|
Document reformatted for the the world wide web
Donald Norman February 16, 2001 Mr. Jonathan Freedman Ms. Ann Kenny Re: Reference # 1996-4-02325 Port of Seattle's 404/401 Application to Construct Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. My name is Donald Norman. I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology and a Masters of Science in Environmental Studies with expertise in ornithology and wildlife toxicology. I also hold an undergraduate degree in chemical oceanography from the University of Washington and have lived in the Seattle area for almost 25 years. I have worked on many projects relating to birds in the Puget Sound Lowlands, as well as marine birds in Puget Sound. I have also performed numerous surveys for wildlife including breeding bird surveys (BBS), point counts, nest searches, and for the past 5 years have managed the Fort Lewis Military Reservation bird banding Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) site addressing issues relating to the decline of migratory passerines birds. I am also active in monitoring great blue heron colonies and issues related to development and disturbance effects upon wildlife. My consulting firm is known as Norman Wildlife Consulting ("NWC"). I have attached my resume. Based upon my review of the relevant permit related documents and local wildlife related literature (Appendix A) and my expertise in the areas of ornithology and wildlife toxicology, my conclusions with respect to the Port's proposed project are as follows, with details following. 1. The Baseline Information on Threatened and Endangered Species is Incomplete for Bald Eagles and Especially for Marbled Murrelets. As a result, no mitigation for potential airplane strikes for both species was proposed and impacts of construction were not addressed relating to bald eagle nesting and foraging. There cannot be a proper assessment under ESA if the baseline information is incomplete to determine if any mitigation is needed. 2. The elimination of the large acreage of Puget Sound Shoreline Upland will reduce migratory bird nesting and migrating habitat in the area and should be mitigated. 3. The Port is using a non-existent wildlife hazard situation as an excuse for poor wetland mitigation and offsite mitigation. 4. The Port does not analyze or discuss the biotic impacts and results of the retaining wall which are likely to attract soaring birds and potentially increase plane strikes with raptors, crows, and gulls, including bald eagles.
5. Reductions in stream transport of organic carbon and detritus will impact nearshore bird populations. These conclusions are explained in detail below. In addition to the conclusions I have drawn from my review of relevant documents, I have assembled several points and data sets that provide information that clearly presents the need for a supplemental EIS to address wildlife issues and that further demonstrate that the Port's proposed project will cause harm to migratory birds and wildlife not recognized or mitigated by the Port. Because no historical survey work has been done in the impacted areas, mostly due to limited access, it is difficult to address the actual impacts of the project, but with the scarcity of habitat in the Puget Sound Lowlands, the size of this project with this much upland habitat destruction warrants its integration with the recently published management plan for the lowlands of Puget Sound from Partners in Flight (Altman 2000). This interagency initiative addresses the decline of migratory landbirds. NWC compiled a list of species of concern that occur in the STIA area to be impacted, or are of concern in the proposed offsite mitigation area (Table 1). A project of such large scale should include some management solutions for impacts to wildlife species, especially those migrating across international borders, and thus covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 1. The Baseline Information on Threatened and Endangered Species is Incomplete for Bald Eagles and Especially for Marbled Murrelets. As a result, no mitigation for potential airplane strikes for both species was proposed and impacts of construction were not addressed relating to bald eagle nesting and foraging. There cannot be a proper assessment under ESA if the baseline information is incomplete to determine if any mitigation is needed. 1.1.1. The Bald Eagle surveys that were performed for the EIS, and presented in the FEIS (July 1995) were performed in an inappropriate part of the year. The eagle surveys, performed in December 1994 and January 1995 (FEIS July 1995, Shapiro 1995) were the incorrect season for monitoring eagles. They did not address eagle movements during the breeding season, and especially did not address eagle movements during the post-fledging period. Not only are eagles making more foraging trips, because they are foraging for themselves as well as a growing chick or chicks, eagles are more likely to be foraging more widely for food for chicks during the nesting season. 1.1.2. The Biological Assessment neglects to study an eagle nest close to the proposed activity. There has been an exponential increase in the numbers of eagles in Puget Sound (American Birds, Christmas Bird Counts 1972-1997 Seattle WA) and this has led to more nesting in the vicinity of the airport, but no studies were performed in the intervening period from the EIS baseline work in December 1994-January 1995 to the Biological Assessment (BA) released in June 2000. In fact, even the BA notes occupancy of a nest site at Angle Lake, which is not even accurately located in the BA. The BA relied upon the WDFW general location of "1-3 miles" (Page 6-1) though a survey of the Lake performed in the 1994 original survey places the nest 0.75 miles from STIA. NWC has not studied this nest to determine where the eagles forage, but there is a large area for foraging at the open upland habitat and associated wetlands south and west of the runways. The increase in eagle population has been well known for many years (McAllister et al 1984) and should have been anticipated in the BA. In addition, future increases in bald eagles should have been anticipated and presented in a plan to mitigate for impacts. 1.1.3. The eagle territory at Angle Lake could be directly impacted by the construction of the 3rd runway, from noise, disruption of foraging for food by increased activities in the areas to be impacted by construction, and loss of upland habitat. The BA does not present adequate information to address these impacts, citing only one study that measured "lack of response" of eagles to planes (Page 6-2). Since controversy often exists about the impacts of disturbance, such as noise and disturbance from plane activity, the BA should demonstrate an expert assessment of the situation. It is my opinion that the BA does not provide evidence from field or professional studies that eagles will be able to alter their foraging areas to compensate for areas that will be removed in the construction of the habitat, and thus directly impacting survival of chicks. A cursory search of the literature would indicate many more studies: a list of over 130 relevant studies are shown in the attached Appendix B, including several peer reviewed studies which could provide direction for the consultants to design an efficient study to answer the more biologically important question (Curry and Murphy. 1995, Grubb and King. 1991, Grubb and Bowerman 1997, White and Thurnow 1985). The one study cited in the BA indicates that bald eagles do not appear to be impacted by noise from the Bellingham airport, ie that bald eagles do not react to commercial jets (Fleischner and Weisberg 1986), but this study does not relate this reaction to any biological endpoint important to an individual bird, such as weight, longevity, reproductive output etc. This cited study does not meet recently proposed criteria for linking disturbance to biological impacts in waterbirds (Nisbet 2000). It is clear from the amount of upland habitat being removed that there will be reduction in foraging habitat for the eagles. Eagle prey items appear to be shifting, especially in urban settings away from fish and towards mammals and birds, and especially scavenged animals (Knight et al, Norman et al 1989, D. Norman, unpublished data). It is my professional opinion that an additional study is necessary to determine if bald eagles (as well as red-tailed hawks, see Section 2) are impacted by the development of the hundreds of acres of upland habitat. This study should not be limited to the winter season, but should include studies of the nesting season. A current literature search should be developed to assess relevant potential impacts of the proposed project upon foraging areas. 1.1.4. The BA also fails to address whether there are migration corridors that occur in the STIA, and whether eagles may be killed in airplane collisions. Hundreds of eagle migrate into and out of Washington relating to salmon runs. The Port asserts that there will be no increased risk to bird-strikes because "Future flight paths associated with the new runway are not expected to be significantly different from current approach and departure zones (Port of Seattle) - [Page 6-2 of BA June 2000]. I disagree with that premise. It is obvious that increased air traffic will increase potential bird-plane strikes, which is the Port of Seattle's contention for off-site mitigation in the NRMP (Dec 2000) and Offsite Mitigation Position Paper (Port of Seattle 1998). It is inconsistent in one part of the application to say collisions are a problem and in other parts say they are not. The Port also asserts that "Eagle-aircraft collision is very unlikely due to the eagle's relatively slow flight and high visual acuity, which allows them to avoid collisions" (Olendorff et al 1981). Again, I disagree with the Port’s assertion. The Olendorff report does not address aircraft but power lines. Though no eagles have been reported killed at STIA, several red-tailed hawks have been reported killed (BA June 2000), and they have equal flight and visual skills. As discussed in Section 3 of my comments, no survey designs or areas of surveys have been released in any of the Port documents. It is likely that the potential collision area for eagles may be further away from the airport, in the 3 to 5 miles out from either end of the runway as indicated in the BA (June 2000) where planes are descending to 500 feet or less (Page 6-7), but there is no mention whether Bird surveys of these areas have been conducted. Bald eagles have been killed at the Vancouver BC airport since its expansion (Vancouver Sun 2000). The construction of the retaining wall could encourage eagles to use thermals created by the wall, thus increasing the risk of plane strikes. This issue will be discussed in section 4 of my comments. 1.2. The Biological Assessment does not present information demonstrating that Marbled Murrelets, an ESA listed species, do not occur along the marine shoreline adjacent to the STIA, and also does not confirm that Marbled Murrelets are not flying from nesting sites in the Cascades across the flight path of the STIA. In the June 2000 Biological Assessment, a lack of information was used to "demonstrate" that no problem existed. This is an incorrect methodology and continues a pattern from previous EIS documents. Marbled Murrelets were listed by the USFWS in September of 1992 for the states of California, Oregon, and Washington (USFWS 1992), and yet they were not considered in the EIS and SEIS. This is a serious omission. Based upon my experience with "at sea" surveys for Marbled Murrelets as an observer during the fall of 1993 and the summer of 1994 to determine the impact of the purse seine and gillnet fleets upon marbled murrelets (Natural Resources Consultants, 1994), I know that there was concern in Puget Sound even at the time when the original EIS was prepared concerning Marbled Murrelets. The Zone 1 Recovery Area includes all of Puget Sound ( personal communication Martin Raphael, USFS, February 14, 2001). There is adequate evidence presented below that should have triggered surveys for Marbled Murrelets along the shoreline of King County and surrounding foraging areas. Such surveys should also have determined flight path of birds to indicate whether they were crossing STIA. In addition to "at sea" surveys, land surveys provide information about the status of this marine bird nesting in the Cascades to the east of STIA. The Biological Assessment presents no information, despite the easy availability of information confirming sitings east of STIA from sources such as WDFW that should have triggered a more in-depth review, or, in my opinion, some surveys. Of potential interest and possibly available at STIA would be the use of radar to detect marbled murrelets, a well known technique (Hamer et al 1995, Burger 1997). Some new techniques with weather doppler radar can also be used to detect birds (Gauthreaux 1992) and murrelets, because of their size and speed, are typically a unique signal. 1.2.1. "At sea" survey data by the USFS Pacific NW Research Station and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) program have located marbled murrelets in Puget Sound near the STIA area. The PSAMP data was mentioned in the BA but no information was presented. Instead, the Biological Assessment presents local amateur "birder" records to suggest that marbled murrelets are no longer present in the nearshore habitat adjacent to the project. This table is misleading and incomplete. The Christmas Bird Count information is not relevant, as those murrelets observed may not be breeding in the area. Additional observations obtained by NWC from Thais Bock indicates a much larger number of summer observations (Table 2). Conversations with Thais Bock (February 2, 2001, personal visit) also indicate that she has not received reports from the summer for the past 4 years because she no longer compiles data for Rainier Audubon. Parametrix is assuming that her data is complete, which it is not. This is not an appropriate method for determining the presence of a threatened species. Recent systematic surveys in Alaska show the importance of the time of day, year, or tide to determine whether murrelets are present (Speckman et al 2000). Yet these survey methods have not been followed at Des Moines Creek or at Miller Creek, or at other appropriate marine locations. In fact, there have been boat surveys in 2000 by the USFS that found summering murrelets on the east side of Vashon Island across Puget Sound from the STIA site (M. Raphael, personal communication February 14, 2001). These birds could easily have come from the Cascades. The BA mentions and does not present any data from the WDFW PSAMP summer aerial surveys, implying there are not any detections. The summer PSAMP have been flown 7 times, and these surveys were performed in July (Nysewander 2001), when murrelets were in the nesting phase and their presence on the water is more variable (Speckman et al 2000). It is also likely that the times of day when the flights passed over the area to the east of STIA were not appropriate for murrelet surveying, as murrelet abundance is most variable during midday (Speckman et al 2000). It is my professional opinion that these surveys are not adequate for eliminating the existence of marbled murrelets from the central area of Puget Sound off the STIA area. The presence of murrelets on the "at sea" surveys on boats in 2000 by USFS are proof, in my opinion, that murrelets occur in the summer, and therefore the BA is inadequate. 1.2b. In addition to the lack of "at-sea" surveys, which is the easiest and best method for population monitoring, there are methods to detect murrelets at their nesting sites, which are typically in mature coniferous stands with broad side branches for nesting. Data on the detections of murrelets at nesting areas in the Cascades to the east of STIA are critical in providing the possibility that murrelets could be crossing the path on airplanes landing and taking off at STIA. The June 2000 BA indicates that there are no records of Marbled Murrelets in the area to the east of STIA, and claims that the distance is too far. Marbled murrelets are known to fly as far as 75 km from shoreline areas (Hamer and Nelson 1995, Nelson 1997), which is up to the Cascade divide, indicating that murrelets could not only be flying over STIA from a straight line west to Puget Sound, but also from sites to the North and South in the Cascades. A query of the WDFW data base found several confirmed summer sitings of Marbled Murrelets east of STIA (Table 2) (WDFW 2001). These sitings have been verified by Plum Creek Timber Company as occurring in the Greenwater River drainage (Herter and Hicks 1995, Cooper et al. 1999a, Cooper et al. 1999b). Information was not located in the Tacoma Water watershed at the Howard Hanson Reservoir in time for this submission, but may also include sitings on the Green River. NWC, as part of their assessment of the proposed Olympic Cascades Pipeline, viewed some remnant forests in the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest east of North Bend and south of I-90 that may have held adequate nesting habitat (Unpublished fall 1998 field surveys, Steve Speich and Donald Norman, Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle WA). This area is less than 75 km from Puget Sound. Finally, the Cedar River Watershed, under Seattle Public Utilities, is currently writing an HCP that will protect older stands of forest that will be acceptable for marbled murrelets. There were some observations of murrelets at the Cedar River in the early 1990's but no surveys have been performed since then (Dwayne Paige, Seattle Public Utilities, personal communication). Mt. Washington to the north of the watershed to the north of Chester Morse Lake is approximately 48 km from the Des Moines Creek outlet. These multiple sitings provide sufficient reason to require the BA to address the likely collision of murrelets and planes. Because of the critical state of near extinction of murrelets in the area to the east of STIA, it is my professional opinion that more study into the potential risk of collisions is necessary. Killing of single birds will impact the recovery of this species. Information supplied in the Biological Assessment concerning the likely risk of airplane strike is highly flawed. In the arguments for off-site mitigation, strikes are emphasized, but for the issue of murrelet strikes, they are minimized. Several facts are certainly apparent. In the BA, it is mentioned that the likely impact area for collisions with murrelets to occur is from the edge of the runway out to 3 to 5 miles (Page 6-7), depending upon the flight height of the murrelets. There is no evidence that the airport or Wildlife Services has performed any surveys of the areas in the landing zones from the airport to 3-5 miles out to determine the collision strikes that are occurring off the airport. Without such surveys, it is impossible to determine if birds are being hit, as most carcass searching probably occurs on or near the runways at the airport. It has also been documented that most pilots do not report bird strikes, both to avoid having to spend time on the paperwork for reporting the incident with extra paperwork, and because they may not have any knowledge of the collision (Linnel et al 1999). There is no mention of the survey methods for these potential offsite collisions, either in the Biological Assessment or in the WHMP. Such surveys for potential collisions should be quite important, considering the increase of Canada Geese in the region (Wildlife Services 2000). The data presented in the Biological Assessment, Figure 6-2, is not consistent with the data presented in the NRMP, Table 7-2-1. There are different numbers of birds listed as strikes in 1991, 1995, and 1996. As detailed further in Section 3 of my comments, the collection procedure for determining strikes at STIA are suspect, and at best, probably haphazard and not systematic. Over 10% of the birds salvaged in Table 6-2 of the BA were unidentified. It is unknown whether these carcasses were checked to exclude murrelets. 2. The elimination of the large acreage of Puget Sound Shoreline Upland will reduce migratory bird nesting and migrating habitat in the area and should be mitigated. The Port's proposed project will destroy Puget Sound shoreline upland habitat. Destruction of this upland habitat constitutes removal of a major percentage of the remaining migratory bird breeding and migration route habitat in the area. Table 1 indicates that there are a large number of species that are occurring in the upland habitat that are of concern in the region. This is significant because the upland and riparian habitat serves an important role for migrating species as an area for foraging, cover, and resting during the major migration pathways (Table 1 lists migrant species with an "M"). Compared to the eastern United States, where cold fronts and other geographic features (Appalachian Mountains, the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico) push birds into many specified areas, birds reaching the Pacific Northwest are dispersed over the landscape and occur in many urban habitats. For example, in a small urban park in Shoreline, with a core of 25 acres (of a total area of 80 acres), regularly visited by a high school student, over 40 species of migratory birds have been observed (Michael Dossett, personal communication). A small 8-acre estuarine wetland in Edmonds has hosted over 20 species of migratory sandpipers (Norman 2001). In contrast to these small areas, the Port's proposed project involves development and/or redevelopment of approximately 700 acres in uplands according to the December 27, 2000 public notice. Destruction and alteration of this significant amount of upland habitat in the areas of Des Moines and Miller Creeks will result in further decline of species already impacted by development in the area. The substantial loss of habitat in the Des Moines and Miller Creeks area is significant because of the devastation of development on nearby habitats. Two major areas near the project area, Elliott Bay and Commencement Bay, have lost their entire estuaries (PSWQA 1986). The few acres that currently exist at those former estuaries are the result of creation of restoration projects whose effectiveness cannot be judged, due to the lack of comparative sites. The importance of the small creeks in the surrounding communities and habitats cannot be underestimated. NWC is aware of only one wildlife study which has been performed in the surrounding area at Dumas Bay Federal Way (Norman 1998) and STIA is outside of the Kent-Auburn Christmas Bird Count (Field Notes). There is only a limited area of shoreline in the Kent-Auburn Christmas Bird Count. No studies have been done on the birds at Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek. Yet, video footage of Miller Creek submitted by Eric Denton indicates major migratory and wintering habitat for waterfowl, Black Brant, shorebirds, sea ducks and seabirds in the area. In the absence of properly conducted studies of the birds and other wildlife in the areas of Des Moines and Miller Creeks, neither the Port nor your agencies can properly assess the impact to birds and wildlife in the area from the development of the 700 acres. Data presented in the EIS lists some 42 species, while over 150 have been recorded at the Dumas Bay Site and the Kent Auburn CBC (Table 3). This indicates an incomplete effort at listing the species being impacted by the upland development. In my opinion, at least 17 species of concern listed in Table 1 are impacted by the loss of upland habitat removed by the construction of the 3rd Runway. These include band-tailed pigeon (a State Priority Species), belted kingfisher, pileated woodpecker (a State Priority Species), willow flycatcher*, tree swallow*, cliff swallow*, barn swallow*, black-capped chickadee, bushtit, swainson's thrush*, hutton's vireo, orange-crowned warbler*, wilson's warbler*, black-headed grosbeak*, song sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, and american goldfinch. The Port's development of the 700 acres around Des Moines and Miller Creek will result in direct harm to these species, including 8 species under the Migratory Bird Treat Act (MTBA) (listed with a * in the previous list). In addition to the 17 species that will be adversely impacted by the removal of over 700 acres of upland habitat, there are 8 additional species of concern that occur at STIA, typically on the runway areas, based on birds salvaged at STIA (Biological Assessment June 2000, Table 3), and an examination of a variety of sources of data (see Appendix A, Smith et al 1997, Rogers et al 1997, Hunn 1982, Field Notes 1981-2000, Thais Bock, personal communication). These species of concern are known to occur or probably occur in the upland habitat to be destroyed by the Port's proposed project, or have been salvaged or are likely to regularly occur on the runway areas, including northern harrier, american kestrel, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, common nighthawk, vaux's swift, streaked horned lark, and western meadowlark. Their status is shown in Table 1. For a project of such magnitude, it should be apparent from this analysis of bird species of concern that a significant amount of additional planning should go into assessing the impact of this proposed project. 3. The Port is Using a Non-Existent Wildlife Hazard Situation as an Excuse for Poor On-Site Wetland Mitigation and Offsite Mitigation. 3.1. Subpart D of 14CFR 139.337 requires that an Ecological Study be performed if there are "multiple bird strikes", "damaging collisions", or "wildlife numbers ... capable of causing such an event". No such study has been presented, and likely has not been performed. 3.2 Neither the data in section 7 of the NRMP (December 2000) nor the Biological Assessment present any differentiation between strikes, reported hits by pilots, and dead birds found on the runways. This information needs to be more clearly presented. There are major problem species such as Canada geese, gulls, flocks of starlings, and pigeons in the area, but they are just as likely to come from outside the 10,000 feet boundary from STIA as established in the WHMP as inside it. Therefore, a more comprehensive assessment of the issue needs to be performed, similar to the recent Canada Goose report (Wildlife Services 2000). 3.3. The US Fish and Wildlife Service does not share the same opinion concerning the "potential risk" of bird-plane strike risks. A comment was received in the May 1997 SEIS from Willie Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, USFWS, Office of the Sec, Wash D. C., that states that the USFWS "does not support the 'potential risk' of wildlife and human injury resulting from the collisions between avian fauna and aircraft. However, creation or restoration of wetlands within 10,000 feet of the active runway would not increase 'wildlife reactions' over existing levels but would replace habitat destroyed by the proposed project with in the same general area" 3.4. STIA has not demonstrated scientifically credible methods for assessing bird hazards. The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) submitted by the Port is incomplete, and fails to provide a basic picture of bird-airplane collisions, baseline information, methods used by the Port of Seattle to determine the number of strikes. It therefore offers no predictive picture of the impact of the proposed project. More specifically, the WHMP presents: No criteria for ranking or categorizing hazard species. No list of hazard species and their status in the area. No baseline survey information of the hazard species No trend information on bird strikes compared to local abundance No methodology for assessing strikes No criteria for assessing increased strike risk that would necessitate the removal of wildlife No methodology for assessing vegetation or wetland risks In the absence of these minimum points of analysis, there is no basis for the WHMP's statements about and proposals for avoidance of bird-airplane collisions whether related to any wetland issues or other concerns.
4. The Port does not analyze or discuss the biotic impacts and results of the retaining wall which are likely to attract soaring birds and potentially increase plane strikes with raptors, crows, and gulls, including bald eagles. Much of the prevailing wind in the Puget Sound area about STIA comes from the southwest, thus creating uplift of air at the retaining wall. Upon visits to the area (Feb 2, 2001) red-tailed hawks and glaucous-winged gulls were observed likely using uplifts at the south end of the STIA runway, despite its low nature. The use of thermals is well documented (Spaar, 1997, Leshem. and Yom-Tov. 1996, Forster 1955), but few studies have been performed on the impact of such retaining walls. There are likely two situations in which strong thermals would be created at the STIA retaining wall. One is when winds from Puget Sound hit the wall and are uplifted, the most typical situation. A second is during hot weather when there is a difference in temperature between the hot thermal mass of the runway area and the cooler areas to the west. Heat rising off the airport surface would pull air onto the airport runways from all directions. It is my opinion that there would a regular use of the edge of the retaining wall during daily movements of gulls, crows, raptors, and during the summer swallows and swifts on the thermals created by winds coming from the west. The height to which birds would soar is within the elevation that planes land, and birds would likely use the uplift to continue their movements. One study from Israel studied four species of soaring birds (white storks, lesser spotted eagles, white pelicans, and honey buzzards) during spring and fall migrations in Israel. The birds flew up to heights over 3000 feet above the ground with the altitude increasing from morning until noon and then decreasing in the afternoon. It is my opinion that more studies should be performed at STIA to address bird movements with radar and to determine from uplift models whether the movements of birds with the thermal uplift would increase the likelihood of plane collisions. 5. Reductions in stream transport of organic carbon and detritus will impact nearshore bird populations. The reduction in the watersheds of Miller and Des Moines Creeks, and their more controlled water flow, with stormwater runoff and supplemental water will reduce the amount of organic carbon and detritus in Miller and Des Moines Creeks. Studies clearly document that birds are strongly tied to estuarine food webs as major consumers of the energy produced as herbivores, benthivores, piscivores and omnivores (Butler and Vermeer 1994). Declines in OC (Organic Carbon) and detritus will directly translate into losses of available food to dozens of species of migratory birds. Small estuaries will have characteristically greater impacts in terms of species diversity and potentially numbers, especially in flocking birds. The loss of estuary habitat in central Puget Sound makes the loss of any additional estuary function worth noting. It is my opinion that if major reductions in OC and detritus occur, there will also be a decline in many waterfowl, seaducks, alcids, potentially including marbled murrelets (though there have been no survey to determine their usage of the area). [1] Many seabirds monitored in the PSAMP program (Nysewander et al 2001) have declined in recent survey comparisons to the late 1970's. It is my opinion that there should be mitigation for any decline in OC and detrital materials to be provided to the Des Moines and Miller Creek estuaries. Sincerely, Donald Norman Norman Wildlife Consulting Three Tables Enclosed Appendix A. Materials Examined for this Testimony Appendix B. Literature on Avian Disturbance Appendix C. Date from the Kent Auburn Christmas Bird Count Resume of Donald Norman References Cited Burger, A. E. 1997. Behavior and numbers of marbled murrelets measured with radar. J. Field Ornithology 68: 208-223. Butler, R. W. and K. Vermeer. 1994. The abundance and distribution of estuarine birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Occasional Paper No. 83. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre P.O. Box 340 Delta, BC V4K 3Y3. 78pp. Carney, K. M. and W. J. Sydeman. 2000. Response: Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23(2): 333-334.
Carney, K. M. and W. J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22(1) 68-79. Cooper, B.A., R.J. Blaha, H. Stabins, and D.R. Herter. 1999. Radar surveys of marbled murrelets in the upper Green River drainage, Washington, 1999: final annual report. Plum Creek Timber Co. Seattle Wa. 23pp. Cooper, B.A., R.J. Blaha, H. Stabins, and D.R. Herter. 1999. Radar surveys of marbled murrelets in the upper Green River drainage, Washington, 1999-2000: Final Report. Plum Creek Timber Co. Seattle Wa. 21pp. Field Notes (Previously American Birds) 1973-2000. Christmas Bird Counts. Published by National Audubon Society. Fleischner, T. and S. Weisberg. 1986. Effects of Jet Aircraft Activity on Bald Eagles in the Vicinity of Bellingham International Airport. Prepared for Devco Aviation Consultants by Pacific Northwest Environmental Services, Bellingham, WA.
Forster, G. H. 1955. Thermal Air Currents And Their Use In Bird-Flight. Brit. Birds 48(6): 241-253. Gauthreaux, S. 1992. The use of weather radar to monitor long-term patterns of trans-Gulf migration in spring. Pp 96-100 In: Hagan, J. M. and D. W. Johnston, EDS. Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Compilation from a Symposium 6-9 December, 1989, Nanomet Bird Observatory. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC 609pp. Hamer, T. E. and S. K. Nelson. 1995. Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet. Pp. 49-56. in: Ecology and conservation of marbled murrelets. C. J. Ralph, G. L. Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F Piatt, Eds. General Technical Report PSW-152. USDA- Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Hamer, T. E., B. A. Cooper, and C. J. Ralph. 1995. Use of radar to study the movements of marbled murrelets at inland sites. Northwestern Naturalist 76: 73-78. Herter, D.R. and L.L. Hicks. 1995. Marbled murrelet surveys and occurrence in the Plum Creek Cascades HCP area. Technical Rept. #2. Plum Creek Timber Co. Seattle, Wa. 17pp. Jenkerson, J. 2001. WDFW Wildlife Database, Eastern King County. Knight, R. L. et al. 1990. Diets of bald eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus in western Washington. Canadian Field Naturalist. 104(4): 545-551. Leshem, Y. and Y. Yom-Tov. 1996. The use of thermals by soaring migrants. Ibis; 138(4): 667-674. Linnell, M.A., M.R. Conover and T.J. Ohashi. 1999. Biases in bird strike statistics based on pilot reports. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:997-1003. McAllister, K.R., T. E. Owens,. L. Leschner, and E. Cummings. 1986. Distribution and productivity of nesting bald eagles in Washington, 1981-1985. Murrelet (now Northwest Naturalist) 67: 45-50. Natural Resources Consultants. 1994. Results of Monitoring the Purse Seine Sockeye Fisheries, 1994. Prepared for the Purse Seine Vessel Operators Association, Seattle, WA. Copies available at NRC at (206) 285-3480.
Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). In: The Birds of North America. (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) Number 276. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC. Nisbet, ICT. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23(2): 312-332. Norman, D. M., A. Brealt, and I. Moul. 1989. Bald Eagle Predation at Great Blue Heron Colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 12: 215-217. Norman, D. 1998. Dumas Bay Centre Monitoring and Final Recommendations. Report to Department of Community Development, City of Federal Way. August 1998. 60pp plus appendices. Puget Sound Water quality Authority. 1986. Habitats and Wetlands Protection. PSWQA, Olympia, WA. 70pp.
Shapiro, 1995. Conceptual stream mitigation opportunities and constraints report for Miller Creek. Prepared for the Port of Seattle by Shapiro and Associates, Seattle, WA. Spaar, R. 1997. Flight strategies of migrating raptors; a comparative study of interspecific variation in flight characteristics. Ibis. 139: 523-535. Speckman, S. G., A. M. Springer, J. F. Piatt, and D. L. Thomas. 2000. Temporal variability in abundances of marbled murrelets at sea in southeastern Alaska. Waterbirds 23(3): 364-377. Vancouver Sun. 2000. Vermeer, K., K. H. Morgan, R. W. Butler, and G. E. J. Smith 1989. Population, nesting habitat, and food of bald eagles in the Gulf Islands. pp 123-130. In: The Ecology and status of marine and shoreline birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Spec Publ. Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa.
[1] The species of concern for the marine environment were not mentioned in Table 1. They include western grebe, black brant, and many species of shorebirds. |