Port has evaluated numerous types of techniques and equipment, and has field-tested a
variety of habitat modifications to control wildlife at PDX, TTD and other airports under its
ownership. Those techniques and equipment that have been evaluated and/or field-tested,
but have not proven effective, are identified in Table 4 below. As future non-lethal or non-
toxic control measures are developed, the Port will evaluate these on an individual basis for
cost and effectiveness. Knowledge obtained from the Port’s risk evaluation process and
through adaptive management will also be used to inform future decisions on control
options. Those cost-effective methods that achieve positive control effects, without harming
wildlife or the environment, will be considered for incorporation into future updates of this
plan. Information gained from research and development projects will be applied to inform
the full range of wildlife hazard management strategies at TTD, as appropriate. Control
measures and devices currently in the research and development stage will be evaluated for
implementation at such time they become commercially licensed and available, or are
proven effective during field trials at Port-owned airports.
74
TABLE 4. WILDLIFE CONTROL MEASURES & TECHNIQUES EVALUATED AND

DISMISSED AT PDX.
Product Tried Application Results
Ultrasonic Device Installed in ponded areas with No effect in deterring mallards.

“Homer Chaser” mallards present.
Aerators Installed in waterway with No effect in deterring Mallards.
waterfowl & herons present. They swam right over aerators.
“Flight Control” Applied to grassy field. Deterred geese from field for 15
Goose deterrent days. Not cost effective if many
chemical applications are needed during
rainy season.
Mylar Tape Strung in lines over fields Often damaged wind and did not
where geese were present. effectively repel geese.
Scarecrows Installed in field with geese No effect in deterring geese.
present.
Scare Eye Balloons Hung in hangar with pigeons No effect in deterring birds.
and starlings present.
Hot Foot Applied to ledge where Only worked for a short time and
pigeons were frequent. difficult to work around.
Eagle Effigy Set in field where hawks and No observed effect on birds using
waterfowl were present. the area. Used as elevated perches.
Dead Goose Effigy Placed in fields with geese Did not deter geese from area.
present.
Recorded Distress Broadcast from vehicle with No noticeable effect on gulls.
Calls numerous gulls present.
“Daddy Long Legs” Installed on light pole where Osprey used product as nest
Perching/Nesting osprey were building nest. foundation.
Deterrent product
5.4. WHMP Information and Education
5.4.1. Internal Port Communication

The success of the Wildlife Hazard Management program depends on the support of a
variety of internal Port departments, teams, and individuals. Some of the departments with
identified roles have been outlined in Section 3.0, including the interaction between the
General Aviation Manager and the Aviation Wildlife Manager. Airport staff at TTD have
frequent interaction with staff from Port departments on many levels.
In addition to this, there are many ways in which the issues of the Wildlife Hazard
Management program are communicated to the larger Port audience. Briefings are provided
to departmental staff meetings as needed. Presentations are made to Manager’s Forums,
management teams, and the Environmental Quarterly Meetings. New employees are given
an overview of the program by Port staff on their initial Port tour. Members of various
75
departments are encouraged see the program first hand, as appropriate. Displays are set up
in Port facilities to illustrate Wildlife Hazard Management program issues. Internal
publications, such as “Currents,” “PDXaminer” and “Portsmouth” are communication tools
that provide updates on specific projects or milestones of the program. Staff can also learn
about the program when they bring their children to “Bring your Child to Work Day” or at
interactive displays set up for special occasions.
The Wildlife Hazard Management program is greatly assisted by Port staff that learn about
the program, remain current on the issues, and who can connect their specific job function
to areas of interaction with the program.
5.4.2. External Audiences

Regulatory Agencies
There is a large group of regulatory agencies that interact with the Wildlife Hazard
Management program to issue permits or to give advice or feedback. In addition, the Port
makes every effort to interact with the regulatory agencies in other forums, to understand
the larger context of the Wildlife Hazard Management program issues and to build positive
relationships with agency members.
Members of the Wildlife Hazard Management program participate in forums with

regulatory agencies. The “Living with Urban Wildlife” symposium series, hosted by the
Audubon Society of Portland, is one forum that puts the Wildlife Hazard Management
program into a larger regional context and facilitates informational sharing. Advisory
committees at colleges and universities are other forums from which Port staff can interact
with agency representatives and learn of ongoing research pertinent to wildlife hazard
management.
In addition, Airport staff are encouraged to participate professionally in public educational

programs, seminars, workshops, and field programs.
When new issues arise with the WHMP, members of regulatory agencies are invited to take
a field tour with Airport staff so they can see the issue first hand and provide their
perspective. This allows Port staff to receive advice, and agency representatives to
understand current WHMP issues.
Adjacent Landowners
The Port recognizes that adjacent landowners can have an effect on the Wildlife Hazard
Management program, either positive or negative. How the land is used and what
attractants are present there, will affect the species of wildlife that are found on and around
the airfield. In addition, any wildlife management practices employed on adjacent
properties can push wildlife toward TTD.
The Port meets with adjacent landowners whenever concerns arise about wildlife
management practices that may exacerbate the strike hazard at TTD. Private land owners
may be contacted if they have an attractant of concern on their property. If land use
practices are proposed for adjacent lands that are in conflict with safe aircraft operations, as
76
outlined in FAA AC 150/5200-33B, the Port will meet with the property owner to
recommend that the proposed land use change not occur. If necessary, the Port will ask the
FAA to support these efforts. In order to achieve compatible land-use planning in the
airport environment, a collaborative review of the local land-use is needed to be conducted
by the Port, City of Troutdale, Clean Water Services, and the FAA.
The Oregon Department of Aviation, Board of Aeronautics, is an active member of the PDX
Wildlife Advisory Committee. The Wildlife Advisory Committee is a group started by the
Port in 1996 to provide a forum to discuss Wildlife Hazard Management program issues
pertinent to PDX with regulatory agencies, interest groups, and the public. This allows the
Port to hear of proposed land use changes that may be in conflict with safe aircraft
operations, such as the location of wetland mitigation sites or wastewater treatment plants.
In addition, the Port’s Planning and Development and Aviation Planning departments are
often involved in land use decisions, and will coordinate with the General Aviation Manager
and the Aviation Wildlife Manager to ensure that no new wildlife attractants are planned for
adjacent properties, whether they are Port-owned or privately owned.
General Public
There is a strong interest in wildlife issues in the Portland metropolitan area and in the
Pacific Northwest. The Port promotes opportunities to provide the public with consistent
messages and accurate information about the Wildlife Hazard Management program. This is
done through the Port’s Public Affairs Department. Public Affairs looks for opportunities to
disseminate information to the public, and also responds to requests from the media for
information.
The Port’s public web site, www.portofportland.com, also has a web page to give an
overview of the program and provide an update on current issues.
The Port participates in many public outreach opportunities, such as having a booth at an
Earth Day fair, that provide the public with an overview of the Port’s Wildlife Hazard
Management program. Port staff uses these opportunities to discuss the program with the
public and provide consistent messages.
Transfer of Technology
Some of the technology used for airport wildlife management is very specific to the
industry. The PDX Aviation Wildlife Manager has developed a strong network of contacts at
other airports that share information about their programs, equipment, and techniques. The
Port actively disseminates information and technology gained through implementation of
the Wildlife Habitat Management program with the aviation/bird strike community and
other interested parties through ongoing dialogue, professional conferences, newsletters
and other appropriate avenues.
Many of these contacts have been established through meetings of the Bird Strike
Committee USA / Canada, the International Bird Strike Committee, and the American
Association of Airport Executives. Members of the Port staff will continue to attend these
conferences to expand their network of airports, researchers, vendors, and experts in the
field.
77
The Port has also taken advantage of opportunities to host conferences or technical training
sessions that facilitate meaningful dialog with federal and state wildlife management
agencies. Airport staff are also encouraged to participate in inter-agency training
opportunities, like the Vertebrate Pest Control Seminar, or the “West Nile Virus Workshop.”
The Port subscribes to a variety of journals and newsletters to receive current information
about wildlife control at airports.
Some of the technology that can be used for wildlife management comes from other
industries, such as agriculture, wineries, mining, or other sectors that are concerned about
problem wildlife control. The Port utilizes the Internet, professional publications, and local
contacts to hear about new technology or techniques used by other industries to control
problem wildlife in other industries.
78
6 AIRPORT STAFF TRAINING

REQUIREMENTS
There are many training requirements before Airport staff are ready to work independently
on the airfield at TTD. The Wildlife Hazard Management Program has developed its own
training program, which relies on other Port Departments and cooperating agencies for
support (e.g., FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, Port Police). Airport staff must demonstrate
competency on the items listed in Table 5 before their training period is complete. Training
records are maintained by the Aviation Wildlife Manager.
TABLE 5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
Topic Trainer Sign Off
Wildlife Regulations and Laws Port Staff

Airfield Familiarization and Safety General Aviation Supervisor
Airfield Movement Area Access General Aviation Supervisor
Coordination with FAA ATC / Radio Protocols General Aviation Supervisor
Handling and Transporting Injured Wildlife Aviation Wildlife Manager
Wildlife Disease Awareness Aviation Wildlife Manager
Wildlife Control Equipment and Procedures Aviation Wildlife Manager
(firearms, pyrotechnics, cannons)
FAA Codes Regulating Wildlife Control at Aviation Wildlife Manager
Airports
Strike Reporting/Data collection Aviation Wildlife Manager
AIRMAN Procedures and Protocols Aviation Wildlife Manager
Bird Identification Aviation Wildlife Manager
Aircraft Identification General Aviation Supervisor
Overview of Species of Concern and Strike Aviation Wildlife Manager
History for TTD
Additional training opportunities will be required as new projects, issues, or equipment are
introduced. Refresher training and recurrent training will be conducted annually or as
needed. Training is essential for all personnel involved in the WHMP. This training will
provide airport personnel with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the WHMP. All
training will meet the requirements AC 150/5200-36. Below is the training outline from AC
150-5200-36 for airport personnel actively involved in implementing FAA-Approved
Wildlife Hazard Management Plans.
79
I. Training Curriculum Outline
The goal of the training course must be to provide the knowledge, skills, and abilities
needed by airport personnel to safely, accurately, and effectively implement relevant
portions of an FAA-approved WHMP. To be acceptable to the FAA, initial and recurrent
training must include the following agenda items:
a. General survey of wildlife hazards to aviation based on the most recent annual
FAA National Wildlife Strike Database Serial Report
b. Review of wildlife strikes, control actions, and observations at the airport over at
least the past 12 months
c. Review of the airport’s Wildlife Hazard Assessment is to include—
(1) Existing wildlife hazards and trends in wildlife abundance
(2) Status of any open or unresolved recommended action items for

reducing identified wildlife hazards to air carrier operations within the past
12 months
d. Review of the airport’s WHMP, to include the following:
(1) Airport-specific wildlife attractants, including man-made and natural

features and habitat management practices of the last 12 months.
(2) Review of the airport’s wildlife permits (local, State, and Federal)
(3) Review of other airport-specific items:
(a) Wildlife hazard management strategies, techniques, and tools:
(i) Flight schedule modification
(ii) Habitat modification, exclusion
(iii) Repelling methods
(iv) Wildlife population management
(b) Responsibilities of airport personnel for—
(i) Reporting wildlife strikes, control actions, and wildlife

observations
(ii) Communicating with personnel who conduct wildlife

control actions or who see wildlife hazards and air traffic
control tower personnel and others who may require
notification, such as airport operations or maintenance
departments
80
(iii) Documenting and reporting wildlife hazards seen during

patrols and inspections and follow-up control efforts
(iv) Documenting and reporting when no hazards are seen

during patrols and inspections
e. Basic bird and mammal identification, stressing local hazardous and rare or
endangered species of concern
f. For any airport personnel using pyrotechnic launchers or firearms, training on the
following topics from a qualified individual:
(1) Safety, parts, and operation of pyrotechnic launchers
(2) Fundamentals of using pyrotechnics to safely and effectively disperse

wildlife
(3) Personnel protective equipment
(4) Cleaning, storage, and transport of firearms and pyrotechnic launchers
(5) Applicable local, State, and Federal regulations on firearms, pyrotechnic

launchers, and pyrotechnics
(6) Live fire training with pyrotechnic launchers including strategies for
dispersing wildlife away from runways and aircraft movement corridors
(7) For any airport personnel using firearms, live fire training. This training
is highly recommended from a qualified individual but not a requirement for
this training program.
g. Any other training required by local, State, or Federal regulations
II. Training Recommendations
a. Exams or tests may be oral, written, practical demonstrations, or a combination of

all three.
b. The Trainer should retain passing grades/evaluations records.
c. The Trainer should retain course attendance records for a period of three years.
d. Airport personnel responsible for the airport’s wildlife hazard management

program should retain records of those to whom instruction in airport wildlife
hazard management has been given for the period of time during which the
employees conduct aviation wildlife management.
81
82
7 LITERATURE CITED
Allan, J.R. 2000. A protocol for bird strike risk assessment at airports. International Bird
Strike Proceedings 25: 29-46.
Burt, W.H. and R.P Grossenheider. 1980. A field guide to the mammals. The Peterson field
guide series. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 289pp.
Cleary and Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for
Airport Personnel. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
Dolbeer, R., Wright, S., Weller, J., & Begier, M. 2009. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the
United States, 1990-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration.
Dolbeer, R., Wright, S., Weller, J., Anderson, A., & Begier, M. 2015. Wildlife strikes to civil
aircraft in the United States, 1990-2014. Serial Report Number 20. Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington, D.C. 101pp.
Eschenfelder, P. 2000. Jet engine certification standards. Proceedings of the International
Bird Strike Committee 25:535-540.
Johnson, G.D. and K.A. Fagerstone. 1994. Primary and secondary hazards of zinc phosphide
to non-target wildlife – A review of the literature. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, DWRC Research Report No. 11-55-005. 26pp.
Oregon Department of Aviation. 2003. Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook. Salem,
OR.
Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society: The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
New York. 545pp.
Sliwinski, R.P. 1995. Habitat management at airports to reduce wildlife hazards. Eleventh
Annual Airport Conference. Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes Region.
Transport Canada Environment and Support Services. 1994. Wildlife Control Procedures
Manual.
Witmer, G. 2003. Assessment of the rodent situation at Portland International Airport: Trip
report, February 5-6, 2003. USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, CO. 7pp.
83
84
APPENDIX A Wildlife Risk Evaluation

Model
85
86
Risk Evaluation Process

The Port has adopted and is implementing a risk evaluation process based on the work of Dr. J.R.
Allan as a means to improve the Port’s wildlife hazard management capabilities. The risk
evaluation model is used to inform management decisions and focus management priorities on
species that pose the greatest risk to aviation safety. While terrestrial wildlife are a concern at
TTD, the security fencing that surrounds the airfield perimeter lessens the incursion of larger
terrestrial wildlife (e.g., black-tailed deer) onto the airfield. Bird strikes, however, are statistically
a much higher risk for aircraft, especially during the critical phases of departure and landing
operations. Consequently, the risk evaluation process included in the WHA for TTD primarily
focuses on avian wildlife.
The model for risk evaluation determines potential risk and sets priorities for risk management
actions by combining the calculation of the probability of a strike with a particular species and the
potential severity of the impact associated with striking that species. For purposes of the model,
the Port measures “severity of impact” and “probability of occurrence” as follows:
Determining Severity of Impact
The Port has defined “severity of impact” as “the likely severity of the damage that will occur to
an aircraft if a collision occurs with wildlife on or near an airport.” To assess the potential
severity of a collision with a given species, the Port uses the United States national strike data
indicating the proportion of strikes with that species which have resulted in damage to the aircraft
struck. The greater the percentage of strikes with a particular species which result in damage, the
greater the potential severity of impact rating is given to that species in the Port’s risk evaluation
matrix. The potential severity of impact portion of the matrix is divided into five decreasing
levels of severity based on the respective decreases in percentages as shown in the following
table:
Percentage of strikes causing >20% 10-20% 6-9.9% 2-5.9% 0-1.9%

damage (based on U.S. national
Database)
Severity Category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low
As a check on this process, the Port maintains an AIRMAN database that tracks wildlife strike
occurrences by species and includes information on whether there was damage associated with
each strike. If there are species for which Port data tracking shows significant variance with
national data, then Port staff will evaluate whether the local data warrants a change in the
potential severity of impact rating for that species.
87
Determining Probability of Occurrence
The Port has defined “probability” as “the likelihood that an adverse event, (i.e., a collision
involving an aircraft and wildlife), will occur at PDX”. The likelihood is measured using airport
specific data for bird strikes at PDX. Due to TTD’s lack of a reliable means of strike reporting,
strike data from PDX was used as a surrogate because of the two airports close proximity and
similar eco-regional context. As with the severity of impact evaluation, the probability of a strike
occurring is divided into five categories ranging from very high to very low. A particular species
placement in a probability category is based on the number of strikes per year for that species
averaged over a five-year period, as shown in the following table:
Average Number of Strikes per year >10 3-10 1-2.9 0.3-0.9 0.2-0
(based on PDX data)
Probability category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low
Making a Risk Evaluation

Combining the severity of impact and the probability of occurrence categories populates the risk
model with a list of species that should be the focus of any management actions. Species that
have been struck at the airport are placed into the appropriate place in the matrix based on the
respective axis i.e. probability or severity. Species placed in the portion of the risk evaluation
matrix shown in red are considered priority species for which the Port will implement an
immediate action plan. Those species falling within the yellow portion of the matrix are species
that are of lesser concern than the red species, but still may require management actions. Those
species falling within the green portion of the matrix are species that warrant monitoring
Very High 3 3 3 3 2
SEVERITY OF
High 3 3 3 2 2
IMPACT
Moderate 3 3 2 1 1
Low 2 2 1 1 1
Very Low 1 1 1 1 1
Discussion
This section provides an analysis of the PDX risk evaluation matrix to identify species of concern
at TTD. The PDX risk evaluation matrix is relevant to TTD based on the close proximity and
similar habitats of the two airports. This analysis serves as a starting point to determine which
species of concern are likely to present the highest risk to aircraft at TTD. The data gained from
the wildlife surveys provides additional insight as to which species of concern from the PDX risk
evaluation matrix are likely to present the highest risk to aircraft at TTD. Another source of data
comes from occasional inspections of TTD by the PDX wildlife technicians and notifications
from the TTD Tower. Periodic site visits were made outside of normal wildlife surveys as time
and staffing levels at PDX allowed, and as requests were made by the TTD tower to haze wildlife
hazards from the airfield. Lastly, the results of reported bird strikes and a map of the location of
known strikes are also included.
88
Risk Evaluation Model

The figure below displays an example of the Port’s risk evaluation model. Probability data for the model is based on PDX strike data,
while severity of impact data was obtained from the National FAA strike database. Since the species composition at TTD is expected
to be comparable to PDX based on the proximity and habitat similarity of the two airports, the probability data obtained at PDX is
being used in this report due to the limited strike reporting history at TTD. The risk evaluation matrix indicates wildlife species of
concern that pose varying levels of strike risk to aircraft at TTD.
Osprey Northern Pintail [Bald Eagle]
Gull spp. Canada Goose [Black-tailed Deer]
Very High
SEVERITY OF IMPACT
Mallard Green-winged teal

Great Blue Heron
High Red-tailed Hawk Dove, Pigeon Great-horned Owl
Peregrine Falcon
Moderate American Crow
*Coyote
European Starling
American Coot Swift Barn Owl
Low Short-eared Owl
Killdeer Northern Harrier
Warbler
Very Low Swallow spp. American Kestrel Varied Thrush
[Bracketed species] indicate species that have not been struck at PDX or TTD, but are present in the area, and have a high enough severity
potential to warrant inclusion in the model.
*Coyote--- This species has not been struck by aircraft at TTD but is frequently observed on the movement surface, thus warranting inclusion.
Source: Allan, J.R. “Birdstrike Assessment Model.” Central Science Laboratory, United Kingdom, 2003.
FAA National Wildlife Strike Database. “Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990 2014.” Washington DC, 2014
89
90
APPENDIX B FAA Advisory Circular

150/5200-33B. Hazardous
Wildlife Attractants On or Near
Airports.
91
92
Advisory
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Circular
Administration
Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE Date: 8/28/2007 AC No: 150/5200-33B

ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR
AIRPORTS Initiated by: AAS-300 Change:
1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance on certain land uses
that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It
also discusses airport development projects (including airport construction, expansion,
and renovation) affecting aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants.
Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC.
2. APPLICABILITY. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that

public-use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in this
AC. The holders of Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139),
may use the standards, practices, and recommendations contained in this AC to comply
with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139. Airports that have
received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these standards. The FAA also
recommends the guidance in this AC for land-use planners, operators of non-
certificated airports, and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near
airports.
3. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife

Attractants on or near Airports, dated July 27, 2004.
4. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes, which

are marked with vertical bars in the margin:
a. Technical changes to paragraph references.
b. Wording on storm water detention ponds.
c. Deleted paragraph 4-3.b, Additional Coordination.
5. BACKGROUND. Information about the risks posed to aircraft by certain wildlife

species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved reporting, studies,
documentation, and statistics clearly show that aircraft collisions with birds and other
wildlife are a serious economic and public safety problem. While many species of
wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety, they are not equally hazardous. Table 1
93
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
ranks the wildlife groups commonly involved in damaging strikes in the United States
according to their relative hazard to aircraft. The ranking is based on the 47,212
records in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database for the years 1990 through 2003.
These hazard rankings, in conjunction with site-specific Wildlife Hazards Assessments
(WHA), will help airport operators determine the relative abundance and use patterns of
wildlife species and help focus hazardous wildlife management efforts on those species
most likely to cause problems at an airport.
Most public-use airports have large tracts of open, undeveloped land that provide added
margins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas can also present potential hazards
to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport's approach or departure airspace
or air operations area (AOA). Constructed or natural areas—such as poorly drained
locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odor-
causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater
treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands—can
provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even
small facilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities,
aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, can produce substantial attractions for
hazardous wildlife.
During the past century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of
lives worldwide, as well as billions of dollars in aircraft damage. Hazardous wildlife
attractants on and near airports can jeopardize future airport expansion, making proper
community land-use planning essential. This AC provides airport operators and those
parties with whom they cooperate with the guidance they need to assess and address
potentially hazardous wildlife attractants when locating new facilities and implementing
certain land-use practices on or near public-use airports.
6. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL RESOURCE

AGENCIES. The FAA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) in July 2003 to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from
wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to
coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental
conditions contributing to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes)
throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to
aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation’s valuable environmental
resources.
DAVID L. BENNETT
Director, Office of Airport Safety and
Standards
ii
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
Table 1. Ranking of 25 species groups as to relative hazard to aircraft (1=most hazardous)

based on three criteria (damage, major damage, and effect-on-flight), a composite ranking
based on all three rankings, and a relative hazard score. Data were derived from the FAA
1
National Wildlife Strike Database, January 1990–April 2003.
Ranking by criteria
Major Composite Relative hazard
Species group Damage4 damage5 Effect on flight6 ranking2 score3
Deer 1 1 1 1 100
Vultures 2 2 2 2 64
Geese 3 3 6 3 55
Cormorants/pelicans 4 5 3 4 54
Cranes 7 6 4 5 47
Eagles 6 9 7 6 41
Ducks 5 8 10 7 39
Osprey 8 4 8 8 39
Turkey/pheasants 9 7 11 9 33
Herons 11 14 9 10 27
Hawks (buteos) 10 12 12 11 25
Gulls 12 11 13 12 24
Rock pigeon 13 10 14 13 23
Owls 14 13 20 14 23
H. lark/s. bunting 18 15 15 15 17
Crows/ravens 15 16 16 16 16
Coyote 16 19 5 17 14
Mourning dove 17 17 17 18 14
Shorebirds 19 21 18 19 10
Blackbirds/starling 20 22 19 20 10
American kestrel 21 18 21 21 9
Meadowlarks 22 20 22 22 7
Swallows 24 23 24 23 4
Sparrows 25 24 23 24 4
Nighthawks 23 25 25 25 1
1
Excerpted from the Special Report for the FAA, “Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil
Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003”. Refer to this report for additional explanations of criteria
and method of ranking.
2
Relative rank of each species group was compared with every other group for the three variables,
placing the species group with the greatest hazard rank for > 2 of the 3 variables above the next highest
ranked group, then proceeding down the list.
3
Percentage values, from Tables 3 and 4 in Footnote 1 of the Special Report, for the three criteria were
summed and scaled down from 100, with 100 as the score for the species group with the maximum
summed values and the greatest potential hazard to aircraft.
4
Aircraft incurred at least some damage (destroyed, substantial, minor, or unknown) from strike.
5
Aircraft incurred damage or structural failure, which adversely affected the structure strength,
performance, or flight characteristics, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of
the affected component, or the damage sustained makes it inadvisable to restore aircraft to airworthy
condition.
6
Aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other.
3
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
4
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
Table of Contents
SECTION 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON

OR NEAR AIRPORTS. .................................................................................................................................... 1
1-1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT .................................................... 1
1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWERED AIRCRAFT ................................................. 1
1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE................... 1
SECTION 2. LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT
HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................ 3
2-1. GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 3
2-2. WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS .................................................................................... 3
2-3. WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ................................................................................ 5
2-4. WETLANDS ........................................................................................................................ 8
2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS ............................................................................ 9
2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 9
2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS ........ 10
2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES ......................................... 11
SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF
PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 13
3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED
WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS........................................................ 13
3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT
PERSONNEL 13
3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, PART 139 13
3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP) ...................................................... 14
3-6. LOCAL COORDINATION....................................................................................................... 14
3-7. COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS ..................... 14
SECTION 4. FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE
CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS ........................................................................ 15
4-1. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY
OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS ........................................................................................................................ 15
4-2. WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ............................................................................... 15
4-3. OTHER LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES..................................................................... 16
APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR ..................................... 19
5
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
6
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
SECTION 1.
GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS

ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS.
1-1. INTRODUCTION. When considering proposed land uses, airport operators,

local planners, and developers must take into account whether the proposed land uses,
including new development projects, will increase wildlife hazards. Land-use practices
that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly
increase the potential for wildlife strikes.
The FAA recommends the minimum separation criteria outlined below for land-use
practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. Please note that FAA
criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or
across the airport’s approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). (See
the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Section 2-8 of this
AC.)
The basis for the separation criteria contained in this section can be found in existing
FAA regulations. The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns of piston-
powered aircraft and turbine-powered aircraft, (2) the altitude at which most strikes
happen (78 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 90 percent occur under 3,000 feet
above ground level), and (3) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendations.
1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports that do not sell

Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent
requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of
5,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in
Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft
movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport’s AOA and the
hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance measured from
the nearest aircraft operations areas.
1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE-POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports selling Jet-A

fuel normally serve turbine-powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent
requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of
10,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in
Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft
movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport’s AOA and the
hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance from the nearest
aircraft movement areas.
1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE.

For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest
edge of the airport’s AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could
cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.
1
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or
mitigated.
PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 5,000
feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be
10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area.
PERIMETER C: 5-mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace.

2
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
SECTION 2.
LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT

HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE.
2-1. GENERAL. The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the
airport environment vary considerably, depending on several factors, including land-use
practices on or near the airport. This section discusses land-use practices having the
potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety. In addition to the
specific considerations outlined below, airport operators should refer to Wildlife Hazard
Management at Airports, prepared by FAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
staff. (This manual is available in English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and
downloaded free of charge from the FAA’s wildlife hazard mitigation web site:
http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.FAA.gov.). And, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage,
compiled by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Division. (This manual
is available online in a periodically updated version at:
ianrwww.unl.edu/wildlife/solutions/handbook/.)
2-2. WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. Municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) are
known to attract large numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. Because of this,
these operations, when located within the separations identified in the siting criteria in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4, are considered incompatible with safe airport operations.
a. Siting for new municipal solid waste landfills subject to AIR 21. Section 503 of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 106-181) (AIR 21) prohibits the construction or establishment of a new
MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certain public-use airports. Before these
prohibitions apply, both the airport and the landfill must meet the very specific
conditions described below. These restrictions do not apply to airports or landfills
located within the state of Alaska.
The airport must (1) have received a Federal grant(s) under 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et.
seq.; (2) be under control of a public agency; (3) serve some scheduled air carrier
operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and (4) have total annual
enplanements consisting of at least 51 percent of scheduled air carrier enplanements
conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats.
The proposed MSWLF must (1) be within 6 miles of the airport, as measured from
airport property line to MSWLF property line, and (2) have started construction or
establishment on or after April 5, 2001. Public Law 106-181 only limits the construction
or establishment of some new MSWLF. It does not limit the expansion, either vertical or
horizontal, of existing landfills.
NOTE: Consult the most recent version of AC 150/5200-34, Construction or

Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, for a more detailed discussion of
these restrictions.
3
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
b. Siting for new MSWLF not subject to AIR 21. If an airport and MSWLF do not
meet the restrictions of Public Law 106-181, the FAA recommends against locating
MSWLF within the separation distances identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. The
separation distances should be measured from the closest point of the airport’s AOA
to the closest planned MSWLF cell.
c. Considerations for existing waste disposal facilities within the limits of

separation criteria. The FAA recommends against airport development projects
that would increase the number of aircraft operations or accommodate larger or
faster aircraft near MSWLF operations located within the separations identified in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 258.10, owners or
operators of existing MSWLF units that are located within the separations listed in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated
so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (See Section 4-2(b) of this AC for a
discussion of this demonstration requirement.)
d. Enclosed trash transfer stations. Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive

garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar
manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with
safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport property or within
the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). These facilities should not handle or store
putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous
wildlife. Trash transfer facilities that are open on one or more sides; that store
uncovered quantities of municipal solid waste outside, even if only for a short time;
that use semi-trailers that leak or have trash clinging to the outside; or that do not
control odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable)
do not meet the FAA’s definition of fully enclosed trash transfer stations. The FAA
considers these facilities incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located
closer than the separation distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
e. Composting operations on or near airport property. Composting operations that

accept only yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, or branches) generally do not
attract hazardous wildlife. Sewage sludge, woodchips, and similar material are not
municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. The compost,
however, must never include food or other municipal solid waste. Composting
operations should not be located on airport property. Off-airport property
composting operations should be located no closer than the greater of the following
distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA or the distance called for by airport design
requirements (see AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design). This spacing should prevent
material, personnel, or equipment from penetrating any Object Free Area (OFA),
Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), or Clearway. Airport
operators should monitor composting operations located in proximity to the airport to
ensure that steam or thermal rise does not adversely affect air traffic. On-airport
disposal of compost by-products should not be conducted for the reasons stated in
2-3f.
4
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
f. Underwater waste discharges. The FAA recommends against the underwater

discharge of any food waste (e.g., fish processing offal) within the separations
identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 because it could attract scavenging hazardous
wildlife.
g. Recycling centers. Recycling centers that accept previously sorted non-food items,
such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, or aluminum, are, in most cases, not
attractive to hazardous wildlife and are acceptable.
h. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris facilities. C&D landfills do not

generally attract hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly
manner, admit no putrescible waste, and are not co-located with other waste
disposal operations. However, C&D landfills have similar visual and operational
characteristics to putrescible waste disposal sites. When co-located with putrescible
waste disposal operations, C&D landfills are more likely to attract hazardous wildlife
because of the similarities between these disposal facilities. Therefore, a C&D
landfill co-located with another waste disposal operation should be located outside of
the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
i. Fly ash disposal. The incinerated residue from resource recovery power/heat-
generating facilities that are fired by municipal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally
not a wildlife attractant because it no longer contains putrescible matter. Landfills
accepting only fly ash are generally not considered to be wildlife attractants and are
acceptable as long as they are maintained in an orderly manner, admit no
putrescible waste of any kind, and are not co-located with other disposal operations
that attract hazardous wildlife.
Since varying degrees of waste consumption are associated with general incineration
(not resource recovery power/heat-generating facilities), the FAA considers the ash
from general incinerators a regular waste disposal by-product and, therefore, a
hazardous wildlife attractant if disposed of within the separation criteria outlined in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
2-3. WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. Drinking water intake and treatment

facilities, storm water and wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and
settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use, and ponds that result from mining
activities often attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife. To prevent wildlife
hazards, land-use developers and airport operators may need to develop management
plans, in compliance with local and state regulations, to support the operation of storm
water management facilities on or near all public-use airports to ensure a safe airport
environment.
a. Existing storm water management facilities. On-airport storm water

management facilities allow the quick removal of surface water, including discharges
related to aircraft deicing, from impervious surfaces, such as pavement and
terminal/hangar building roofs. Existing on-airport detention ponds collect storm
water, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they slowly release water
5
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
after storms, they create standing bodies of water that can attract hazardous wildlife.
Where the airport has developed a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) in
accordance with Part 139, the FAA requires immediate correction of any wildlife
hazards arising from existing storm water facilities located on or near airports, using
appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Airport operators should develop
measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife
damage management biologist.
Where possible, airport operators should modify storm water detention ponds to
allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm. The FAA
recommends that airport operators avoid or remove retention ponds and detention
ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate standing water. Detention basins should
remain totally dry between rainfalls. Where constant flow of water is anticipated
through the basin, or where any portion of the basin bottom may remain wet, the
detention facility should include a concrete or paved pad and/or ditch/swale in the
bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide nesting habitat.
When it is not possible to drain a large detention pond completely, airport operators
may use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to deter
birds and other hazardous wildlife. When physical barriers are used, airport operators
must evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before
installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport
operators must get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division
Office.
The FAA recommends that airport operators encourage off-airport storm water treatment
facility operators to incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into
storm water treatment facility operating practices when their facility is located within the
separation criteria specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
b. New storm water management facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that off-
airport storm water management systems located within the separations identified in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4 be designed and operated so as not to create above-
ground standing water. Stormwater detention ponds should be designed,
engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48–hour detention period
after the design storm and remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the
control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA recommends the use of steep-sided, rip-rap
lined, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basins. When it is not possible to
place these ponds away from an airport’s AOA, airport operators should use
physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to prevent
access of hazardous wildlife to open water and minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions.
When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate their use and
ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical
barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get
approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. All vegetation
in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife should
be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the FAA encourages
6
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French drains or
buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife.
c. Existing wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that

airport operators immediately correct any wildlife hazards arising from existing
wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport. Where required, a
WHMP developed in accordance with Part 139 will outline appropriate wildlife
hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should encourage
wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in
consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous
wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater
treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their
standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the
existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new
airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable.
d. New wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends against the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds
within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Appendix 1 defines
wastewater treatment facility as “any devices and/or systems used to store, treat,
recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes.” The definition
includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants or the
elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works (wastewater treatment facility). During the site-location analysis for
wastewater treatment facilities, developers should consider the potential to attract
hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and airport
operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the
airport.
e. Artificial marshes. In warmer climates, wastewater treatment facilities sometimes

employ artificial marshes and use submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation as
natural filters. These artificial marshes may be used by some species of flocking
birds, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for breeding or roosting activities. The FAA
strongly recommends against establishing artificial marshes within the separations
identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
f. Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal. The FAA recommends against the
discharge of wastewater or sludge on airport property because it may improve soil
moisture and quality on unpaved areas and lead to improved turf growth that can be
an attractive food source for many species of animals. Also, the turf requires more
frequent mowing, which in turn may mutilate or flush insects or small animals and
produce straw, both of which can attract hazardous wildlife. In addition, the
improved turf may attract grazing wildlife, such as deer and geese. Problems may
also occur when discharges saturate unpaved airport areas. The resultant soft,
muddy conditions can severely restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching
accident sites in a timely manner.
7
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
2-4. WETLANDS. Wetlands provide a variety of functions and can be regulated by

local, state, and Federal laws. Normally, wetlands are attractive to many types of
wildlife, including many which rank high on the list of hazardous wildlife species (Table
1).
NOTE: If questions exist as to whether an area qualifies as a wetland, contact the local
division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, or a wetland consultant qualified to delineate wetlands.
a. Existing wetlands on or near airport property. If wetlands are located on or near

airport property, airport operators should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat
changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public-use
airports, the FAA recommends immediately correcting, in cooperation with local,
state, and Federal regulatory agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing
wetlands located on or near airports. Where required, a WHMP will outline
appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators
should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation
with a wildlife damage management biologist.
b. New airport development. Whenever possible, the FAA recommends locating new
airports using the separations from wetlands identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
Where alternative sites are not practicable, or when airport operators are expanding
an existing airport into or near wetlands, a wildlife damage management biologist, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the state wildlife management agency should evaluate the wildlife
hazards and prepare a WHMP that indicates methods of minimizing the hazards.
c. Mitigation for wetland impacts from airport projects. Wetland mitigation may be
necessary when unavoidable wetland disturbances result from new airport
development projects or projects required to correct wildlife hazards from wetlands.
Wetland mitigation must be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. The
FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife
be sited outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
(1) Onsite mitigation of wetland functions. The FAA may consider exceptions
to locating mitigation activities outside the separations identified in Sections 1-2
through 1-4 if the affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions, such as
critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or ground water recharge,
which cannot be replicated when moved to a different location. Using existing
airport property is sometimes the only feasible way to achieve the mitigation ratios
mandated in regulatory orders and/or settlement agreements with the resource
agencies. Conservation easements are an additional means of providing mitigation
for project impacts. Typically the airport operator continues to own the property, and
an easement is created stipulating that the property will be maintained as habitat for
state or Federally listed species.
8
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
Mitigation must not inhibit the airport operator’s ability to effectively control hazardous
wildlife on or near the mitigation site or effectively maintain other aspects of safe airport
operations. Enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife must be
avoided. The FAA will review any onsite mitigation proposals to determine
compatibility with safe airport operations. A wildlife damage management biologist should
evaluate any wetland mitigation projects that are needed to protect unique wetland
functions and that must be located in the separation criteria in Sections 1-2 through
1-4 before the mitigation is implemented. A WHMP should be developed to reduce the
wildlife hazards.
(2) Offsite mitigation of wetland functions. The FAA recommends that wetland
mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the
separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 unless they provide unique
functions that must remain onsite (see 2-4c(1)). Agencies that regulate impacts to or
around wetlands recognize that it may be necessary to split wetland functions in
mitigation schemes. Therefore, regulatory agencies may, under certain
circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations.
(3) Mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is the creation or restoration

of wetlands in order to provide mitigation credits that can be used to offset permitted
wetland losses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance
replacement for permitted wetland losses; consolidating small projects into larger,
better-designed and managed units; and encouraging integration of wetland
mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for
airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigated outside of the separations identified in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4 can still be located within the same watershed. Wetland
mitigation banks meeting the separation criteria offer an ecologically sound
approach to mitigation in these situations. Airport operators should work with local
watershed management agencies or organizations to develop mitigation banking for
wetland impacts on airport property.
2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS. The FAA recommends against locating
dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilities) within
the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the containment area or the
spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife.
2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. Because most, if not all, agricultural crops can
attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production, the FAA recommends against
the used of airport property for agricultural production, including hay crops, within
the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. . If the airport has no financial
alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of
the airport, then the airport shall follow the crop distance guidelines listed in the table
titled "Minimum Distances between Certain Airport Features and Any On- Airport
Agricultural Crops" found in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Appendix 17. The cost of
wildlife control and potential accidents should be weighed against the income
produced by the on-airport crops when deciding whether to allow crops on the airport.
9
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
a. Livestock production. Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy

operations, hog or chicken production facilities, or egg laying operations) often
attract flocking birds, such as starlings, that pose a hazard to aviation. Therefore,
The FAA recommends against such facilities within the separations identified in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Any livestock operation within these separations should
have a program developed to reduce the attractiveness of the site to species that
are hazardous to aviation safety. Free-ranging livestock must not be grazed on
airport property because the animals may wander onto the AOA. Furthermore,
livestock feed, water, and manure may attract birds.
b. Aquaculture. Aquaculture activities (i.e. catfish or trout production) conducted

outside of fully enclosed buildings are inherently attractive to a wide variety of birds.
Existing aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in Sections 1-2
through 1-4 must have a program developed to reduce the attractiveness of the sites
to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should also
oppose the establishment of new aquaculture facilities/activities within the
separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
c. Alternative uses of agricultural land. Some airports are surrounded by vast areas
of farmed land within the distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Seasonal
uses of agricultural land for activities such as hunting can create a hazardous wildlife
situation. In some areas, farmers will rent their land for hunting purposes. Rice
farmers, for example, flood their land during waterfowl hunting season and obtain
additional revenue by renting out duck blinds. The duck hunters then use decoys
and call in hundreds, if not thousands, of birds, creating a tremendous threat to
aircraft safety. A wildlife damage management biologist should review, in
coordination with local farmers and producers, these types of seasonal land uses
and incorporate them into the WHMP.
2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE

CONSIDERATIONS.
a. Golf courses. The large grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses
are attractive to hazardous wildlife, particularly Canada geese and some species of
gulls. These species can pose a threat to aviation safety. The FAA recommends
against construction of new golf courses within the separations identified in Sections
1-2 through 1-4. Existing golf courses located within these separations must
develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are
hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should ensure these golf courses are
monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous
wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented.
b. Landscaping and landscape maintenance. Depending on its geographic location,

landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport
operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not
associated with aircraft movements. A wildlife damage management biologist
should review all landscaping plans. Airport operators should also monitor all
landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If
10
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented.
Turf grass areas can be highly attractive to a variety of hazardous wildlife species.
Research conducted by the USDA Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research
Center has shown that no one grass management regime will deter all species of
hazardous wildlife in all situations. In cooperation with wildlife damage management
biologist, airport operators should develop airport turf grass management plans on a
prescription basis, depending on the airport’s geographic locations and the type of
hazardous wildlife likely to frequent the airport
Airport operators should ensure that plant varieties attractive to hazardous wildlife are
not used on the airport. Disturbed areas or areas in need of re-vegetating should
not be planted with seed mixtures containing millet or any other large-seed producing
grass. For airport property already planted with seed mixtures containing millet, rye
grass, or other large-seed producing grasses, the FAA recommends disking, plowing, or
another suitable agricultural practice to prevent plant maturation and seed head
production. Plantings should follow the specific recommendations for grass
management and seed and plant selection made by the State University Cooperative
Extension Service, the local office of Wildlife Services, or a qualified wildlife damage
management biologist. Airport operators should also consider developing and
implementing a preferred/prohibited plant species list, reviewed by a wildlife damage
management biologist, which has been designed for the geographic location to reduce
the attractiveness to hazardous wildlife for landscaping airport property.
c. Airports surrounded by wildlife habitat. The FAA recommends that operators of

airports surrounded by woodlands, water, or wetlands refer to Section 2.4 of this AC.
Operators of such airports should provide for a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA)
conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist. This WHA is the first step in
preparing a WHMP, where required.
d. Other hazardous wildlife attractants. Other specific land uses or activities (e.g.,
sport or commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, etc.), perhaps unique to certain
regions of the country, have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. Regardless of
the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public-use airport,
airport operators must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety.
2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES. There may be

circumstances where two (or more) different land uses that would not, by themselves,
be considered hazardous wildlife attractants or that are located outside of the
separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that are in such an alignment with the
airport as to create a wildlife corridor directly through the airport and/or surrounding
airspace. An example of this situation may involve a lake located outside of the
separation criteria on the east side of an airport and a large hayfield on the west side of
an airport, land uses that together could create a flyway for Canada geese directly
across the airspace of the airport. There are numerous examples of such situations;
11
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
therefore, airport operators and the wildlife damage management biologist must
consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP.
SECTION 3.
PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF

PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS.
3.1. INTRODUCTION. In recognition of the increased risk of serious aircraft

damage or the loss of human life that can result from a wildlife strike, the FAA may
require the development of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) when
specific triggering events occur on or near the airport. Part 139.337 discusses the
specific events that trigger a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and the specific
issues that a WHMP must address for FAA approval and inclusion in an Airport
Certification Manual.
3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER

QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS. The FAA will use
the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) conducted in accordance with Part 139 to
determine if the airport needs a WHMP. Therefore, persons having the education,
training, and expertise necessary to assess wildlife hazards must conduct the WHA.
The airport operator may look to Wildlife Services or to qualified private consultants to
conduct the WHA. When the services of a wildlife damage management biologist are
required, the FAA recommends that land-use developers or airport operators contact
a consultant specializing in wildlife damage management or the appropriate state
director of Wildlife Services.
NOTE: Telephone numbers for the respective USDA Wildlife Services state offices can
be obtained by contacting USDA Wildlife Services Operational Support Staff, 4700
River Road, Unit 87, Riverdale, MD, 20737-1234, Telephone (301) 734-7921, Fax (301)
734-5157 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/).
3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR

AIRPORT PERSONNEL. This manual, prepared by FAA and USDA Wildlife Services
staff, contains a compilation of information to assist airport personnel in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of WHMPs at airports. The manual
includes specific information on the nature of wildlife strikes, legal authority, regulations,
wildlife management techniques, WHAs, WHMPs, and sources of help and information.
The manual is available in three languages: English, Spanish, and French. It can be
viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA’s wildlife hazard mitigation web
site: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.FAA.gov/. This manual only provides a starting point for
addressing wildlife hazard issues at airports. Hazardous wildlife management is a
complex discipline and conditions vary widely across the United States. Therefore,
qualified wildlife damage management biologists must direct the development of a
WHMP and the implementation of management actions by airport personnel.
There are many other resources complementary to this manual for use in developing
and implementing WHMPs. Several are listed in the manual's bibliography.
12
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, PART 139. Part 139.337(b) requires airport operators to conduct a
Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) when certain events occur on or near the
airport. Part 139.337 (c) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be
addressed in a WHA.
3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP). The FAA will consider
the results of the WHA, along with the aeronautical activity at the airport and the views
of the airport operator and airport users, in determining whether a formal WHMP is
needed, in accordance with Part 139.337. If the FAA determines that a WHMP is
needed, the airport operator must formulate and implement a WHMP, using the WHA as
the basis for the plan.
The goal of an airport’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is to minimize the risk to
aviation safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations
of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport.
The WHMP must identify hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport and the
appropriate wildlife damage management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard. It
must also prioritize the management measures.
3-6. LOCAL COORDINATION. The establishment of a Wildlife Hazards Working

Group (WHWG) will facilitate the communication, cooperation, and coordination of the
airport and its surrounding community necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the
WHMP. The cooperation of the airport community is also necessary when new projects
are considered. Whether on or off the airport, the input from all involved parties must be
considered when a potentially hazardous wildlife attractant is being proposed. Airport
operators should also incorporate public education activities with the local coordination
efforts because some activities in the vicinity of your airport, while harmless under
normal leisure conditions, can attract wildlife and present a danger to aircraft. For
example, if public trails are planned near wetlands or in parks adjoining airport property,
the public should know that feeding birds and other wildlife in the area may pose a risk
to aircraft.
Airport operators should work with local and regional planning and zoning boards so as
to be aware of proposed land-use changes, or modification of existing land uses, that
could create hazardous wildlife attractants within the separations identified in Sections
1-2 through 1-4. Pay particular attention to proposed land uses involving creation or
expansion of waste water treatment facilities, development of wetland mitigation sites,
or development or expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. At the very least,
airport operators must ensure they are on the notification list of the local planning board
or equivalent review entity for all communities located within 5 miles of the airport, so
they will receive notification of any proposed project and have the opportunity to review
it for attractiveness to hazardous wildlife.
3-7 COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS. If an

existing land-use practice creates a wildlife hazard and the land-use practice or wildlife
hazard cannot be immediately eliminated, airport operators must issue a Notice to
Airmen (NOTAM) and encourage the land–owner or manager to take steps to control
the wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction.
13
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
SECTION 4.
FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE

CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS
4-1. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE

VICINITY OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS.
a. The FAA discourages the development of waste disposal and other facilities,
discussed in Section 2, located within the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria specified in
Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
b. For projects that are located outside the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria but within 5
statute miles of the airport’s AOA, the FAA may review development plans,
proposed land-use changes, operational changes, or wetland mitigation plans to
determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations.
The FAA considers sensitive airport areas as those that lie under or next to
approach or departure airspace. This brief examination should indicate if further
investigation is warranted.
c. Where a wildlife damage management biologist has conducted a further study to

evaluate a site's compatibility with airport operations, the FAA may use the study
results to make a determination.
4-2. WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
a. Notification of new/expanded project proposal. Section 503 of the Wendell H.

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181)
limits the construction or establishment of new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of
certain public-use airports, when both the airport and the landfill meet very specific
conditions. See Section 2-2 of this AC and AC 150/5200-34 for a more detailed
discussion of these restrictions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires any MSWLF operator

proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 statute miles of a
runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the
airport operator of the proposal (40 CFR 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, Section 258.10, Airport Safety). The EPA also requires owners or operators
of new MSWLF units, or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF units, that are located
within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000
feet of any airport runway end used only by piston-type aircraft, to demonstrate
successfully that such units are not hazards to aircraft. (See 4-2.b below.)
When new or expanded MSWLF are being proposed near airports, MSWLF operators
must notify the airport operator and the FAA of the proposal as early as possible
pursuant to 40 CFR 258.
14
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
b. Waste handling facilities within separations identified in Sections 1-2 through

1-4. To claim successfully that a waste-handling facility sited within the separations
identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 does not attract hazardous wildlife and does
not threaten aviation, the developer must establish convincingly that the facility will
not handle putrescible material other than that as outlined in 2-2.d. The FAA
strongly recommends against any facility other than that as outlined in 2-2.d
(enclosed transfer stations). The FAA will use this information to determine if the
facility will be a hazard to aviation.
c. Putrescible-Waste Facilities. In their effort to satisfy the EPA requirement, some

putrescible-waste facility proponents may offer to undertake experimental measures
to demonstrate that their proposed facility will not be a hazard to aircraft. To date, no
such facility has been able to demonstrate an ability to reduce and sustain
hazardous wildlife to levels that existed before the putrescible-waste landfill began
operating. For this reason, demonstrations of experimental wildlife control measures
may not be conducted within the separation identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
4-3. OTHER LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES. As a matter of policy, the FAA

encourages operators of public-use airports who become aware of proposed land use
practice changes that may attract hazardous wildlife within 5 statute miles of their
airports to promptly notify the FAA. The FAA also encourages proponents of such land
use changes to notify the FAA as early in the planning process as possible. Advanced
notice affords the FAA an opportunity (1) to evaluate the effect of a particular land-use
change on aviation safety and (2) to support efforts by the airport sponsor to restrict the
use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with the airport.
The airport operator, project proponent, or land-use operator may use FAA Form 7460-
1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, or other suitable documents similar to
FAA Form 7460-1 to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. Project
proponents can contact the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office for
assistance with the notification process.
It is helpful if the notification includes a 15-minute quadrangle map of the area

identifying the location of the proposed activity. The land-use operator or project
proponent should also forward specific details of the proposed land-use change or
operational change or expansion. In the case of solid waste landfills, the information
should include the type of waste to be handled, how the waste will be processed, and
final disposal methods.
a. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance. Airports that have
received Federal grant-in-aid assistance are required by their grant assurances to
take appropriate actions to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses
that are compatible with normal airport operations. The FAA recommends that
airport operators to the extent practicable oppose off-airport land-use changes or
practices within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that may
attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so may lead to noncompliance with
applicable grant assurances. The FAA will not approve the placement of airport
15
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous

wildlife attractants without appropriate mitigating measures. Increasing the intensity of
wildlife control efforts is not a substitute for eliminating or reducing a proposed wildlife
hazard. Airport operators should identify hazardous wildlife attractants and any
associated wildlife hazards during any planning process for new airport development
projects.
16
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
17
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR.
1. GENERAL. This appendix provides definitions of terms used throughout this AC.
1. Air operations area. Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for
landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area
includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be
used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated
runway, taxiways, or apron.
2. Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public-use

airport.
3. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an

airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff.
4. Bird balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds
and prevent birds from using the sites.
5. Certificate holder. The holder of an Airport Operating Certificate issued under

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.
6. Construct a new MSWLF. To begin to excavate, grade land, or raise

structures to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the
appropriate regulatory or permitting agency.
7. Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for
short periods of time, a few hours to a few days.
8. Establish a new MSWLF. When the first load of putrescible waste is received
on-site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill.
9. Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of
an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from the combustion of coal or
waste used to operate a power generating plant.
10. General aviation aircraft. Any civil aviation aircraft not operating under 14
CFR Part 119, Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators.
11. Hazardous wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles), including

feral animals and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated
with aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to
airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard
12. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF). A publicly or privately owned

discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that
is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile,
as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. An MSWLF may receive
18
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
other types wastes, such as commercial solid waste, non-hazardous sludge, small-
quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2.
An MSWLF can consist of either a stand alone unit or several cells that receive
household waste.
13. New MSWLF. A municipal solid waste landfill that was established or
constructed after April 5, 2001.
14. Piston-powered aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft powered by piston engines.
15. Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing
turbine-powered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed-wing, piston-powered
aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turbine-powered, fixed-wing aircraft
would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based
at the airport.
16. Public agency. A State or political subdivision of a State, a tax-supported

organization, or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(19)).
17. Public airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that
is under the control of a public agency; and of which the area used or intended
to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft is publicly
owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(20)).
18. Public-use airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes,
and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or
surface maneuvering of aircraft may be under the control of a public agency or
privately owned and used for public purposes (49 U.S.C. § 47102(21)).
19. Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being
decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to
be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR §257.3-8).
20. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater

waste discharges, or similar facilities where activities include processing,
burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of putrescible material, trash, and
refuse.
21. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for several
months.
22. Runway protection zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end to enhance the
protection of people and property on the ground (see AC 150/5300-13). The
dimensions of this zone vary with the airport design, aircraft, type of operation,
and visibility minimum.
23. Scheduled air carrier operation. Any common carriage passenger-carrying

operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial
19
8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B
operator for which the air carrier, commercial operator, or their representative offers in
advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include
any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CFR Part 119 or
as a public charter operation under 14 CFR Part 380 (14 CFR § 119.3).
24. Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes,
but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary,
secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and a material derived
from sewage sludge. Sewage does not include ash generated during the firing
of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings
generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment
works. (40 CFR 257.2)
25. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated form a municipal,
commercial or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar
characteristics and effect. (40 CFR 257.2)
26. Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other discarded
material, including, solid liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or
industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or
source, special nuclear, or by product material as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, (68 Stat. 923). (40 CFR 257.2)
27. Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including

turbojets and turboprops but excluding turbo-shaft rotary-wing aircraft.
28. Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbine-
powered aircraft.
29. Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices and/or systems used to store,
treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes, including
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), as defined by Section 212 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4).
This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount
of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise
introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (See 40 CFR Section 403.3 (q), (r), &
(s)).
20
30. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limitation any wild
mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean,
arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part,
product, egg, or offspring thereof (50 CFR 10.12, Taking,
Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation,
and Importation of Wildlife and Plants). As used in this AC, wildlife
includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of
their owners (14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports).
31. Wildlife attractants. Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or

human- made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain
hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace or the
airport’s AOA. These attractants can include architectural features,
landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities,
agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands.
32. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with

wildlife on or near an airport.
33. Wildlife strike. A wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when:
a. A pilot reports striking 1 or more birds or other wildlife;
b. Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as

having been caused by a wildlife strike;
c. Personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike 1 or

more birds or other wildlife;
d. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are

found within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another
reason for the animal's death is identified;
e. The animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative

effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-
speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid
collision with animal) (Transport Canada, Airports Group,
Wildlife Control Procedures Manual, Technical Publication
11500E, 1994).
2. RESERVED.
21
22
APPENDIX C TTD Wildlife Control

Permits.
23
24
Signature on File
25
26
Signature on File
27
Signature on File
28
29
30
Signature on File
31
Signature on File
32
Signature on File
33
Signature on File
34
35
36
Signature on File
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Signature on File
44
Signature on File
45
Signature on File
46
Signature on File
47
48
APPENDIX D TTD Wildlife Attractants

Table
49
50
OTHER
MAP SITE WILDLIFE HABITAT WILDLIFE SPECIES COMMON USES POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
KEY DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
SPECIES OF CONSTRAINTS &
CONCERN ISSUES
 Haze & harass of wildlife species of concern
A TRIP (west of
Sundial Rd.)  Grass/forb– mowed  Mallard  Loafing, roosting,  Existing to aircraft safety as-needed.
foraging, shelter, wetlands
 Unimproved pasture  Green-wing Teal and nesting subject to  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
opportunities for jurisdictional areas that develop into temporary standing
 Jurisdictional wetlands  Canada goose birds and constraints. water and potential wetland creation.
mammals.
 Wetland  Conduct site inspections to identify aviation
 Blackberry scrub-shrub  Great Blue Heron
 Open water and mitigation sites wildlife hazards.
nesting habitat for
 Cottonwood  Red-tailed hawk waterfowl.  Activities must  Install silt fencing rows to deter geese from
comply with utilizing large open areas.
 Hardwood  European Starling  Large continuous local, state, and
expanse of federal airport  Deploy noise cannons to assist with
 Pond grassy habitat requirements dispersing wildlife.
(City of
 Channel  Prey base habitat Troutdale,
for raptors. ORS, and FAA
standards)
B TRIP (East of
 Cottonwood, willow, ash  Canada goose  Loafing, roosting,  Existing  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
Sundial Rd.) forest foraging, shelter, wetlands areas that develop into temporary standing
 European Starling and nesting subject to water.
 Cottonwood, willow, scrub opportunities for jurisdictional
shrub  Mallard
birds and constraints.  Haze & harass of wildlife species of concern
mammals.  Activities must to aircraft safety as-needed.
 Cottonwood  Green-wing Teal
comply with  Conduct site inspections to identify and
 Open water and local, state, and mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
nesting habitat for federal airport
 Scrub-shrub  Red-tailed hawk requirements
waterfowl.  Install silt fencing rows to deter geese from
(City of utilizing large open areas.
 Jurisdictional wetlands  Great Blue Heron Troutdale,
 Prey base habitat
 Grass forb- mowed  Deploy noise cannons to assist with
 Gulls spp. standards)
dispersing wildlife.
 Hardwood
 Implement the PDX Landscaping Standards
 Pond
 Blackberry scrub-shrub
 Herbaceous upland
 Located directly
C Levee area east
 Grass/forb mowed  Mallard  Loafing, roosting, under approach  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
of runway 25 foraging, shelter, / departure path areas that develop into temporary standing
 Scrub-shrub  Canada goose and nesting for runways water.
opportunities for 25/7.  Haze & harass of wildlife species of concern
 Herbaceous upland  European starling birds and to aircraft safety as-needed.
mammals.  RPZ constraint
 Activities must  Conduct site inspections to identify and
 Hardwood  Osprey
 Large continuous comply with mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
expanse of local, state, and
 Cottonwood, willow  Red-tailed hawk grassy habitat federal airport  Implement the PDX Landscaping Standards
scrub-shrub requirements
 Great blue heron  Prey base habitat (City of TTD,
standards)
 Gulls spp.
 Haze & harass of wildlife species of

D Troutdale  Grass/forb - mowed  Mallard  Loafing, roosting,  Location concern to aircraft safety as-needed.
Airfield foraging, shelter, includes RPZ
 Ditch  Green-wing Teal and nesting area.  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
opportunities for areas that develop into temporary
 Developed – impervious  Canada goose birds and  Activities must standing water.
mammals. comply with  Deploy noise cannons to assist with
FAA standards dispersing wildlife.
 Jurisdictional wetlands  Great Blue Heron
 Open water and and limitations.
nesting habitat for  Apply rodenticide and insecticide to
 Red-tailed hawk reduce the prey base for raptors and
waterfowl.  Wetlands
subject to insectivores.
 European Starling  Habitat for small jurisdictional
mammal prey constraints.  Conduct site inspections to identify and
base. mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
 Implement the PDX Landscaping

Standards
E1 SW of Sundial  Jurisdictional wetlands  Mallard  Loafing, roosting,  Activities must  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
Road and  Blackberry scrub-shrub nesting, foraging, comply with areas that develop into temporary standing
Marine Drive  Green-wing Teal and shelter FAA standards water.
opportunities for and limitations.  Conduct site inspections to identify and
birds and mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
 Canada goose
mammals  Wetlands
subject to  Haze & harass of wildlife species of concern
 Great Blue Heron
 Open water and jurisdictional to aircraft safety as-needed.
nesting habitat for constraints.
 Red-tailed hawk waterfowl.  Implement the PDX Landscaping Standards
 European Starling
E2 NW of Sundial  Wetlands  Mallard  Loafing, roosting,  Activities must  Survey site seasonally for poorly drained
Road and foraging, shelter, comply with areas that develop into temporary
Marine Drive  Blackberry scrub-shrub  Green-wing Teal and nesting FAA standards standing water.
opportunities for and limitations.
 Canada goose
birds and  Conduct site inspections to identify and
mammals.  Existing mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
wetlands
 Great Blue Heron
 Open water and subject to  Haze & harass of wildlife species of
nesting habitat for jurisdictional concern to aircraft safety as-needed.
 Red-tailed hawk waterfowl. constraints.
 European Starling
 Implement the PDX Landscaping
Standards
APPENDIX E Wildlife Hazard

Management Areas
Tracking Table
Color of management areas corresponds with Figure 9.
55
56
Management Areas Tracking Table

Management strategies and action plan for the Wildlife Hazard Management program at TTD.
Key: Color of management area corresponds with Figure 9 in the 2015 WHMP.
Black text indicates current, ongoing actions.
Purple text indicates new actions since last fiscal year (will begin in 2015).
Blue text indicated future actions needed.
Map Site: Uses by Wildlife Management Management Strategies by Program Component or “Pillar”
Key Wildlife Species of Issue
Concern Short-Term: Operational Research & Development Long-Term: Information and Education
Strategies Management Strategies
Vegetation Haze and harass wildlife Allow the vegetation to
species of concern on an as- grow into a scrub-shurb
A TRIP Mitigation site-
Secondary Zone needed basis. wetland to be less
attractive to waterfowl.
Work with the Mitigation staff
 Loafing, roosting, on the timing of mowing and
foraging, and shelter
swathing so it does not
for birds & coincide with migration.
mammals.
Undeveloped space Monitor site for wildlife issues Conduct site inspections to identify Obtain the proper
 Open water & aviation wildlife hazards. equipment needed.
Install silt fencing rows to
nesting habitat for
deter geese from utilizing Identify access and equipment
waterfowl
large open areas. needed to maintain/reduce
waterfowl habitat.
 Jurisdictional Deploy noise cannons to
assist with dispersing wildlife
Wetlands Hazing Increase hazing species of Conduct site inspections to identify Use remote hazing Send out outreach material
concern by personnel trained aviation wildlife hazards. devices, such as propane to the neighbors.
 Large continuous in airport operations/wildlife sound cannons.
Investigate the need for increased
expanse of grassy management.
staff during peak hazardous wildlife Increase seasonal staff.
habitat. [Grass/Forb-
Respond to calls from the seasons
Mowed]
tower when there are large
Measure the effectiveness of using
flocks of geese.
 Prey base habitat for trained border collies to haze
raptors and coyotes. geese.
Open green space Use large woody debris as
visual barrier to deter geese.
(goose habitat)
Deploy noise cannons to
assist with dispersing wildlife
Natural & Industrial
B areas outside the
airport perimeter
fence:
Secondary Zone Vegetation Haze and harass wildlife Determine if the height of Implement landscape
species of concern on an as- vegetation is attractive to species of standards for areas inside
 Loafing, roosting, needed basis. concern during periods of the secondary zone.
foraging, and shelter migration.
for birds & Work with the Migration staff
mammals. on the timing of mowing and Explore alternative airfield
swathing so it does not vegetation cover.
 Open water and coincide with migration.
nesting habitat for Bare Soil Determine if the bare soil is Develop appropriate tax
waterfowl attracting species of concern during lots.
periods of migration.
 Prey base habitat for
Explore alternative airfield
raptors.
vegetation cover.
Undeveloped space Monitor site for wildlife issues Survey site seasonally for poorly Obtain the proper
B drained areas that develop into equipment needed.
temporary standing water.
Identify access and equipment
needed to maintain/reduce
waterfowl habitat.
Hazing Increase hazing species of Investigate the need for increased Use remote hazing Outreach to current and
concern by personnel trained staff during peak hazardous wildlife devices, such as propane future tennets.
in airport operations/wildlife seasons sound cannons.
management on airports.
Increase seasonal staff.
Respond to calls from the
tower when there are large
flocks of geese.
Stormwater Monitor site for aviation Research vegetation types that will
wildlife hazard issues. be appropriate both to deter
hazardous wildlife species and for
Maintain stormwater
stormwater conveyance and
conveyance infrastructure –
treatment.
this action also minimizes the
attractiveness of the feature
to waterfowl
Primary Zone Adjacent Open Water Increase site inspections. Identify access and equipment Obtain the proper
C (Sandy River) needed to maintain the bank to equipment needed.
 Loafing, roosting, reduce food and cover.
foraging, and shelter
Nesting Habitat Increase commitment of Conduct nest surveys. Submit annual depredation
for birds &
resources for waterfowl nest report to the USFWS.
mammals.
surveys.
Secondary Zone
Remove vegetation to deter
- Large continuous upland nesting birds –
expanse of grassy
Implement nest depredation
habitat
under the Port’s USFWS
Depredation permit.
Hazing •Haze & harass of wildlife Conduct site inspections to identify
C species of concern to aircraft and mitigate aviation wildlife
safety as-needed. hazards.
Respond to calls from the
tower when there is wildlife
on the runway or in the RSA.
Vegetation Implement landscape

standards for areas inside
the primary and secondary
zones.
Airfield Mowing Maintain airfield grass height Verify that mowing is occurring Ensure that GA
D Airfield – paved and during critical nesting season outside of migration for species of Maintenance has the
mowed grass areas for waterfowl. concern. appropriate equipment to
inside the airport mow the airfield and
Mow outside of migration
perimeter fence ditches, including the
periods for species of
acquisition of an arm
concern.
Primary Zone mower.
Details on ditch management
 Loafing, roosting, specified below.
foraging, and
Prey Base Management Trap moles and gophers. Test new approved rodent control
shelter for birds &
chemicals as they become
mammals. Apply rodenticide and
available.
insecticide to reduce the prey
 Open water and base for raptors and
nesting habitat insectivores.
for waterfowl
Hazing Increase hazing species of Test new anti-perching/deterrents. Use remote hazing
concern by personnel trained devices, such as propane
 Large continuous Investigate the need for increased
in airport operations/wildlife sound cannons.
expanse of staff during peak hazardous wildlife
management on airports.
grassy habitat. seasons Increase seasonal staff.
[Grass/Forb- Respond to calls from the
Conduct site inspections to identify
Mowed] tower when there is wildlife
& mitigate aviation wildlife hazards.
on the runway or in the RSA.
 Prey base habitat
Temporary Standing Avoid driving into wet areas Survey the site seasonally to Re-grade the areas where
for raptors and
Water with heavy equipment or identify locations where temporary there is standing water to
coyotes.
mowers until dry so ruts do standing water is an issue. improve drainage and
not form. reduce wildlife habitat.
 Perimeter fence, Monitor for the development of
RVR poles, signs Implement annual ditch wetlands.
and other man- maintenance plan.
made perching Perching Monitor natural and man-made Investigate use of effective
sites. perching sites for heavy use areas. anti-perching devices.
Investigate installing anti-perching
devices as necessary.
Secondary Zone
Raptors Trap and translocate Monitor red-tailed hawk activity Identify resident red-tailed
American Kestrels from the hawk territories.
Investigate the need for increased
airfield.
staff during peak hazardous wildlife Trap & band resident red-
Increase seasonal staff. seasons tailed hawks
Landscaping Implement TTD Landscaping Ensure development Educate tenants about
Standards. meets the approved landscaping standards.
Landscaping Standards.
Wildlife Monitoring and Monitor wildlife species Conduct strike reporting analysis Review and update the Train personnel to identify
strike reporting during runway checks. WHMP every five years or wildlife species.
as needed (following
File all reports with the Port’s Increase the outreach to the
significant events).
Aviation Wildlife Program tenants regarding aviation
and FAA. wildlife management at TTD.
Culverts and ditch Follow the Port’s lethal Monitor the airfield and determine Install coyote exclusion
crossings along control protocol when the locations where animals are fencing and culvert
perimeter fence (serve necessary – decisions to use accessing the airfield. exclusions.
as entry points into lethal control are rare and
airfield for coyotes). are determined based on the
specifics of the situation.
Worms (attract gulls to Use sweepers to remove Ongoing research for controlling
the airfield) worms from the aircraft worms at PDX may be applicable to
movement surfaces. TTD.
Other Port owned Herbaceous/jurisdictional Haze & harass of wildlife Survey site seasonally for poorly Implement landscape
E properties outside wetlands species of concern to aircraft drained areas that develop into standards for areas inside
perimeter fence: safety as-needed. temporary standing water. the primary and secondary
Food source- Black
zones.
Secondary Zone berries Conduct site inspections to identify
and mitigate aviation wildlife
. Cover- Cottonwoods
hazards
Troutdale Airport
2016 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
64
APPENDIX F List of Plants Approved

for Landscaping at TTD
65
66
Approved Plant List for TTD

Max. Max.
Height at Spread at
Scientific Name Common Name Type Maturity (ft) Maturity (ft) On The Web
Berberis verruculosa Warty Barberry Evergreen 3-5 3-5 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/beve.htm
Cornus sericea 'Kelseyi' Kelsey Dogwood Ɨ Deciduous 3 3 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=100
Ilex crenata 'Helleri' Heller Japanese Holly Evergreen 4 4 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/ilcrh.htm
Shrubs
Lavandula angustifolia English Lavender Evergreen 2-3 2-4 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LAAN81

Rhododendron x 'Girard's Purple' Girard's Purple Azalea Evergreen 3-4 2-4 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rhgpur.htm
Rosa meidiland var. Meidiland Rose Varieties Evergreen 2.5-3 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/roses/redmeidland.htm
Rosa 'Red Flower Carpet' Red Flower Carpet Evergreen 2.5 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/roses/flowercarpetred.htm
Rosa 'Radtko' Double Knock Out Rose Evergreen 3-4 3-4 http://www.conard-pyle.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/koplants.splash
Spiraea betulifolia Birchleaf Spiraea Ɨ Deciduous 3 3 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/spbet.htm
Ajuga reptans 'Burgundy Glow' Carpet Bugle Evergreen .5 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/ajre-i.htm
Primary Zone
Calluna vulgaris Scotch Heather Evergreen .5-2 2+ http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/cavu.htm

Groundcovers
Ceanothus prostratus Mahala Mat Evergreen .5 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CEPR

Dicentra formosa Pacific Bleeding Heart N/A 2 2 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=42
Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower N/A 5 2 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=162
Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper Evergreen 1-1.5 10 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/juho.htm
Phlox spp. Native Phlox N/A .5-2 http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch
Phyllodoce spp. Mountain Heather Evergreen .5-1.5 .5-1.5 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PHYLL3
Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Evergreen 4 7 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=337
Walsteinia fragaroides Barren Strawberry Evergreen .5 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/wafr.htm
Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Overdam' Feather Reed Grass Ɨ 2.5-3 1.5-2 http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/plant.asp?code=N750
Ornamental
Grasses
Festuca glauca Blue Fescue 1 1 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=52

Ophiopogon japonicus 'Nana' Dwarf Mondo Grass http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=OPJA
Ophiopogon planiscapus 'Nigrescens' Black Mondo Grass .75-1 .75-1 http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/plant.asp?code=E400
Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Hameln Fountain Grass 1.5-2.5 1.5-2.5 http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/plant.asp?code=A680
* Indicates measurements are not taken from the related website.
Ɨ Indicates preferred water quality plant species for swales and mitigation
67

Max. Max.
Height at Spread at
Maturity Maturity
Scientific Name Common Name Type (ft) (ft) On The Web
Plant at 25 ft on Center
Acer freemanii 'Armstrong' Armstrong Red Maple Deciduous 50-70 15 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acfreea.htm

Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar Evergreen 75 15 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=30
Cedrus deodara 'Aurea' Aurea Deodar Cedar Evergreen 10-25 6-10* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/cedeaur.htm
Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Gracilis' Slender Hinoki Falsecypress Evergreen 20 6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/chobg.htm
Cryptomeria japonica 'Elegans' Japanese Plume Cedar Evergreen 30 10 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=196
Cryptomeria japonica 'Sekkan Sugi' Golden Japanese Cedar Evergreen 25 10* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/crjass.htm
Cupressocyparis leylandii 'Golconda' Gold Leyland Cypress Evergreen 20 6 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=115
Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris' Columnar Sargent Cherry Deciduous 35 15 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/prsac.htm
Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' Musashino Zelkova Deciduous 45 15 http://www.jfschmidt.com/pdfs/musashinozelkova.pdf
Acer buergeranum Trident Maple Deciduous 25-35 20-30 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/trees-new/acer_buergeranum.html
Acer circinatum Vine Maple Deciduous 10-20 20* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acci.htm
Acer ginnala Amur Maple Deciduous 10-20 20* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acgi.htm
Acer griseum Paperbark Maple Deciduous 20-30 25* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acgr.htm
Acer palmatum Japanese Maple Deciduous 15-25 10-25* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acpa.htm

Secondary Zone
Fagus sylvatica 'Tricolor' Tricolor European Beech Deciduous 20-30* 10-20* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/fasytri.htm
Ginko biloba Ginko (males only) Deciduous 50+ 30 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/gibi.htm
Liquidambar styraciflua 'Rotundiloba' Rotundiloba Sweetgum Deciduous 60-70* 20-30* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/listr.htm
Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia Deciduous 15-20 15-25* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/maso.htm
Malus x 'Spring Snow' Spring Snow Crabapple Deciduous 25-30 15-20 http://hort.ufl.edu/trees/MALXE.pdf
Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood (height restricted) Deciduous 70-100 15-25* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/megl.htm
Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood Deciduous 25-60 10-25 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/oxar.htm
Parrotia persica Persian Parrotia Deciduous 40 25 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=326
Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine (height restricted) Evergreen 60-100 25-30* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/pipo.htm
Prunus serrulata 'Shirotae' Mt Fuji Cherry Deciduous 12-15 20 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/prsem.htm
Pyrus calleryana 'Cleveland Select' Cleveland Select Flowering Pear Deciduous 30-35* 15-20* http://www.advancedtree.com/tree_clevelandpear.htm
Acer rubrum var. Red Maple Deciduous 60-75 30-50* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/acru.htm

Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam Deciduous 40-60 30-40* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/cabe.htm
Fraxinus americana 'Autumn Purple' Autumn Purple Ash Deciduous 45-60* 35-50* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/framap.htm
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash (seedless varieties only) Deciduous 50 40 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/frpem.htm
Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis Thornless Honeylocust Deciduous 30-70 30-40* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/gltri.htm
Platanus x acerifolia London Planetree (height restricted) Deciduous 70-100 60-75* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/plac.htm
Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak Deciduous 75 45 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=138
Tillia americana American Linden Deciduous 60-80 30-50* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/tiamer.htm
Tillia chordata Littleleaf Linden Deciduous 60-70 25-40* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/tico.htm
68

Max. Height Max. Spread
at Maturity at Maturity
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/groundcover/abelia_grandi-
Abelia x grandiflora 'Prostrata' Prostrate Glossy Abelia Evergreen 1.5-2 4-5 prostrata.html
Berberis thunbergii var.
atropurpurea 'Crimson Crimson Pygmy Japanese
Pygmy' Barberry Deciduous 2 3 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/bethacp.htm
Berberis thunbergii 'Kobold' Kobold Japanese Barberry Deciduous 2-2.5* 2-2.5* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/bethk.htm
Buxus sempervirens 'Suffruticosa' English Boxwood Evergreen 4-5 2-4* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/buses.htm
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus Blue Blossom Evergreen 4-12 Variable http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/ceth-i.htm
Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Nana Lutea' Nana Lutea Hinoki Falsecypress Evergreen 6 4 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=164
Shrubs
Cistus spp. Rockrose species Evergreen Variable Variable http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/1plants.htm#ciannp

Clematis armandii Evergreen Clematis Evergreen 20 Variable http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=261
Corylopsis glabrescens Fragrant Winterhazel Deciduous 8-15 8-15 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/cospp.htm
Cotinus coggygria Common Smoketree Deciduous 10-15 10-15 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/cocog.htm
Daphne spp. Daphne Evergreen 3-4 2-3* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/1plants.htm#daphne
Enkianthus campanulatus Redvien Enkianthus Deciduous 6-8 4-6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/enca-i.htm
Erica spp. Heath Evergreen 1-2 1-2* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/1plants.htm#erca
Secondary Zone
Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' Compact Winged Burning Bush Deciduous 8-10 9-11* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/eualc.htm
Euonymus fortunei Wintercreeper Euonymus Evergreen 1-3 2-4 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/eufo.htm
Forsythia spp. Forsythia Deciduous 8-10 10-12 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/foin.htm
Hamamelis x intermedia 'Diane' Diane Witchhazel Deciduous 8-12* 10-15* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/haind.htm
Hydrangea macrophylla Bigleaf Hydrangea var. Deciduous 4-6 4-6 http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/plant.asp?code=K550
Kerria japonica Japanese Kerria Deciduous 4-8 6-9* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/keja.htm
Leucothoe fontanesiana Drooping leucothoe Evergreen 3-6 3-6 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/lefo-i.htm
Gulf Stream False Bamboo http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/shrubs/nandina_domes-
Nandina domestica 'Gulf Stream' Ɨ Evergreen 2.5-3.5 3* gulfstream.html
Potentilla fruitcosa Bush Cinquefoil Deciduous 2-4 2-4 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/pofr-i.htm
Honorable Jean Marie
Shrubs
Rhododendron griffithianum 'Jean Marie' Rhododendron Evergreen 5-6 5-6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rhthei.htm

Rhododendron macrophyllum Western Rhododendron Evergreen 6-12 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rhmac.htm
Rhododendron spp. P.J.M. P.J.M. Rhododendron Evergreen 3-6 6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rhpjm.htm
Rhus typhina 'Laciniata' Laceleaf Staghorn Sumac Deciduous 10-20 10-20* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rhtyl-i.htm
Rosa gymnocarpa Little Wood Rose Deciduous 6 2-4* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/rogym.htm
Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Deciduous 3-6 6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/ronut.htm
Dwarf Alaskan Blue Willow
Salix purpurea 'Nana' Ɨ Deciduous 5 3-5* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/sapun.htm
Spiraea douglasii Douglas Spiraea Deciduous 3-7 3-7 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/spdoug.htm
Taxus baccata 'Repandens' Spreading English Yew Evergreen 2-4 12-15 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/tabar.htm
Taxus baccata 'Standishii' Standishii Yew Evergreen 7* 3* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/tabas.htm
69

Max. Height Max. Spread
at Maturity at Maturity
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (cultivars) Kinnikinnick Evergreen .5-1.5 3-6* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/aruv.htm
Groundcovers
Genista pilosa Silkyleaf Broom Deciduous 1-1.5 2-3* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/gepi.htm

Hemerocallis hybrid Day Lily Deciduous 1-3 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/bulbs-summer/hemerocallis.html
Iberis sempervirens Evergreen Candytuft Evergreen 1-2 3-4* http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/ibse-i.htm
Secondary Zone
Liriope muscari Lily Turf Evergreen 1-2 .5-1 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/groundcover/liriope_muscaria.html

Pachysandra terminalis Japanese Spurge Evergreen 1 2 http://pnwplants.wsu.edu/PlantDisplay.aspx?PlantID=128
Paxistima canbyi Canby Paxistima Evergreen 1-1.5 http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/pacan.htm
Sedum spp. Sedum Deciduous http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/imagecollection.php?Genus=Sedum
Bromus vulgaris Columbia Brome http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=1220
Grasses &
Calamagrostis
Sedges
x acutifolia 'Overdam' Overdam Feather Reed Grass 2.5-3 1.5-2 http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/plant.asp?code=N750

Carex morrowii 'Evergold' Evergold Japanese Sedge http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/ornamental_grass/carex_morrowii.html
Carex tumulicola Splitawn Sedge http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CATU3
Danthonia californica California Oatgrass 2 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=DACA3
* Indicates measurements are not taken from the related website.
(height restricted) refers to specific species being limited in usage to areas outside of height restricted zones.
Ɨ Indicates preferred water quality plant species for swales and mitigation
70
APPENDIX G TTD Plant Variance Form
71
72
Troutdale Airport Plant List Variance Request Form

Instructions for Submittal
In project specific situations a variance may be granted to supplement the List of Approved Plants
found in the Troutdale Airport (TTD) Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) Landscaping
Standards. Due to the excess amount of time and effort involved with receiving a variance, it is
strongly recommended that contractors use only plants from the Approved Plants List for
landscaping within the Primary and Secondary Zones at TTD. The species on these lists have
been selected to meet criteria for maintenance, wildlife, and security issues. However, if a
contractor wishes to use plant material that is not included in the list, they can obtain approval
through the following process:
Instructions for Consultants:
1. Fill out the top portion of one “Plant List Variance Form – Signature Form” and completed
“Plant Information Form” for each plant being requested.
2. Forward these forms to the Port Project Manager via email. The Port Project Manager will
disseminate the information to each member of the Port Landscaping Committee for their
review.
3. When all of the members of the Port of Portland Landscaping Committee have reviewed the
plant material, you will be notified within 10 business days that the plant will be
accepted/rejected for addition to the list for the specific project requested.
Instructions for Committee:
1. Please review the completed Plant Information Form for each plant being requested. Based
on your individual area of expertise, please accept or reject each plant. Comments are only
necessary for rejections.
2. Forward your signed response to the Aviation Wildlife Manager within 10 business days of
receipt of the forms.
3. Reponses from any member of the committee that are not received by the Aviation Wildlife
Manager within 10 business days will be assumed to be an acceptance of plant material.
73
TTD Plant List Variance Signature Form
Date:_______________
Consultant Name:________________________________
Project Name:___________________________________________________________
Project Location (including zone designation):__________________________________
Plant Name (botanical and common):________________________________________
WILDLIFE MANAGER DATE APPROVE REJECT COMMENTS
1. Nick Atwell (Alt: John Hilterbrand)
TTD MAINTENANCE DATE APPROVE REJECT COMMENTS
2. TBD (Alt: ?)
CITY OF TROUTDALE DATE APPROVE REJECT COMMENTS

(REVIEW ONLY)
N/A N/A
3. City Representative
Contact Information:
Nick Atwell John Hilterbrand
Aviation Wildlife Manager Aviation Wildlife Technician
503-460-4179 503-460-4680
Port of Portland Port of Portland
7200 NE Airport Way 7200 NE Airport Way
Portland, OR 97218 Portland, OR 97218
74
Plant List Variance Form

Plant Information
Botanical Name: Common Name:
Native Origin of Plant:
Circle One: Deciduous Tree Evergreen Tree Annual Ground Cover

Deciduous Shrub Evergreen Shrub Perennial Ground Cover
Height and Spread at Maturity:
Describe Branching Pattern (i.e. horizontal, vertical):
Describe Crown Shape (i.e. columnar, round):
Wildlife Attractant Characteristics:
 Flowering? If yes, what time of year and for how long? _____
 Fruit, Berries, or Nuts? If yes, what time of year and for how long? _____
 What type of wildlife and insects does the research indicate that this
plant may attract?
If this plant is found on a City of Portland Plant list or Plant Materials and Suggested
Plant lists please indicate the appropriate list: Native, Nuisance, Prohibited, or
Suggested.
Please provide photographs of the plant for each phase (with and without leaves,
flowers, fruit, etc.)
Cite the sources you used to obtain this information (Note: Must be an agricultural
extension or University web site. No gardening or horticultural websites, please.):
Describe circumstances prohibiting use of PDX Approved Plant List species:
75
76
APPENDIX H Wildlife Deterrent Fence
77
78
79

Wildlife Management TTD WHMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wildlife Management TTD WHMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wildlife Management TTD WHMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Troutdale Airport

Contributing Aviation Wildlife Technicians:

APPENDIX B FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants

APPENDIX C Port of Portland Wildlife Control Permits.

APPENDIX D TTD Wildlife Attractants Table

APPENDIX E Management Areas Tracking Table

APPENDIX F List of Plants Approved for Landscaping at TTD

APPENDIX G TTD Plant Variance Form

APPENDIX H PDX Wildlife Deterrent Fencing

ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACM – Airport Certification Manual

AGL – Above Ground Level

AIRMAN – Airport Information Report Manager

ATC – Air Traffic Control

ATIS – Automatic Terminal Information Service

AOA – Air Operations Area

BATS – Business Analysis and Term Sheet Procedures

CATEX – Categorical Exclusion

CFR – Code of Federal Regulation

CWA – Clean Water Act

DEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

EMS – Environmental management system

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration

FAR – Federal Aviation Regulations

FWCA – Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

FIFRA – Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FOD – Foreign Object or Debris

TTD – Troutdale Airport

LCDC – Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission

MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA – National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

NRI – Natural Resource Inventory

OAR – Oregon Administrative Rules

ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODSL – Oregon Department of State Lands

ORS – Oregon Revised Statues

PDX – Portland International Airport

Port – Port of Portland

RPZ – Runway Protection Zone

RVR – Runway Visual Range

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer

TSA – Transportation Security Administration

USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers

USDI – U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WHA – Wildlife Hazard Assessment _

WHMP – Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

General Aviation Manager Date Aviation Wildlife Manager Date

Revision Date Page # Description of Revision

PURPOSE & APPLICATION

LOCAL PERSPECTIVE (AIRPORT DESCRIPTION)

APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

Implementation of the WHMP is based upon management strategies developed to address