(IVAR) - Final Report - Strategic Environmental Research and ...

used as the real-time target because it was readily tracked on both displays. For the
landing/taking off activity, elapsed time was measured to determine the lag expressed
between when the vehicle quickly went from a stationary position to 10 m/s and again
from that speed to stopping rapidly. The fly passing trail was conducted by measuring
the time from when the vehicle traveling at 10 m/s actually passed a known point in the
airfield compared the time the vehicle track was displayed in the same location on the
remote DRP display.
3. Provide a brief summary of the present level of technology integration with ongoing
wildlife management programs at your airport.
Since August 2007, daily access to the radar historic data and the live radar display at
SEA has been limited to our use, a Port and a USDA wildlife biologist. The archived
data has been used to successfully quantify starling behavior, identify roost locations, and
to test for differences in bird use between new stormwater detention ponds and other
locations already managed using approved airport wildlife hazard mitigation protocols.
In December 2009, remote access to the avian radar display from our airport operation’s
vehicle became available via a laptop computer with a wireless connection. Other airport
operation’s personnel are aware of the radar’s presence and purpose on the airfield but do
not currently make use of the real-time radar displays in their daily duties.
4. Provide a brief summary of your use of this technology in normal wildlife management
activities.
Until recently, the real-time avian radar track and plot information was not being used as
part of the typical wildlife hazard management activities. To date the primary use of the
avian radar at SEA has been the evaluation of archived data over for the purpose of
identifying trends and making predictions about wildlife activity on the airfield both
geographically and temporally.
Early Notification - We primarily utilized the DRP display for 8 of the 10 hours and
experienced one instance out of 10 where we felt confident we were responding to the
same birds first detected by the radar. Known complicating factors in the other 9
instances include the realization that small nonhazardous birds such as sparrows are also
visible to the radar even though our search for wildlife hazards rarely included them
unless their numbers were sufficiently large to be a potential aviation threat and worthy
of a employing harassment measures. Additionally, there was no way of confirming
whether the bird(s) detected by the radar, often a mile or more from our original position,
were still present after we arrived. Further complicating this critique was the low number
of hazardous bird events documented during our short evaluation period that occurred over
three days.
Observational Confirmation – Much of the effort expended to complete this survey was
from a parked or slowly moving vehicle with the USDA Biologist watching the radar
display and assisting the Port Biologist (driver) look for hazardous wildlife species on
and near the airfield. On at least two instances we confirmed the radar was tracking a
flock of 300 to 400 starlings that we first observed visually. In several other situations,
where we visually tracked less hazardous aggregations of birds such as several crows or a
349