20000846 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20080206

~D ' ~~k~
-..
PIEDMONT TRIAD
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
February 6, 2008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Mr. John Thomas
Subject: Mitigation Schedule for FedEx Development Program
Piedmont Triad International Airport, Greensboro, North Carolina
USACE Action ~ No. 200021655
DWQ Water Quality Certification No. 3428
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On behalf of the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA), I am hereby requesting approval of a
minor mitigation schedule item for the Brush Creek mitigation areas. All three of the Brush Creek
wetland restoration/creationrnitigation sites (BC-1, BC-2, and BC-3) have been constructed and are
being planted consistent with the subject permits and subsequently approved schedules. However, the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Land Quality Section
will not allow removal of the temporary erosion control measures until they have field-approved the
vegetation cover. The additional minor earthwork and replanting required to remove the wetland
separation berms, rock weirs, and turbidity screens is anticipated for summer 2008 at the earliest,
pending NCDENR approval. Please contact me or Richard Darling at <rdarling~nbakercorp.com>
or 336-931-1500 with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
TRIAD AIRPORT AUTHORITY
of
JCA/RBD/MLE:rbd
cc: Cyndi Karoly; DWQ
Sue Homewood; DWQ-WSRO
Richard Darling; Baker & Associates
Alex Rosser; ECS
IIGreensba~o11vo111D000MENTS1104066-GSOPYOgamManagert~ent1003-000000022/404 401)IMXiga6bnIBCIBCTmeE#RegS.doc
i_::v ~ > s ~, .
l ~ ~ Y _ [ M1~t" [
ikI y yL '~ t r f ~ ti? ~,~~P14 a
L L"_'t [.`6v .1 .y:..+l. -.: "l..l 4 .~s~S. [ _ _ ~ .. ~ - ... ._ ....F~ `F~y..~LS~. .:34iL

BucK
t:~.~~
1Zicllarcl 13. llarluig
1•;mirnnmcntal ~lana~cr
11uc1: 1•:m~iuccrin
Ph: 919.-419.90119
.1 ['nit u(.Ilicluu'I Bukcr Curpur~diun Fa c: 919.-}(~3.i-190
fi000 Rc.;cnc~~ Parl:war
Jlaiu: 9(9.4635-INR
1ui[u 300 Kllarliu i
Care. A"urdi Carolina 2751N 1+~°n~hukcruury~.uum
~rw~r.mbakurcory~.com
c+us.
J. Christopher Arrington
linrirunmental .Assuciatu
B:~I:er :nul .A.,~oci:ttc~ 1'h: 33GA31.1500
7800 :~irlwrt Center Uricc Fas: 33(1.931.1101
tiuitu I(Hl Cul1:3363IS.titi00
GrcunsM~ro, AC 27-109 Aestcl: 1511-25"14646
~~~r.r. mhakercurn.coni rt rri n QN i n@nth:d:crcor•p.com

Memorandum of Agreement Between
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the U.S. Air Force,
the U.S. Army,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes
PURPOSE
The signatory agencies know the risks that aircraft-wildlife strikes pose to safe
aviation.
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) acknowledges each signatory agency's
respective missions. Through this MOA, the agencies establish procedures
necessary to coordinate their missions to mane effectively address existing and
future environmental conditions contributing to aircraft-wiidiir'e 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.
BACKGROUND
Aircraft-wildlife strikes are the second leading causes of aviation-related fatalities.
Globally, these strikes have killed over 400 people and destroyed mare than 420
aircraft. While these extreme events are rare when compared to the millions of
annual aircraft operations, the potential for catastrophic loss of human life
resulting from one incident is substantial. The most recent accident
demonstrating the grievous nature of these strikes occurred in September 1995,
when a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance jet struck a flock of Canada geese during
takeoff, killing all 24 people aboard.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States Air Force
(USAF) databases contain information on more than 54,000 United States
civilian and military aircraft-wildlife strikes reported to them between 1990 and
1999'. During that decade, the FAA received reports indicating that aircraft-
wildlife strikes, damaged 4,500 civilian U.S. aircraft (1,500 substantially),
destroyed 19 aircraft, injured 91 people, and killed 6 people. Additionally, there
were 216 incidents where birds struck two or more engines on civilian aircraft,
with damage occurring to 26 percent of the 449 engines involved in these
incidents. The FAA estimates that during the same decade, civilian U.S. aircraft
sustained $4 billion worth of damages and associated losses and 4.7 million
hours of aircraft downtime due to aircraft-wildlife strikes. For the same period,
1 FAA estimates that the 28,150 aircraft-wildlife strike reports it received represent less than 20% of the
actual number of strikes that occurred during the decade.

USAF planes colliding with wildlife resulted in 10 C!acc A.1~11ishaps2, 20 airmen
deaths, and over $217 million in damages.
Approximately 97 percent of the reported civilian aircraft-wildlife strikes involved
common, large-bodied birds or large flocks of small birds. Almost 70 percent of
these events involved gulls, waterfowl, and raptors (Table 1).
About 90 percent of aircraft-wildlife strikes occur on or near airports, when
aircraft are below altitudes of 2,000 feet. Aircraft-wildlife strikes at these
elevations are especially dangerous because aircraft are moving at high speeds
and are close to or on the ground. Aircrews are intently focused on complex
take-off or landing procedures and monitoring the movements of other aircraft in
the airport vicinity. Aircrew attention to these activities while at low altitudes often
compromises their ability to successfully recover from unexpected collisions with
wildlife and to deal with rapidly changing flight procedures. As a result, crews
have minimal time and space to recover from aircraft-wildlife strikes.
Increasing bird and wildlife populations in urban and suburban areas near
airports contribute to escalating aircraft-wildlife strike rates. FAA, USAF, and
Wildlife Services (WS) experts expect the risks, frequencies, and potential
severities ofaircraft-wildlife strikes to increase during the next decade as the
numbers of civilian and military aircraft operations grow to meet expanding
transportation and military demands.
SECTION I.
SCOPE OF COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
Based on the preceding information and to achieve this MOA's purpose, the
signatory agencies:
A. Agree to strongly encourage their respective regional and local offices, as
' appropriate, to develop interagency coordination procedures necessary to
effectively and efficiently implement this MOA. Local procedures should
clarify time frames and other general coordination guidelines.
B. Agree that the term "airport" applies only to those facilities as defined in the
attached glossary.
C. Agree that the three major activities of most concern include, but are not
limited to:
1. airport siting and expansion;
~ Saa gi6ssary far #ha ~iafniti~r~ of a Ciass A Rfiishap at~d siriiiia~ i:aFins.

2. development of conservationlmitigation habitats or other land uses that
could attract hazardous wildlife to airports or nearby areas; and
3. responses to known wildlife hazards oraircraft-wildlife strikes.
D. Agree that "hazardous wildlife" are those animals, identified to species and
listed in FAA and USAF databases, that are most often involved in aircraft-
wildlife strikes. Many of the species frequently inhabit areas on or near
airports, cause structural damage to airport facilities, or attract other wildlife
that pose an aircraft-wildlife strike hazard. Table 1 lists many of these
species. It is included solely to provide information on identified wildlife
species that~have been involved in aircraft-wildlife strikes. It is not intended to
represent the universe of species concerning the signatory agencies, since
more than 50 percent of the aircraft-wildlife strikes reported to FAA or the
USAF did not identify the species involved.
E. Agree to focus on habitats attractive to the species noted in Table 1, but the
signatory agenci®s realize that it is imperative to recognize that wildlife hazard
determinations discussed in Paragraph L of this secfron may involve other
animals.
F. Agree that not all habitat types attract hazardous wildlife. The signatory
agencies, during their consultative or decisionmaking activities, will inform
regional and local land use authorities of this MOA's purpose. The signatory
agencies will consider regional, local, and site-specific factors (e.g.,
geographic setting and/or ecological concerns) when conducting these
activities and will work cooperatively with the authorities as they develop and
implement local land use programs under their respective jurisdictions. The
signatory agencies will encourage these stakeholders to develop land uses
within the siting criteria noted in Section 1-3 of FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
150.5200-33 (Attachment A) that do not attract hazardous wildlife.
Conversely, the agencies will promote the establishment of land uses
attractive to hazardous wildlife outside those siting criteria. Exceptions to the
above siting criteria, as described in Section 2.4.b of the AC, will be
considered because they typically involve habitats that provide unique
ecological functions or values (e.g., critical habitat for federally-listed
endangered or threatened species, ground water recharge).
G. Agree that wetlands provide many important ecological functions and values,
including fish and wildlife habitats; flood protection; shoreline erosion control;
water quality improvement; and recreational, educational, and research
opportunities. To protect jurisdictional wetlands, Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate dredge and/or fill
activities in these wetlands and navigable waters. In recognizing Section 404
requirements and the Clean Water Action Plan's goal to annually increase the
Nation's net wetland acreage by 100,000 acres through 2005, the signatory
agencies agree to resolve aircraft-wildlife conflicts. They will do so by

avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable,
and will work to compensate for all associated unavoidable wetland impacts.
The agencies agree to work with landowners and communities to encourage
and support wetland restoration or enhancement efforts that do not increase
aircraft-wildlife strike potentials.
H. Agree that the: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has expertise in
protecting and managing jurisdictional wetlands and their associated wildlife;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) has expertise in protecting
environmental resources; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
has expertise in protecting and managing wildlife and their habitats, including
migratory birds and wetlands. Appropriate signatory agencies will
cooperatively review proposals to develop or expand wetland mitigation sites,
or wildlife refuges that may attract hazardous wildlife. When planning these
sites or refuges, the signatory agencies will diligently consider the siting
criteria and land use practice recommendations stated in FAA AC 150/5200-
33. The agencies will make every effort to undertake actions that are
consistent with those criteria and recommendations, but recognize that
exceptions to the siting criteria may be appropriate (see Paragraph F of this
section).
I. Agree to consult with airport proponents during initial airport planning efforts.
As appropriate, the FAA or USAF will initiate signatory agency participation in
these efforts. When evaluating proposals to build new civilian or military
aviation facilities or to expand existing ones, the FAA or the USAF, will work
with appropriate signatory agencies to diligently evaluate alternatives that
may avoid adverse effects on wetlands, other aquatic resources, and Federal
wildlife refuges. If these or other habitats support hazardous wildlife, and
there is no practicable alternative location for the proposed aviation project,
the appropriate signatory agencies, consistent with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies, will develop mutually acceptable measures, to
protect aviation safety and mitigate any unavoidable wildlife impacts.
J. Agree that a variety of other land uses (e.g., storm water management
facilities, wastewater treatment systems, landfills, golf courses, parks,
agricultural or aquacultural facilities, and landscapes) attract hazardous
wildlife and are, therefore, normally incompatible with airports. Accordingly,
new, federally-funded airport construction or airport expansion projects near
habitats or other land uses that may attract hazardous wildlife must conform
to the siting criteria established in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-
33, Section 1-3.
K. Agree to encourage and advise owners and/or operators of non-airport
facilities that are known hazardous wildlife attractants (See Paragraph J) to
follow the siting criteria in Section 1-3 of AC 150/5200-33. As appropriate,
each signatory agency will inform proponents of these or other land uses
about the land use's potential to attract hazardous species to airport areas.

The signatory agencies will urge facility owners and/or operators about the
critical need to consider the land uses' effects on aviation safety.
L. Agree that FAA, USAF, and WS personnel have the expertise necessary to
determine the aircraft-wildlife strike potentials of various land uses. When
there is disagreement among signatory agencies about a particular land use
and its potential to attract hazardous wildlife, the FAA, USAF, or WS will
prepare a wildlife hazard assessment. Then, the appropriate signatory
agencies will meet at the local level to review the assessment. At a minimum,
that assessment will:.
1. identify each species causing the aviation hazard, its seasonal and daily
populations, and the population's local movements;
2. discuss locations and features on and near the airport or land use
attractive to hazardous wildlife; and
3. evaluate the extent of the wildlife hazard to aviation.
M. Agree to cooperate with the airport operator to develop a specific, wildlife
hazard management plan for a given location, when a potential wildlife hazard
is identified. The plan will meet applicable FAA, USAF, and other relevant
requirements. In developing the plan, the appropriate agencies will use their
expertise and attempt to integrate their respective programmatic
responsibilities, while complying with existing laws, regulations, and policies.
The plan should avoid adverse impacts to wildlife populations, wetlands, or
other sensitive habitats to the maximum extent practical. Unavoidable impacts
resulting from implementing the plan will be fully compensated pursuant to all
applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
N. Agree that whenever a significant aircraft-wildlife strike occurs or a potential
for one is identified, any signatory agency may initiate actions with other
appropriate signatory agencies to evaluate the situation and develop mutually
acceptable solutions to reduce the identified strike probability. The .agencies
will work cooperatively, preferably at the local level, to determine the causes
of the strike and what can and should be done at the airport or in its vicinity to
reduce potential strikes involving that species.
O. Agree that information and analyses relating to mitigation that could cause or
contribute to aircraft-wildlife strikes should, whenever possible, be included in
documents prepared to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This should be done in coordination with appropriate signatory agencies to
inform the public and Federal decision makers about important ecological
factors that may affect aviation. This concurrent review of environmental
issues will promote the streamlining of the NEPA review process.
P. Agree to cooperatively develop mutually acceptable and consistent guidance,
manuals, or procedures addressing the management ofi habitats attractive to

hazardous wildlife, when those habitats are or will be within the siting criteria
noted in Section 1-3 of FAA AC 5200-33. As appropriate, the signatory
agencies will also consult each other when they propose revisions to any
regulations or guidance relevant to the purpose of this MOA, and agree to
modify this MOA accordingly.
SECTION II.
GENERAL RULES AND INFORMATION
A. Development of this MOA fulfills the National Transportation Safety Board's
recommendation of November 19, 1999, to form an inter-departmental task
force to address aircraft-wildlife strike issues.
B. This MOA does not nullify any obligations of the signatory agencies to enter
into separate MOAs with the USFWS addressing the conservation of
migratory birds, as outlined in Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, dated January 10, 2001 (66
Federal Register, No. 11, pg. 3853).
C. This MOA in noway restricts a signatory agency's participation in similar
activities or arrangements with other public or private agencies,
organizations, or individuals.
D. This MOA does not alter or modify compliance with any Federal law,
regulation or guidance (e.g., Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act;
Migratory Bird Treaty Act; National Environmental Policy Act; North American
Wetlands Conservation Act; Safe Drinking Water Aet; op #ne "n8-flat lass"
policy for wetland protection). The signatory agencies will employ this MOA in
concert with the Federal guidance addressing wetland mitigation banking
dated March 6, 1995 (60 Federal Register, No. 43, pg. 12286).
E. The statutory provisions and regulations mentioned above contain legally
binding requirements. However, this MOA does not substitute for those
provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. This MOA does not
impose legally binding requiremento ar-, the oignatery agencies or any other
party, and may not apply to a particular situation in certain circumstances.
The signatory agencies retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-
by-case basis that differ from this MOA when they determine it is appropriate
to do so. Such decisio.^.s ~~lil! be based on the facts of 2 particular case and
applicable legal requirements. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise
questions and objections about the substance of this MOA and the
appropriateness of its application to a particular situation.
F. This MOA is based on evolving information and may be revised periodically
without public notice. The signatory agencies welcome public comments on
this MOA at any time and will consider those comments in any future revision
of this MOA.

G. This MOA is intended to improve the internal management of the Executive
Branch to address conflicts between aviation safety and wildlife. This MOA
does not create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, either substantively
or procedurally. No party, by law or equity, may enforce this MOA against
.the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
H. This MOA does not obligate any signatory agency to allocate or spend
appropriations or enter into any contract or other obligations.
I. This MOA does not reduce or affect the authority of Federal, State, or local
agencies regarding land uses under their respective purviews. When
requested, the signatory agencies will provide technical expertise to agencies
making decisions regarding land uses within the siting criteria in Section 1-3
of FAA AC 15015200-33 to minimize or prevent attracting hazardous wildlife
to airport areas.
J. Any signatory agency may request changes to this MOA by submitting a
written request to any other signatory agency and subsequently obtaining the
written concurrence of all signatory agencies.
K. Any signatory agency may terminate its participation in this MOA within 60
days of providing written notice to the other agencies. This MOA wit( remain
in effect until aii signatory agencies terminate their participation in It.
SECTION III. PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
The following list identifies contact offices for each signatory agency.
Federal Aviation Administration
Office Airport Safety and Standards
Airport Safety and
Compliance Branch (AAS-310)
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
V: 202-267-1799
F: 202-267-7546
U.S. Air Force
HO AFSC/SEFW
9700 Ave., G. SE, Bldg. 24499
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117
V: 505-846-5679
1=: 505-846-0634
U.S. Army
Directorate of Civil Works
Regulatory Branch (CECW OR)
441 G St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20314
V: 202-761-4750
F: 202-761-4150
U.S. Environmental Protection Agy.
Office of Water
Wetlands Division
Ariel Rios Building, MC 4502E
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
V: 202-260-1799
F: 202-260-7546

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 634
Arlington, VA 22203
V: 703-358-1714
F: 703-358-2272
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
Operational Support Staff
4700 River Road, Unit 87
Riverdale, MD 20737
V: 301-734-7921
F: 301-734-5157

Signature Page
- Associate Administrator for Airpoi~`~s; ~` Date
Federal Aviation Administration
thief of Safetyt
Date
U. S. Air Force
Acting Assistant SecreEary of the Army
(Civil Works)
Department of the Army
~ , .~. Ham: _
A.s~istant A i strrator, Office of'Water,
U.S. Envirc~n ntal Protection Agency
U~l~"~r• '~ 1
Date
l i9 03
~~~n~~
ssislant Direvtar, Migi:afory Birds ~ 9 ~~
and State Programs, Date
U.S. Fsh and Wildlife Service
/4c,~,~ Deputy Administratar~ Wikttffe Services ~'3
U.S. Depi=irtment of Agriculture Date

GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used in this MOA.
Airport. All USAF airfields or all public use airports in the FAA's National Plan
of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Note: There are over 18,000 civil-use
airports in the U.S., but only 3,344 of them are in the NPIAS and, therefore,
under FAA's jurisdiction.
Aircraft-wildlife strike. An aircraft-wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred
when:
1. a pilot reports that an aircraft struck 1 or more birds or other wildlife;
2. aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having
been caused by an aircraft-wildlife strike;
3. personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike 1 or more
birds or other wildlife;
4. 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; or
5. 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)
(Source: Wildlife Control Procedures Manual, Technical Publication 11500E,
1994).
Aircraft-wildlife strike hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with
wildlife on or near an airport (14 CFR 139.3).
Bird Sizes. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 33.76 classifies birds
according to weight:
small birds weigh less than 3 ounces (oz).
medium birds weigh more than 3 oz and less than 2.5 fbs.
large birds weigh greater than 2.5 lbs.
Civil aircraft damage classifications. The following damage descriptions are
based on the Manual on the International Civil Aviation Organization Bird Strike
Information System:
Minor: The aircraft is deemed airworthy upon completing simple
repairs or replacing minor parts and an extensive inspection is not
necessary.

Substantial: Damage or structural failure adversely affects an
aircraft's structural integrity, performance, or flight characteristics.
The damage normally requires major repairs or the replacement of the
entire affected component. Bent fairings or cowlings; small dents;
skin punctures; damage to wing tips, antenna, tires or brakes, or
engine blade damage not requiring blade replacement are specifically
excluded.
Destroyed: The damage sustained makes it inadvisable to restore
the aircraft to an airworthy condition.
Significant Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes. A significant aircraft-wildlife strike is
deemed to have occurred when any of the following applies:
1. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft experiences a multiple aircraft-bird
strike or engine ingestion;
2. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft experiences a damaging collision
with wildlife other than birds; or
3. a USAF aircraft experiences a Class A, B, or C mishap as
described below:
A. Class A Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies:
1. total mishap cost is $1,000,000 or more;
2. a fatality or permanent total disability occurs; and/or
3. an Air Force aircraft is destroyed.
B. Class B Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies:
1. total mishap cost is $200,000 or more and less than
$1,000,000; and/or
2. a permanent partial disability occurs and/or 3 or more
people are hospitalized;
C. Class C Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies:
1. cost of reported damage is between $20,000 and
$200,000;
2. an injury causes a lost workday (i.e., duration of
absence is at least 8 hours beyond the day or shift
during which mishap occurred); and/or
3. an occupational illness causing absence from work at
any time.
Wetlands. An ecosystem requiring constant or recurrent, shallow inundation or
saturation at or near the surtace of the substrate. The minimum essential
characteristics of a wetland are recurrent, sustained inundation or saturation at or

near the surtace and the presence of physical, chemical, and biological features
indicating recurrent, sustained inundation, or saturation. Common diagnostic
wetland features are hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. These features will
be present, except where specific physiochemical, biotic, or anthropogenic
factors have removed them or prevented their development.
(Source the 1987 Delineation Manual; 40 CFR 230.3(t)).
Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limitation ariy wild mammal, bird,
reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other
invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring there of
(50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter,
Exportation, and Importation of ~Idlife and Plants). As used in this MOA,
°wildlife" includes feral animals and domestic animals while out of their owner's
control (14 CFR 139.3, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving CAB-
Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers Operating Large Aircraft (Other Than
Helicopters))

Table 1. Identified wildlife speaes, or groups, that were involved in
two or more aircraft-wildlife strikes, that caused damage to one or
more aircraft components, or that had an adverse effect on an
aircraft's flight. Data are for 1990-1999 and involve only avilian, U.S.
aircraft.
Strtls No. reports:! strikes
Gulls (all spp.) 874
Geese (primarily, Canada geese) 458
Hawks (primarily, Red-tailed hawks) 182
Ducks (primarily Mallards.) 165
Vultures (primarily, Turkey vulture) 142
Rodcdoves 122
Doves (primarily, mourning doves) 109
Blackbirds 81
European starlings 55
Sparrows 52
Egrets 41
Shore birds (primarily, Killdeer 8~ 40
Sandpipers)
Crows 31
Owls 24
Sandhilt cranes ~
American kestreis 15
Great blue herons 15
Pelicans 14
Swallows 14
Eagles (Bald and Golden) 14
Ospreys 13
Ring-necked pheasants 11
Herons 11
Barn-owls g
American robins g
Meadowlarks g
Buntings (snow) 7
Cormorants g
Snow buntings g
Brants 5
Terns (all spp.) 5
Great homed owls 5
Homed larks 4
Turkeys 4
Swans 3
Mockingbirds 3
Quails 3
Homing pigeons 3
Snowy owls 3
Anhirtgas 2

Ravens 2
Kites 2
Falcons 2
Peregrine falcons 2
Merlins 2
Grouse 2
Hungarian partridges 2
Spotted doves 2
Thrushes ~
Mynas 2
Finches 2
Total known birds 2,612
~"amm$!s Ro. raportsc! strikes
Deer (primarily, White-tailed deer) 285
Coyotes 16
Dogs 10
Elk 6
Cattle 5
Bats 4
Horses g
Pronghorn antelopes 3
Foxes 2
Raccoons 2
Rabbits 2
Moose 2
Total known mammals 340
Ring-billed gulls were the most commonly struck gulls. The
U.S. ring-billed gu(I popuiafion increased sfeadily of abouf 6%
ar5riuaiiy #rom 1966-1988. Canada geese were invaived iti
about 90°~ of the aircraft-goose strikes involving civilian, U.S.
aircraft from 1990-1998. Resident (non-migratory) Canada
goose populations increased annually at 13°~ from 1966-
1998. Red-tailed hawks accounted for 90°~ of the identified
aircraft-hawk strikes for the 10-year period. Red-tailed hawk
populations increased annually at 3% from 1966 to 1998.
Turkey vultures were involved in 93% of he identified aircraft-
vulture strikes. The U. S. Turkey vulture populations
increased at annually at 1 % between 1966 and 1998. Deer,
primarily white-tailed deer, have also adapted to urban and
airport areas and their populations have increased
dramatically. In the early 1900's, there were about 100,000
white-tailed deer in the U.S. Current estimates are that the
U.S. population is about 24 million.

~~
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Advisory
Circular
Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS Date: July 27, 2004 AC No: 150/5200-33A
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 150/5200-33, Hazardous l~ldlife Attractants on or near
Airports, dated May 1, 1997.
4. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes:
a. Reorganized outline of the AC.
b. Expanded Table 1 to inGude updated information from the Special Report for the FAA, `Ranking
the Hazard Level of Wrldlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003"
c. Removed Table 2, which outlined the distances between certain airport features and any on-
airport agricultural crops, and relocated the discussion of on-airport agricultural activities to
Paragraph 2-6.
d. Added text about the basis for separation distances between wildlife hazards and airport
movement areas and added Figure 1 depicting the separation distances.
e. Added options for wetland mitigation for impacts from airport projects, including mitigation
banking.
f. Further recognized the importance of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP).
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 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 WHAs, 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.

AC 150/5200-33A 7/27/2004
Most public-use airports have large trails 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, detentioNretention ponds, roosting habitats on
buildings, landscaping, odor-causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations,
wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surtace mining, or wetlands-can
provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even small faalities,
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) (final signature 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

7!27/2004 AC 150/5200-33A
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 National Wildlife Strike Database,
January 1990-April 2003.'
Ranking by criteria
Species rou
g p
Damage4
Major a
Effect on Composite
ranking2 Relative
hazard score3
damage flight
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. larks. 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
' 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.
z 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.
s Percentage values, from Tables 3 and 4 in Footnote 1 of the Specia! Reporf, 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.
"Aircraft incurred at least some damage (destroyed, substantial, minor, or unknown) from strike.
s 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.
s Aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other.
iii

,- ,
AC 150/5200-33A 7/27/2004
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 ............................................................................................................................. ..6
2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS ............................................................................. .. 8
2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ ..8
2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS ............. .. 8
2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES ............................................... .. 9
SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY
OPERATORS OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS ........................................... 11
3.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 11
.......................................................................
3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE
DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS ............................................................................ 11
3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT
PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 11
3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
PART 139 ............................................................................................................................ 11
3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP) ............................................................ 11
3~. LOCAL COORDINATION ....................................................................................................... 12
3-7. COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS ........................... 12
SECTION 4. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE CHANGES .......................... 13
41. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND-USE CHANGES ........................................................ 13
4-2. WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ........................:........................................................... 13
4-3. OTHER LAND-USE PRACTICE CHANGES .......................................................................... 14
APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR.. 15
,v

7!2712004
AC 150!5200-33A
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.

AC 150/5200-33A
7/27/2004
Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided,
eliminated, or mitigated.
'
~Y J~ W J .L W W 1 ~i ~L
1 a y W ~ \J' + i W + W
y y
.~ ~ .~ a
~Y w ~Y ~Y a y ~/
J~ ~ ~ '~r .~ .~ a a '~ .v .y ~~ W W .` W
M w ~I _ ' W ~ W \ W i a~ W a a
`L ~L
a r. .~ ~
~ ~. W a ~ W ~ L ~L W a \ .~ W a. ~ ~. a .L
~ a 1 +.
a ~
.~
' a a y a ~ 4
W a a + ~ r y a ~ J.\ a
~
~ ~ a W
~~ W

~ I y
v~
i ` y
~
~u W a ~
~
.v
v.
W "
W
+ W
y
~
W
7 ~
y W
A
y
~ ~
y y
W
y

r
W W I W W
W
/ _. .. .r y. W
~,
r W ~ r.
W
; \
/
y
a
W
~ I
II
W~ J~ ~• Ala W W
~ ~
/
/
W a~ W ~\ ~ y
//~+ y\ W ~ ~
W a
~\
y
• .r
~ a
JI ~ . ~~ a a
~~~ W ..
. a
~ ~ ~
\
W y I r ly W
W
iW . i y ~ y I y y
~
y ~, W I° WSW
`~
e
W W ,W W
~ .~ W w .
i ~` ~.
~ ` . W
W
,~ ~, .
., y
I. ~ ~.
.I
W
W~ W
~~ .. I~
~ l
W
W ~
W
W
LL ~
'`~ ~PERIMETERA ~
y
W W
y ~` . yl
` W
\ ~

yy
.

w . . \y ~ y ~ ~ ~ . a . . . . . a . i . W . . . 1 . ~
W~ V y W 4 W W `S-y ~W W- ate ~~ ±'Z ys ~ v-rLL-r-a y y-~i. - a r r .~ ~a~--~W~ .~~ y W W 1 W a
PERiMET'ER C
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 cirGing airspace.
2

7/27/2004 AC 150/5200-33A
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, inGuding 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. Departmen# 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 (MSWLs) 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 MSWL 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 MSWL must {1) be within 6 miles of the airport, as measured from airport
property line to MSWL 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 MSWLs. 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
Landfrlls Near Public Airports, for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions.
b. Siting for new MSWLs not subject to AIR 21. If an airport and MSWL do not meet the
restrictions of Public Law 106-181, the FAA recommends against locating MSWLs 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 MSWL 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 MSWL 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 MSWL units that are located within the
separations fisted 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 Sections 4-3(b) and 4-3(c) of this
AC for a discussion of this demonstration requirement.)

AC 150/5200-33A
7/27/2004
d. Enclosed trash transfer stations. Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive garbage
behind dosed doors; process it via compaction, incneration, 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 fadlities 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 fadlities
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 munidpal 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 sparing 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.
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. C8~D landfills do not generally attract
hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putresdble
waste, and are not co-located with other waste disposal operations. However, C&D landfills
have similar visual and operational characteristics to putresdble waste disposal sites. When
co-located with putresdble 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 indnerated residue from resource recovery power/heat-generating
fadlities that are fired by munidpal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally not a wildlife
attractant because it no longer contains putresdble 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
indnerators 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.
4

7/27/2004
AC 150/5200-33A
2-3.WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. Drinking water intake and treatment facilities, stomlwater and
wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use,
and ponds that result #rom 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 stormwater management
facilities on or near all public-use airports to ensure a safe airport environment.
a. Existing stormwater management facilities. On-airport stormwater 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 stormwater, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they
slowly release water after storms, they create standing bodies of water that can attract
hazardous wildlife. Where the airport has developed a WHMP in accordance with Part 139, the
FAA requires immediate correction of any wildlife hazards arising from existing stormwater
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 stormwater 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 stormwater treatment facility
operators to incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into stormwater
treatment facility operating practices when their facility is located within the separation criteria
specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4.
b. New stormwater management facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that off-airport
stormwater 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. On-
airport stormwater detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and
maintained for a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm and remain
completely dry between storms. To facilitate the control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA
recommends the use of steep-sided, 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 the use of underground stormwater infiltration systems, such as French drains
or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife.

AC 150!5200-33A
7/27/2004
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, recyGe, or reclaim municipal
sewage or liquid industrial wastes." The definition inGudes any pretreatment involving the
reduction of the amount of pollutants or the elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such
pollutants into a publiGy 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.
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
speces of animals. Also, the turf requires more frequent mowing, which in tum may mutilate or
flush insects or small animals and produce straw, both of which can attract hazardous wildlife.
In addition, the improved turt 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 vehiGes from reaching accident sites in a
timely manner.
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.
6

7/27/2004
AC 150/5200-33A
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.
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.
Enhanang 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 agences or organizations to develop mitigation banking for wetland
impacts on airport property.

AC 150/5200-33A 7!2712004
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 19. 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.
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. F~cisting 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 watertowl 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. F~cisting 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

7/27/2004
AC 15015200-33A
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 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 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
commeraal ftshing, shellfish harvesting, etc.), peri~aps 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 tr4ND 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 idenfified 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; therefore, airport operators and the wildlife damage management
biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP.
9

AC 15015200-33A
Intentionally Left Blank
7!2712004
10

7/27/2004
AC 150/5200-33A
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 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 [phone], Fax [phone] (hftp://www.aphis.usda.4ov/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: htto://wildlife-mitioation.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.
3-0. 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-S.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 W1-IMP, 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.
11

AC 150/5200-33A
7/27/2004
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.
3-7.000RDINATION/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.
12

7/27/2004
AC 150/5200-33A
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 5,000110,000-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 newlexpanded 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 MSWL 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 MSWL 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 Muniapal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 258.10, Airport Safety). The
EPA also requires owners or operators of new MSWL units, or lateral expansions of existing
MSWL 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 MSWLs are being proposed near airports, MSWL operators must
notify the airport operator and the FAA of the proposal as early as possible pursuant to 40 CFR
258.
b. Waste handling facilities within separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. To
Gaim successfully that awaste-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 faatity will not handle putrescible material other
than that as outlined in 2-2b. The FAA strongly recommends against any facility other than that
as outlined in 2-2b (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
13

AC 150/5200-33A
7!27/2004
putrescible-waste landfill began operating. For this reason, demonstrations of experimental
wildlife control measures may not be conducted in an airport's AOA.
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 notifcation 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 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.
b. Additional coordination. If, after initial review by the FAA, questions remain about the
existence of a wildlife hazard near an airport, airport operators should consult a wildlife damage
management biologist. Such questions may be triggered by a history of wildlife strikes at the
airport or the proximity of the airport to a wildlife refuge, body of water, or similar feature known
to attract wildlife. Once identified, such questions require resolution prior to the project's
implementation.
14

7/27!2004
AC 150/5200-33A
Appendix 1
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 assocated 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.
r
4. Bird balls. Migh-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 MSWL. 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 MSWL. 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 (MSWL). A publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or
an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surtace
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. An
MSWL may receive 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
MSWL can consist of either a stand alone unit or several cells that receive household waste.
13. New MSWL. 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

AC 150/5200-33A
Appendix 1
7/27/2004
15. Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not set! 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 aState, atax-supported organization, or an
Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(15)).
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(16)).
18. 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).
19. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste
discharges, or similar facilities where activities incude processing, burying, storing, or otherwise
disposing of putrescible material, trash, and refuse.
20. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for several months.
21. Runway protection .zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of
people and property on the ground (see AC 15015300-13). The dimensions of this zone vary with
the airport design, aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum.
22. Scheduled air carrier operation. Any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for
compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial 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).
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant or air pollution control faality and other discarded material, incuding, 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 nuGear, or by product material as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (68 Stat. 923). (40 CFR 257.2)
26. Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbojets and
turboprops but excluding turbo-shaft rotary-wing aircraft.
16

7/27/2004
AC 150/5200-33A
Appendix 1
27. Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft
28. 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 inGudes 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 (o), (p), & (q)}.
29. Wildlife. Any wild animal, incuding 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
inGudes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their owners (14 CFR Part 139,
Certification of Airports).
30. Wildlife attractants. Any human-made structure, (and-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.
31. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport.
32. 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 far 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, Wrldlife Control
Procedures Manual, Technical Publication 11500E, 1994).
2. RESERVED
17

AC 150!5200-33A
Appendix 1
Intentionally Left Blank
7/27/2004
18

I�
i
�a
I
I
1
i
t
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
�1
1
V
t
t
1
1 V,
1
1 \ /
1
1 {
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
-1 -
Lr) o Ln o
�? r V� c0
n
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
-1 -
Lr) o Ln o
�? r V� c0
n