SHORT STUDY: THE IMPACTS OF ONAIRPORT BIRD CONTROL ACTIVITIES AT LAA ON BIRD COMMUNITIES AT ADJACENT BIRD RESERVES LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT, LYDD

Transcription

1 LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT, LYDD SHORT STUDY THE IMPACTS OF ONAIRPORT BIRD CONTROL ACTIVITIES AT LAA ON BIRD COMMUNITIES AT ADJACENT BIRD RESERVES December 2010 Prepared by Prepared for London Ashford (Lydd) Airport Lydd Romney Marsh Kent TN29 9QL Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 1

2 Report Title Short Study The Impact of On-Airport Bird Control Activities at LAA on Bird Communities at Adjacent Bird Reserves, 2010 Report Status Final Job No MMX-RT Date 16 December 2010 Prepared by Checked by Mark McLellan Charlotte Peacock Studio 34 Fazeley Studios 191 Fazeley Street Birmingham, B5 5SE UK Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 2

3 1 INTRODUCTION In June 2008 and December 2009, London Ashford Airport (Lydd) ( LAA ) conducted a study on e impact of on-airport bird control activities at LAA on bird communities at adjacent bird reserves. More information on e spatial records for ose studies has been requested by Natural England. In addition, furer observations have been made of bird assemblages near to LAA in response to on-airfield pyrotechnic cartridges in December 2010 and are reported herein The aim of e study was to a) update e 2009 study wi additional spatial records of bird populations; b) assess e behaviour of birds occupying nearby fields and gravel pits during on-airport bird control activities using pyrotechnic cartridges. 2 METHODOLOGY This study was undertaken on e 24 November The study team comprised Dr. Mark McLellan, Project Director Gary Styles, Bird Control Officer, LAA Paul James, Orniologist Work was conducted between e hours of and Assemblages of birds located near to e airfield were tested for eir response to on-airport bird control activities using pyrotechnic cartridges. Bird assemblages were located, and eir species identified, togeer wi a mapped location. Three observation points were selected x Norern end of airfield at Norlade (grid ref TR ) x Western perimeter of airfield (grid ref TR ) x Bird hide at west end of ARC pit (grid ref TR ) These locations are mapped on Figure 1. Populations were assessed by binoculars and telescope, as a modified signal pistol wi pyrotechnic bird scaring cartridges discharged at least ree rounds at ree source locations (Figure 1). Bird assemblages observed are also mapped on Figure 1. o Weaer conditions were as follows. Sunny wi variable cloud, 6 C, wind NW 10 mph Figure 2 shows e location of assemblages of birds observed in December 2009, which were not mapped in e December 2009 report, and eir response to pyrotechnic cartridge discharge is reported. Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 3

4 Figure 1 Locations of e bird control activity and monitoring points in December 2010 SP1 P1 O1 P2 O2 SP2 P3 SP3 SP3 O3 KEY LOCATION OF OBSERVERS LOCATION OF PYROTECHNIC SOURCE LOCATION OF BIRD ASSEMBLAGES

5 Figure 2 December 2009 results wi additional observations beyond e SPA areas Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 5

6 3 STUDY RESULTS 3.1 Results from 24 November Location of observers/pyrotechnic source Norern end of airfield at Norlade (grid ref TR , Figure 1, O1, P1). Species present A high tide roost of 200+ curlew on e sheep pasture near Belgar Farm and ca. 50 black-headed and common gulls (grid ref TR , Figure 1, SP1). Response The curlew (ca. 500 metres from e source point) showed no response. The gulls (ca. 750 metres from e source point) got up briefly but soon settled again. The firing disturbed 6 sky larks (ca. 75 metres away) from a nearby stubble field (grid ref TR ) and a grey heron (ca. 100 metres away) along Mockmill Sewer remained undisturbed Location of observers/pyrotechnic source Western perimeter of airfield (grid ref TR , Figure 1, O2, P2). Species present ca. 120 lapwing and ca. 50 black-headed and common gulls on adjacent sheep pasture (grid ref TR , Figure 1, SP2). Response The lapwing and gulls (ca. 300 metres away from e source), took off on firing but very quickly (wiin 1 minute) returned to e same field Location of observers Hide at west end of ARC pit (grid ref TR , Figure 1, O3) Location of pyrotechnic source Souern boundary of e airfield, Figure 1, P3). Species present Large numbers of gulls of five species, wildfowl (Canada goose, wigeon, gadwall, teal, mallard, shoveler, pochard, tufted duck, goldeneye) and waders (ca. 150 lapwing, 1 black-tailed godwit). Also several cormorants and a little egret. (Figure 1, SP3). Response The firing produced no disturbance response in any of e birds present on e ARC pit (ca.1100 metres distant from e firing source) Additional Results from 2009 November 30 (am) Field to nor west of Lade Pit Species present A high tide roost of oystercatcher (10) and curlew (37) on field to NW of pit (ca. 1000m distant from e firing source). Response The oystercatchers and curlews were lifted as soon as e pyrotechnics commenced. They departed NE probably to nearby Lade Sands Fishing lakes NW of ARC Pit, November 30 (am) Species present Mute swan (4), great crested grebe (1), coot (6). Also cattle egret (1), grey heron (1), black-headed gull (53), common gull (4), stock dove (12), starling (30) on flooded field beyond lake (ca.500m distant from e firing source). Response All e birds on e flooded field were lifted as soon as e pyrotechnics commenced and flew off. Only e cattle egret returned wiin minutes. Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 6

7 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This short follow-up study conducted in December 2010 has examined in more detail e ways at on-airfield pyrotechnics can affect nearby bird populations, whilst performing e function of dispersing birds from e operational parts of e airfield Taken togeer, e 2008, 2009, and 2010 studies confirm at on-airport bird control using pyrotechnic cartridges can, under conditions of certain usage, evoke disturbance behaviour in bird assemblages off-airport. This is to be expected, as ese cartridges are designed to disperse birds from airports at ranges exceeding 100 metres. All of e disturbance behaviour observed was transitory, wi birds eier immediately returning to e location from which ey disturbed and resuming eir prior behaviour; or returning to e same or nearby area wiin hours These results confirm e day-to-day experience of e Bird Control Unit at Lydd, where it is noted at birds dispersed from e airfield or nearby will return wiin hours Results obtained in December 2010 for e RSPB reserve confirm ose in 2008 and 2009; at birds at ARC Pit (part of e SPA) show no disturbance behaviour as a result of on-airport bird control activities Away from e SPA and pspa areas, some of e fields nearer to e airport are subject to impacts especially from pyrotechnics, wi e present study lifting gulls, lapwing and plover (transiently) m from e airfield, ough oer species wiin is range such as curlew and grey heron remained undisturbed. Similar observations were made in 2009; flocks of curlew, oystercatcher and red-legged partridge in flooded fields were dispersed by e cartridges fired 1000m away; and gulls, starling and mute swan were deterred from flooded field to e sou of e airfield 500m away These observations serve to confirm e obvious; at bird control techniques are effective in dispersing birds away from e airfield and nearby areas, but at ey need to be repeated on a regular basis, backed up by varying techniques and reinforced where possible by habitat management as ey do not deter birds wi any permanency. That acknowledged, it is still possible for LAA to hone deterrence operations using pyrotechnics and alarm calls, to reduce disturbance to nearby fields, and proposals in is respect are detailed in e revised and updated Bird Control Management Plan As acknowledged in previous reports of 2008 and 2009, assemblages of birds on e SSSI near to, or on e LAA airfield may well be displaced away from e airfield by bird scaring cartridges, and of course it is important at is occurs; bo for eir own safety and for avoiding birdstrike. However, eir swift return (and e availability of abundant alternative similar habitat in e area) implies at e habitat value of e SSSI is unaffected by bird control activity. Furermore, noise impacts from bird control operations would be no greater under e development proposals an ey are today, and as proposed in e revised and updated BCMP, would be reduced Whilst is study and oers submitted by e Applicant show at e integrity of e SPA and pspa is unaffected by on-airport bird control activity, and at e SSSI in respect of designation for bird assemblages does not receive significant adverse effects from is source, LAA propose a series of enhancements for birdlife at and nearby e airport. These proposals are set out in more detail in oer parts of e Proof of Evidence, but in summary, ese proposals are as follows Bird species of conservation interest which do not constitute bird strike hazard (for example, skylark and kingfisher) which are currently present on e airfield can be fostered on site rough e proposed Airfield Biodiversity Action Plan (ABAP). Appendix 5, Part 2 to LAA/6/C, Page 7