HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-004_MiscCITY OF RENTON
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
SEPAAPPEAL
LUA 08-004, ECF
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 6, 2008
EXHIBIT LIST
>
m
~
EXHIBIT A
ERG
REPORT
City ot Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: February 4, 2008
Project Name: Helipad Zoning Code Amendment, 2007 Docket
Owner: NIA
Applicant· City of Renton
Contact: NI A
File Number: LUAOS-004, ECF
Project Manager: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner
Project Summary: Amend the zoning code to allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with
a conditional use permit.
Project Location: This is not a site specific proposal, but the regulation would only change for R-8
properties with frontage on Lake Washington.
Exist. Bldg. Area SF NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): NIA
NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross):
Site Area: NIA Total Building Area GSF: NIA
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
I PART ONE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. None required for this non-project action.
C. Exhibits
NIA
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether
the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development. The City also received comments from the public. Several
concerns about potential environmental impacts are addressed.
Although RCW 43.21 C. 240 requires non-project environmental review to address only those impacts
that arc not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental
regulations, the following concerns are addressed for clarification.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton P/8/PW Department
HELJPAD ZONING CODE AMENL ,NT, 2007 DOCKET
Report of February 4, 2008
1. Hazardous Materials
Environ '0 1 Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOB-004, ECF
Page 2 of 4
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed change in regulations
does not affect the storage of hazardous materials, including aircraft fuels. The change also is unlikely to
result in an increased likelihood of applications for the storage of hazardous materials to service aircraft,
since RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i already allows one seaplane per private residence. As a result, each of the
properties subject to the proposed change in regulations already allows aircraft which could potentially
require pem1its for the storage of hazardous materials. Installation of fuel storage tanks to support helipad
operations would be subject to the same regulations and permitting process as the installation of such
apparatus for seaplanes. This process involves securing permits from the City of Renton Planning, Building,
Public Works Department and the City of Renton Fire Department. Any necessary mitigation measures
would be addressed at the time of project-specific application. Likewise, since seaplanes are already
permitted in these areas, and the proposed change would only allow one aircraft per residence, there is no
change in the potential for accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials from aircraft.
Mitigation Measures: None. If an applicant for a helipad wishes to store hazardous materials related to
operation of aircraft, approved building and fire permits will need to be obtained.
2. Public Safety and Emergency Services
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposed regulation limits helipad
uses to areas where public safety provisions are already in place. The FAA will only issue approval letters
for helipads with a clear approach (not over residential areas), and the proposal limits the use to properties on
Lake Washington. As a result any helipads operated as a result of this proposal will approach from Lake
Washington and any aviation accident involved with take-off or landing of the aircraft is likely to occur on
the operator's property or over the Lake, and not on neighboring properties. Given that the City of Renton
operates a municipal airport at the south end of Lake Washington and seaplanes are long-standing allowed
aviation uses for properties along Lake Washington, a public safety system is already in place to handle
emergencies related to aviation accidents.
Mitigation Measures: None.
3. Shoreline Areas
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. The proposal would limit helipad
operations to properties along Lake Washington, but does not limit the use to areas outside of Shoreline
jurisdiction. However, the change in regulations would not increase the likelihood of aircraft use within
Shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline regulations already allow the use of one seaplane per private residence
under RMC 4-3-090L. l .b.i. Additionally, construction of a helipad or operation of a helipad use within a
shoreline line or shoreline buffer would require an approved Shoreline variance from the City of Renton
Planning, Building, Public Works Department. Impacts and mitigation are better evaluated at the project
specific level.
It is possible that existing vegetation within Shoreline buffers could be permanently removed in order to meet
with FAA approval for clear approach to a helipad site, even if the helipad site itself was located outside of
Shoreline jurisdiction. At present time, the City ofRenton's Shoreline regulations do no explicitly prevent
alteration of the existing vegetation within the Shoreline buffer. RMC 4-3-090K.6 provides that landscaping
should be natural and indigenous, but it is not an imperative requirement. RMC 4-3-090K.2.a does require
that any action that may have detrimental effects on the shoreline to be evaluated in the design of the facility.
This section allows for project-specific mitigation to be levied through SEPA conditions and/or through
conditional use permit approval. Thus, at the present time there is limited regulation ofremoval of
vegetation within the Shoreline buffer for any purpose, whether it is for aircraft use or any other use.
Renton's Shoreline Master Program is currently being updated, and it is very likely that this current
regulatory gap will be closed through this process. At such time in the future that this regulatory gap is
addressed; applications for helipad use will be subject to the regulations in place at that time. In the mean
time, project-specific review and mitigation is the best opportunity for evaluation of impacts to shorelines due
to planned removal of vegetation.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton P!B!PW Departmen, Environ ;,.,f Review Committee Staff Report
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENL .NT, 2007 DOCKET LUAOB-004, ECF
Report ofFebruary 4, 2008 Page 3 of 4
Mitigation Measures: None. Construction or operation of a helipad within Shoreline jurisdiction would
require an approved Shoreline variance, which would provide the opportunity to assess site specific impacts.
Project level environmental review would provide mitigation for any unanticipated impacts to Shorelines
from projects located outside of Shoreline Jurisdiction. The City anticipates closing any loop holes in
Shorelines protection regulations with the upcoming Shoreline Master Program update.
4. Wildlife
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Several species of birds, including
Bald Eagles and Great Blue Heron, have been observed on and near Lake Washington and the properties
surrounding the Lake. Concerns have been expressed about potential helipad uses disrupting these birds.
Aviation uses are well established on and over Lake Washington, with each residence allowed one seaplane in
RMC 4-3-090L. I .b.i, and with the operation of aircraft from Renton Municipal Airport and from the Boeing
737 manufacturing facility located at the south end of the Lake. Additionally, the operation of watercraft on
the Lake has the opportunity to provide disturbance of wildlife in terms of noise, wave activity, and other
physical disturbance; property maintenance activities on residential land (lawn mowers, maintenance of
bulkheads, chainsaw operations) may also cause wildlife disturbance. Despite these disruptions, many bird
species continue to live and thrive in, near, and on Lake Washington, including Bald Eagles and Great Blue
Heron. In order to thrive, such species have adapted to urbanized areas and increased levels of disturbance.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has used helicopters since 1985 to get close to eagle nests to
count eggs and perform other studies (Watson, James W. 1993. "Responses of Nesting Bald Eagle to
Helicopter Surveys" Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21: 171 -178.). Similarly, studies of eagles and over-flights
show that Bald Eagles had no response to the over-flight of helicopters (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse.
"Effects of Over-flights on Wildlife" www.nonoise.org/library/npreport/chapter5.htm). As a result, it does
not appear that helicopter operations in particular adversely impact Bald Eagles.
Since one seaplane is currently allowed per residence, the proposal would not increase the potential of
wildlife disturbance from noise; however, because helipad use would not involve taking-off and landing in
Lake Washington, there may be slightly less potential for some types of disruption of both birds and fish.
Mitigation Measnrcs: None.
5. Noise
Impacts: No impacts identified for this non-project legislative action. Concerns about noise have been
expressed both for immediate neighbors of any future helipad site and in general for the neighborhood on
Kennydale Hill.
The general vicinity of the area affected by this proposal is a very noisy location. There are noises from
Interstate 405 including traffic and news helicopter over-flights, from recreational noises on Lake
Washington such as jet skis and speed boats, from residential related uses like lawnmowers or leaf blowers,
and from aviation uses associated with Boeing, Renton Municipal Airport, and the operation of seaplanes.
The City of Renton does not regulate any of these noises, and does not have jurisdiction to regulate the flight
paths of aircraft. Each residence on the Lake is allowed one seaplane under RMC 4-3-090L.1.b.i and the
proposed regulation only allows one aircraft per residence. Furthermore, even without the proposal, the
helicopter traffic would be diverted to Renton Municipal Airport, as is the current situation. Aircraft traffic
headed for Renton Municipal Airport is just as likely to create noise for the Kennydale Hill neighborhood.
Thus, there is no increased potential for impacts for the residents of Kennydale Hill.
Noise is more likely to be experienced by the immediate neighbors of future helipad sites. The amount of
noise experienced by neighbors depends upon the size of the property containing the helipad, the location of
the helipad on the property, and the type of helicopter flown from the site. As each residence is allowed one
seaplane, this proposal does not increase the potential for aviation related noise for neighboring property
owners. However, the proposal requires that the helipad use be approved by conditional use permit. One of
the decision criteria for conditional uses under RMC 4-9-030 is an evaluation of noise. As a result, any noise
ERC Report 08-004.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen
HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMEJ\/1; NT, 2007 DOCKET
Report ofFebruary 4, 2008
Environ ,~1 Review Committee Staff Report
LUAOS-004, ECF
Page 4 of 4
concerns can be reviewed and mitigated at a project specific level if they are anticipated to be above the
anticipated level of neighborhood noise impacts.
Mitigation Measnres: None. Project specific environmental review and conditional use permit criteria will
be used to assess and mitigate noise concerns that go beyond the currently accepted level of neighborhood
noise.
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this
report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 25, 2008.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in
writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057.
ERC Report 08-004.doc
Ill
'
EXHIBITB
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:171-178, 1993
RESPONSES OF NESTING BALD EAGLES TO
HELICOPTER SURVEYS
JAMES W. WATSON, Washington Department of Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA
98501-1091
Aircraft often are used to assess distribution
and productivity of raptors (e.g., Fuller and
Mosher 1987). Nesting bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) have been surveyed from fixed-
wing aircraft (Mathisen 1968, Isaacs et al. 1983,
McAllister et al. 1986) with minimal distur-
bance (Fraser et al. 1985). Fixed-wing aircraft
surveys are limited on the type and accuracy
of data collected (Sprunt et al. 1973, White
and Sherrod 1973). Helicopters, however, pro-
vide a relatively close, stationary platform from
which to locate nests and count eggs and young
(Carrier and Melquist 1976, Craig and Craig
1984), but they may be more disturbing
(Hodges and King 1982). I am unaware of any
attempts to quantify helicopter disturbance
impacts on bald eagles.
Since 1981, the Washington Department of
Wildlife has conducted annual bald eagle nest
occupancy and productivity surveys in April
and June, respectively. Occupancy surveys as-
sess the presence and activity of breeding ea-
gles, whereas productivity surveys evaluate
nesting success. Until 1985, both surveys were
conducted from fixed-wing aircraft. Since then,
productivity flights have been conducted from
helicopters. I summarize the literature report-
ing bald eagle responses to overflights of fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters, evaluate effects
of helicopter surveys on behavior and mortal-
ity of nesting eagles, and make recommen-
dations on using helicopters for productivity
surveys of bald eagles.
STUDY AREA AND METHODS
I summarized records from the literature l'eporting
bald eagle responses to aircraft overflights. No com-
parative statistical analysis was conducted for fixed-
wing and helicopter surveys because of the variability
in reIX1rted responses (e.g., encounter distances, re-
sponse types, and enL"ounter locations).
172 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
From 1989-1991, I conducted helicopter surveys at
bald eagle territories in a 7-county region of Puget
Sound in northwestern Washington. Habitat varied from
urban parks around inland lakes to relatively undis-
turbed islands with marine shorelines. More than 80%
of the nests in the region were in the top third of
dominant, old-growth Douglas-firs (Pseudotsuga men-
ziesii). Nest trees usually weTc remnant trees associated
with young forestland or interspersed among homesites
along the shorelines. Regular aircraft activities oc-
curred throughout the region; military aircraft and
float planes were common even over the more isolated
islands.
I conducted surveys from a 3-seat Hiller /Salay UH-
12E and a 4-seat Bell 206--Blll At least 1 observer was
present to record productivity information. Surveys were
flown the first week of June, when young were 5--10
weeks old. Primary objectives were to determine nest
success (i.e., presence or absence of young) and the
number and approximate age of young, while mini-
mizing approach time, maximizing approach distance,
and avoiding passes directly over nests. Sometimes this
entailed a single moving pass by the nest, but at other
times hovering and close approaches were necessary,
largely depending on the openness of the tree canopy
above the nest. I scanned the area within about 450 m
of the nest trees for adult eagles, and plotted their
locations and the helicopter flight path on 1:12,000
aerial photos.
From plotted locations for each nest visit, I measured
the minimum approach distances of the helicopter lo
the nest, helicopter to the eagle (encounter distance),
and eagle to the nest to the nearest 30 m. J also recorded
precipitation (present or absent), wind velocity ( < 16
or :2=. l 6 kph, averaged from readings before and after
each survey at the airport), number of young if present,
approximate age of young (downy or feathered}, heli-
copter activity (move or hover), and the minimum
helicopter altitude above the nest or treeline (estimated
to the nearest 60 m). For each adult eagle encountered,
J categorized and recorded its response behavior as
none (e.g., brood, feed young, other) or disturbed (e.g.,
agitation or flush). Agitation responses were further
defined as vocalization, crouch (wings tucked), or Hight-
attention (wings flicking, leaning forward). For flush
responses, I recorded the eagle behavior after flushing
as circle or soar, evade, fly to nest, or attack. In the
latter behavior, eagles approached the helicopter with-
out veering. For eagles that flushed when helicopters
approached at <60 m, J recorded duration of the heli-
copter presence before eagles flushed, to the nearest 5
seconds. Duration was not recorded at greater encoun-
ter distance,5 because I was unable to determine when
eagles first saw the helicopter. In 1991, I randomly
selected 26 successful nests and resurveyed them by
airplane 1 week after the productivity surveys to assess
the accuracy of the initial productivity estimates; adult
attendance at the nests also was noted.
I used Pearson ·s chi-square statistic to test for inde-
pendence of adult presence and nest success, response
behavior and encounter distance, and postflush behav-
ior aud encounter distance. The sign and magnitude
of the standardized residuals were used to determine
the nature of significant associations. Disturbance rates
were calculated at 3-0 m increments from the helicopter
(incremental rate) and for all closer distances from a
given increment (cumulative rate). Cumulative rates
were the maximum possible disturbance rate based on
the assumption that disturbed eagles would have been
disturbed at all closer distances. Therefore, incremental
and cumulative disturbance rates gave the lower and
upper limits of actual responses, respectively (Mc-
Garigal et al. 1991).
To test for the influence of several factors ou dis-
turbance response while controlling for encounter dis-
tance, I used the maximum likelihood ratio statistic
(G 2 , 3-dimensional model [Fienberg 1982:40]). Factors
included helicopter activity, precipitation, age of young,
number of young, wind velocity. minimum helicopter
altitude above the nest, and the minimum distances
from the nest to the eagle, helicopter to the eagle, and
helicopter to the nest The effect of the factor on dis-
turbance response was the difference between the mod-
el with the 3 2-way interactions of distance-response,
distance-factor, and response-factor, and the model
without the latter interaction (McGarigal el al. 1991:
16). Encounter distance was grouped into 3 categories
( <60, 60-120, and > 120 m) and other factors were
categorized as necessary to maintain adequate expect-
ed cell frequencies.
I conducted a separate analysis of flush response be-
cause as an index of disturbance there was less bias in
its interpretation at greater ranges of visibility relative
to other disturbanee responses (e.g., agitation). To ex-
amine the effects of factors (i.e., the same factors tested
on disturbance response) on Hush distance (the dislance
from the helicopter at which eagles flushed) I used the
Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test for 2-
and 3-level factors, respectively (Zar 197 4: I 09-114, 139-
142). Additive effects of factors on flush distance were
assessed with multiple regression using step-down pro-
cedures. Dummy variables were used for nominal seale
values.
RESULTS
Bald eagles exhibited varied responses to air-
craft by encounter distance and aircraft type
(Tahle I). Seven to 42% of eagles from different
populations responded (i.e., alert and flush be-
havior) to fixed-wing overflights at approach
distances <3,050 m. Helicopters elicited great-
er responses; ;,e40% of eagles responded to heli-
copter approaches at distances <3,050 m.
In northwestern Washington, adult eagles
were absent from nests during 272 of 501 heli-
copter surveys (54%); 61% (166) of these nests
contained young. At least I adult eagle was
EAGLE RESPONSES • Watson 173
Table L Responses of breeding bald eagles to aircraft overflights.
·-= Primary Encounter None Ai.., Flush
aircraft distan<:e Encounter
Study cype' (ml n • • n • location•
Fraser et al. (1985) FW <200 3,ll8 93 2 0 230 7 FA.NS
McGarigal et al. (1991) FW <500 26 84 5, 16 FA
Dames and Moore (199J)d FW <915 233 59 162 41 2 l NS
Bowerman {199I) FW <1,000 19 86 3, 14 NS
Grubb and King (1991) FW <2,000 1,541 72 551 26 39 2 NS
P.N.E.S. (1986)"
This study
Dames and Moore ( J 99 l )d
Grubb and King (1991)
P.N.E.S. (1986)"
• FW -fixed-wing, H -helicopter
"FA ~ foraging are;i., NS"" nest site
' Flll.m and alert re$ponse; combined
FW
H
H
H
H
<3,050 143
<450 128
<915 0
<2,000 381
<3,050 6
88 20' 12 FA
48 45 16 97 36 NS
0 I JOO NS
53 259 36 79 11 NS
60 4' 40 FA
·' Dame!; .and Moore, Bellingham Int. Airport baJJ eagle behavior study; 15 thrvugh 29 July 1991. Seattle, Wasb. Job 03395-00&-020. 33pp.
• Pacific Northwe!;f Environment.al Sernce:s, Effects of jet airerah activity on bald eagles in !he vicinity of Bellingham. Int. Airport. Bellingh.uu. Wash. 12.pp.
observed < 450 m from nests during the re-
maining 229 surveys; 92% (210) of these nests
contained young. Adult eagles were more like-
ly to be present when nests contained young
than when young were not present (x2 = 62.36,
1 df, P < 0.0001). Adults perched <450 m
from nests containing young were on the nest
or in the nest tree 74% of the time (n = 156);
4% of these adults were feeding young (n =
6), and 8% were brooding (n = 12).
I encountered 270 perched eagles during
helicopter visits to nests. Seven eagles were in
flight when encountered and were not includ-
ed in the analysis. Eagles were disturbed in
53% of the encounters (n = 142). Disturbed
eagles either flushed (68%), or were agitated
but did not flush (32%). Two brooding eagles
were flushed but those feeding young did not
react to the presence of the helicopter. Flushed
eagles (n = 97) circled and soared (56%), evad-
ed the helicopter (21 % ), returned to their nests
(12%), or approached the helicopter to attack
(11%). Agitated eagles (n = 45) vocalized (57%),
crouched (25%), or perched at flight-attention
(18%). Agitation response frequencies were
conservative estimates because these behaviors
were not recorded for eagles that flushed and
were more likely to be seen only at relatively
close encounter distances. They constituted
fewer disturbance responses with increasing
encounter distances >90 m (Table 2). Nest-
lings rarely displayed behavioral changes on
approach of the helicopter; none were flushed,
trampled by adults, or known to have been
bumped from nests by flushed adults.
Disturbance rates varied with encounter dis-
tance (x' = 10.52, 4 df, P = 0.033). Eagles
were disturbed more often than expected when
encountered at distances <60 m and > 120 m
(Table 3). Reduced disturbance rates at mid-
encounter distances occurred for incremental
and cumulative responses (Table 3); however,
at distances > 120 m, the latter rate did not
increase. Three factors had a significant influ-
ence on disturbance response after controlling
Table 2. Responses of bald eagles disturbed by survey
helicopters in northwestern Washington, 1989-1991.
Encounter
Agitated only Flwbed
distance {m) n • n •
<30 3 50 3 50
30-60 19 44 24 56
61-90 17 40 25 60
91-120 4 19 17 81
>120 2 7 28 93
Total 45 32 97 68
I
174 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
Table 3. Disturbance rates of adult bald eagles in response to helicopter nest surveys in northwestern Washington,
1989-1991.
Encounter Not disturbed
distance
Disturbed Disturbance rate \%.r
(ml S.R.~ " SR Incremental Cumulative
<30 0 -1.67 6 +l.56 100 100
30-60 29 -0.87 43 +0.83 60 82
61-90 46 +0.67 42 -0.63 48 67
91-120 30 +l.18 21 -112 41 63
>120 23 -0.42 30 +0.40 57 57
Total 128 142
'Vislurbancc rate = no. dl:sturi-i/no encou11lered
• Standardized Truduab-{observed -expected/expected'), + = disturbance rate greater than e~pec-ted, --distw-hance rate less than expected
for encounter distance (Table 4). Eagles were
disturbed at higher rates when there were no
young in the nest, when they were perched
<60 m from the nest, or when the helicopter
hovered rather than moved toward the nest.
There was some evidence that higher wind
velocities, precipitation, and presence of young
nestlings reduced disturbance response (Table
4), perhaps indicating that eagles with small
young were more reluctant to flush in adverse
weather. Disturbance responses were indepen-
dent of minimum helicopter-nest distance ( G 2
= 1.43, P = 0.489).
Flush distance (:f = 102 m, SE = 7.7, n =
97) was influenced hy 6 factors (Table 5). Ea-
gles flushed at greater distances from the heli-
Table 4. Factors influencing the disturbance response of nesting bald eagles with respect to helicopter encounter
distance in northwestern Washington, 1989-1991.
Disturbance rate
<60' 00-!20 >120
Factor anJ level " "" " • " • C' p,
Number young
0 3 67 13 54 9 89 14.28 0.001
1-3 83 65 108 37 43 49
Eagle-nest distance (m)
<60 76 63 129 46 22 64 7.55 0.023
~60 2 0 9 33 30 50
Helicopter activity
Hover 30 77 69 51 18 22 6.12 0.047
Move 48 52 69 39 34 74
Wind velocity (kph)
<16 37 78 56 55 19 63 5.89 0.053
~16 41 46 82 38 31 55
Precipitation
Yes 18 39 35 20 10 30 5.86 0.053
No 60 68 103 53 42 62
Age
Downy 42 55 59 48 22 59 5.78 0.056
Feathered 26 73 60 62 21 38
• En(:()Ulller di5tance (m).
~ Disturbanoe n.te "" no. <listu,bed/no. encountered
' Log-likelihood statistic, S-<limemional model.
I
Table 5. Factors influencing the distance at which
nesting bald eagles flushed from helicopters in north-
western Washington, 1989-1991.
F~tOT
Flui;h dislance {m)
KW or MW•
and level " ' SE (P)
Wind velocity (kph)
<16 55 25 2 2.68 (0.004)
~16 40 38 4
Number young
0 15 40 6 1.92 (0.027)
1-3 80 28 2
Eagle-nest distance (m)
<30 67 75 6 34.08 (0.0001)
30-60 JO 116 20
>60 18 180 15
Helicopter activity
Move 53 3.5 3 2.10 (0.018)
Hover 42 24 2
Helicopter-nest distance (m)
<60 33 52 6 52.09 (0.0001)
60--120 49 107 8
> 120 13 188 19
Helicopter altitude above nest (m)
<30 30 19 2 23.06 (0.0001)
30-60 46 32 3
>60 19 43 5
•KW"" Kru.d:al-Wallis tfflt (OT 3 level nriables, MW= Marm-Whitriey U
test for 2-level variables
copter during higher wind velocities (2>: 16 kph),
when they were without young, and when they
perched farther from their nests. This may
suggest eagles without young and away from
their nests were inclined to flush well before
the helicopter approached, particularly in high
winds. Eagles also allowed closer approaches
before flushing when the helicopter hovered
and "'vas closer to the nest in horizontal distance
and altitude. When the additive effect of these
factors was considered, eagle-nest and heli-
EAGLE RESPONSES• Watson 175
copter-nest distances were the greatest influ-
ence on flush distance. These 2 factors ex-
plained 82% of the variability in flush distance
{F = 201.96; 2,92 df; P = 0.000!). This rela-
tionship is described as: Y = 18.25 + 0.754Xl
+ 0.663X2; where Y = flush distance, Xl =
helicopter-nest distance, and X2 = eagle-nest
distance. Two flushes that were excluded as
outliers (standardized residuals > 4 standard
deviations from zero [Neter and Wasserman
1974:106]) were of eagles >450 m from nests,
and were caused when the helicopter ap-
proached from over a ridge al < 30 m and
startled them.
For eagles that flushed at encounter dis-
tances < 60 m, duration of the helicopter pres-
ence before flushing ranged from ()..60 seconds
(x = 16, SE = 3.3, n = 27). Sixty-three percent
of these birds flushed after 10 seconds.
Postflush behavior varied with encounter
distance (x' = 15.90, 6 df, P = 0.014). At
eagle-helicopter distances > 120 m there were
fewer than expected evasive flights, and more
than expected attacks on the helicopter and
flights back to the nest (Table 6). Conversely,
at eagle-helicopter distances <60 m there was
more circling or soaring and fewer attacks on
the helicopter (Table 6). I observed fewer young
(41 vs. 43) and reduced adult attendance (35
vs. 92%) at 26 successful nests that were re-
surveyed I week after productivity flights.
DISCUSSION
Bald eagle responses to aircraft were influ-
enced by survey techniques and environmen-
tal variables (weather and biology). Of the for-
Table 6. Postflush behaviors of bald eagles in response to helicopter surveys in northwestern Washington, 1989-
1991.
Encounter
Circle or sou E~·ade AUaci. To nest
distance (m} " S.R• " S.R. " SR. " SR
<60 20 + 1.29 4 -0.66 l -1.76 2 -0.71
60--120 20 -0.70 14 +1.80 5 +0.09 3 -0.97
>120 14 -0.41 2 -1.58 5 +0.01 7 +1.87
• Standardized residwols (obseCVOO -e:tpe,::ted/eipcded'), + = bdiaviOT more freql.lellt than expected, --behaviOI" less frequent than e1pc<.1e,d.
176 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21/2) 1993
mer group, aircraft type and encounter distance
were the most important influences on distur-
bance response. Fixed-wing aircraft are re-
ported to have little effect on eagle response
(Sprunt et al. 1973, Fyfe and Olendorff 1976,
Fraser et al. 1985, Grubb and King 1991),
whereas helicopters have provoked attacks by
nesting eagles (Fyfe and Olendorff 1976, White
and Nelson 1991). The greater sensitivity of
eagles to close helicopter approaches ( <450
m), are evident in my study where 53% of
eagles responded to helicopters near the nest
tree. Close airplane approaches ( <500 m) re-
sulted in only 7% responses near the nest tree
(Fraser et al. 1985) and 16% on foraging areas
(McGarigal et al. 1991:31). This is consistent
with my observations that perched and incu-
bating eagles observed from fixed-wing air-
craft at close approaches (50-150 m) rarely
responded during activity surveys in north-
western Washington.
Proximity of adult eagles to the nest site was
equally or more important than encounter dis-
tance in influencing their response to helicop-
ters. Increased disturbance rates at encounter
distances > 120 m were a consequence of ea-
gles flushing, presumably to defend young, in
response to helicopters over the nest. Although
adult eagles perched close to nests ( <60 m)
were more agitated (reflected by higher dis-
turbance rates), they tended to remain perched
and had reduced flush distances as helicopters
approached more closely. Also, eagles perched
at the nest were unlikely to respond to heli-
copters over a foraging perch several hundred
meters away. Tenacity to nest sites may be
greater relative to foraging areas or roosts be-
cause of the parental need to protect and feed
young (Bowerman 1991). Presence of young
in the nest increased tenacity; adults were more
likely to be present ( <450 m from nest) at
successful nests, and adults at unsuccessful nests
had higher disturbance rates and flushed at
greater distances from helicopters. At relative-
ly close encounter distances ( <30 m), eagles
probably flushed because of the immediate
threat to their survival in spite of their tenacity
and proximity to the nest. This is consistent
with the findings of Carrier and Melquist (1976)
where incubating ospreys (Pandion haliaetus)
in Idaho usually flushed within 50 m of heli-
copters.
Interpretation of disturbance rates and flush
distances must take into account perch tenacity
and postflush behavior. What seems to be no
disturbance and a lack of response to human
activities closer to the nest might actually be
a form of nest defense. Even though adults
may not flush, regular disruption of nesting
activities by aircraft or other human activities
could result in reduced brooding and feeding
of young, which might lead to reduced atten-
tiveness and nest failure. Whereas helicopters
might agitate eagles or provoke them to flush,
the immediate effects of short-term, periodic
encounters were apparently inconsequential. I
detected no direct evidence of adult or young
mortality during the flights, nor did Fraser et
al. (1985) during fixed-wing overflights. Young
eagles generally remained motionless during
productivity flights, as did young ospreys (Car-
rier and Melquist 1976).
My study did not assess whether there were
residual effects that influenced behavior of sur-
veyed pairs (e.g., pair bonds, nest reuse) and
long-term productivity. It was unclear whether
the 2 young absent during resurveys success-
fully fledged or were affected by the earlier
helicopter surveys. White and Sherrod (1973)
reported that productivity of bald eagles on
Amchitka Island that were surveyed by heli-
copter was similar to that of 3 other eagle pop-
ulations in Canada and Alaska, which were not
surveyed by helicopter. In the Amchitka pop-
ulation, 60% of the territories had young, and
0.85 young fledged/active nest. This is com-
parable to my study, where helicopter surveys
revealed 65% of the territories were successful,
and averaged 1.0 young/occupied territory an-
nually. It also was unclear whether reduced
adult attendance during resurveys resulted
from helicopter disturbances, although in many
I
instances adult eagles reperched near nests af-
ter the helicopter passed, suggesting that eagles
did not abandon nests. Reduced fidelity of
adults to nests with the passing of the breeding
season is consistent with what Bowerman (1991)
found in Michigan, where adult eagle atten-
dance at nests declined from 1-16% weekly
for the 8 weeks before Hedging. Also, use of
faster fixed-wing aircraft for resurveys re-
duced observer time near the nest and the like-
lihood of seeing adults. Adult attendance dur-
ing incubalion also was variable in studies by
King eta!. (1972), Hodge.set al. (1984), Hodges
et al. (1979), and Grier (1969) (e.g., 15, 22, 23,
and 98%, respectively), which may have been
related to the age of young.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Helicopters have been used effectively for
bald eagle productivity surveys in western
Washington, even though hourly costs are high
relative to fixed-wing aircraft (e.g., $400 vs.
$65). Turbine-engine helicopters, used in my
study, are quieter than comparable piston-
driven helicopters (e.g., 73 vs. 76 decibels at
300 m altitude [Fed. Aviation Agency 1985)),
and have been recommended for raptor sur-
veys because of reduced noise levels (White
and Sherrod 1973, Fyfe and Olendorff 1976).
Maneuverability and close pilot communica-
tions are probably just as important for mini-
mizing disturbance. Helicopter surveys should
be conducted with the least impacts on eagles
and should maximize observer safety by main-
taining flight approach distances of 2'60 m
from nests. Flights should be made to a fixed
point with the most direct view; hovering rath-
er than moving approaches may increase ag-
itation responses but adults may allow closer
approaches before flushing. Hovering at an el-
evation of 2':60 m beside the nest tree will
provide an escape route for flushing adults, and
an escape path for helicopters if eagles attack.
Time at the nest should be kept to < JO sec-
onds, and if eagles appear agitated the heli-
EAGLE HESPONSES • Watson 177
copter should move away from the nest, and
binoculars should be used to complete obser-
vations. Flights should be timed as late as pos-
sible in the nesting season to reduce the like-
lihood of adults being present. Calm dry days
are preferred for surveying because of lower
disturbance rates, better visibility, and reduced
likelihood of young being chilled if adults are
flushed.
SUMMARY
Bald eagles from several populations had
lower response rates to fixed-wing aircraft than
to survey helicopters at similar distances. In
northwestern Washington, bald eagle distur-
bance rates and flush distances from survey
helicopters were affected by encounter dis-
tances and nest tenacity. Eagles with young
and those closer to nests allowed closer heli-
copter approaches before flushing. At encoun-
ter distances > 120 m eagles flushed at higher
rates and returned to nests. No direct mortality
of young or adults was known to occur during
surveys, but 53% of 270 eagles encountered
were disturbed; 68% of disturbed eagles were
flushed, and 32% were agitated. Helicopter
survey protocol that minimizes disturbance, and
maximizes cost efficiency, data reliability, and
observer safety should include hovering for
< l O seconds at 2: 60 m from nests, surveying
on calm, dry days, and as late in the season as
possible to minimize adult presence.
Acknowledgments.-L. Leschner, M. Dav-
ison, A. Lettenberger, and L. Young assisted
in the surveys. T. Nguyen, B. Chittick, R. Oga-
ta, C. Conti, and L. Stickney contributed ex-
cellent piloting skills. K. McGarigal provided
invaluable statistical advice and comments; R.
Anthony, F. Isaacs, J. Pierce, and G. Schirato
also reviewed the manuscript.
LITERA TUBE CITED
BowERMAN, W. W., IV. 1991. Factors influencing
breeding success of bald eagles in upper Michigan.
M.A. Thesis, Northern Michigan Univ., Mar-
quette. l 13pp.
I
I
I
178 Wild/. Soc. Bull. 21(2) 1993
CARRIER, W. D., AND W. E. MELQUIST. 1976. The use
of a rotor-winged aircraft in conducting nesting
surveys of ospreys in northern Idaho. Raptor Res
J0,77-83.
CRAIG, T. II., AND E. H. CRAIG. 1984. Results of a
helicopter survey of cliff nesting raptors in a deep
canyon in southern Idaho. Raptor Res. 18:20-25.
FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY. 1985. Flight operations
noise tests of 8 helicopters. Noise Abatement
Branch, Nat. Tech. [nf. Serv. FAA-EE-85-7.
Washington, D.G, 700pp.
FIENBERG, S. E. 1982. The analysis of croos-classiBed
categorical data. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
198pp.
FRASER, J. D., L. D. FRENZEL, AND J. E. MATHISEN.
1985. The impact of human activities on breeding
bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wild!.
Manage. 49,585-592.
FULLER, M. R., AND J. A. MOSHER. 1987. Raptor sur-
vey techniques. Pages 3.7-65 in B. A. Giron-Pen-
dleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird,
eds. Raptor management techniques manual. Natl.
Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.
FYFE,R. W.,ANoR.R.OLENDORFF. 1976. Minimizing
the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and other
sensitive species. Can. Wild I. Serv. Occas. Pap. 23,
Edmonton, Alta. l 7pp.
GRIER, J. W. 1969. Bald eagle behavior and produc-
tivity responses to climbing to nests. J. Wildl. Man-
age. 33,961-966.
GRUBB., T. G., AND R. M. KING. 1991. Assessing human
disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classifi-
cation tree models. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:500-511.
HooGES, J. I., JR., AND J. G. KING. 1982. Bald eagle
(Alaska). Pages 50-51 in D. E. Davis, ed. CRC
handbook of census methods for terrestrial ver-
tebrates. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
---, ---, AND F. C. ROBARDS. 1979. Resurvev
of the bald eagle breeding population in southea;t
Alaska. J. Wild!. Manage. 43,219-221.
---, ---, AND R. HAVIES. 1984. Bald eagle
breeding population survey of coastal British Co-
lumbia. J. Wild!. Manage. 48,993-998.
ISAACS, F. R, R. G. ANTHONY, AND R. J. ANDERSON.
1983. Distribution and productivity of nesting bald
eagles in Oregon, 1978-82. Murrelet 64:33-38.
KING, J. G .. F. C. ROBARDS, AND C. J. LENSINK. 1972.
Census of the bald eagle breeding population in
southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 36' 1,292-1,295.
MATHISEN, J. E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance
on nesting of bald eagles. J. Wild!. Manage. 32:
1-6.
McALLISTER, K. R., T. E. OwENs, L. LESCHNER, AND E.
CUMMINGS. 1986. Distribution and productivity
of nesting bald eagles in Washington, 1981-1985
Murrelet 67:45-50.
McGARIGAL, K., R. G. ANTHONY, AND F. B. lsAAcs.
1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on
the Columbia River estuary. Wildl. Monogr. 115.
47pp.
NETER, J., AND W. WASSERMAN. 1974. Applied linear
statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Home·
wood, Ill. 842pp.
SPRUNT, A., IV, W. B. RoeERTSON, JR., A. PosTUPALSKY,
R. J. HENSEL, C. E. KNODER, AND F. J. LIGAS. 1973.
Comparative productivity of six bald eagle pop-
ulations. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour.
Con!. 38,96-106.
WHITE, C. M., AND R. W. NELSON. 1991. Hunting
range and strategies in a tundra breeding pere-
grine and gyrfalcon observed from a helicopter.
J. Raptor Re.s. 25,49-62.
---, AND S. K. SHERROD. I 973. Advantages and
disadvantages of the use of rotor-winged aircraft
in raptor surveys. Raptor Res. 7:97-104.
ZAR, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 620pp.
Received 17 July 1992.
Accepted 11 December 1992.
Associate Editor: Flather.
I
•
(')
'
I
EXHIBITC
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overt1ights on the National Park Pagel of 43
CHAPTER 5
EFFECTS OF OVERFLIGHTS ON WILDLIFE
5.1 Introduction
In general, wild animals do respond to low-altitude aircraft overflights. The
manner in which they do so depends on life-history characteristics of the
species. characteristics of the aircratl and flight activities. and a variety of
other factors such as habitat type and previous exposure to aircraft. The
potential for overflights to disturb wildlife and the resulting consequences
have drawn considerable attention from state and Federal wildlife managers,
conservation organizations, and the scientific community. This issue is of
special concern to wildlife managers responsible for protecting populations,
and to private citizens who feel it is unwise and/or inappropriate to disturb
wildlife. Two types of overflight activities have drawn the most attention with
regard to their impacts on wildlife: I) low-altitude overflights by military
aircraft in the airspace over national and state wildlife refuges and other wild
lands, and 2) light, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter activities related to
tourism and resource extrac.:tion in remote areas.
The primary concern expressed is that low-level flights over wild animals may
cause physiological and/or behavioral responses that reduce the animals'
fitness or ability to survive. It is believed that low-altitude overflights can
cause excessive arousal and alertness, or stress (see Fletcher 1980, 1990,
Manci et al. 1988 for review). If chronic, stress can compromise the general
health of animals. Also, the way in which animals behave in response to
overflights could interfere with raising young, habitat use, and physiolog1cal
energy budgets. Physiological and behavioral responses have been repeatedly
documented. that suggest some of these consequences occur. While the
behavioral responses by animals to overflights have been well-documented for
several species, few studies have addressed the indirect consequences, Such
consequences may or may not occur, and may be detectable only through
long-term studies.
http: I iww w .nonoise. org/ Ii brary /nprepon: chapte:r5. htm Oli25,2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Fffect;; of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park .. Page 2 of 43
The scientific community's current understanding of the effects of aircraft
overflights on wildlife are found in the literature. Such studies identify:
collision with aircraft(Burger 1985. Dolbeer et al. 1993); flushing of birds
from nests or feeding areas (Owens 1977, Kushlan 1979, Burger 1981,
Anderson and Rongstad 1989, Belanger and Berad 1989, Cook and Anderson
1990); alteration in movement and activity patterns of mountain sheep (Bleich
et al. 1990): decreased foraging efficiency of desert big horn sheep (Stockwell
and Bateman 1991 ); panic running by barren ground caribou (Calef et al.
1976); decreased calf survival of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch
1992); increased heartrate in elk, antelope, and rocky mountain big horn sheep
(Bunch and Workman 1993); and adrenal hypertrophy in feral house mice
(Chesser et al. 1975). Over 200 published and unpublished reports can be
found on the subject. These reports range in scientific validity from well
designed, rigorous studies to professional natural resource manager and pilot
reports.
Recent concerns have focused on the significance of impac.::ts as they affect
wildlife populations. Defining a population as "a group of fish or wildlife in
the same taxon below the subspecific level, in common spatial arrangements
that interbreed \\1hen mature,"J it is possible to dra\v the conclusion that
impacts to wildlife populations are occurring from low level aircraft
overflights. This assertion is supported by numerous studies including the
following:
l. 50 CFR Part 17.3
Prcvi_o\lJ;_(.'haJ;!l~r
Jill)_D[CllliJltCJ' )_
Tabl_e of Contents
Ret\lfl]___to NPC Lii:lrJlli'
Return to NP<.'Hprne Page
5.1
• ( decreased calf survival of woodland caribou (Harrington and Veitch
http:,·fwww .nonoise.org/lihrary/npreport.:chapter5.htm 01/25,2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park . Page J of 43
1992)
• disturbance to wintering snow geese documents the effects on
staging/wintering subgroup (Belanger and Beard 1989)
• impacts on nesting herring gulls documents effects on a subgroup during
production periods (Burger 1991)
Additional research will be required to fully address the significance of such
population impacts. However, waiting for and relying on future research
results for current policy decisions is not possible. Therefore, it is necessary to
make informed decisions recognizing that all of the consequences of
disturbance will not be completely understood.
5.2 Physiological Responses to Aircraft Overflights
\Vhen disturbed by overflights, animal responses range from mild
''annoyance," demonstrated by slight changes in body position, to more severe
reactions, such as panic and escape behavior. The more severe reactions are
more likely to have damaging consequences. Studies of aircraft impacts
suggest that whether or not disturbance occurs, and whether or not disrurbance
has a harmful effect depends on a variety of characteristics associated with
both the animal and with the aircraft.
\Vhen the sudden sight and/or sound of aircraft causes alarm, the
physiological and behavioral responses of animals are characterized as
manifestations of stress. The effects of chronic stress from overflights have
not been formally studied, though several national wildlife refuge managers
suspect that stress from overflights makes waterfowl more susceptible to
disease (Gladwin et al. 1987, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Other types
of disturbance-induced -stress have been documented to produce a variety of
other problems, such as toxemia in pregnant sheep (Reid and Miles 1962) and
abnormal births (Ward 1972, Denneberg and Rosenberg 1967). That exposure
to low-altitude aircraft overflights does induce stress in animals has been
demonstrated. Heart rate acceleration is an indicator of excitement or stress. in
animals, and increased heart rates have been shown to occur in several species
http://www.nono ise.orgllibrary/npreport' chapter5 .htm OI/25/2008
NPC Library ('.hapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the '\:at1onal Park .. Page 4 of 43
exposed to low-altirude overflights in a wild-or semi-wild setting. Species
that have been tested include pronghorn, elk, and bighorn sheep (MacArthur
et al, 1982, Workman et al. 1992a,b,c). Stress responses such as increased
heart rates by themselves are an adaptation for encounters with predators and
other em·ironmental threats, which presumably must be faced daily. It is not
known, therefore, if the addition of stressful events such as overflights
actually harm animals. It may be that a few overflights do not cause hann, but
that overflights occurring at high frequencies over long periods of time, do.
Biologists caution that the consequences of disturbance, while cumulative, are
not additive. Effects could be synergistic, especially when coupled with
natural catastrophes such as harsh winters or water shortages (Bergerud 1978,
Geist 1994 ). Also, the tendency for additional stress to be harmful probably
depends on other factors, such as the general health of animals to begin with.
Some species are likely to be more susceptible to damage than are others.
Research has shown that stress induced by other types of disturbance produces
long-term, deleterious effects on the metabolism and hormone balances in
wild
5.2
ungulates (hoofed mammals) such as bighorn sheep (Geist 1971, Stemp
1983 ). Many animal biologists maintain that excessive stimulation of the
nervous system can amount to chronic stress, and that continuous exposure to
aircraft overflights can be harmful for the health, growth and reproductive
fitness of animals (see Fletcher I 980, l 990 for review).
The auditory systems of some animals may be particularly susceptible to
physical damage, and such animals may experience hearing loss from
exposure to chronic aircraft sound. Animals living in quiet desert
environments have evolved particularly fragile ears and hence appear to be at
great risk of sound-induced hearing damage (Bondello and Branstrom 1979,
Fletcher 1990). While aircraft noise and its effects on animal hearing have not
been tested, other types of sound such as motorcycle noise have been shown
to cause hearing loss in desert species, including the desert iguana (Bondello
1976) and the kangaroo rat, an endangered species (Bondello and Brattstrom
http://www. nonoise. org/li brary/ nprepo1t1 chapter5 .ht m 0125.'2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepon on Effects of Aircraft Ovc1fligbts on the National Park. P<1ge S of 4:1
1979). Hearing loss can occur after as little as an hour of exposure to loud
noise, and can be temporary or permanent, depending on the degree of
exposure to sound and the susceptibility of the individual animal.
Conclusion 5.1
Overflights can indnce physiological responses in animals, such as
increased heart rates. but whether or not such responses cause harm
is unknown. Effects may be synergistic, as when combined with
natural events such as harsh winters or water shortages.
5.3 Behavioral Responses to Aircraft Overflights
Behavioral responses of wild animals to overflights nearly always accompany
physiological responses. Behavioral responses reflect a variety of states, from
indifference to extreme panic. To some extent, responses are species-specific,
whereby some species are more likely to respond in a certain manner than an:
others. However, even within a species, individual animals vary. Documented
variations between individuals may be due to differences in temperament, sex,
age, prior experience with aircraft, or other factors. For these reasons.
anecdotal information about one animal's response to an overflight is not
useful for drawing conclusions for that or any other species. Often, ammals
exhibit very subtle and seemingly minor behavioral responses to overflights.
Minor responses that are typical of both birds and mammals include head-
raising, body-shifting, and turning and orienting towards the aircraft. Animals
that are moderately disturbed usually show "nervous'' behaviors such as
trotting short distances (mammals), standing up with necks frilly extended and
sunning the area, or walking around and flapping wings (birds).
\Vhen animals are more severely disturbed, escape is the most common
response. Perching or nesting birds may flush (fly up from a perch or nest)
and circle the area before landing again. Some birds, particularly waterfowl
and seabirds, may leave the area if sufficiently disturbed. There are dozens oi'
reports, mostly from national wildlife refuges, of waterbirds flying, diving or
swimming away from aircraft (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This
is apparently a widespread and common response. Bird flight responses are
usually abrupt, and whole colonies of birds often flush together. Disturbed
http:! J www .nono ise. orgi] ibrary in pre port, cha pter5 .hrm OJ/25.'2008
NPC Lihrary: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overtlights on the National Park .. Page 6 of 43
mammals will nm away from overflight paths. Table 1 lists behavioral
responses to overflights that have been documented during studies and
incidental observations.
lop of Chapter 5
Tahk of ConJents
Retum to NPC Library
Rd.um to NPC Home Page
5.3
This table was generated from a review of published literature on the subject.
Reports varied widely in how information was gathered. Aircraft altitudes are
noted \\'here knov.'n. Some reports are from rigorous studies, others from
anecdotal information. In general, more severe responses ( such as panic and
escape) were a result of lower-altitude overflights. Responses that were not
described in detail are in quotation marks.
As Table l illustrates, only a handful of the thousands of animal species in the
United States have been studied for their responses to overflights. Also, a
disproportionate number of studies have concentrated on ungulates such as
caribou and highom sheep. Carnivorous mammals have been virtually
ignored, as have marine mammals, small mammals, and bats. Birds are more
evenly represented, with studies on waterfowl, shorebirds, marine birds, and
raptors, although songbirds and owls are notably absent. Reptiles and
amphibians have never been studied for responses to aircraft. This uneven
distribution of species representation is likely a result of two factors: 1)
researchers acknowledge that some species are more susceptible to hann than
are others, and have allocated efforts accordingly; and 2) some animals are
easier to study than others.
Generally, fish have not been considered at risk from aircraft disturbance.
Because most fish and other aquatic organisms live entirely below the surface
of the water, they do not experience the same sound levels that terrestrial
animals do. Marine mammals (besides dolphins and whales) are an exception
because they spend time above water, on shore. Data on behavioral responses
of marine mammals to aircraft overflights arc scarce. However, a study at
http:· iw,.vv, .nonoi~e.org/!ibrary/npreport/cha pter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park. Page 7 of43
Co pal is National Wildlife Refuge in Washington State ( where the U.S. Navy
conducted pilot training from 1944 to 1993) reported responses of harbor seals
and northern sea lions to military A-6 jet overflights as ranging from no
response to abruptly leaving resting sites on the rock shore and entering the
sea (Speich et al. 1987). California gray whales and harbor porpoises,
conversely, showed no obvious behavioral responses during this study.
Conclusion 5.2
Researchers have documented a range of wildlife behavioral
responses to aircraft overflights. Variations in response may be due
to differences between individuals, and anecdotal information about
one animal's response is not useful for drawing conclusions
regarding that or other species. Behavioral responses may be subtle.
5.4 Indirect Effects of Disturbance from Overflights, and Consequences
for Animals
The behavioral responses to aircraft overflights described above are direct, or
immediate, responses. Biologists and others are concerned that indirect effects
of these responses may have harmful consequences for animals, especially
when overflights (and responses) are frequent. Behavioral reactions have the
potential to cause injury, to influence breeding success, energetics and habitat
use, and to result in bird strikes. Whether or not such indirect effects occur
depends on other factors associated with the natural history of a species. Some
animals are more susceptible than others to disturbance, because of unique life
history patterns such as colonial breeding, habitat requirements, and restricted
distribution. Others may need special protection during certain periods.
Indirect effects are difficult to detect. However, some effects, such as habitat
avoidance, have been detected ( e.g. McCourt et al. 1974, Schweinsburg
1974b, Krausman et al. 1986). Large-scale consequences such as permanent
habitat abandonment or regional or national population declines have not been
well documented, though some
5.4
Top ofChHpte:r. 5
http://www. nonoi se. org/library :'npreport1 cha pt er5 .htm OJ/25/2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1ilights on the National Park .. Page 8 of 43
Ta b_l_s,_gf (:ontents
Return to N:PC Library
Return to NPC Home l'gg_e
Table 5.1. General responses by specific animal species to aircraft overflights
!Species -!response !Air-Flight !Reference
: crafi Ait.J
i\Large
Mammals
rroro;m oro • Accelerated heart rate EJ 501""'"'"" d al 1992a
Run short distance 5000
Bolt and run I 100
INo response 1n1 150-400IILuz & Smith
i 1976
Stop feeding, tense
I !muscles II II II
Run
l1
11
11Mule Deer I No response IMJ II <300011Lamp 1989
j Minor behavior cl1an~es ! __ _
ilBighom , Accelerated Heart rate EJ J IJ· 000 Workman et al.
1
• 1~~ I 19~b
FW 100
Decreased food intake
,while feeding
(interruption)
'Take more steps while
http :i / www. nonoise. o rgi]ibrary/npreport: c hapter5. h tm
H I 100
H --11Stockwell et. al.
1979
01:2512008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Rep-0rt on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park . Page 9 of 43
[feeding II II IL 11
No response tJ' 1640-Mac Arthur et al.
4920 1979
Accelerated heart rate H I
490-660 ,
, Run I
No response ['] [ ,s,0<rm, ,OSS
Mmor behav10r changes
' Leave area
\Leave area IOI 160-650\~~~~h et al.
No response FW I 00-990 Krausman &
Hervert 1983
Interrupt normal
activities
Run< 330 feet , J ,
Run .62-1.2 miles IL '
!
Run> 1 mile 1.00-Horejsi 1975
. . [Kiger 1970
Desert Mule o movement D[~J-Krausman et al.
Deer 1986
Move < . 6 mile to new
habitat
CJ Accelerated heart rate LJJ 5000 Workman et al.
1992c
H 100-500 'a========s
Congregate together LJJ o-McCullough
1969
Watch aircraft
jRun away IIH II --IIHorejsi, 1975 i
Mountain React "adversely" nn-Ballard 1975
Goat
http ://www .nonoi s e. org/1 ibra1y /npreport/chapter5 .htm Ol/25,2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 ofRep011 on Effo;ts of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa. Page 10 of 43
'JMay abandon areas Jj JI~ II
Run away ~ ~IIH II --!(Horejsi 1975 ::::J,
Are "terrified" Joo-Chandwick 1973
I IAfay abandon areas
ID all Sheep jjNo response ]OW l~-f ichols 1972 l
Get "excited'' I I
/Do not abandon habitat j · 1·
I !Run away lt:Jc=-lp=Fe=ist=et=al=. 1=97=4 1
1
FW --Schwemsburg ,
1974a I
,fWlo-jLinderman 1972 / Alarm behav10r
Crowd together LJ --
; (React "severely" l!H [ ·-1~rsen J 971 I
EJ Initially fright response, LJW ,o--JBurkholder 19591
, (scatter, run), later Ii ;1
accent I II 1:
IGrizzl y Bear
--~ ------,;
!)Run IIFW 10· --l;~;~ing& Nagy 1
i.Hrde .H --
"Mild" behavior [JI 'J2S;F1R=u=tt=an=l 9=. 7=4===11I
response
Run away
Run in "panic" oo-Pearson 1975
!!Hide (may associate i
,aircraft with capture) _j __j
area 1974a Ii
FW 200-500
[Interrupt activity, leave EJW > 1000 McCourt et al. 1
Run towards cover \ /Klein 1973
( [_____ ______J H 200-500 'I
hnp ://www.nonolse.org/ libraiy/nprepo1t · c hapterS . htm 0 I .'25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa. Page 11 of 43
[Bison Ji!'<o response
~o response
jjMJ j --[Frazier 1972
Run l mile
' _ Dw D00-490 rancy 1982
[Run 5 miles I L
~Crowd together, pamc Fl~]Ericson 1972
L___j LJ~ I
E1R=u=n=a=w=a=y======JEJW o-Slaney & Co !
Ltd. 1974 ---~ ~ Move short distance fnv"lo-jBergerud 1963
L___JRarelv leave area L J~
!No response IIFW II 200-50011K.lei;;-1973 I
Panic,_f1ee H 200-500
Walk, trot, gallop awayl~L800[Gunn et al. 1985
Momentarily stop I
feeding
Panic, escape lFllsilOl[Calef et al. 1976 n
LJ~
Brief startle response
Run for 8-27 seconds
No effect on daily
activity
[No effect on distances
traveled
--------
MJ
I
H
100-500IIHarrington &
Veitch 1973
I 00-500 ..
Mothers and calves not uo-Miller &
se arated Broughton 1973
[Run away from area llfWID--Valkenburg &
L_J Davis 1985
I " "
http: ii www.nonoise.org/library; nprepo1tichapter5. htm 01/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1flights on the National Pa. Page 12 of 43
l_l Minor changes in EJ <1300 Miller & Gunn
behavior 1979
<1300
Panic and run
Coe~ iliol from D Mm,~,
trampling during escape Broughton 1974
from either wolves or
aircraft
[Calves died l~DHarrington &
Veitch 1992
Panic and escape b]~ Surrendi &
DeBock 1976
FW <790
Small
mammals
!House Mouse I Enlarged adrenal glands D Chesser et al. I
1975 !
Marine
mammals
Atlantic Raise head towards H 4270 Salter 1979
Walrus aircraft
Shift body position
Leave rocks, enter ocean
Harbor Seal, Leave rocks, enter ocean r: I:T,,,,h · ., 1987 Northern Sea
Lion
jRaptors I
Bald Eagle* No response H --White & Sherrod
1973
Golden Eagle Panic, frantic escape
' Peregrine No effect on raising
Falcon young
I
http: /lww w nonoise .org/l I bra1y :npreport: d1apter5 .htm 0!.'25/2008
N'PC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Repott on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa Page 1) of 43
Gyrfalcon I
!Rough-legged I
Hawk
Peregrine
'Falcon*
"Minimal response 11
[_JJ
MI <980!IE11is et al. 199 l
Alarm behavior
,Coopers Hawk1
,,
Fly from perch or nest
Common
Black Hawk
Harris' Hawk
jzone-tailed
Hawk
Red-tailed
Hawk
Golden Eagle
Prairie F ale on
!No effect on raising
young
\
Osprey \No effect on raising oo· --Carrier &
I-_ young Mel uist l 976
Rarely leave nest ~W c-, Poole 1989
)No effect on raising H --
!young ~--ii==~~~
ll~~~e~rn IFO response IIMJ -,o~~c7k;on et al.
Peregrine o response DI <20001 Ritchie 1987
Falcon
11 Severe 11 response
i
I
r,1·~ I Fl, aw,, . . rw I i.::'~r1,., ms
Alert behavior
1
, IIPlatt and Tull
500-1977 I;
http: //www . nono ise. org/libra1y Ill prepoit/ chapter) . htm 0!:2S 2008
NPC Library· Chapter 5 of Repo11 on Effects of Aircraft Ove1illghts 011 the National Pa.. Page 14 of 43
Prairie Falcon
Red tailed
Hawk
Golden Eagle
Ferruginous
Hawk
Red-tailed
Hawk
L
!Waterbirds
IE Emperor
Geese
Canada Geese
Oldsquaw>I<_
Surf Seater
Oldsquaw*
Surf Seater
!No nest abandonment
!No effect on daily
activity patterns
May avoid returning to
!breed in following years
10001
rlush from perches · 100 f~~~ & Craig
No response:=100-c_raig & Craig
1984
Flush from perches _
Fo response IDD ?~~i & Craig
to response JfFWli<!OOIWhite &
L___JL__jTuurlow 1985
Flush from nests IOI 100 '5rd-c< ru • 1989
!No effect on raising I ,
young
ttlo response
Alert behavior
Flight
Swim away
Dive into water
!No response
Escape
Alert behavior
Dive into water
,FW
H
0-500\IWard & Stehn I_
1989
1-500!1
D~ I mo ""I\Ward & Sharp
I 1974
:
H ,j 1o0-7501IJGollop et al,
II I: 1974a
http:// ww w . no noise orgihbraryinprepoit, chap ter5. ht m OJ.:25-2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights; on the National Pa.. Page 15 of 43
Change activity budgets
(resting, feeding,
Migrating
ducks•
(various
!species}
Ducks and
geese:
Flock together IL _ J
sle<,pin&___ _ _ ,
~o =•boo r I ,,oo,Lamp 1989 i
Minor behavior changes
!Flush from lakes
(various
species)
Fly away IIFW II --IISchweinsburg
Swim away
Dive into water
Abandon some lakes for
11>4 days
1974a
Schweinsburg
1974b
C=,m ,,,~ IArom, from~~ r " I ''°""I.Lamp-1989
Alert behavior I .
Call I _ L__
Flush from nests H
Trupeter SwanllStop activity; head~p LJW [jOO-,Henson & Grant
2000 1991
C I _ __J
Seek cover in tall -]rW I '"'·990 ShoruOruk &
vegetation McCormick
Cygnets crowd together
H 500 1989
Snail Kite
[No response 1rJo-1~;~ier et al. lw atch atrcraft L_
IL]Panic and escape area LJ~E
I II II 11
http:/ lww w . nonoise.org/1 i brary /npreport/ c haptt:r5 . htm O!i25i2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 16 of 43
LJ"'''"Y [ t]°'~'"" Widespread "panic" H
Lost feeding time
B,~,• Floshm, Crom o~• D SO~ Goho, cl ,,
1000 1974b Glaucous Gull Disrupt nestmg behav10r H
500-Arcllc Tern 1000
Common No effect on nesting LJD Gollop et al.
Eider behavior 1974b
H --
Tufted Puffin* No response MJ >500 Speich et al.
Brant Wing-flapping MJ
1987
<500
Double-Flush from perches
crested
Cormorant Abrupt departure of area
Common
Murre
I Glaucous Gull
l'oo,,r= I May disrupt breeding D super-Austin et al.
some 1970 May cause hatching
failure
Crested Tern Scan sky rn Brown 1990
1000
Alert behavior
Startle and escape
White Pelican Stampede, panic LTI Bunnell et al.
1981 Eggs lost, abandoned,
eaten
II i
hrtp: ii ww w. nonoise.0rgllibrary/ nprepo1t, chapler5. h tm 0 l.15,'2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report Oil Effects of Aircraft Overl1ights on the National Pa. Pag"" 17 of 43
Herring Gull !No effect on breeding
LJLJBurger 1981 !
No response
Flush from nests D super-
Eggs broken, lost, eaten some /
Cattle Egret_* No effect on colony MJ <500 /Black et al. 1984
establishment
Double-
crested
Comorant
No effect on colony size
Great Blue
No effect on nesting
behavior
Heron
No effect on breeding
ii
Great Egrnt success
White ]bis
Oldsquaw* Flush up and away from H __ !Christiansen &
I lake Yonge 1979
Scaup species
j Redhead
Canvasback __J
Snow Goose Raise head FW --Davis & wisely ! 1974 ' Crowd together, call H !
Stop feed I
Fly away (return in 5
min.)
iNo response MJ <3000 Lamp 1989
Minor behavior changes
Flush, circle over, depart
or land again
http://www.nonoise.org/ Ii bra1y inpreport/chapter5 . htm OJ '25i200S
NPC L1bra1:, .. Chaprer 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ovelilights Oil the National Pa.. Page 18 of 43
I __j[Leave lake area \[FW I\ 98-9800\\Spindler 1983
_ !Flush from lakes ,[Fwl~ Salter & Davis
i L_JL_!m~
IKittiwake* I Stay on nest (no n[J· [Dunnett 1977
I
response)
11Northern I
,Fulmar
Brunnich's IINo response IIH II 0.5-3jjFjeld et al. 1988
Gmllemot_*_ miles
Kittiwake
Snow Goose*
Canada Goose
Purple
Gallinule
!
Northern
Pintail
!American
Coot
!Flush from nests
i!'Jo egg or chick losses
Flush
Pacific Eider ljNo response
Great Egret* //Flush from nest, retun1
<5 minutes
Snowy Egret
Louisiana
Heron
II Songbirds
Lapland
Longspur
!No response
[No avoidance of nest
sites
,µ-i
distant
--,iEdwards et al.
1979
I JI ---t~~~son et al.
' -'"====='!
FW H !I 395IIKushlan 1979
1972
H .DW LlOIGollop et al.
I jNestlings died I
http:// ww w .nonoi sc. org..' library!npreport c hapter5 .htm 0 I 2512008
NPC Libra1y Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft O\,·ertlights on th..-:\atioiwl Pa Page l 9 of 43
jGame birds I I I IL_ EJ Flush LIi <3000\ILamp 1989
No resuonse
2 FW = small, fixed-wing aircraft, H = helicopters, MJ = military jet aircraft,
C = commercial jet aircraft
3 Aircraft flight altitudes in feet, rounded to nearest 10.
* Studies of more than one species generally documented all of the listed
responses occurring by all of those species
Top of.Chapter 5
T~!:>k. ,:,f Co_t_1Jmts
Return t_o NPC Library
Return to NP_C Home Page
5.5-5.11
experts suspect that they occur. For example, refuge managers at Key West
National Wildlife Refuge suspect that the only known colony of magnificent
frigatebirds in the United States is declining due to frequent low-altitude
overflights by tour planes (Gladwin et al, 1987).
5.4.1 Accidental Injury
II
Ir
A common concern among biologists is that animals will occasionally fall, run
into objects, or become trampled when they panic and run from aircraft. For
example, at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, it was reported that a
low-flying helicopter startled a deer, which ran off of a 26-ft, cliff and broke
its leg (USFWS 1993). Young ungulates are especially vulnerable to being
trampled. One study of caribou calf mortality documented that three young
caribou were trampled during panic and flight from either wolves or aircraft
http://www.nonoise.org/1 i brat)' /nprepo11ichaptef5 _ h tm ()],'25:'2008
NP(' Library· Chapter 5 ofRepott on Effects of Aircraft Oveii1ights on the \:ational Pa.. Page 20 of 43
(Miller and Broughton 1974). Startle responses that cause panic and quick
movements are most likely to cause injuries to animals in rugged topography
(hou]der fields, cliffs, scree slopes), at river crossings, or on icy ridges.
especially when animals are grouped closely together (Harrington and Veitch
1991).
5.4.2 Reproductive Losses
For many species, it has been argued that disturbance could cause
reproductive losses by altering patterns of attendance to young. Disturbed
mammals and birds have been noted to run or fly away from the stimulus (i.e.
the aircraft), and leave eggs or young exposed. Birds that quickly flush from
nests may accidentally break eggs or kick eggs or young from their nests.
Mammal adults and young may become separated when they panic and flee.
Leaving the young exposed also makes them H1lnerable to predators.
Numerous studies have addressed the effects of aircraft overflights on the
breeding success of ungulates such as caribou and Dall sheep. Generally,
overflights have not been shown to cause adults and young to separate. Yet
one study attributed Caribou calf mortalities to frequent low-level military
aircraft overflights (Harrington and Veitch 1992). This study compared calf
mortality rates in groups that were exposed to overflights with rates in groups
that were not exposed. Mortality rates were significantly higher in the exposed
group. The researchers hypothesized that milk release was inhibited in caribou
mothers that were disturbed by the overflights, and so young became
malnourished. As this example suggests, calves might not die directly from
overflights, and so mortalities cannot be detected unless studies are designed
to compare rates of survival bet\veen calf groups that are and are not exposed
to overflights. Numerous studies have reported that overflights do not affect
survivorship in young, yet they do not compare survivorship of young that
were and were not subjected to overflights. This example demonstrates how
complex cause and effect relationships can be between disturbance and
effects. It also shows that casual observations of how animals respond to
overflights do not necessarily reveal ultimate consequences.
Waterfowl and seabirds nesting on national wildlife refuges are commonly
exposed to both military and private aircraft overflights. Whether or not
http://www. nonoise .org: libraiy/npreporti chapter5 . htm OL25'2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 21 of 43
overflights have indirect effects on breeding success depends on the
circumstances and types of behavioral responses of the adult birds: whether or
not they flush from their nests, whether the exposed nests are vulnerable to
predators, proximity of other nests (some birds nesting close together tend to
fight after a disturbance, resulting in egg breakage), and physical
characteristics of nests and of the adults. Many refuge managers have reported
that birds flush from nests
]j)_p_Qf CJll!J)~I 5
fo.ble cifC:<mtents
Rctu1:nJQ Nl'._('.J.ibrnry
Relµrn to NPC' Ho!lw J:'ag,
5.12
in response to overflights (Gladwin et al. 1987. lJSFWS 1993). This is
considered a problem because of the potential for losses of eggs and young.
Gulls, cormorants, and murres, for example, kick eggs from nests when they
flush during disturbance, and eggs are lost, broken or eaten by predators.
These events have been documented to occur on several national wildlife
refuges (USFWS 1993 ). Some species, such as tundra swans and pelicans,
apparently abandon nests due to chronic distnrbance from overflights
(Gladwin et al. 1987. USFWS 1993 ). Leaving eggs exposed to sun or rain also
jeopardizes their survival.
Several studies have been conducted on nesting birds and their responses to
overflights. Both American white pelicans and brown pelicans appear to be
particularly susceptible to disturbance. Pelican biologists have discovered that
low-flying aircraft can contribute to dramatic reductions in survivorship of
young and in overall productivity of a nesting colony (Bunnell et al. 1981,
Gladwin et al. 1987). Some species, when subjected to overflights during
studies, did not flush from nests and so losses did not occur. Such species
include: trumpeter swans (Henson and Grant 199 l ), cattle egrets, double-
crested cormorants, great blue herons, great egrets, and white ibises (Black et
al, 1984 ). Others did flush from nests but did not tend to kick eggs from them
and so no losses occurred. Thet;e species include: great egrets, sno\V)' egrets,
and tricolored herons (Kushlan 1979). These species have only been tested for
responses to overflights during the studies referenced above. Therefore it is
http://www.nonoise.org/library lnpreportichapter5 .htm 01/21/2008
NPC Libraty: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa. Page 22 of 43
not known whether more intense stimuli such as aircraft flying at lower
altitudes might cause more panic and subsequent egg or chick losses.
Disrupted patterns of parental attendance to eggs or chicks is also a concern.
Although this phenomenon has been noted on a local scale, it has not as vet
been widely linked to reproductive losses at a regional or national scale. ~One
study, however, suggests that supersonic overflights might cause large-scale
losses. In 1969 low-altin1de supersonic aircraft overflights of the Dry Tortugas
during the nesting season were suspected to cause a massive hatching failure
for sooty terns (Austin et al. 1970). This incident is widely cited as one of
severe disturbance, though the cause and effect relationship cannot be proven.
Studies of some nesting birds that respond to less intense (i.e., subsonic)
overflights generally return to the nest to resume incubation after the aircraft
has passed.
Raptors (birds of prey) have also been monitored for signs of disturbance from
overflights during the breeding season. Occasionally, raptors are disturbed by
aircraft enough to respond by flushing from their perches or nests. One pair of
bald eagles at Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia reportedly
abandoned nesting activities altogether and left the area after repeated
overflights by a military helicopter (Gladdys 1983 ). On the other hand. once
eggs are laid, raptors may be less inclined to abandon nests. Ellis et al. (1991)
reported that nest abandonment and nest failures through predation, exposure
of the eggs, or egg losses did not occur during a study of raptor responses to
]ow-flying military jet aircraft. Although conclusions cannot be made from
these tv.'o reports alone, the evidence suggests that the seasonal timing of
overflights may be an important factor in the outcome of disturbance.
Top of Chapter 5
I~.bk of C@tents
Return to NPC Library
Ret\lni.to NPC.!:!.ome Page
5.4.3 Energy Losses
5.13
Panic reactions and escape responses to overflights can be energetically
http: ii www .nonoise. orgl!ibraty /11preport.1chapter5 .htm Ot/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepott on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa ... Page 23 of 43
11 expensive11 to animals for two reasons. First 1 feeding animals nearlv ahvavs
stop ingesting food when disturbed, which means a decrease in ene;gv int:tl<e.
Second, disturbed animals usually run or otherwise move away from the
aircraft, thus increasing their energy expenditure. Running can increase an
ungulate's metabolism twenty-fold over the normal resting rate (Mattfeld
1974). Hence frequent disturbance imposes a burden on the energy and
nutrient supply for animals (Geist 1978), which can compromise growth and
reproduction.
There is a particular concern that birds may suffer from energy losses due to
chronic disturbance, especially during periods when increasing and storing
energy reserves is critical for survival. During winter, the energetic costs of
daily activities, such as keeping warm and feeding, mean that animals can
spare little extra energy. During other seasons, such as the staging period or
breeding season, large net grins of energy are required for migration and/or
raising young. For example, the high energy requirements of ducks and geese
during the molting season may not be met if these birds continuously swim.
dive, or run from aircraft (Gollop et al. 1974b). Migrating birds such as snow
geese may be vulnerable to disrurbance during the staging season, when
energy accumulation must be great enough to prepare for the high energetic
demands of migration. Salter and Davis (1974) documented snow geese
flushing repeatedly in response to overflights during the staging period just
prior to their migration. The amount of time available for and the limits to
compensatory feeding, or making up for lost time, are unknown. When
animals are already feeding for a significant portion of the day, the
opportunity for compensatory feeding is probably limited.
There have been four notable attempts to examine the effects of aircraft
disturbance on bioenergetics of animals. Three were conducted on birds
during the staging season; two of these used snow geese as models, (Davis
and Wisley 1974, Belanger and Bedard I 989a,b), the other used bran! (Ward
and Stehn l 989). All three of these studies found that, in the presence of
frequent overflights, birds lost feeding time because they stopped feeding to
react to the aircraft. Belanger and Bedard observed snow geese and their
responses to human-induced disturbance, including aircraft, on their staging
grounds over three years. TI1ey found that snow geese both increased their
energy expenditure and decreased energy intake in response to aircraft
disturbance. They found that, if disturbance occurred at a rate of 1.46 per hour
http://www.nono ise. org!library !nprepvrtl chapter5 .htm 0 J/25/2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa ... Page 24 of 43
(as it did during their study), birds could compensate for energy losses by
feeding at night, but if they flushed from disturbance and did not rerum to
feeding areas, they would have to feed during 32 percent of the night-a
significant time commitment. They also found that birds did not compensate
during the day by increasing the rate at which they fed after disturbance.
These researchers concluded that man-induced disturbance can have
significant energetic consequences for staging snow geese.
The amount of food that bighorn sheep ingest while grazing in the presence
and absence of tourist helicopters was investigated in Grand Canyon National
Park (Stockwell and Bateman 1987). Sheep spent 14-42 percent less time
(depending on the season) foraging in the presence of helicopters. In addition,
sheep increased the number of walking steps while foraging by 50 percent.
This srudy suggests that the increase in energy expended, coupled with a
decrease in energy consumed, might contribute to an energy deficit for
animals when disturbance is chronic. Disturbance has been documented as
influencing pronghorn foraging also (Berger et al. 1983).
5.14
Top of Chapter 5
Iable of Contents
Return to NPC Libr<!!JI
Return to NPC: Home )'age
5.4.4 Habitat Avoidance and Abandonment
Many wildlife biologists are concerned that the disrurbance from overflights
could cause sensitive animals to abandon their habitats. This subject has
drawn attention because the consequences of habitat abandonment can be
serious, particularly for species whose high-quality habitat is already scarce.
Observations suggest that some animals do abandon their habitats in response
to overflights, and some do not. This difference may be due to differences in
the sensitivities of individual animals. On the other hand it may be a factor of
different levels of exposure to aircraft during these studies (different flight
altitudes, aircraft types, and flight frequencies). Two studies found that
caribou did not abandon areas in response to small aircraft overflights
(Bergernd 1963, Harrington and Veitch 199 l ), and one found that they did
http://www.nonoise.orgil ibrary I npreport: ch aprerS .h tm 01125;2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa... Page 25 of 43
(Gunn et al. 1985). Grizzly bears (McCourt et al. 1974). mountain sheep
(Krausman and Hervert 1983, Bleich et al, 1990), and mountain goats
(Chadwick 1973, Ballard 1975) all have been noted to abandon areas in
response to small aircraft overflights, even when overflights were infrequent.
It is not known how many other species avoid areas used by aircrafr.
Waterfowl biologists and national wildlife refuge managers have expressed
concern about how waterfowl use of open water and emergent wetland
habitats is disrupted by aircraft overflights. Overflights have been reported to
cause disturbance at dozens of wildlife refuges in 30 states (Gladwin et al.
1987). Most often, waterfowl flush from lakes and fly away, but return once
the noise levels in the area return to ambient. On the other hand, several
refuges have reported that some waterfowl species have been completely
driven off by frequent aircrafr activity. Belanger and Bedard's (1989a,b) study
on snow geese energetics and disturbance showed a significant drop --50
percent in the number of geese using feeding grounds on days following
aircraft disturbance. Waterfowl using lakes in Canada were displaced for
several days when disturbed by light aircraft overflights (Schweinsburg et al.
1974b). Wintering sandhill cranes leave feeding and loafing areas (resting
areas) for extended penods when low-altitude overflights take place over
Cibola and Imperial Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 1993). Wood storks may also
abandon habitat in response to overflights (USFWS 1993). Observations by
refuge biologists suggest that the endangered Palila Bird in Hawaii
underutilizes a sizable portion of its critical habitat because of low-altitude
military aircraft overflights (Gladwin et al. 1987). It is not currently known
how the use of ponds, lakes and wetlands in national parks is affected by
overflights.
Wildlife refuge and national park managers are also concerned because game
animals are sometimes chased from parks and refuges into areas where they
may be hunted. This has been documented in several refuges and one national
park 4 (USFWS 1993). This harassment is suspected to be intentional; hunters
are gaining access to animals which are usually protected.
Aircraft activities appear to have varying impacts on raptors' use of habitat. In
general, raptors are sensitive to the activities of people, although species-
specific differences are evident. Raptors have been documented to abandon
both wintering and breeding habitats as a result of human disturbance
http://www. nono ise. org1Jibraiy/npreport/ chapter5 .htm 01/25/2008
NPC' Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.. Page 26 of 43
(Stalmaster and Newman 1978, White and Thurow 1985). Ellis et al. (1991)
found little evidence, however, that raptors abandon habitat in response to
aircraft overflights.
4. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic Nat10nal
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
Top of Chapter 5
Table of.Cgnt.,n.ts
Return to NPC Librarv
ReturnJQ._Nl'C Homs: Pgg~
5.4.5 Potential Bird Strike Hazards
5.15
There is some concern over potential aircraft collisions with airborne birds
among national wildlife refuge managers. Collisions are a misfortune for both
birds and pilots. Bird strikes have cost the lives of many pilots andior
damaged aircraft. Military aircraft are most vulnerable to bird strikes since
they fly at low altitudes and high speeds. The US Air Force reports 3,500 bird
strikes annually (Spectrum Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team 1994). The Air
Force continues to develop methodologies for avoiding concentrations of
birds, in order to reduce this frequency. The FAA further recognizes that large
concentrations of migratory birds are a safety hazard to pilots.
Conclusion 5.3
Researchers have documented some indirect effects for some species
and individuals, such as eggs kicked from nests when birds flush in
response to overflights, loss of feeding due to overflight disturbance.
abandonment of habitat in response to overflights. Other studies
have found no such effects for some ~pecies and individuals.
http: /.iwww. nono ise. orgilibrary /npreport' i.:hapter5 .htm 0 \!15!2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1ilighl~ on the National Pa.. Page 27 of 4J
5.5 Factors that Influence Animal Responses to Aircraft
It is clear from numerous studies that differences in animal responses to
aircraft do not depend solely upon the species in question. Many other factors
contribute to the responses to overflights. some having to do with the animal
and its particular environment and some having to do with the aircraft
stimulus itself.
5.5.1 How Animals Perceive the Aircraft Stimulus
An animal's sensory perception of aircraft activity depends, in part, on the
physical features of its environment, as well as on its own physiological
attributes. Some habitats enhance stimuli associated with aircraft overflights.
For example, high canyon walls have the effect of amplifying and repeating
(echoing) aircraft sound, and yet they can also obstruct the aircraft from view.
The sound and visual stimuli associated with aircraft have different effects in
an open desert than in a forest where trees can obscure the sight and may
reduce the sound of aircraft. A further consideration is the animal's sensitivity
to different types of stimuli, which depends on physical limitations of the
senses. Some animals can clearly see aircraft: when they are barely visible to
others, and the range of frequencies of sound that can be detected varies
greatly from species to species.
One relationship between aircraft and animals is clear: the closer the aircraft,
the greater the probability that an animal will respond, and the greater the
response. Unfortunately, there is no particular overflight altitude at which all
animals are or are not disturbed. Even within a species, no particular altitude
can be identified as causing a sudden increase in disturbance, because so
many other factors influence disturbance. Notably, some studies have shown
that animals react in the same manner regardless of altitude (e.g., Lenarz
1974, McCourt et al, 1974). It is unlikely that one overflight altitude exists
that is sufficient for avoiding disturbance to all animals while not necessarily
imposing undue restrictions on pilots. For instance, a 5,000 foot minimum
altitude may avoid disturbance to all species, but may not
http://www.nonoise.org/[ ibra1y /nprepo11/ c hapter5 .htm ()[.'25·200.S
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repmt on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa.
Top ofChapter 5
Table of Contents
Return tp Nl'C. Library
Return to NPC Home Page
5.16
Page 28 of 43
be necessary at all times. Researchers have reported disturbances to walruses
by helicopters flying as far away as 4,270 feet (Salter 1979). Grizzly bears run
away from aircraft flying at altitudes as high as 3,000 feet. Few other animals
have been tested for responses to aircraft at altitudes this great, though many
show disturbance from aircraft at lower altitudes.
5.5.2 Aircraft Sound and Animal Hearing
It is apparent that animals can be disrurbed by either the sight or sound of
aircraft (McCullough 1969. Snyder et al. I 978, Ward and Stehn J 989, Brown
1990). TI1e relative importance of each stimulus is not known, and may
depend on the species in question. Both birds and mammals respond to the
sound of aircraft before it is visible. yet they also tend to track aircraft visually
as they pass overhead (McCullough 1969, Snyder et al. I 978. Brown 1990).
Aircraft sound is broadband, containing sound energy over a wide frequency
range, rather than a pure tone. There is some evidence that the high-frequency
whine of some turbine-powered helicopters is less disturbing to raptors than
the low-frequency sound of piston-engine helicopters (White and Sherrod
1973). Other than this, little is known about how the frequencies of aircraft
sound influence animal responses. Sound levels at which animals show strong
negative responses in the wild generally have not been determined.
Helicopters apparently disturb some animals more than other types of aircraft.
Comparisons ofhm.v animals respond to helicopters versus other aircraft types
have shown that animals respond more strongly to helicopters. For example.
callbou ran longer and farther in response to helicopter overflights than they
did in response to low-altitude overflights by military jets during a study in
the Yukon (Harrington and Veitch 1991). Ward and Stehn (1989) also noted
http:/, \.v ww. non01se. o rg/1 ibrary lnprepmt chap! cr'i .hem 0]!25-2008
NPC Library. Chapter 5 of Repo11 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the N.n1onal Pa.. Page 29 of 43
that greater percentages of brant responded to helicopters than to fixed-wing
aircraft in Alaska. Colonially-breeding marine birds also generally flushed
when helicopters flew over them at 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
while light, fixed-wing aircraft could pass over at 500 feet AGL before
generating a similar response (Gollop et al. 1974b). In addition to their engine
and "rotor-wash" sound, helicopter flight patterns may contribute to
disturbance. Brant (Henry 1980), reindeer (Ericson 1972), caribou (Calef and
Lortie 1973, Miller and Gunn 1977), pronghorn, elk, bighorn sheep
(Workman et al. 1992a, 1992b, 1992c ), and Dall sheep ( Andersen I 97 J) all
have been documented to show a more extreme panic response when
helicopters fly slowly or hover over animals.
Sudden aircraft approaches -that cause surprise may also influence responses.
Raptors 1 for example, panicked and exhibited frantic escape behavior \Vhen
helicopters appeared from over the tops of cliffs, but did not do so when
helicopters could be seen approaching from a distance (White and Sherrod
1973). Hence topography should be taken into consideration when predicting
animal responses to overflights.
5.5.3 Increased Tolerance to Overflights
In some cases, animals may develop an increased tolerance to frequent
overflights. This has been demonstrated by correlating changes in behavior
with sequences of overflights. Other studies have compared reactions of
animals having a history of exposure to aircraft with those that \Vere naive. ln
Top of Chapter 5
Table of Content.s
B,eturnJQ_NPC .L_i.\lrary
BeGJl!m.lo NPC.Hmnc Pag~
5.17
many cases, experienced animals were more tolerant of aircraft, showing less
extreme responses than naive animals.
http: i/ww w . nonoise. org/l ibrary /nprepo1tl chapter 5 . htrn (J\/25 12008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Ove1ihghts on the National Pa Page 30 of 43
For animals to become desensitized to sound, there must be consistent stimuli
(Borg 1979); frequent. predictable overflights, such as those at major airports,
are more likely to promote tolerance than occasional ones. Several studies
suggest that animals might not become tolerant of infrequent aircraft activity.
Colonially-breeding wading birds in Florida, for example, never adapted to
infrequent low-altitude military flight activities conducted over two breeding
seasons (Black et al. I 984). It is not known just how frequently a stimulus
must occur in order for an animal to become desensitized to it, though it
probably depends upon the species in question, as well as other factors.
It is important to note that some studies do not support the idea that animals 1
tolerances of aircraft overflights increase with exposure, even when
overflights have been frequent. For example, brant, emperor geese, and
Canada geese in Alaska (Ward and Stehn 1989) exhibited alert and flight
behavior in response to aircraft activity, despite previous exposure for several
seasons. Harding and Nagy ( 1976) noted that grizzly bears also never became
tolerant of aircraft, despite very frequent exposure.
The degree of disturbance to which animals can habituate is probably limited.
Evidence suggests that aircraft activities that cause mild responses may
become tolerated more so than those that cause panic. This has been
demonstrated in reindeer (Ericson l 972), Dall sheep (Summerfield and !Uein
1974), and herring gulls (Burger I 981 ). Also, while some species have the
ability to become tolerant, others may not. For example, whooping cranes
appeared to have become tolerant of light aircraft activity on Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge in Texas, but sandhill cranes had not (Gladwin et al. l 987).
Conclusion 5.4
Factors that can influence animal responses include distance to the
aircraft, aircraft type, suddenness of aircraft appearance and
frequency of overflights. Closer aircraft generally are more likely to
produce a response, though no minimum distance that produces no
effect has been found, the responses being species dependent. Some
tolerance for overflights has been observed when flights are frequent
or regular, but not among all species.
http://www. nonois e. org/1 ibraiy/nprepo1t· chapters .htm 0Ji25!2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 ofRepott on Effecls of Aircraft Ovedlights on the National Pa .. Page 31 of 43
5.6 Biotic Factors that Intlnence Animal Responses to Aircraft
While sound levels and aircraft proximity to animals are probably the most
important factors affecting the levels and types of responses elicited, an
animal's immediate activities are also important. Animals show different
levels of response to overflights depending in part on whether they are
traveling, feeding, resting, or attending young. Habitat features may also
influence the degree to which animals react to overflights. For example.
bighorn sheep in the San Andreas National Wildlife Refuge appeared more at
ease in response to helicopters when in open terrain where they could escape
more easily (Kiger 1970).
5.18
Top of Chapter 5
Ill.b.l<; 0LC011t1ents
Return to NPC Libraiy
R.e!llmto.Nl'CH01m, l'~ge
An animal's seasonal activities such as reproducing or hibernating influence
how they respond to overflights as well. Consequently, during some seasons,
animals may be more reactive than during other seasons. Slight seasonal
differences in responses to overflights have been noted in reindeer (Slaney
and Co. 1974), bighorn sheep (Stockwell and Bateman 1987), and caribou
(Klein 1973, McCourt and Horstman 1974, Jakimchuk et al, 1974, Calef et al.
1976). Generalizations cannot be made across species correlating specific
seasons with greater reactions.
At present, general relationships between external factors and animal
responses are unclear because other variables have not been held constant
during studies. In other words, to determine how habitat type (for exainple)
influences responses, all other factors such as group size, season, etc., must be
held constant so that habitat differences alone can be compared. Stronger
patterns should emerge once more controlled studies are conducted. The
existence of many variable factors may explain inconsistencies between
reports of species-specific responses to overflights. Clearly, whether an
animal (or group of animals) responds to aircraft overflights depends on many
http·// www . non01se. org/library 1nprepo11.1 cha pter5. htm QJ/25-2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overilights on the National Pa.. Page 32 of 43
factors, and those mentioned here constitute only a partial list. Therefore,
when attempting to assess the possible impacts of proposed or existing low-
altitude aircraft operations on wildlife, it is essential to keep in mind that each
situation is unique and must be evaluated accordingly. Figures 5.1 and 5.2
summarize some of the influential factors associated with aircraft overflights
and animals that have been addressed.
Conclusion 5.5
The type of animal activity affects response to overflights. Whether
an animal is feeding! resting, caring for young, etc., can affect how it
responds to an overnight.
5.7 Problems with Detecting Long-Term Effects of Aircraft Distnrbancc
Vv'hile short-term responses are easily documented, long-term responses are
more difficult to verify. This is due both to the limitations of ecological
research and to the nature of long-term responses. Long-term responses that
might occur include permanent changes in habitat use, increased mortality of
birds during migration ( due to lower weight gains during staging, as described
previously), or population effects due to reduced reproductive success ( due to
egg losses, for example). Assigning a cause and effect relationship between
overflight disturbance and these types of phenomena is difficult because there
are so many other variables that also cause them. It is very difficult to quantify
small decreases in the survivorship of young that are directly attributable to
overflights, because predators, weather, food availability, and adult skills all
affect survivorship as well. For example, several studies have examined
overall survivorship of young across a season by comparing young subjected
to overflights with control animals and have concluded that overflights have
little effect. However, closer examination has revealed that mortality rates
increased during the specific periods of overflights, though these increases
were not detectable by the end of the season (e.g., Harrington and Veitch
1992). Other long-term effects are difficult to correlate with overflights
because they occur during a time or in a place not immediately associated
with the overflights, such as migrating birds that die enroute to their
destination after energy losses at feeding grounds.
http:/ 'www nonoise.orgil i bra1y 1npreporu chapter5 . htm 01/15/2008
NPC Libra1y: Chapter 5 of Rep011 on Effects of Alr<.:raN Overflights on the National Pa. Page 33 of 43
Top of.Chapter 5
Table of Cont®!;;
Relllrn to NP.C Librnry
Return to NPC: Home P<!~
5.19
Figure 5.1 Animal Responses to Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights
5.20
Top of Chapter 5
Table of.Contell\s
RetumJo NPC Libr<lry
R et um to NPC)lom e P ag~
~"""'"""""o<'i digti1¥1~
n~tPQ!Tefri
""""· l ~ --~ vt.J<llOOO
~
horb:Omol. dtUaiel!I ~
http://www.nonoise.org/1 ibrary /npreport,' c hapter5 . htm
fooa!n typ,i:,
"""°" habltCJI feature1
0 I :25:2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the Narional Pa.. Prtge 34 of 43
Figure 5.2 External Factors that Influence Animal Responses to Overflights
5.21
Top of Chapter .5
Table ofContents
Rs,turn toNPC. Librarv
Return tQ NPC Home Pa~
Long-term effects are difficult to detect also because they may occur
infrequently. This is due, in part, to the fact that most studies are short-term,
making documentation of infrequent events unlikely. With the exception of an
eight-year study of white pelicans (Bunnell et al. 1981 ). too little time has
been spent assessing long~term effects.
Many biologists have published reports on the effects of the use of aircraft to
survey animals. In most cases, overflights do no harm (Carrier and Melquist
1976, Kushlan 1979) because normal behavior is interrupted only briefly. In
addition, the surveys are conducted only once or twice per season, and
generally they are avoided during poor weather, when stressing an animal
could result in harm, and during parts of the breeding season, when the
consequences of disturbance might be compounded (White and Sherrod 1973,
Poole 1989). Hence the argument that biologists themselves make overflights
of animals should not be used to suggest that overflights do not cause
disturbance.
Conclusion 5.6
The long-term effects of overflights on wildlife have not been
determined, and are unlikely to be investigated because of the
magnitude of the effort required. Occasional use of aircraft to survey
animals is unlikely to cause harm.
5.8 Overflight Impacts on Endangered Species
There are 98 species on national park lands that have been identified as
http::.: ww ,.,, .. nuno ise. orgi library lnpreport/ chapter5 .h tm Dl/25.'2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Oveiilight.<; on the National Pa.. Page 35 of 43
threatened or endangered. Of these, 36 are bird and 29 are mammal species.
The impacts on threatened or endangered species from overflights is largely
unknown. Of all threatened or endangered species Federally listed in the
United States, there is information regarding responses to overflights only for
the grizzly bear, sonoran pronghorn, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and
everglades kite. None of these species have been studied enough to
differentiate between aircraft activities that do and do not cause hann.
HO\vever 1 observations do indicate that some species are susceptible to
disturbance and subsequent harn1. The grizzly bear, for example, has been
noted to panic and flee areas from overflights in nearly all cases where they
have been observed (see Table I). Biologists recognize that impacts may
occur. Wildlife refuge managers have cited concern for many threatened or
endangered species regarding impacts from overflights, including wood
storks, Hawaiian geese, marbled murrelcts, bald eagles, peregrine falcons.
masked bobwhite quails, Stellar sea lions and least terns (USFWS 1993). In
Washington State, USFWS is developing recovery plans for both the marbled
murrelet and northern spotted owl which include 2,000-foot minimum flight
s restrictions over feeding grounds and nesting sites for these birds:-
Many threatened or endangered species have achieved their special starus due
to habitat loss from development and general human encroachment. They are
species for which habitat is limited; their natural histories prevent them from
using any but specific habitat types. For this reason, it is important that
overflights not cause further habitat loss to these species, since they cannot
simply !!relocate".
5. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
5.22
Top o[Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Rct1m1\Q_tlP.C_Libnuy
Return to_NPC Home Pagr
http: iiwww.nonoise.org/lihrary /nprep01t1 chapcer5 .htm 01/25/2008
:,,.,'p(" l.ihrary Chapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Overflight;; on the National Pa. Page 36 of 43
Whether or not a taking of a threatened or endangered species from Federal
action occurs from overflights may be an area for additional research. It would
be prudent for Federal agencies to take an active approach to evaluating this.
rather than letting the decision lie with the courts. Studying threatened and
endangered species and their responses to overflights is within the purview of
the law so long as research enhances the survival of the species. However,
some have expressed concern for the idea of subjecting animals to overflights
and monitoring their respcnses if indeed those responses suggest that damage
1s occumng.
Conclusion 5. 7
Ninety-eight threatened or endangered species inhabit units of the
National Park System. Their responses to overflights are largely
undocumented, but Federal agencies may nevertheless be held
responsible for impacts related to overflights.
5.9 Overflight Impacts on National Park Animals
Disturbance levels and consequent impacts to animals living on national park
lands have been anecdotally reported but not quantified. Several NPS
superintendents have prepared reports on the subject which can be used as
indicators of the types of problems some parks are having. Yet the degree to
which these problems are occurring in other parks cannot be measured
without a comprehensive survey.
Reports of park disturbance to animals from overflights exemplify the general
points described earlier: 1) Animals have been noted to modify their behavior
in response to overflights in parks, and 2) the consequences of this disturbance
can only be inferred in the absence of long-term srudies. At Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park, the endangered Hawaiian (Nene) goose has been seen flushing
from feeding and socializing areas after tour helicopters passed overhead. 6
Aircraft also alter normal feeding and socializing habits in response to
frequent overflights. The consequences of altering social behaviors and time
http: 1 I ww w .nonoise. o rgilihrary 1nprepo1ti c hapter5 .htm 0!!25:'2008
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Repo1t on Effects of Aircraft Oveiilights Orl the National Pa. Page 37 of 43
and energy budgets of animals have not been identified. Forest birds at this
park also stop calling or flee from local habitat, as noted by biologists
monitoring songbird behavior. Biologists speculate that hird behavior is
modified because their calls are interrupted, hence territories cannot be
properly delineated. Feeding is also interrupted, and other critical activities
cannot be consummated when birds are disturbed by overflights.
At Congaree Swamp National Monument, bald eagles and osprey are believed
to avoid habitats they would othe:ru'ise use because of overflights by military
7
jets and helicopters.· Similar impacts to raptors have been reported from
Glacier National Park. There, overflights are suspected of disrupting nesting
and foraging activities of bald eagles, golden eagles and falcons. Biologists
are concerned about possible
6. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park, to Acting Associate Director, ~ational Park Service.
7. Pers. comm., Robert McDaniel, Superintendent, Congaree Swamp National
Monument, to D. Gladwin, Stema Fuscata Inc. 1994.
5.23
IQP of Chapter 5
Iable9f C:.9.!lt~nts
Return to NPC Libta.ry
Re.tmn_t9_]'Jl'C_!:lornel'age
impacts to raptors that use corridors through the park for migration. 8 Colonial
seabirds have been seen flushing in response to overflights in Olympic
National Park as wel!.9 Other birds that may suffer hann from overflights in
this park include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and
marbled murrelet. These are all Federally-listed species.
Mammals are also disturbed by overflights in parks. Over 80 percent of
http ://www . nono ise. org/library/nprepo1tl chapter 5 .hem 01/25/2008
NPl Library: Chapter 5 ofRepo11 on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa ... Page 38 of43
grizzly bears observed in remote areas of Glacier National Park showed a
"strong" reaction to helicopters, according to studies in the park from 1982-
1986.
Aircraft disturbing park animals include both military and civilian fixed-wing
aircraft and helicopters. Helicopter tours for the public are most often cited as
causing problems for wildlife. Most problems occur when aircraft fly at lov,,
altitudes such as 500 feet AGL. Helicopter tour operations are frequent in
some parks; Glacier National Park reports 10 per day, and Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park reports 60-80 per day. Hence cumulative effects of disturbance
are likely, as animals are chronically interrupted from important life-
maintenance activities.
Several efforts to solve disturbance problems have been initiated by park
perso1U1el in recent years. Monitoring low-level overflights and maintaining
statistics at Congaree Swamp National Park have helped to quantify the
frequency of problems. At Olympic National Park, the staff are cooperating
with the USFWS refuge staff and the endangered species field office in
documenting and reporting aircraft harassment of seabird colonies. At Glacier
National Park, employees are trained to identify aircraft and estimate altitude.
A strict plan is in place there for the use of the park's own aircraft. Parks have
also discussed problems with aviation proponents. Meetings with tour
operators, FAA, and military personnel have been somewhat successful,
though problems do not always cease. For example, Congaree Swamp
national park managers note that, although military personnel are receptive to
cooperation in avoiding disturbance, no efforts have been made by the
military to address problems themselves or to offer mitigation strategies. At
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, staff have been negotiating a voluntary
agreement with the helicopter operators association 1 wiLh assistance from the
FAA.
Park superintendents have an interest in addressing cumulative effects of
aircraft disturbance on wildlife. They also support continued efforts to work
with the military and civilian aircraft operatorS to develop mutually agreeable
solutions. Preparing educational material on the sensitivity of wildlife and
natural areas has been suggested as a means ofreducing disturbance.
http: 1 i ww w nono ise. org/l i brary inprepmti chapter5 .htm 0 I /25/2008
,
NPC Libraty: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa... Page 39 of 43
8. Memorandum dated March 7, 1994 from Superintendent, Glacier National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
9. Memorandum dated March 7. 1994 from Superintendent, Olympic National
Park, to Acting Associate Director, Operations, National Park Service.
Top ofCh:i.nter -~
Table of Con tern~
.R<;:1llm mNPC: Library
Return to NYCl:lqme P,,ge
Conclusion 5.8
5.24
In general, reports from national park about the effects of overflights
on wildlife tend to mirror the points made earlier in this chapter:
animals have been observed to modify the,r behavior in response to
overflights, but without long term study, the consequences of such
modifications can only be inferred.
5.10 Development of Impact Criteria
Studies to-date have verified that physiological and behavioral responses by
wildlife to low-flying aircraft do occur. The nature of these responses suggests
that at least some animals suffer other consequences. The studies by Stockwell
et al. (1991) and Belanger and Bedard (l 989a,b) provide compelling evidence
that energy losses and habitat avoidance are occurring in response to
overflights. Unfortunately, these studies cannot be used to infer damages in
other species or from other overflight regimes. Only a handful of the many
species that inhabit national parks have been studied for responses to
overflights. It is very likely that there are park species that are susceptible to
disturbance that have never been studied. There is also little infonnation
suggesting how flight patterns, frequencies and altitudes affect any species,
http:// www.nonoise.org/library/npreport' chap( er5 .htm O 1/25/2008
NPC Libraiy: Chapter 5 of Rep01t on Effects of Aircraft Overilights on the National Pa. . Page 40 of 43
other than the broad generalizations described earlier. Data to support the
occurrence of damage in a variety of situations would require many years of
extensive and costly research.
It is also not possible to evaluate the after-effects of overflights because in
most cases. animal responses fall across a spectrum so that the question of
whether or not a disturbance occurs cannot be answered with a yes or no. For
example, an overflight generally causes some animals to panic, some to be
mildly disturbed, and some animals to ignore the aircraft. At a lower altitude,
the overflight causes more to panic and fewer to be mildly disturbed? At what
degree of disturbance in what percentage of animals should overflights be
considered detrimental or otherwise unacceptable'' At present, these questions
have only largely subjective answers.
Defining impacts according to some specific, measurable criteria is a useful
first step towards developing a policy. There is no consensus in public or
scientific communities regarding impact definition. The following, categories
of impacts are adapted in part from a matrix of definitions developed by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory staff members Roger Kroodsma and Warren Webb
in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force (Braid 1992). They are meant to help
agencies in determining the severity of impacts. In these definitions, 11 species
of concern" include Federally-or state-listed threatened. endangered, and
candidate species, species of local economic importance, or species of
particular concern to conservation or other interest groups. This definition can
be expanded to include any species that is known to be susceptible to
disturbance. "Habitat" is used to refer to the physical landscape and its
ecosystem components that arc subjected to overflights.
Neglzgible impacts
• No species of concern are present and no or minor impacts on any
species are expected.
• Minor impacts that do occur have no secondary (long-terrn or population)
effects.
fop of Chapter 5
Tabk,_pf Contents
5.25
http ://wwv,, . nonoise. org/ !ibrary/npr·eportl chapters. htm Ol/25!2008
-
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Oveiihghts on the National Pa Page 41 of 43
R;,tum toNPC Library
Retum to NPC Home Pa~
Low impacts
• Non-breeding animals of concern are present in low numbers.
• Habitat is not critical for survival and not limited to the area targeted for
overflight use; other habitat meeting the requirements of animals of
concern is found nearby and is already used by those species.
• Occasional flight responses are expected, but without interference with
feeding, reproduction, or other activities necessary for survival.
• No serious concerns are expressed by state or federal fish and wildlife
officials.
Moderate impacts
• Breeding animals of concern are present, and/or animals are present
during particularly vulnerable life-stages such as migratwn or winter
(depends upon the species in question).
• Mortality or interference with activities necessary to survival are
expected on an occasional basis.
• Mortality and interference are not expected to threaten the continued
existence of the species in the area. State and federal officials express
some concern.
High impacts
• Breeding individuals are present in relatively high numbers, and/or
animals are present during particularly vulnerable life-stages.
• Habitat targeted for overflights has a history of use by the species during
critical periods. and this habitat is somewhat limited to the area targeted
for overflight use; animals cannot go elsewhere to avoid impacts (animals
can rarely 11 relocate" except temporarily).
• Mortality or other effects (injury, physiological stress, effects on
reproduction and young-raising) are expected on a regular basis. These
effects could threaten the continued survival of the species.
• State and federal wildlife officials express serious concern.
This evaluation process relies on the opinions of wildlife managers and
researchers. In general, members of the scientific community agree that
http://www.nonoise, org/li brary/nprepot1/chapt er5. htm 01/25/2008
N'PC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overllights on the National Pa ... Page 42 of 43
damage to animals should not need to be proven before impacts are
considered likely. In the conclusion of the majority of smdies, researchers
caution that, though they cannot prove that impacts occur, overflights that
cause disturbances should be avoided.
In defining what level of dismrbance to park animals by overflights is
unacceptable, the NPS must rely on less than complete infonnation. It is clear
that disturbances can result as direct and indirect effects, and that
consequences may affect survivorship. Until more information is available, it
is recommended that the NPS use the levels of impact listed to "trigger"
actions to eliminate or reduce such impacts. In general, the NPS would regard
situations consistent with "low impacts 11 to warrant monitoring, while
situations that represent ''moderate impacts" or ''high impacts11 would require
pursuit of solutions.
5.11 Summary
A wide range of impacts (dismrbances) to wildlife due to aircraft overflights
have been reported in the literamre. There are many reports of behavioral
responses in animals, these responses are highly variable depending on the
type of study, the species under consideration, spatial and temporal
parameters1 and other broad ecosystem characteristics.
Top of Chap,\er 5
Table of Contents
Return to .. NPC Library
Retunun NPCHome f'~_ge
5.26
Indirect effects on wildlife such as accidental injury, energy losses and
impacts to offspring survival have been documented. Current literamre
supports the argument that aircrati overflights negatively impact wildlife
populations. However, the significance of such impacts is not clear.
Additional studies are still needed to better assist land managers in
~ubstant-iating the effects on population subgroups.
http: ii wv. w. nonoise. org; I ibrary /npreportJ c hapter5. htm 01/2512008
--
NPC Library: Chapter 5 of Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Pa Page 43 of 41
It is certain that some impacts do occur under certain circumstances and that it
is a NPS priority to protect wildlife, especially threatened and endangered
species, whenever a probable impact exists or is expected. Hence, a series of
conditions, applicable system-wide, have been listed that can be used to dd'ine
general levels of impacts. Working with these guidelines at specific parks will
lead to setting of priorities, both for possible alteration of overflight times,
locations and numbers, and for identification of further research needs.
5.27
Next Chapkt
Top qfChaptcr 5
Table of Contents
http://www.nonoise.org/1 ibrary /npreportichapter5 .htm 0 J/25/2008
" ~
C
'
I
EXHIBITD
,l
[
~
"'
~
0)
ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
CD I CO I CORI UC-N1 I UC-N2
Vehicle fueling_ stations
Vehicle fueling stations,_existing legal
Vehicle seivice and repair, large
Vehicle seivice and regair, small
Wrecking yard, auto
Air Transportation Oses
Airplane manufacturing_
Airplane manufacturing, accessory
functions
Airplane _sales__and ree.air
Airport, municipal
Airport-related uses
Aviation-related uses
Helipads, acc~ssory to primary use
Helie.ads, commercial
Hazardous material storage, on-site
or off-site, i_r,cludi_n_g_ treatment
Indoor storaoe
Outdoor stora_g_e
e
Industrial, General
Assembly and/or packaging
ogerations
Commercial laundries, existing_
Commercial laundries, new
PB
p
P I P P I I P p P38
P I P P IAD110I P p P38
AD I P p
P I P P IAD2[AD2 p
H59 H
AC59
AC
p
p
AC
AC
H H38 I H38 H20 H H
H
H24 I H24 I H24
P I P I P I AC11 I AC11 I AC11 I AC11 I AC11 I AC11
P57 I P57 I P57 I I I P64
P58 [ P59 p H26 H26
AD38
p p p
p p p
P38 I P38 I P38 P4
P38 I P38 I P38
Blank=Not Allowed P#=Permltted AD=Administrative Conditional Use AC:Accessory Use
P=Permltted Use provided condition can be met H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Conditlon(s)
P86
Uses may be further restricted by; RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas
Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations
p
AC
H97
H97
P104
...
I\:
6
0:
C r
E -City Council Minotes
EXHIBITE
CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned City Clerk oft~e
City of Renton, Washington, certify
that this is a true and correct cop~ of
3/2.4/00 Minutes . Subscnbed
and sealed this 18 d2Jf April, 20.W..
&rn;ti~ c{~rk~Walton RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular rvleeting
~······, r
-··, ) ····March 24, 200s
~ rvr~~y, 7 p.m. ·~ ..
. .....
CAJ:L TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE
SPECIAL
PRESENTATIONS
Public Works: Employee
Recognition
Community Services; Sister
City Visit to Nishiwaki, Japan
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning: Development
Regulations {Title IV) Docket
MINUTES
Council Chambers
Renton City Hall
Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance lo the flag.
MARCIE PALMER, Council President; GREG TAYLOR; RICH ZWICKER;
TERRI BRIERE; KING PARKER; DON PERSSON. MOVED BY PALMER,
SECONDED BY PARKER. COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER RANDY COR,\1AN. CARRIED.
DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer;
LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk;
GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH,
Community and Economic DeYelopment Administrator; ERIKA CONKLING.
Senior Planner; ANGELA MATHIAS, Assistant Planner; TERRY
HIGASHIY AMA, Community Services Administrator; SONJA
MEJLAENDER, Community Relations and Event Coordinator; MARTY
WINE, Assistant CAO; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director;
DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE and DEPUTY CHIEF MARK
PETERSON, Fire Department; COMMANDER DAVID LEIBMAN, Police
Department.
Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmem1an recognized the -
Planning/Building/Public \Vorks employees nominated and chosen by their
peers to receive 2007 Good Work awards-, as follows; Principal Financial and
Administrative Analyst Nenita Ching, Engineering Specialist Jun Aesquivd,
and Comtruction Inspector Pat Miller. Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic Tom
Guesman· was selected as the 2007 Planning/Building/Public Works Employee
of the Year.
Mr. Zimmerman then announced that the follO\ving employees who contributed
to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank project were
awarded the 2007 Good Teamwork Award: Parks Director Le8lie Bctlach,
Senior Planner Jill Ding (former employee); Utility Engineering Supervisor
Dave Christensen, Mapping Coordinator Bob Mac Onie, Civil Engineer Allen
Quynn, and Utility Engineering Supervisor Ron Straka.
Community Relations and Event Coordinator Mejlaender introduced Roger
Richert, Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Corrnnittee Chairman, who reviewed the
history and evolution of the Renton and Nishiwaki relationship, which began in
1969. Pointing out that the Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Committee became an
official committee of the City in 1994, Mr. Richert detailed the striking
similarities between the two cities.
Ms. Mejlaender named the 16 delegates who will visit Nishiwaki from April 5
to 12, and she reviewed the itinerary for the trip. In conclusion, Ms. Mejlaender
and Assistant CAO Wine displayed the gift that will be presented to the Mayor
ofNishiwaki during the trip, a glass blown square shaped platter from Uptown
Glassworks to add to 1he collection of previous art given by the City of Renton.
This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
accordance with local and State law8, Mayor Law· opened the public hearing to
consider revisions to the following City Code Title IV (Development
March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 93
Regulations) docket items: Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Zone,
Assisted Living, Helipads, and Utilities Height.
Reporting on the docket item concerning the COR zone, Assistant Planner
Mathias explained that each of the current three COR zone designations were
generally assigned to single, large properties with unique attributes. The
proposed revisions will consolidate the COR zone into one designation, place
the COR zone in Urban Design District C, and place the COR zone with the
parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations.
Turning to the docket item concerning assisted living, Ms. Mathias stated that
Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living, and the proposal
includes implementing a new definition for assisted living and for multi-family
assisted living; revising the definition for convalescent centers; striking the
retirement residences definition; applying density to assisted living facilities;
allowing assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone; limiting assisted living
facilities to 18 units in the R-l and R-10 zones; and establishing parking
standards of one space per unit, plus dedicated parking for facility fleet vehicles.
Continuing, Ms. Mathias reviewed the proposed revisions to the height
requirements for utilities, which include: allowing additional height for
aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities, treating
public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height with public art, and adding
language to allow administrative modification of setbacks and lot coverage to
trigger site plan review.
Senior Planner Conkling reported on the docket item concerning helipads. She
indicated that helipads are currently allowed with a Hearing Examiner
conditional use pennit in commercial, industrial, and urban center zones. Ms.
Conkling noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates
helipad construction, siting, and all airspace issues, including the approach for
take-offs and landings.
Ms. Conkling explained that the proposed revision will allow helipads in the R-
8 zone, if accessory to a residential use, with a Hearing Examiner conditional
use permit. The helipad use is limited to properties fronting Lake Washington,
where one seaplane per residence is already allowed. Additionally, compliance
with FAA regulations is required, and properties will be limited to one aircraft.
In conclusion, Ms. Conkling reported that the Planning and Development
Committee will review this group of docket items and then present a report to
the full Council. She noted that the Environmental Review Committee's
determination regarding the helipads has been appealed to the Hearing
Examiner; therefore, the Committee will not review that docket item until the
appeal issue has been settled.
In response to Council inquiries, Ms. Mathias stated that the funding for graphic
treatments on water tanks is usually part of a new construction budget or a
maintenance upgrade, and the cost averages out to be approximately one percent
of the budget. Ms. Conkling estimated that seven or eight of the lakefront
properties may be eligible to have a helipad. She indicated that when approving
private helipads, the FAA prohibits the allowance of an approach over a
residential area; however, helicopters are not prohibited from flying over
Kennydale Hill. Ms. Conkling explained that a helicopter would land on the
ground unless it has pontoons. A seaplane lands on the water, is usually placed
on a surface, and is pulled onto the lake and taxis off from there.
Public comment was invited.
March 24, 2008 Renton City Council !vlinutcs Page 94
The following speakers spoke in support of the hclipad proposal: Steve
Maxwell (Renton); Robert Watson (Seattle); Marlene Winter (Renton); Dr. Paul
Joos (Renton); Dorothy Simpson (Mercer Island); Gary Pipkin (Renton);
Charlie Conner (Renton), who also submitted 46 support signatures and a
support letter from Monica Fix (Renton); Gene Hcuschel (Renton); Sharon
Smith (Renton); Kim Bowden (Renton); Buzz Dana (Renton); Jerr-y Brennan
(Renton); Brian Fife (Renton); Joe Boehme (Renton); Tom Dahlby (Renton);
Don Jacobson (Renton); Marc Pritchard (Renton); Don Savoy (Renton); John
Hempelmann (Seattle); Kelly Grace (Renton); Steve Porter (Renton); Mike
Holmes (Renton); Steve Miller (Renton); Jim Hess (Renton); Bob Goetz
(Renton); Carr-ie Krape (Renton); Pat Dana (Renton); Kevin Iden (Renton); and
Bill Stoneman (Renton).
Support comments indicated that the Jakefront community will be a more
interesting place to Jive due to all of the activity; the noise is minimal; the
neighborhood will be improved; the lake is enjoyed in many ways, which
includes the use of aircraft; space requirements to land helicopters are very
restrictive; safe environment in which to operate helicopters; zoning revision
will result in only a few helipads; Renton is a progressive city; property values
will be enhanced; helicopters will add to the character of the City; increased
quality of life; reflection of Renton's aviation history; requirement for
conditional use permit will shepherd the use of helicopters in this area; the
majority of the City of Issaquah's helicopter rules are FAA requirements; and
helicopters are under the control of the Renton Airport unlike at other cities.
Other comments included: important to maintain affected properties' seaplane
sites and that potential use for any future owners; helipads should be considered
in the same manner as seaplane sites; helicopter approaches are not allowed
over Kennydale Hill; air traffic issues are regulated by the FAA; potential
usefulness of helicopters during public disaster situations; property rights
maintained; lack of notice for public hearing; preference for City to use the
administrative conditional use permit process; and helicopters are not operated
when the weather is marginal.
The following speakers spoke in opposition of the proposal: Joanie Rosling
(Renton), John DuBois (Renton), Pegi Galster (Renton), Victoria Kapetan
(Renton), Kim Loulias (Renton), Bill Johnson (Renton), John Middlebrooks
(Renton), Brian Shine (Renton), Trudy Neumann (Renton), and Mark Hancock
(Seattle).
Objections included increased noise; helipads will only benefit a few people to
the detriment of the entire Kennydale neighborhood; helicopters require
considerable skill and continued practice to fly; the lack of a noise study;
decreased property values; public safety concerns; reduced quality of life; large
amount of noise already endured in the neighborhood; lack of tangible benefits
for the entire City; and the efforts of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee
are countered.
Other comments indicated that the Renton Airport is nearby, therefore private
helipads are not needed; the City oflssaquah has numerous rules regarding the
operation of helicopters; the environmental issues have been overlooked; the
allowance of helicopters with floats reduces safety hazard; helicopters do not
belong in residential neighborhoods or on the water front; large birds may
present safety hazard to the helicopter; water-based helipad should be required;
legal issue concerns if an accident occurs; helicopters fly over Kennydale Hill
and cause disruptions; even distribution of the costs and benefits of the
March 24, 2008
RECESS
APPEAL
Planning & Development
Committee
Appeal: Monopole Conditional
Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07-
065
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Galster -
Title IV Docket Review,
He Ii pads
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Meeting Minutes of
3/17/2008
Board/Commission: Planning
Commission Membership
Expansion
Planning: Development
Regulations (Title IV) Docket
Review
Human Services: Regional
Affordable Housing Program
Fund Usage, King County
Utility: White Fence Ranch
Sewer Extension Geotechnical
Services, Kleinfelder
Renton City Council Minutes Page 95
disruptions to people's lives is needed; helicopters are dangerous and noisy; the
conditional use permit process creates and continues confusion; preference for a
third party to test the helicopter noise; and a better ordinance is needed.
Correspondence in support of the helipad proposal was acknowledged from
Thomas R. Dahlby and Kathleen I. Dahlby (Renton). Correspondence in
opposition to the proposal was acknowledged from the following: Sandy
Reisman ( city of residence unknown); Thomas and Judith Skillman (Renton);
Kim Loulias (Renton); Paul and Tami Skelton (Renton); Jodi Watson (Renton);
Linda Fry (city of residence unknown); Robert L. Undsderfer (Renton); Belly
Childers and Steve Denison (Renton); John Middlebrooks (Renton); Mary
Lowry and Mike Lowry (Renton); and Joanie Rosling (Renton).
Correspondence regarding the proposal was also acknowledged from Steve F.
( city of residence unknown) and Marleen Mandt ( city of residence unknown).
There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL RECESS
FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9: 12 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9: 17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers
present except Corman, previously excused.
Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker announced that the hearing
regarding the T-Mobile monopole conditional use pem1it appeal was continued
to April 4 at I :30 p.m.
Pegi Galster (Renton) requested that before making a decision on the matter of
the proposed zoning revision that would allow helipads in certain R-8-zoned
properties, the City hire a consultant to conduct a noise study. She also urged
Council to read the documentation she submitted regarding noise.
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Approval of Council meeting minutes of3/l 7/2008. Council concur.
Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval to
expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur.
(See page 97 for ordinance.)
Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of
Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones
and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to
Planning and Development Committee.
Human Services Division requested approval of an agreement with King
County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill) 2060 local low income
housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to
Community Services Committee.
Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount
of $35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension
Project geotechnical services. Council concur.
March 24, 2008
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Finance Committee
Finance: Vouchers
Finance: Utility Tax Non-
Payment, Penalty and Interest
Collection
Finance: Capital Funding
Financial Policy
Human Resources:
Reclassifications (7 Positions),
Application Support Manager
Hire
Transportation (Aviation)
Committee
Streets: Renaming, SE
Petrovitsky Rd & SE Carr Rd
Renton City Council Minutes Page 96
MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of
Claim Vouchers 270147 -270645 and two wire transfers totaling
$4,204,144.65; and approval of 183 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and
702 direct deposits totaling $2,543,348.68. MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending
concurrence with the staff recommendation that the City Code be amended to
provide for interest and penalties for late payment of utility taxes due lo the
City. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this
matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED
BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED. (See page 97 for ordinance.)
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding capital funding
Financial Management Policies revisions. As a result of the review of Fund
Balance Reserves and the annual Capital Improvement Plan, the Committee
recommended that the Financial Management Policies be revised as follows:
L Add the Farmers Market Fund previously approved by Ordinance 5360.
2. Add a new internal service fund for City facilities enabling the tracking and
planning for expenses related to providing facilities for use by City staff.
3. Revise the capital project budget process to provide for project length
budgeting of capital projects. This will eliminate the need to break a long-
term capital project into annual budget increments and improve reporting.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending
concurrence in the staff recommendation to reclassify positions and create pay
ranges for City departments effective II 1/2008. Funds to implement this
recommendation are provided in the 2008 Budget. The positions are as follows:
Civil Engineer I (vacant), grade al 9 to a2 l, no budget change.
Recreation Supervisor to Recreation Manager (vacant), grade m25 to m28,
no budget change.
Lead Building Inspector (new position), a24, no budget change.
Lead Code Compliance Inspector (new position), a22, no budget change.
Planning Director (new position), m38, no budget change.
Water Utility Instrumentation/SCADA Technician, a19, no budget change.
Risk Manager (new position), m30, no budget change.
Additionally, the Committee concurred with the staff recommendation to permit
the filling of the Application Support Manager position on 3/17/2008 in
anticipation of the retirement of a long-term City employee on 5/1/2008, in
order to facilitate a smooth transaction. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED
BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Transportation (Aviation) Committee Vice Chair Persson presented a report
regarding SE Petrovitsky Rd. and SE Carr Rd. street names. The Committee
met to discuss a request to review the street naming for the SE Petrovitsky Rd.,
SE Carr Rd., and S. 176th St. arterial route through the Benson Hill
March 24, 2008
RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Added
Resolution #3937
Transportation: I-405 Corridor
Program Support
Board/Commission: Planning
Commission Membership
Expansion
Finance: Utility Tax Non-
Payment, Penalty and Interest
Collection
Ordinance #5364
EDNSP: Dry Docks Removal
Waiver of Permit Fees, Budget
Amend
Renton City Council Minutes
Communities Annexation area. The newly annexed area had these three
different names for the same arterial route.
Page 97
The street names in the City of Renton arc designated by City Code, Chapter 11,
Street Grid System. For most of the Benson Hill Communities Annexation
area, the street names remained unchanged following annexation. City Code
Section 9-11-6.A.3 does require that the segments of SE Carr Rd., SE 176th St,
and SE Petrovitsky Rd. be renamed SE Carr Rd., west of I 08th Ave. SE, and SE
Petrovitsky Rd., east of I 08th Ave. SE. These changes have been made by City
staff, which affects 27 property owners in the annexation area. These street
names correspond to the existing street names on the route east and west of the
annexation area.
The Committee recommended that no further action be taken at this time on
street name changes for this arterial route. MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL BRING
FORWARD THE ADDED RESOLUTION REGARDING SUPPORT FOR
THE l-405 CORRIDOR PROGRAM. CARRIED.
A resolution was read reaffirming Ren ton's support of the 1-405 Corridor
Program record of decision finalized in October 2002, particularly full
implementation of the bus rapid transit concept. MOVED BY PERSSON,
SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
READ. CARRIED. Councilmember Persson indicated that this matter has
been discussed several times in Conunittee of the Whole.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 4/7/2008 for second and final reading:
An ordinance was read amending Chapter IO, Planning Commission, of Title II
(Commissions and Boards) of City Code by increasing the membership of the
Planning Commission from seven to nine. MOVED BY BRIERE,
SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/7/2008. CARRIED.
An ordinance was read amending Section 2, Utility Tax; When Due, of Chapter
11, Utility Tax, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by
adding two new subsections, "A," Penalties For Nonpayment, and "B," Interest.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/7/2008.
CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and
adoption:
An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget, allocating $200,000 from
the unallocated reserve fund balance from 2007 for derelict vessel removal
projects. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES.
CARRIED.
March 24, 2008
Ordinance #5365
Board/Commission: Municipal
Arts Commission Revisions
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Citizen Comment: Gitchel -
Monopole Conditional Use
Permit Appeal, T-Mobile, CU-
07-041
ADJOURNMENT
Recorder: Michele Neumann
March 24, 2008
Renton City Council Minutes Page 98
An ordinance was read amending Chapter 8, Municipal Arts Commission, of
Title II (Commissions and Boards) of City Code by introducing a five-year
Master Plan for Arts and Culture; clarifying how funding is established and
adjusted for the 1 % for Art Fund; and scheduling the annual review of the two-
year plan for projects slated for the I% for Art Fund, to be completed during the
annual City budget preparation process. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED
BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL
CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED.
In response to the inqui,y of Chuck Gitchel (Renton) regarding the T-Mobilc
monopole conditional use permit appeal, Councilmember Parker stated that the
Planning and Development Committee will present its recommendation
regarding the matter to the full Council on April 7.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL AD.TOUR~.
CARRIED. Time: 9:39 p.m.
~,i,'4: w~
Bonnie 1. Walton, CMC, City Clerk
RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR
Office of the City Clerk
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 24, 2008
I COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
(Palmer)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
(Briere)
FINANCE
(Persson)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
(Parker)
PUBLIC SAFETY
(Taylor)
DATE/TIME
MON., 3/31
MON., 4/07
6p.m.
MON., 4/07
5p.m.
THURS., 4/03
3 p.m.
FRI., 4/04
1:30 p.m.
MON.,4/07
TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 3/27
(Corman)
UTILITIES THURS., 4/03
(Zwicker)
AGENDA
No Meeting (5th Monday)
!.:merging Issues in Transportation;
Regional Committees and Issues Update
*Council Conference Room*
Lee Chicoine Appointment to Airport
Advisory Committee;
Regional Affordable Housing Program
Agreement with King County
City Code Title IV (Development
Regulations) Docket;
Annexation Fees
Appeal ofT-Mobile Monopole
Conditional Use Permit
*Council Chambers*
CANCELLED
CANCELLED
CANCELLED
NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted All other committee meetings are held in the Council
Conference Room unless otherwise noted.
"Tl
'
i
i
I
EXHIBITF
2007 DOCKET-HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
ISSUE: Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential-eight units per net acre)
along Lake Washington?
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to
residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit.
BACKGROUND: In summer 2007, the City was contacted by a person complaining
about a neighbor landing a helicopter in the residential neighborhood. Code compliance
officers investigated the claim and began working with the helicopter owner on this issue.
The helicopter owner applied for a Temporary Use Permit, to allow him to operate a
helipad on his property. hi the course of processing this permit, the Development
Services division gathered comments from more than 50 interested parties. Although
some were opposed to the operation of a helipad in this area, the vast majority were in
favor of allowing this use.
The City of Renton zoning code regulates helipads used for commercial purposes, as well
as helipads which are accessory to a primary use. Accessory uses are activities that are
subordinate or incidental to the main use of the property. Usually the uses are related to
the main use, for example: outdoor materials storage for a manufacturing plant, a small
workshop or extra garage behind someone's home, a home daycare business, or a drive
through feature at a fast food restaurant or bank. Renton currently allows helipads as an
accessory use with a conditional use permit issued by the Hearing Examiner in the light,
medium and heavy industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the
Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone, and the
Urban Center North I (UC-NI) zone. Helipads are currently prohibited in all residential
zones.
There are two types of conditional use permits issued by the City of Renton.
Administrative conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Zoning
Administrator for final decision making. Hearing Examiner conditional use permits are
reviewed by staff and presented at a public hearing in which the Hearing Examiner makes
the final decision on approval or denial of the permit. Both processes require public
notification and comment and both processes are subject to review under the decision
criteria in RMC 4-9-030. These criteria instruct the reviewing official to consider the
following factors in deciding whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit and
include consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need,
effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and
the production of noise and glare.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the design, siting, and use of
helipads. Those who wish to establish a helipad, even for private use, must submit a
proposal to the FAA for review and approval. As part of the approval process, the FAA
conducts an aeronautical study to review safety issues and to ensure the helipad meets
I
applicable design criteria. FAA rules do not allow aircraft to approach landing spaces
over residential neighborhoods. As a result, only lake front properties would be
considered for possible helipad use. Furthermore, the FAA regulates the size ofhelipads
based on the size of aircraft that will land there. Even with the smallest size of
helicopter, only a few properties are large enough to accommodate an FAA approved
facility.
Two other communities in the area allow private helipads on residential lands. Hunts
Point welcomes private helipads as a lifestyle choice and for the services they may
provide in case of emergency. Redmond allows properties with frontage on Lake
Sammamish to have a helipad for the use of a single aircraft. Other communities in the
area do not allow helipads in residential areas unless they are established and used for
emergency purposes only.
Under RMC 4-3-090 L(l)b, Specific Use Regulations ofRenton's Shoreline Master
Program, residences along the lake front are allowed to use seaplanes. Seaplanes are
limited to one per residence, and for private use only. Thus, the ability to use aircraft
along the waterfront is well established. Additionally, many of the neighbors writing to
the City in support of the specific proposal for the establishment of a helipad last summer
expressed the importance of maintaining aviation uses for lake front properties. Aviation
uses provide a number of potential benefits for lake front property owners including:
recreation, increased property values, entertainment, transportation, and lifestyle
enhancement. Allowing helipad use on residential properties abutting Lake Washington
is a natural extension of the provisions that allow sea plane useage.
The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8
zone with an administrative conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a
note on the zoning use table that read:
Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington.
Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) guidelines for siting and design.
In addition, the permit would be subject to the standard conditional use review criteria in
RMC 4-9-030, as described above. Neighbors would be given the opportunity to
comment on each specific helipad proposal through this process. The Administrator also
has the ability to condition approval of the conditional use permit based upon such
comments. Complying with FAA and City of Renton provisions should ensure that
helipad uses are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: This proposed zoning code amendment
does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan. The purpose of the Single Family Residential land use designation is to create
quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Throughout the City, different neighborhoods
may have different factors that contribute to a quality environment. For properties on
Lake Washington, the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, and
transportation purposes has always been an important factor in the lifestyle choices and
quality of the neighborhood.
2
CONCLUSION: Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are already allowed as accessory
uses for properties abutting Lake Washington. This code change would allow property
owners to operate either a seaplane or a helicopter from their property. Proposed
helipads would have to meet all FAA guidelines as well as the criteria for a conditional
use permit under RMC 4-9-030 in order to be approved. These measures should ensure
that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3
C>
'
EXHIBITG
--;;~Y 0 ~~~ ~~< ~'N'1'
2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING
March 24, 2008
1. COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (CORI, COR 2, COR 3) with varied
development standards. These three different designations have two different maxnnum densities, two
different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. The intent of having three
different COR zones was to address the nried conditions of the sites including their em·ironmentally
sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. .~!any of the
COR parcels are largely built out with projects that are completed or underway making the specialized
need for three different sub-zones no longer necessary. Consolidating the COR zone into one designation
is appropriate and simplifies existing code. Applying a minimum density of 30 dwelling units/acre and a
maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is appropriate in fostering the Comprehensi,·e Plan
intension of creating compact urban development. The proposed standards are outline below.
Additionally, in order to ensure that the development that occurs fulfills the policies and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the COR zone should be place in Design District C. Proposed changes comply
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and
Development Committtee consider them.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Consolidate the three existing COR zones into one zone:
o Eliminate the height and density bonus provisions
o Set the minimum density at 30 du/acre
o Set maximum density at 50 du/acre
o Place two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and fa,ade modulation in
the development regulations table
o Strike instances of COR I, COR 2, or COR 3 and replace with COR
• Place the COR zone in Urban Design District C
• Place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/mult1-fa1111ly 10ning
designations
2. ASSISTED LIVING CODE AMENDMENT
The City of Renton currently docs not have a definition for assisted living. However, there are definitions
for retirement residence and convalescent centers. Assisted living is a type of housing for older people
that has been in place for a number of years, the City needs to respond and include a new definition for
this housing type and implement some new standards regarding this type of housing. Assisted living
facilities develop with smaller unit sizes and with a different unit mix than the average apartment
building. This makes it appropriate to allow assisted living facilities a ratio to apply to the maximum
density of the zone they seek to build in. The amount or parking required at assisted living facilities
needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents do bring cars.
However, not all residents of assisted living facilities have cars. A requirement of one parking space per
one residential unit will balance the parking needs for staff and guests with the cars brought with
residents. Finally, limitations on the maximum number assisted living residential units allowed in the R-
I zone are appropriate to ensure the residential character of that zone. Proposed changes comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and Development
Committtee consider them.
I
RECOMMENDATION:
• Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff
administers an element of personal care to residents.
• Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and
convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care.
• Implement a new definition for multi-family assisted living.
• Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of I .5 units per the
base density of the zone.
o Example: an assisted living facility that wanted to locate in the RMF zone would
determine density by multiplying 1.5 x 20 to determine a maximum number of residential
units of 30.
• Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living
facilities in the R-14 zone. Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zone to a maximum
of 18 total residential units per acre.
• Require I parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for
facility fleet vehicles.
3_ HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an
approved conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that
limits sites to a single aircraft, restricts the use to properties along Lake Washington, and direct hclipads
to be in compliance with FAA guidelines.
In summer 2007, the City was alerted to the operation of a helipad from a residential property along Lake
Washington. Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, arc allowed in that area, but helipads are prohibited in the
R-8 zone. A line in the zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) allows helipads as an accessory use in a number
of commercial and industrial zones (IL, IM, II-!, CA, CO, COR, UC-NI and UC-N2) with an approved
Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Several property owners along Lake Washington have
expressed their support for aviation uses in general, and specifically for helicopters, in their
neighborhood.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates helipads and has jurisdiction over air traffic. FAA
approval of a hclipad includes an aeronautical study of the pad's construction and dimensions, the
approach to the pad (which must not be over any residential property), and known flight paths.
Aeronautical studies are based on the specific aircraft to be used on the site, so the exact dimensions
necessary to safely operate a helipad can vary. However, even with a very small helicopter, only about
nine properties along Lake Washington would ha, e enough space for a helipad (unless the existing home
was significantly reduced in size).
Conditional use permits are subject to review criteria in Rt\1C 4-9-030, which includes consideration of:
compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility
with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. Conditional use permits
can include reasonable conditions, such as limitation on hours of operation, that address community
concerns and ensure that the use is safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. Renton has both an
Administrative and a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Both include public notification, but the
latter allows for an open public hearing and a better opportunity for public involvement.
FAA and City measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and
compatible with surrounding land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a
Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
I
• Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake
Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit
• Planning Commission recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on
properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit.
4. MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR UTILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
BACKGROUND:
• Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones are two stories and 30 feet. Above ground and
elevated water tanks cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses
of the facilities.
, Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks,
street lighting systems, traffic signals. domes lie water system; storm and sanilary sewer systems.
park and recreation .facilities, schools, public buildings
, In the past, variances have been granted to height standards for the construction of new public
facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this
instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on
the physical constraints of the parcel.
• The Hearing Examiner requested this code amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility
facilities.
o 175 feet for aboveground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water
treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir.
o 50 feet maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facilities, and pump
stations.
, Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the
administrative site plan review process.
, Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process.
• Require graphic treatment of water tanks.
o Public art to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission
• Cost of public art on water tanks
o Staff contacted three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of
Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, and Northshore Utility District)
and a Renton-based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in
the Puget Sound area.
o Usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade.
o $30,000 for 3-million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall for a two colors tree pattern 360 ° in
circumference.
o $18,000 for design and painting and covered 180" of the tank's circumference.
o Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District has recently cleaned and painted a 7-
million gallon tank with a mural for $25,000.
I
I
EXHIBITH
\
I
.-:,~-
Mercer Isla1ntl
, I
· "-:PioffeerPa:r<k
I
iMAP
" i
~
~
~
)i:
" ~ ~
'
5
1·
" ' I \ !;
!
" I
-·--~~-~Itt sr
' '; •,
~'
< ~.
-•
I
'
I
EXHIBIT I
'-
m
i.
EXHIBIT J
Erika Conkling -Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-
004ECF and MONS
From: CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
To: 'Erika Conkling' <EConkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 01/30/2008 1:00 PM
Page I of7
Subject: Planning Commission input Regarding LUA 08-004ECF and
MDNS
CC: "John W. Hempelmann (E-mail)"
<jhempelmann@cairncross.com>, "Anne F. Simpson (E-mail)"
<annesimpson@comcast.net>
Planning Commission Members
Erika Conkling
Regarding LUA 08-004ECF
Dear Commissioners,
This letter is intended to respond to comments from the few citizens
who have questions about the proposed Code Amendment, but let me
first quickly summarize some of the very positive comments from the
many citizens who support the proposal. The overwhelming
sentiments in the community are that Lake Washington is a very
vibrant, active, noisy environment. That vitality is what attracts most
people to the Lake; they appreciate all the activities and believe
helicopters should be allowed on lakefront properties. They
understand that the impacts of helicopters are minimal, less than those
of other unrestricted uses on the lake and that they add interest and
utility. Most important they believe that people should have the
freedom to pursue their own interests as long as they are not harming
others or the environment.
Studies Show Insignificant Environmental Impact:
Helicopters have less impact on wildlife, fisheries, and the quality of
water, air, soil and hydrology than seaplanes or boats. From a
mechanical standpoint taxiing a seaplane or any other watercraft from
the water up on to the shoreline has more impact on the lake bottom
file://C:\Docwnents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 2 of7
and shoreline than landing a helicopter inboard of the high water line.
This is allowed in the current code as well as in other jurisdictions such
as Mercer Island. Both involve similar noise and wind but the
helicopter does not create a wake, contact the lakebed or shoreline. It
is more like driving a very light car in the yard, which is also allowed
without permit or restriction.
Helicopters do not discharge oil or fuel into the water as powered
watercraft do.
Federal studies have shown that helipads and helicopter operations
have virtually no impact on the environment, for example:
The National Science Foundation prepared an Initial
Environmental Evaluation {IEE) and an Environmental
Assessment (EA) as a combined environmental document, for the
placement of a prefabricated helicopter landing pad at the Lake
Bonney field camp in the Taylor Valley, Antarctica. It determined
that implementation is not a major federal action which would
have a significant effect on the human environment, within the
meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969. The action is not one which would have more than a minor
or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment, within the
meaning of the NS F's implementing regulations for the Protocol
on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement and/or a comprehensive
environmental evaluation will not be prepared.
http://huey.colorado.edu/L TER/assessments/eis 121896.html
Contrary to the statement by Mr. Rosling, eagles are not an
endangered species; they were delisted on June 28, 2007 and in fact
regularly hunt the shoreline where a helicopter is currently based. The
Bald Eagle Protection Act does prohibit "take" of eagles. Take is
defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty as "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, possess or collect". Flying an aircraft to or from a destination
does not fit into any of those categories. If it did then all aircraft flying
from the Renton airport would engage in a "take".
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .HTM 01/30/2008
Page 3 of7
Noise is within maximum permissible level at the property line of a lot
wide enough to meet FAA helipad guidelines, (Chapter 70.197RCW
and Chapter 173-60WAC) of 55 decibels (db), plus 10 db for a total of
65 db for maximum 5 minutes, ?On db is allowed for 1.5 minutes,.
According to FAA data, the MD 500 helicopter generates 88db on
approach, and 80 db at idle, the degradation of sound at 32' is 24 db
(6db for each doubling of distance starting at measurement point of 2')
therefore it is well within the parameters of permissible noise for a
residential zone, as the machine stabilization idle time is 1 minute at
start up and 2 minutes for shut down. These data have been verified
by on site testing and are corroborated by:
http://www.faa.gov/abouUoffice erg/headquarters offices/AEP/noise le
Jim Catalano, Accoustical Engineer Argus Pacific Inc. 1900 West
Nickerson Street Suite 315, Seattle, WA 98119 and the MD500
operations manual.
For comparison purposes chainsaws and blowers generate about
100db.
The noise made by a helicopter is infrequent, non-repetitive and
intermittent.
For private owner operators, departures and landings are typically
spaced from about 30 minutes to weeks apart, for an average of about
50 flights per year. The lake is a noisy environment, particularly in
Kennydale due to the proximity of the airport, which predates most of
us.
Additionally Chapter 70.1137RCW and Chapter 173-60WAC states that
"sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds originating from
airports are exempt".
No Significant Increase in Helicopter Landings on Lake
Washington Shoreline:
There is unlikely to be a significant increase in the number of helicopter
landings or helipads on lake Washington in Renton because of the
following facts:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 4 of7
• There are few helicopter owner operators
• Helicopters are more expensive to own, fly and maintain than an
airplane of similar capacity.
• It costs about half as much to charter a floatplane with the same
capacity as a helicopter
• If you needed a to hire a helicopter you would probably drive to the
airport rather than have a helicopter pick you up at your property
due to the added expense and logistics of landing at an unfamiliar
location.
In the city of Renton on Lake Washington there are:
• 132 residential lots
• Only 7 lots which could possibly accommodate helicopter without
tearing a home down, 4 of which are on Mountain View Avenue,
including the only lakefront opponent of the proposed zoning code
change.
• Only 1 other helicopter rated pilot living on the lake, he owns an
airplane based at his residence and his lot is of insufficient size to
accommodate a helicopter.
Hunts Point has no restrictions on helicopters and there are
• 141 lots on Lake Washington all of which are large enough to
accommodate helicopters
• 5+ helicopter rated pilots .
• Only 1 helicopter is based there, part time in summers
Redmond has the same code as Renton's proposed new code and
there are:
• 110 lots on Lake Sammamish
• Only 1 permanently based helicopter in a hangar integral to a
home .
• 1 additional helicopter based there occasionally.
Regarding the fear of a proliferation of helicopters and heliports, the
training requirements, expense and limited availability of landing sites
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 5 of7
with safe approaches are the practical limitations that currently limit the
number of helicopters where they are currently allowed.
Code and Shoreline Issues:
Helicopters are consistent with Renton's shoreline master plan, though
not specifically listed, due to their similarity with floatplanes. Other
jurisdictions which allow helicopters make no mention of either
floatplanes or helicopters in their shoreline master plans. If
construction were necessary to create a helipad shoreline regulations
may apply.
It has been suggested that the proposed zoning change is too brief,
that lssaquah's would be a better model, however much of the text is
simply a repeat of FAA rules already in force and therefore a
redundant waste of resources. Additional conditions restricting flight
are in the domain of the FAA and no municipality has the authority to
unilaterally modify. It is not feasible to limit flight operations other than
landings and departures because of where an aircraft is based. It is
not possible to discriminate among aircraft because of where they are
based. Flight restrictions are the purview of the FAA and have to
include all class of aircraft.
Safety and Airspace Jurisdiction:
The FAA is concerned with the flight safety. Notifying and
communicating with the FAA is not a requirement, the FAA does not
require that helicopters land at an airport or heliport. Being in contact
with the Renton Control tower is a requirement as all lots on Lake
Washington in Renton are within their control zone. There are both
floatplanes and helicopters based on Lakes Washington and
Sammamish at locations neither designated as heliports or seaplane
bases. Seaplanes are not required to taxi anywhere to "rev up" their
engines, they are restricted to speeds of less than 8 mph within 300' of
shore or structures while on the surface of the water. Approaches and
departures over water are recognized as the safest other than over flat
unpopulated ground. Unlike airplanes, engine out emergency landings
in helicopters require very little open space. Contrary to the opinion of
Mr. Galster in "engine out" situations helicopters are more
maneuverable than fixed wing aircraft, able to make near vertical
file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .HTM 01/30/2008
Page 6 of7
descents and land at speeds of 10 mph or less with a ground run of
less than 30 feet. Most airplanes must land at speeds of over 50 mph
and take hundreds of feet to stop.
Much of the opposition discussion is directed at aviation and
helicopters in general. The concerns will not be alleviated by
restricting helicopter operations to the airport, in fact doing so would
exacerbate the perceived problem as helicopters would then have to
overfly homes to get to the airport, which they do not have to do
operating from lake front properties. Those that state they can hear a
helicopter from lower or upper Kennydale have no idea where it came
from unless they recognize it and know it's base, as they cannot see it
land or depart. Standard altitude for helicopters in the east channel is
500' (Pattern altitude for aircraft over Kennydale is 800'). At a
departure climb of 40kts and 1,000 feet per minute a helicopter will be
500 above ground/water level at a distance of 2100'. There is no
minimum altitude required over water for any type of aircraft.
No Complaints from Prior Neighbors in Over a Decade
Between the years of 1989 and 2002 I flew the same type of helicopter
from my home on Lake Sammamish and neither I nor the local
jurisdiction received any complaints. By typically flying between the
hours of 8 am and 10 pm and talking with neighbors prior to flights
outside of those hours I was able to avoid any conflict.
Conclusion:
Helicopter landings on lake front properties are clearly of no greater
impact to the community and environment than Seaplane operations
from private residences. The vast majority of our community welcomes
them. For all the reasons stated here a Determination of Non-
Significance is appropriate as is approval of the proposed zoning code
modification.
Thank You,
Charlie Conner
3001 Mountain View Avenue North
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 01/30/2008
Page 7 of7
Renton Wa. 98056
I
file://C:\Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l.HTM 01/30/2008
;,r;:
' I
m
i
EXHIBITK
May 1, 2008
Ms~ Erica Conkling
Community and 1::.em~1<11"'mm;1c Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Planning Commission input regarding LUA 0&-004ECF and MONS
Dear Ms. Conkling:
It has recently come lo my attention that you receilled a letter from Mr. Charlie Conner regarding his
pennil application to build a heliport on his property. On page 3 of his letter dak!d 1/30J2008, Mr. Conner
referenced sound level measurements that were made on his property showing attenuation of sound
levels at various dis1ances, and he implied that I made these measurements. The purpose of this
correspondence is to emphasize lhat I never evaluated the noise generated by his helicopter, nor did I
ever make any of the measurements discussed in his letter to the Planning Commission. Although his
letter does not specifically stale that I made the referenced measurements, he clearly implied that I did
so. Another, potentially more serious misstatement in Mr. Conner's oommunlcation is his reference that I
am an acoustical engineer. I am not, nor did I ever represent myself lo him as an acoustical engineer.
In late February, I was contacted by Mr. Conner lo evaluate the noise generated by his helicopter, and lo
measure sound levels at his property line. During that inttial telephone conversation, Mr. Conner asked
me general questions regarding the physics of sound and Its attenuation owr distance. As a certified
industrial hygienist, my expertise extends lo the evaluation and control of noise exposure; I have some
expertise in the physics of sound. I briefly described sound attenuation in a free field, but I explained that
actual attenuation is not always consistent with basic formulae, and that actual measurements, using ·
appropriate equipment, would be the only~ lo accurately determine the sound level·al his properly line
during operation of the helicopter.
I prepared and sent Mr. Conner a proposal, dated March 3, 2008, to perform these on~
measurements. Upon receipt of the proposal, Mr. Conner informed me that he thought the issue would be
resolved and declined to sign the contract for performance of the measurements.
I had heard no more regarding this issue until last week, when I received a cal from Mr. and Mrs. Galster,
asking me to clarify the measurements I made on Mr. Conner's behalf. I explained to them that I never
made such measurements and asked how they obtained my name, and how they came to believe that I
was responsl:Jle for this information. They forwarded me the letter from Mr. eom-1o the Planning
Commission lo which this correspondence refers.
I have no interest in the dispute l>Btw.n Mr. Conner and his neighbors or the deliberations of the
Planning Commlseion regarding Mr. Conner's pennit application. I simply want lo clarify that I am not an
aooustical engineer, and I did not make, verify, or validate eny data Mr. Con,-may be relying upon
regarding the sound produced by his helicopter.
-·w
James D. Catalano, CIH
Argus Pacific, Inc.
Cc: Charlie Conner
Mr. and Mrs. Galster
ARGUS PACflCINC. • l'IOO WNICl<El\SON • SUITE JIS •SEATTLE.WA ,e1 i, •P(206) 285.3373 • f (206) 2115-Jn7 f'a&e I of I
EXHIBITL
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ms. Conkling,
"charlie Conner" <chasbone1@comcast.net>
<econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
05/04/2008 9:56:36 PM
Catalano letter response
I have just returned from a week out of town and have read the letter dated
May 1, 2008 from James D. Catalano, CIH Argus Pacific, Inc. I'm writing to
clarify any misunderstanding of the events and documents referenced in my
letter to the Planning Commission dated January 30 2008.
I was referred to Mr. Catalano by an engineer associate of mine who I called
looking for an acoustical engineer who could educate me on sound
characteristics. I contacted Mr. Catalano on Tuesday January 22 after
reviewing sound data found on the website:
<http://www. faa. gov /abouUoffice _ org/headqu a rte rs_ offices/ AEP /noise _leve Is/ m
edia/helicopter _appendix_ 1 O.xls>.
This site lists noise data for a Boeing MD 520 N helicopter. At the time of
my research it was the only data I had found for the closest model to the MD
500 E that I operate.
I asked Mr. Catalano about the degradation of sound over distance and he
followed up with his opinion on the attached email.
As you can see, I used some of Mr. Catalano's data and for that reason I
cited to both the FAA data and Mr. Catalano. I wanted the City to know the
source of my data.
Subsequently I used a hand held sound level meter to test actual sound
levels. I was reassured that the actual sound readings were as predicted by
the data I obtained from the FAA and Mr. Catalano. I measured sound levels
standing adjacent to the helicopter as it was running in my back yard and I
also measured levels from the appellant's property line. I took additional
readings at Harvey Field in Snohomish County at a distance of 150 feet.
Generally, the sound measurements were consistent with the predictions in
the data.
Without going into all this detail I simply referenced data sources. If you
read my letter you will see I did not state that Mr. Catalano had done any
testing. He did not do the testing and I would not say he did so.
Regarding Mr. Catalano's credentials I was apparently in error of him being
an acoustical engineer. He sounded very knowledgeable and he had good
references to data.
I hope this letter corrects the record. I am enclosing copies of the data
from the FAA and Mr. Catalano.
Sincerely,
Charlie Conner
cc: Mr. James Catalano, Mr. John Hempelmann, Ms. Peggy Ga/lster.
Encl:
<http://www. faa. gov /about/office_ org/h eadquarters _ offices/ AE P lnois e _level s/m
edia/helicopter _appendix_ 1 O.xls>
Catalano Email of January 22, 2008 1 :44 PM
CC: <j im@arguspacific.com>, <jhempelmann@cairncross.com>
AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HELICOPTERS
(14 CFRPART 36,APPENDIX II)
(FROM AC 36-lH APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER 15, 2001)
ENGINE DATA MAIN ROTOR
MANUFACTURER MODEL MTOW MLW MFR. MODEL NO. MFR. MODEL BIADES DIA(FT.)
AGUSTA Al09E 6.28 6.28 PRATT&WIIT'INEY 206C 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGt:STA Al09E 6.28 6.28 TL'RB011ECA ARRIUS2Kl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
AGUSTA Al09K2 6.28 6.28 TURB011ECA ARRIEL !Kl 2 AGUSTA 4 36.00
BELL HELI TEXTRON Z06IA 4.45 4.45 ALLISON 250.C30P I BELL HELi TEXT 206-015-0(ll-107 2 37.00
BELL HELI TEXIRON 230 FXD SKD GR 8.40 8.40 ALLISON 250-C30Gn 2 BELL HELI TEXT 222.018-501-lOl 2 42.00
BELL HELI TEXTRON 230 RTR WHL GR 8.40 8.40 ALLISON 250-C30G/2 2 BELL HELI TEXT 222--018-501-101 2 42.00
BELL HELI 1EXTRON 412HP 11.90 l 1.90 PRATT&WHITNEY PT6T-3E 2 BELL HELI TEXT 412.015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 412SP 11.90 11.90 PRATT&WlilTNEY PT6T-3B 2 BELL HELi TEXT 412-015-300-109 4 46.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 412EP 11.90 I 1.90 PRATT&WHITNEY PTor.:m 2 BELL HELi IBXT 412-015-300..109 4 46.00
BELL HELi 1EX'IRON 427 6.00 6.00 PRATT&WlllTNEY PW207D 2 BELL HELI '!EXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 427 6.35 6.35 PRATI&WHITNEY PW207D 2 BELL HELi TEXT 427-015-001-125 4 37.00
BELL HELi TEXTRON 430 9.00 9.00 ALLISOK 250-C40B 2 BELL HELi TEXT 430--015--001-101 4 42.00
BOEING MD520N 3.35 3.J.5 ALLISON 250-C20R/2 I MCDONNELL DOUG 369D21 l 02-503 5 27.35
E!Il EH l 01/300/500 31.50 31.50 GE CT7-6A 3 j 61.00
EUROCOPTER AS 332L2 20.20 20.20 TURBOMECA MAKILA IA2 2 4 53.10
EUROCOPTER AS 350 B2 4.96 TURBOMECA ARRIEL lDl I AEROSP A TIAI.E 355A31.0001 3 35.07
EUROCOPTER AS 350BA 4.63 4.63 TIJ'R.BO:MECA ARRIEL lB I 3 35.10
EUROCOPTER AS 355 N 5 6() 5.40 TL"RBOMECA ARRIUS 1Al4M 2 EUROCOPTER ST ARFI..EX 35.M340004-00 3 35.60
EUROCOPTER AS 355F2R 5.29 5.29 ALLISON 250-C20F 2 3 3S 10
EUROCOPTER AS 355N 5 6() 5.60 Tu"REOMECA ARRIUS 3191M 2 3 3S 10
EUROCOPTER AS 365N2 9.37 9.37 TURBOMECA ARRIEL IC2 2 4 39 20
EU"ROCOPTER BK 11782 7.39 7.39 LYCOMING LTS-101-750Bl 2 4 36.10
EU"ROCOPTER BKll7Cl 7.39 7.39 TURBOMECA ARRIEL IE2 2 4 36.10
SIKORSKY S-76A STC:568NE 10.80 10.80 11JRBONIBCA ARRIEL IS 2 SIKORSKY 76150-9000/09100 4 44.00
SIKORSKY S-76C 11.70 11.70 TURBOMECA ARRIEL 1Sl 2 SIKORSKY 76150-09199-41 4 44.00
SIKORSKY S-76C+ (PLUS) 11.70 11. 70 TIJRBO:tv1ECA ARRIEL 2Sl 2 SIKORSKY 76150-09100-41 4 44.00
Page 1
-------------------AIRCRAFT NOISE DATA FOR U.S. CERTIFICATED HELICOPTERS
(14 CFR PART 36, APPENDIX H)
(FROM AC 36-IH APPENDIX 10; NOVEMBER 15, 2001)
IAILROTOR NOISE !,EVEL {EPNdBJ
MFR. MODEL BLADES DIA(Ff.) FO TO AP STAGE NOTES
AGUSTA 2 660 90.8 91.4 91.4 2
AGLlSTA 2 6.60 90.9 91.8 93.3 2
AGGSTA 2 6.60 89.1 91.7 91.1 2
BELL HELI TEXT 20&-016-201" 127 2 540 85.2 88.4 90.7 2
BELL HELI 1EXT 222.016-001-107 2 6.1!3 90; 89.1 94.2 2
BELL HELI TEXT 222-016-001-107 2 6.83 90.8 89.] 94.2 2
BELL HELi 1EXT 212-010-750-105 2 8.60 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 21Ul10-750.105 2 8.60 93.4 93.2 95.6 2
BELL HELi TEXT 212-010-750-105 2 8.6.0 93.4 92.8 95.6 2
BELL HELi 1EXT 427-016-001-109 2 5.67 89.1 88.0 91.2 2
BELL HELi TEXT 427-016-001-109 2 5.67 890 88.5 91.2 2
BELL HELi TEXT 222-016-001-l l 1 2 6.90 91.6 924 93.8 2
MCDONNELL DOUG NOT.AR 80.2 85.4 87.9 2
4 13.10 93.t 97.6 99.5 2
4 10.40 93.2 94.2 96.5 2
AEROSPATIALE 355Al2.0031 OR 0040 2 6.10 87.l 89.8 91.4 2
2 6.10 86.8 91.1 91.3 2
EUROCOPTER 350A33-000S..03/04 2 6.20 86.2 88.8 929 2
2 6.10 87 6 89.0 93.8 2
2 6.10 86.2 88.8 92.9 2
11 160 9l.O 933 96.1 2
2 6.40 90.8 90.0 96.0 2
2 6.40 89.7 90.6 96.0 2
SIKORSKY 76101-05101-041 4 8.00 92.8 92.5 95.6 2
SIKORSKY 76l01-05501-041 4 8.00 93-.2 96.0 97.7 2
SIKORSKY 76101-05501--041 4 8.00 91.6 93-.9 96.1 '
Page 2
[E'iib1 Conl<iing -FW: Sound_attenuation at distance
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CFC <cfc@connerhomes.com>
'"econkling@ci.renton.wa.us"' <econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>
05/04/2008 10:15:02 PM
FW: Sound attenuation at distance
this is one of the enclosures that belongs with the letter i sent from my
corneas! address regarding Mr. Catalanos letter to you of May 1, 2008. you
can print the other from this link:
http://www. faa. gov/about/office_ orglh ead quarters_ offices/ AE P lnoise _levels/me
dia/helicopter _ appendix_ 1 O .xis
Thanks, Charlie Conner
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Catalano [mailto:jim@arguspacific.com]
Sent: Tuesday January 22, 2008 1 :44 PM
To: cfc@connerhomes.com
Suoject: Sound attenuation at distance
Mr. Conner,
I ran the calculations on the sound levels associated with your helicopter.
I was quite a oit off on my "seat of the pants" calculations. The formula
for sound attenuation in a free field (such as outdoors) is 201og(d1/d2).
Thus, for the example we discussed, in which the original measurements were
taken at a distance of 2 feet, the expected attenuation at 200 feet would oe
40 do. If the level at 2 feet were 88 do, the expected level at 200 feet
would be 48 do. (For every doubling of the distance, the sound level
decreases by 6db ).
I should point out that weather related factors including temperature,
humidity and wind speed/direction can influence the behavior of the sound.
Therefore, under actual conditions, sound levels may not necessarily follow
the formula as outlined aoove. In order to determine whether or not a
problem exists, I would recommend a sound level survey in which sound levels
are monitored at various times and locations on the perimeter of the
property. If you would oe interested in scheduling such a survey, let me
know. I can be reached at 206-285-3373.
Jim Catalano, CIH
Argus Pacific, Inc.
Page 1